Radio Free Pizza

Since Friday, we’ve been dumbfounded to have learned that “the Lebanese Republic” is the formal name for the government of Lebanon, after it and the State of Israel signed a “framework agreement” on 26 June 2026 in Washington, D.C. Not for the immediate or unconditional withdrawal of Israel Defense Forces from their occupation in Lebanon, but for an eventual end to the state of war that has existed between these governments since 1948. But the mechanism is conditional: Israeli forces will withdraw from Lebanon only if Hezbollah disarms. The plan begins with two unspecified “pilot zones,” where Israel would pull back and the Lebanese army would assume security responsibility. Future withdrawals would depend on additional agreed pilot zones. A security annex reportedly details Lebanese army deployments and Israeli redeployments, but that annex has not been made public.Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the agreement as a way to keep the IDF in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah and other armed groups are disarmed and until Israel no longer faces a threat from Lebanon. Israel’s defense minister said the military has been told to prepare for an extended stay, reinforcing the idea that withdrawal is not immediate or guaranteed.Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem rejected the deal as nonexistent from Hezbollah’s perspective, calling it a “humiliation” and warning that linking Israeli withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament is dangerous. Hezbollah official Hassan Fadlallah warned that the agreement could lead to civil war because Hezbollah will not surrender its weapons and would resist Lebanese army measures against it. Hezbollah supporters protested in Beirut after the deal was announced.Obviously the deal remains fragile, as 2026 has taught us about “ceasefires”: previous agreements between Lebanon and Israel during the latest war were not implemented on the ground. Israeli strikes continued after the signing, including a reported drone strike near Nabatiyeh. More than 4,000 people in Lebanon have reportedly been killed since the Iran war began. Some might feel tempted to see the signature itself as the event: Israel and Lebanon at the same table. Israel and Lebanon in the same sentence without the immediate accompaniment of artillery. Israel and Lebanon joined by the words “framework agreement,” “future peace,” “normalization,” “territorial integrity,” “sovereignty,” etc. But skeptics would naturally warn that these fine words won’t necessarily survive contact with reality.Indeed, Lebanese-American journalist Rania Khalek offers a more sobering interpretation: the framework doesn’t represent a sovereignty breakthrough but a mandate for internal war dressed in the language of sovereignty. Because the agreement does not simply imagine the Lebanese state restoring authority over the south after Israel withdraws, but instead makes Israeli withdrawal contingent on the Lebanese Armed Forces first disarming Hezbollah and dismantling its infrastructure (with “verified disarmament” assessed under a U.S.-managed process), Khalek argues that the Lebanese government has effectively joined Washington and Tel Aviv in declaring war on a massive segment of Lebanon’s own population. For her, therefore, the question isn’t whether an impossible diplomatic configuration has appeared that can maintain this framework going forward, but whether in fact one has appeared that will make the lives of Lebanese civilians more difficult. In other words, the sequencing matters: if Israel’s occupation of Lebanese territory is illegal, then Israeli withdrawal should not depend on whether Hezbollah exists, whether Hezbollah disarms, whether Lebanon satisfies American benchmarks, whether Marco Rubio is pleased with the quarterly performance review, or whether the empire has decided that the national nervous system of Lebanon has become sufficiently obedient to be permitted reconstruction. Occupation is not supposed to become lawful until the occupied party gets its domestic politics in order.Yet this, Khalek argues, is precisely the inversion at the heart of the framework. Israel’s withdrawal becomes the prize Lebanon may receive after it proves itself willing and able to wage an internal campaign against the force that emerged, in the first place, from resistance to Israeli occupation. Reconstruction aid and the return of displaced civilians become conditioned on successful disarmament. Lebanese sovereignty becomes something Lebanon must earn by subordinating itself to a U.S.-Israeli security architecture. The government’s monopoly on force becomes not the ordinary attribute of a functioning state, but the euphemism through which a weak, fractured, externally pressured state is invited to attempt the one thing most likely to fracture it further.Similarly, Usama Makdisi understands the Lebanon-Israel framework agreement not as a restoration of Lebanese sovereignty but as another episode in Lebanon’s long history as a stage for imperial politics. Since the nineteenth century, Lebanon has been both central and peripheral to great-power rivalry: a place where local politics are repeatedly entangled with imperial projects. The earlier European-Ottoman struggle helped produce Lebanon’s modern “culture of sectarianism,” and Makdisi sees the current moment as a continuation of that pattern, now under a U.S.-Israeli project that is trying to recover through Lebanon what it failed to achieve in the war with Iran.He persuasively emphasizes the contradiction between how Lebanese officials and Israel describe the agreement. Lebanon’s president and prime minister present it as a step toward restoring the sovereignty of the Lebanese Republic in the south. Netanyahu, by contrast, celebrates it because Israel is not required to withdraw immediately; instead, the burden falls on the weak Lebanese army to disarm Hezbollah while Israel remains in occupation. For Makdisi too, that sequencing exposes the agreement’s real nature: after months of Israeli assault on Lebanon’s Shia population, mass displacement, attacks on journalists and paramedics, and thousands killed or wounded, the agreement preserves Israeli power while calling Lebanese submission “sovereignty.”Against the backdrop of southern Lebanon under Israeli occupation, Makdisi argues that the agreement effectively validates Israel’s campaign and gives it leverage over whether displaced Lebanese civilians can return home. He also cites Trita Parsi’s view that the deal undercuts the U.S.-Iran MOU: the former now allows the conflict to continue until Hezbollah has been disarmed, while the latter called for a comprehensive regional ceasefire including Lebanon.Makdisi also compares the agreement to the May 1983 Lebanon-Israel agreement, signed after Israel’s 1982 invasion by a weak, pro-American Lebanese government, widely seen as illegitimate because Israel still occupied large parts of Lebanon and annulled after the 1984 uprising against the U.S.-backed government. To his analysis, the current agreement may face a similar legitimacy crisis, and in that sense raises the same warning as Khalek of the risks that the Lebanese people will now face from their own government. Those, of course, come on top of the risks that they will continue facing from the State of Israel, which he argues has two models for Lebanon: the “West Bank” model, in which a weak local authority performs security functions on Israel’s behalf while Israel continues domination and annexation; or the “Gaza” model, meaning destruction, ethnic cleansing, and obliteration. Lebanese fantasies of being separate from the Palestinian fate, he says, are ahistorical, warning that geography and geopolitics keep binding Lebanon’s future to Palestine’s. Therefore, while some may hail the agreement as peace or sovereignty out of exhaustion, hope, naiveté, or self-delusion, one may safely say that Makdisi warns them against betting on it. Thus, the consequences of the agreement signed last Friday depend almost entirely on sequencing. If Israel withdraws and Lebanon then rebuilds state authority in the south, one kind of future becomes imaginable. If Lebanon must first disarm Hezbollah under American supervision while Israel remains in occupation, another kind of future becomes likely: not peace, but the Lebanese state being pressured to internalize Israel’s war through confrontation with a mass Shia political-military movement rooted in decades of war, occupation, and displacement.Diplomatic language can soften the prospect. “Sovereignty” and “state authority” both sound clean, but not “civil war”: call it “disarmament of non-state armed groups” instead. Therefore, the agreement hides the potential trap of converting the Israeli occupation into a procedural norm, and of outsourcing of Israeli security to a Lebanese state too weak to perform the task without breaking itself—in other words, of formalizing ahead of schedule the Lebanese Republic’s position as a vassal. Certainly, taking orders from Washington and Tel Aviv about which domestic faction must be broken before Lebanese civilians can return to their homes sounds quite different from acting as a sovereign state.Perhaps some pessimists on the possibility of peace would dismiss the agreement as meaningless. For them, however, there’s enough meaning in it to estimate that the prospect of peace in southern Lebanon has only become more distant. Meaningless agreements do not cause Hezbollah’s leadership to denounce them as humiliation, Israeli leaders to celebrate them as achievement, and Lebanese officials to call them sovereignty—even if the answers to “sovereignty for whom” and “under whose supervision” remain open to debate. Of course, those aren’t secondary questions: they are the agreement. If it leads to Israeli withdrawal, civilian return, reconstruction, and a durable reduction in violence, then that will be worth saying. If it instead produces extended occupation through Lebanon’s imposed internal fracture, that too will be worth saying. But in the meantime, we must wait to test these peace processes, security assurances, and sovereignty claims against their outcomes. The paperwork has been signed, and now reality gets the deciding vote.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Two years ago, in one of those Radio Free Pizza dispatches that we imagine certain readers either cherish or regret having survived, we considered the coronavirus pandemic not merely as a public-health emergency, but as a crisis of narrative authority. The question, as we understood it then, was not only whether the official story had been true, or whether the response had been justified, or whether various public-health bureaucrats, pharmaceutical executives, corporate-media personalities, and supranational functionaries had behaved with the wisdom and benevolence they so often attributed to themselves. Obviously they had not. The deeper question was how quickly a population could be trained to accept an emergency as a totalizing explanation for life: for movement restrictions, censorship, mandates, social division, institutional obedience, and the sudden moral reclassification of dissent as a danger to the species.In that dispatch, we also considered the stranger question of “predictive programming,” or what might be called prophetic entertainment: the recurring phenomenon by which mass media appears, whether by design, coincidence, archetypal resonance, or retrospective pattern-seeking, to anticipate the crises through which we later live. That discussion moved through Utopia (2013), The Lone Gunmen (2001), pandemic simulations, vaccine narratives, and the broader problem of how fiction and reality now seem to chase each other around the same haunted carousel. Our point was not simply that television sometimes “predicts” the future. Our point was that modern publics increasingly experience the future through images, storylines, and symbolic templates already supplied to them in advance.That problem has not gone away, but has instead become only more obvious since the official end of the 2020–’23 public health emergency. The next emergency does not need to arrive as another coronavirus pandemic in order to activate the same machinery: it only needs uncertainty, international mobility, anxious publics, public-health coordination, media amplification, and some pathogen or other moving through the world with enough ambiguity to let institutions begin narrating the situation before ordinary people know what to make of it. In other words, the next emergency arrives pre-narrated.Which brings us, naturally enough, to this month’s hantavirus outbreak aboard a cruise ship. May 2026 reports from the BBC and PBS described an international effort to trace passengers and close contacts after an outbreak of the Andes strain of hantavirus aboard the Dutch cruise ship MV Hondius. The vessel had departed Ushuaia, Argentina, on 1 April with roughly 150 passengers and crew from more than twenty countries, made stops including St. Helena, and was continuing toward Spain’s Canary Islands when the outbreak came under international scrutiny. By 8 May, five cases had been confirmed, including three deaths, while more than 140 people still aboard approached Tenerife for medical assessment, quarantine, or repatriation.Uncertainty defined the situation: investigators had not confirmed where the outbreak began, though Argentine officials were examining whether a Dutch couple may have contracted the virus during a pre-cruise bird-watching trip. Nor was it fully clear how many people had been exposed, since dozens disembarked at St. Helena on 24 April, before hantavirus was confirmed in a ship passenger on 4 May, and some had already traveled onward to other countries. Authorities in at least twelve countries—including the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Singapore—were monitoring exposed passengers or contacts, while South African and Dutch officials worked to trace those who may have encountered a Dutch woman who later died after leaving the ship.The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasized that the outbreak was not the beginning of a COVID-like pandemic, describing the general public risk as low because hantavirus usually spreads through exposure to contaminated rodent droppings rather than casual person-to-person contact. The Andes strain, however, is unusual because some scientists believe it can spread between people in rare cases, and symptoms may appear one to eight weeks after exposure. As a result, the incident produced a striking image of post-COVID emergency governance: dispersed travelers, delayed confirmation, incomplete contact tracing, medically equipped repatriation flights, anxious local residents, and public-health agencies attempting to impose order on a biological event already moving across borders.Soon after the hantavirus outbreak emerged, a New York Post article from 13 May reported how social-media users had begun pointing to The X-Files and The Simpsons as supposed examples of entertainment “predicting” the hantavirus outbreak aboard the MV Hondius. (For our purposes, parallels to The X-Files are more interesting—given that the aforementioned The Lone Gunmen, depicting events remarkably similar to those of 11 September 2001 just six months prior, was an X-Files spinoff—though of course The Simpsons has had a well-documented predictive capacity.) In The X-Files’ 1998 film, a whistleblower tells Agent Mulder that an apparent hantavirus outbreak had actually served as a cover story for something else, calling it a “silent weapon in a quiet war.” Online observers naturally connected that scene to the recent outbreak. An article on Bored Panda offered a more detailed account of the film, explaining that hantavirus functioned as a central plot device in a larger story of alien colonization, government secrecy, and biological cover-up, with deaths connected to a mysterious substance discovered in a cave are publicly explained as a hantavirus outbreak. The aforementioned whistleblower explains to Mulder the supposed outbreak was in fact a government deception concealing “the systematic release of an indiscriminate organism” by men who had been preparing a planned Armageddon for decades. Some commenters also folded the comparison into broader UFO discourse—which we discussed in a February bulletin—especially after former congressman Matt Gaetz claimed on a podcast that he had once been briefed about alleged “hybrid breeding programs” involving captured aliens and humans. That’s particularly interesting when one learns, as The Daily Star mentioned, that the hantavirus outbreak in the film was “a cover-up for alien-human hybrid experiments.”For our purposes, these articles’ significance lies less in whether The X-Files “predicted” anything than in how quickly a real outbreak became absorbed into an older mythology of hidden pathogens, biological cover stories, state secrecy, alien disclosure, and emergency management. The X-Files comparison shows the same symbolic mechanism discussed in our earlier dispatch on predictive programming and the coronavirus pandemic: once an outbreak appears, the public does not interpret it only through epidemiology or official statements, but through the entertainment archive, where fictional emergencies have already supplied recognizable patterns of suspicion, dread, and institutional distrust. Some reporters might frame these comparisons mostly as internet coincidence-hunting, but to our analysis, their significance is more structural: once a real outbreak enters public consciousness, audiences immediately search the archive of mass entertainment for prior images that appear to have anticipated it.But others don’t look to entertainment for evidence of predictions, but instead to the pharmaceutical industry—including our beloved Dr. John Campbell, who discussed the industry’s initiatives against hantavirus on 10 May.Here, Campbell agrees (for once) with the WHO, arguing that hantavirus is unlikely to become a broader pandemic—with the Andes strain spreading poorly between people and generally requiring close contact with someone already visibly and severely ill—and characterizes the individual risk to the public as negligible, with infection far more likely to occur through exposure to rodent urine, droppings, blood, or contaminated dust than through casual contact with passengers from the cruise ship. At the same time, Campbell notes the unusual amount of attention generated by the outbreak, especially given two claims raised by viewers that Campbell managed to verify: that Moderna has been developing an mRNA-based hantavirus vaccine since at least 2024 in collaboration with Korea University’s Vaccine Innovation Center, which provided hantavirus antigen sequence information while Moderna produced mRNA materials under its mRNA Access Program, and that “hantavirus pulmonary infection” appears among the adverse events of special interest listed in Pfizer’s cumulative post-authorization safety report for its BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine through 28 February 2021.Campbell also connects that work to WHO pathogen-prioritization efforts, noting that Hantaviridae appears as a high-priority pathogen family in WHO’s 2024 prioritization framework, discussed in relation to the “Disease X” preparedness concept. Naturally, he asks why an mRNA vaccine would be developed for a disease with low human-to-human transmissibility and whether the public-health rationale, target population, and economic incentives make sense. While the appearance of hantavirus infection on Pfizer’s post-authorization adverse-event report, pointing out that “hantavirus pulmonary infection” appears on a long list of adverse events of special interest, Campbell repeatedly cautions that this listing does not establish causality and may reflect only temporal association, but argues that its presence is nonetheless noteworthy in the context of renewed attention to hantavirus and mRNA vaccine development. The broader conclusion is that the cruise-ship outbreak itself will probably “fizzle out,” but that public distrust has become the central issue: people no longer assume international organizations, pharmaceutical companies, or public-health institutions are acting transparently, especially after COVID-19. But hantavirus wasn’t the only viral outbreak of the past month: within days of the cruise-ship story entering the public imagination, the WHO had also elevated an ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda into the category of international concern. The strain in question was not the more familiar Zaire ebolavirus, for which vaccine tools exist, but Bundibugyo virus, a rarer species of ebola for which there is, as of this writing, no approved vaccine or specific treatment. According to a 20 May BBC report, the WHO warned that a vaccine specifically targeting the Bundibugyo species of Ebola could take six to nine months to become available, even as the outbreak’s suspected death toll continued to rise. WHO adviser Dr. Vasee Moorthy said two possible candidate vaccines were being developed, but neither had yet gone through clinical trials. One candidate was described as the most promising because it would be equivalent to the existing ebola vaccine used against the Zaire species, while another, based on the same platform as the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, was still being manufactured and lacked animal data to support its effectiveness. Moorthy said doses of the second candidate might be available for clinical trial within two to three months, but emphasized that considerable uncertainty remained.WHO chief Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said there had been roughly 600 suspected Ebola cases and 139 suspected deaths, with 51 confirmed cases in the Democratic Republic of Congo and two confirmed cases in Uganda, both involving travelers from DR Congo. Although Bundibugyo is generally considered less deadly than some other ebola species, its rarity means fewer medical tools exist to stop it: there is no approved vaccine, no targeted drug treatment, and only experimental countermeasures in development. The BBC also noted that early ebola symptoms can resemble malaria or typhoid, both common in the country, making detection more difficult. Health facilities in eastern DR Congo were reportedly overwhelmed with suspected cases, with local workers warning of inadequate protective equipment despite some supplies beginning to arrive.The aforementioned Campbell offered his own analysis of the proposed Bundibugyo ebola vaccine in a video posted just yesterday.Here, Campbell describes the leading Bundibugyo vaccine candidate as an Oxford-style chimpanzee adenovirus, or ChAd, viral-vector vaccine being developed in connection with Oxford University and the Serum Institute of India. He compares the platform to the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, noting that both use a genetically modified adenovirus vector rather than a traditional antigen-based approach. In this model, the injected vector delivers genetic instructions into the body’s cells, which then manufacture the target viral antigen themselves.Campbell explains that, for the Bundibugyo ebola candidate, the intended target would be an ebola glycoprotein. He contrasts this with mRNA vaccines, which use lipid nanoparticles to deliver RNA instructions, while viral-vector vaccines use a modified virus to deliver DNA instructions. In either case, he argues, the important point is that the vaccinated person’s own cells are made to produce a viral antigen. Accordingly, Campbell naturally expresses concern that if those antigens are displayed on cell surfaces, the immune system may attack the cells producing them, raising the possibility of immune-mediated harm, and therefore connects these concerns to broader criticism of the Oxford/AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine platform, which he reminds us produced serious adverse reactions.At the same time, Campbell distinguishes Bundibugyo ebola from COVID-19 in terms of risk-benefit analysis. He noted that Bundibugyo ebola can have an estimated fatality rate of roughly 30%, making the local danger substantial, even if the virus is unlikely to produce a global pandemic because it spreads mainly through close person-to-person contact. For that reason, Campbell doesn’t dismiss the need for a vaccine response, but said he would have preferred a more traditional antigen-based vaccine rather than another genetically modified viral-vector platform. He echoes the BBC in reporting that the vaccine could potentially be ready for efficacy assessment within two to three months, while also emphasizing that the outbreak was likely to remain a severe regional crisis rather than a worldwide pandemic.In the cases of both hantavirus and ebola, then, we don’t seem to be watching the beginning of the next pandemic, at least not if one takes the WHO, Campbell, and the available epidemiology at face value—and at least not yet. With only thirteen confirmed cases as of 26 May, hantavirus appears unlikely to become a global threat, and Bundibugyo ebola, however deadly in the affected region, spreads through close contact rather than the sort of casual respiratory transmission that defined COVID-19. Neither outbreak, in other words, presently looks like the next coronavirus. But that may be exactly why they are useful to consider. The machinery of emergency narration does not require a COVID-level event in order to reveal itself: sometimes it reveals itself in smaller crises, before the full apparatus of fear, censorship, coercion, and moral theater has been fully mobilized.Accordingly, we ask, who narrates the emergency? In the official stories, the answer remains obvious: the WHO, the U.S. Center for Disease Control, national health ministries, pharmaceutical corporations, approved journalists, and credentialed experts with conference lanyards. Yet the popular imagination recalls storylines from The X-Files and The Simpsons, and, more recently, of how institutions used the coronavirus pandemic to reorder ordinary life, suppress dissent, sanctify emergency pharmaceutical products, police speech, and demand obedience while congratulating themselves for their supposed compassion. Thus, they forfeited the right to feign surprise when the public receives news of later outbreaks with suspicion. In this sense, then, the next pandemic—whether hantavirus, ebola, or another “Disease X” (perhaps one spreading during this summer’s World Cup, as MedPage Today warned about ebola)—has already arrived with a script. Before the pathogen is fully understood, the roles have already been assigned: the authorities will ask for trust; the skeptics will ask who benefits; the press will warn about misinformation; the pharmaceutical companies will announce their products; and the public will remember mandates, censorship, injury, profit, and lies. Whether these outbreaks fizzle out, remain regional, or develop into something more serious, the symbolic pattern is already visible. Because if the pandemic years taught us anything, it’s that biological events don’t remain merely biological once they enter the modern media ecosystem, which has the habit of displaying symptoms long before the first patient. For now, we’re told, hantavirus probably won’t become a global pandemic, and Bundibugyo ebola will likely remain a severe regional crisis rather than a worldwide threat. But if either story develops, you can count on us here at Radio Free Pizza to diagnose the narrative. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

With the U.S.-Israeli war on the Islamic Republic of Iran entering its eighth week, and a U.S. blockade of the Strait of Hormuz aimed at starving Iran of its oil income now entering its third, the logic of economic strangulation has once again moved to the center of American foreign policy. Of course, some would say it never left—particularly those in the Republic of Cuba, which has been the target of that policy not for weeks or months, but for more than sixty years. In Cuba, that logic has long since ceased to appear as a discrete policy decision, but has become a condition of life.Last month, the island’s electrical grid collapsed again: another in a series of nationwide blackouts that have left millions without power, with the ongoing U.S. oil blockade—which intensified after January’s kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, whose administration had been supplying Cuba with oil—having cut off shipments to the island for extended periods. With Cuba faces a worsening humanitarian crisis resulting from the restricted fuel access, high-level talks in Havana between the U.S. and Cuba began earlier this month, though both sides have disputed what was said behind closed doors. U.S. officials have signaled that the island’s leadership faces a narrowing window to implement reforms, with some reports suggesting a two-week timeline tied to the release of political prisoners—claims Cuban officials have denied even as they acknowledge the meetings. Washington maintains that a diplomatic resolution remains possible under the Trump Administration, but the substance of those discussions suggests that material pressure is being leveraged to extract political concessions.Then, just last night, a U.S. Senate vote legitimized growing concern in Washington that U.S. policy toward Cuba may be drifting toward open conflict. Lawmakers blocked debate on a War Powers resolution that would have required congressional authorization for any military action against the island, even as some members argued that the ongoing U.S. energy blockade already constitutes a form of “hostilities.” The measure’s sponsors warned that the Trump Administration is effectively pursuing regime change, citing escalating rhetoric and reports that military options are under consideration.While some officials and analysts suggest that negotiations between Washington and Havana could still produce a diplomatic breakthrough, others argue that current U.S. policy is less about negotiation than coercion—using economic and energy pressure to force political transformation. But the congressional failure to produce a War Powers resolution suggests that, if deteriorating living conditions to demands for political reform, then U.S. policy will shift toward explicit regime change—realizing U.S. President Donald Trump’s prediction last month that he will have “the honor of taking Cuba.” With fuel restrictions collapsing the island’s economy and amplifying the empire’s leverage at the negotiating table, then the blackouts begin to read not as unintended consequences, but as instruments—conditions through which political concessions, and ultimately regime change, are meant to be compelled. Cuba’s energy system depends on imported fuel to run its aging thermal power plants, and without oil, the plants shut down. When the plants shut down, the grid collapses, and everything else follows: food spoils without refrigeration, hospital patients die in blackouts, and water utilities stop functioning. Scarcity compounds across sectors, turning a supply problem into a systemic one. But to fully understand the blackouts, the empty shelves, and the grinding scarcity that defines daily life in Cuba today, we have to return to the origin of the policy that still structures that reality more than sixty years later. Because President Trump’s oil blockade represents only the latest turn of the screw in the country’s decades-long embargo against its former economic colony.In 1959, following the Cuban Revolution, the new government moved to nationalize major industries—many of them owned by American firms. Washington responded not with a single decisive break, but with a series of tightening economic measures. By 1960, the Eisenhower Administration had imposed partial trade restrictions, cutting off key exports and restricting most commerce between the two countries. The decisive turn came in February 1962, when John F. Kennedy formalized a near-total embargo on trade with Cuba—effectively severing the island from its largest historical trading partner. Of course, the U.S. escalation unfolded not only through economic policy, but through covert military action: in 1961, the U.S. backed the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion, an attempt to overthrow the Cuban government by force that ended in rapid defeat and lasting hostility. In March of following year, Pentagon officials drafted Operation Northwoods, a now-declassified proposal for a false-flag operation that would result in the deaths of U.S. citizens to justify military intervention—plans that were never approved, but which reveal the extent to which confrontation with Cuba had moved beyond diplomacy into the realm of contingency for direct conflict. Such a confrontation became even riskier when, just seven months after that proposal, the world came within reach of direct superpower conflict during the Cuban Missile Crisis following the discovery of Soviet nuclear missiles stationed on the island. The crisis ended with their removal, but it did not normalize relations. Instead, it entrenched Cuba’s position as a permanent security concern in Washington’s strategic thinking. The embargo, already in place, took on a new function—not merely as retaliation for nationalization or ideological opposition, but as part of a long-term containment posture. Taken together, these episodes underscore that the embargo did not emerge in isolation, but as one instrument within a broader strategy of pressure, destabilization, and attempted regime change conceived during the Cold War. Even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the long-term strategy persisted: to isolate the Cuban economy and force political change. Over the subsequent decades, the embargo was not merely maintained—it was codified, expanded, and internationalized. Laws like the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 and the Helms–Burton Act of 1996 extended its reach beyond U.S. borders, penalizing foreign companies that attempted to do business with Cuba. The result was not just a restriction on trade with the U.S., but a constraint on the island’s access to global markets, finance, and supply chains.In the absence of stable access to global markets, Cuba has not remained entirely cut off. Still, what has emerged in place of normal economic exchange is not recovery, but improvisation: in March, an international coalition of activists delivered humanitarian aid to the island by sea and air, attempting to circumvent restrictions that have choked off conventional supply lines. Organized by the Nuestra America Convoy, the shipment—totaling roughly 20 tons of food, medicine, and basic equipment—represented a show of global solidarity. But it also revealed the scale of the gap it seeks to fill. In a country of more than eleven million people, such deliveries cannot meaningfully stabilize food systems, restore electrical capacity, or sustain medical infrastructure. They exist not as alternatives to normal trade, but as evidence that normal trade has been disrupted.Meanwhile, Russia has signaled that it will continue—and potentially expand—fuel shipments to Cuba, positioning itself as a key backstop to the island’s energy crisis. Following talks in Havana, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov emphasized that Moscow would not scale back its support, framing additional oil deliveries as part of a broader effort to offset the effects of U.S. sanctions and chronic energy shortages. A March shipment of roughly 730,000 barrels of oil—enough to cover only a few weeks of demand—underscored both the scale of Cuba’s dependence on external fuel and the insufficiency of ad hoc relief. While U.S. officials have allowed limited deliveries under temporary exemptions, Washington has otherwise maintained pressure on the island’s energy supply, even as Russia signals its intent to deepen its strategic presence in the region rather than withdraw from it.What emerges, taken together, is not a picture of isolation overcome, but of isolation managed at the margins. Fuel arrives, but not reliably. Aid arrives, but not at scale. Each workaround addresses a symptom, while leaving the underlying constraint intact. The embargo bends, but it does not break; and so the blackouts continue.At a certain point, the question is no longer how the embargo works, but why it persists. Because the conditions now defining life in Cuba aren’t the product of a single decision, or even a single administration, but the accumulated result of a policy that has been maintained, adjusted, and reimposed across decades, long after the geopolitical moment that gave rise to it has passed. Accordingly, its persistence suggests that what we are seeing in Cuba is not a deviation from the policy’s purpose, but its most complete expression.With that in mind, what we are now witnessing in real time in the Strait of Hormuz represents in some senses an accelerated example of the same strategy as the U.S. embargo of Cuba: after a failed military campaign with the Bay of Pigs Invasion, the empire restricted its hostilities to the economic sphere—just as its campaign against the Islamic Republic seems now doomed by the rapid depletion of U.S. military stockpiles. But Cuba doesn’t have the same oil reserves with which to sustain its industries in economic isolation. Instead, pressure accumulates under the embargo that, once sufficiently concentrated, demands release. However, that release does not have to take the form of negotiation over intervention. If the rhetoric now emerging from Washington gives us any indication, Cuba may soon find itself once again the target of a military strike—perhaps one that the U.S. will justify as a humanitarian relief and liberation of an oppressed people (as it did when it first launched its war on Iran) of the very conditions it imposed—pointing toward a trajectory in which economic strangulation is not an endpoint, but a preparatory stage: a system designed to weaken, isolate, and destabilize over time, until the conditions become ripe enough for military action.What Cuba reveals, then, is not only what the embargo is, or how it works, but what it becomes over time: not a temporary measure of pressure, but a durable system—one that outlasts the conflicts that produced it, reshapes the conditions it acts upon, and, in doing so, generates its own rationale for continuation. In that sense, the line between economic coercion and military intervention is not fixed, but a fluid continuum along which pressure is applied, accumulated, and, when deemed ample enough, converted into force. If that pattern holds, then the question is no longer whether the U.S. intends to escalate, but when it will decide that the conditions its embargo produced have become sufficient to justify doing so: when, that is, that the Cuban people have suffered enough that the U.S. can pose as their savior.If that moment arrives, it will not mark a departure from policy, but its culmination. The embargo will have prepared the ground. In the end, what may appear as intervention on behalf of the Cuban people will instead reveal itself as the sole aim of the same strategy that made such an intervention seem justified in the first place.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Three weeks ago, rumors began circulating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been killed in his country’s escalating war with the Islamic Republic of Iran after his early-March video address appeared to show him with six fingers on his right hand. Various “proof-of-life” videos followed purporting to show him alive, but gave us a further cascade of alleged anomalies: coffee foam that remains unchanged after he takes a sip; a jacket pocket that snaps back too cleanly; a wedding ring that flickers in and out of existence; an extra ear canal; a stuttering shirt sleeve. Meanwhile, claims about the provenance of footage for the Jerusalem café setting and for the cabinet meeting offer some potential origin of source material with which AI might have generated some of the above videos.(Perhaps to his own surprise, Netanyahu’s son, Yair, provided additional fuel for these speculations when, on 8 March, he abruptly stopped posting on X for a period of seven days: unusual behavior for a user with more than one hundred thousand posts since starting his account in June 2017, and a period of inactivity matching the Jewish mourning tradition of sitting shiva.)While internet sleuths offer compelling observations, these might yet remain artifacts of compression, motion blur, camera settings, or simple misperception. Even the invocation of AI detection tools—reporting high “likelihood” scores—offers little firm ground, given their well-documented instability and susceptibility to false positives, as when one reportedly flagged the Gettysburg Address as AI-generated. Our own opinion, then, remains only a posture: agnostic, provisional, and contingent on the emergence of verifiable, high-fidelity evidence that has not yet materialized.However, the question of whether Netanyahu died represents not just a factual inquiry, but a case study in epistemic collapse. Viewers dissect frames for anomalies while counterarguments invoke compression artifacts, camera limitations, and the human tendency to over-interpret ambiguous visuals. Each attempt at proof generates a corresponding wave of skepticism, and each attempt at debunking feeds the cycle further. The result is not consensus but fragmentation, with even relatively sophisticated observers arriving at an agnostic position: that the available evidence, whether authentic or artificial, no longer carries sufficient authority to settle the question. In this telling, the most significant development is not the status of the man himself, but the apparent erosion of any shared standard by which such a status could be conclusively determined.Understanding that, the risks exposed by this episode extend well beyond Netanyahu and into the structural stability of the media ecosystem itself. In the near term, the proliferation of plausible synthetic media accelerates the erosion of public trust—any more of which the U.S. certainly can’t afford—particularly when authoritative confirmation is delayed, fragmented, or perceived as unreliable. Over the longer horizon, the implications grow more severe: as we’ve been warned since 2018—and particularly during the 2020 and ’24 presidential election cycles—electoral systems have become increasingly vulnerable to deepfakes and coordinated misinformation campaigns (besides those embodied in political campaigns themselves, that is), while the unchecked expansion of AI infrastructure introduces parallel governance challenges, from environmental strain driven by data center resource consumption to the absence of clear regulatory boundaries. What emerges is not a single point of failure, but a layered vulnerability—informational, political, and material—whose effects compound over time.Interestingly, these increasing vulnerabilities to the political sphere from AI-generated content come paired with recent pushes to integrate AI more directly into governance. In January 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump launched a sweeping restructuring of the federal government through a series of executive orders aimed at reversing prior policies, freezing hiring, mandating a return to in-person work for federal employees, withdrawing from international agreements, and initiating workforce reductions under the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an advisory board instead of an official U.S. government department established by Congress. Central to this effort was the accelerated adoption of AI-driven “algorithmic governance,” promising increased efficiency but also raising profound concerns: as government functions become dependent on data systems and private-sector infrastructure, power shifts toward tech firms, institutional capacity within the state erodes, and decision-making risks being automated beyond meaningful oversight. Early examples—such as algorithmic tools overriding medical judgments—suggested both practical harms and systemic vulnerabilities, while the broader trajectory points toward a deepening fusion of state and corporate power (i.e., fascism), potential displacement of large portions of the federal workforce, and even speculative futures in which digitally governed “network states” challenge traditional democracy. In this light, the transition is less a technical upgrade than a structural transformation toward technocracy—also apparent in other initiatives of the second Trump Administration, as we outlined in a bulletin last year—with long-term implications for accountability, sovereignty, and democratic governance.Moreover, such a transition to algorithmic governance may only introduce further dimensions of dishonesty into modern political life. Terrence J. Sejnowski’s “Large Language Models and the Reverse Turing Test” (2023) aargues that modern large language models (LLMs) represent a major advance in generating human-like text—but also expose a critical weakness: their inherent tendency to produce false or misleading information with confidence. Because they rely on statistical pattern prediction rather than grounded knowledge, they can fabricate facts or reasoning without detecting errors. Rather than possessing true understanding, LLMs operate by predicting likely word sequences based on statistical patterns in their training data. This means they can generate outputs that are fluent, coherent, and persuasive even when they are factually incorrect—a phenomenon often described as “hallucination.” Drawing on parallels to neuroscience, Sejnowski emphasizes that LLMs lack grounding in the real world: they do not verify claims, access truth directly, or maintain stable internal models of reality. Instead, they assemble plausible responses, which can include fabricated citations, incorrect reasoning, or invented facts—especially when prompted beyond the limits of their training. This, of course, creates practical risks in domains like medicine, law, and education, where confident but incorrect outputs can mislead users who assume reliability based on linguistic fluency. Accordingly, the danger of LLMs is not simply that they make mistakes, but that they make them in ways that are difficult to detect. Their outputs exploit human cognitive biases—particularly our tendency to equate articulate language with competence—thereby increasing the likelihood that users will trust and act on erroneous information.While Sejnowski’s warning concerns the epistemic layer—the reliability of what we are told—then the next question is what happens when that unreliable layer becomes embedded within systems of power and access. That, unfortunately, seems the likely result of algorithmic governance in the context of proposals to expand identity verification laws and the introduction of digital IDs, two converging trends with the potential to transform the internet into a highly controlled, identity-based system. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a Texas law requiring websites that host pornographic content to verify users’ ages—typically through government IDs or third-party verification—in order to block minors from access. While supporters argued that improved technology makes such checks feasible and comparable to in-person ID requirements, critics warned the law raises serious concerns about privacy, data security, and free speech, with verification systems also risked exposing sensitive personal information and restricting access to legally protected content. The decision set a broad precedent, potentially expanding similar laws nationwide and reshaping how identity verification is enforced across the internet. Since that ruling, seven more states joined the eighteen with existing age verification laws, with California scheduled to introduce its own next year. Here, the U.S. is catching up to other Western nations. Last year, the United Kingdom began requiring all pornographic websites and apps to implement robust age verification measures under its Online Safety Act, replacing simple self-declaration with methods like facial recognition, digital IDs, or banking checks to prevent minors from accessing harmful content. Meanwhile, the European Union has begun implementing an age verification system with digital identity wallets (EUDI Wallets) to let users prove they meet age requirements—such as being over 18—through privacy-preserving, cryptographic credentials that avoid sharing full personal data. Currently being piloted across several EU countries, the system is expected to scale as part of a broader rollout of digital identity infrastructure across Europe.As digital IDs become increasingly mandated, businesses and governments will have strong incentives to require them for access to online and even physical spaces, creating a “licensed” and gated environment. This shift would erode privacy, enable pervasive tracking, and undermine anonymous speech, as users become permanently tied to their real-world identities. Accordingly, without strong legal and technical safeguards, this emerging infrastructure risks locking society into a system of constant surveillance and restricted access to information.The problem, then, is not merely that algorithmic systems can generate convincing falsehoods, but that these same systems are increasingly being positioned to mediate who is allowed to speak, see, and participate at all. Of course, the irony shouldn’t be lost on us that governments would introduce them to, in part, prevent their citizens from doing precisely what the State of Israel—which already has a digital ID to access government services—appears to have done with its recent releases of Netanyahu’s dubious “proof-of-life” videos.If the twentieth century confronted citizens with the problem of propaganda—falsehoods injected into an otherwise legible reality—the twenty-first increasingly confronts us with something more disorienting: a condition in which reality itself becomes procedurally unstable. Not merely distorted, but continuously reconstituted through systems that neither guarantee truth nor remain accountable to it. In such an environment, the question “what happened?” yields less to investigation than to interpretation, and interpretation itself becomes subject to manipulation, amplification, and constraint.At the same time, as certainty dissolves, systems of control are hardening. Identification regimes expand, access narrows, and participation becomes more tightly regulated—even as the informational substrate those systems depend on grows less trustworthy. This inversion is worth dwelling on: truth becomes harder to verify even as authority demands more verification from us. The issue is no longer simply whether something is real, but who has the authority to determine that reality—and on what basis.Accordingly, we arrive at a paradox. As synthetic media makes it more difficult to believe what we see, emerging identity infrastructures make it increasingly impossible to opt out of being seen. We are given less reason to trust, while becoming more exposed. The result is not clarity, but enclosure: an environment in which uncertainty about the world coexists with unprecedented certainty about the individual. On one axis, systems generate persuasive but ungrounded information; on the other, systems determine who may speak, what may be seen, and under what conditions. Together, they form a feedback loop in which the erosion of trust justifies greater control, and greater control further centralizes the production and validation of reality.Preserving any semblance of personal liberty under these conditions will require more than technical fixes or regulatory adjustments. It will demand a renewed commitment to the conditions that made truth politically meaningful in the first place: the ability to speak without permission, to access information without credentialing, and to question authority without being absorbed into its systems. Without such commitments, we risk arriving at a future in which everything is verified, nothing is trusted, and the distinction between reality and its simulation ceases to matter—not because it has been resolved, but because it has been rendered irrelevant. In that world, it no longer matters what’s true, but what we’re allowed to see and believed. The most important question becomes not what happened, but who has the power to decide what counts as having happened—and, within the framework of algorithmic governance, whether that power remains the responsibility of any human beings, let alone accountable to anyone or anything at all besides the spirit in which this system has been designed.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Dear Radio Free Pizza gourmets,Wild year so far, huh? Sorry I’ve been out of touch: for many months now I’ve been mainly focused on trading options contracts to recover all the money I wish I’d spent on precious metals. But, I’m at least still keeping up a minimum of one post per month, even if none of them are the deep-dish dispatches that had previously been my signature. While the latest release of much-redacted Epstein files has once again made me regret my trademark username and title of this publication (“This even ruins pizza for me”)—though this doesn’t excuse my neglect in covering the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s late-January execution of Alex Pretti in my hometown the week before—regardless, I’ve got a birthday at the end of this month, so it seems like a good occasion for another informal journal.Anyway, maybe you’ve heard that last Thursday U.S. President Trump ordered the release of classified materials on extraterrestrial life. This came on the heels of a 14 February interview with former President Barack Obama, in which he called aliens “real.” Though he walked those comments back the next day, saying that he “saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us,” his successor—who notably established the U.S. Space Force in 2019—would soon claim that Obama “gave classified information” before directing his Secretary of Defense to prepare those documents for public consumption.While some (such as talk-show host Seth Meyers) might have interpreted Trump’s order as an attempted distraction from his numerous appearances in the aforementioned Epstein files, I viewed it through the lens of a comedy sketch from a 2008 episode of The Whitest Kids U’Know.In the sketch, a press conference disclosing the existence of a U.S. moon base ends with one intrepid reporter asking, “We wouldn’t happen to be invading Iran today, would we?” before the press secretary’s face breaks into a smile and he admits, “You got me.” So, you can imagine why: given the transit of the USS Gerald R. Ford from the Caribbean Sea (where it had been stationed in 2025 until the successful kidnapping of the Venezuelan President earlier this year) along with dozens of fighter jets from North America and Europe to join the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Middle East, it seems clear that the U.S. stands prepared for the Islamic Republic of Iran to fall short of Trump’s demands for a “meaningful deal” (whatever that is) “over the next probably ten days.” While diplomatic negotiations will resume tomorrow, Iranian officials strongly criticized Trump’s claims in his State of the Union address last night, accusing the president of spreading “big lies” about Iran’s nuclear program, missiles, and recent unrest, comparing its messaging to propaganda tactics. Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf warned that Tehran would respond forcefully to any military attack.Since the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China have been conducting the Maritime Security Belt 2026 naval exercises with Iran, as they did last year, we can hopefully expect any U.S. aggression to wait until after they’ve departed.This week’s failure of the sewage system aboard the USS Gerald R. Ford adds a little comedy to the situation, with 6500 sailors having only a handful of working toilets. However, The National Review promises us that “The Ford Will Accomplish Its Mission with or without Flushing Toilets”. Regardless, when it comes to whether all this presidential talk of extraterrestrial life is a distraction from the Epstein files or from an impending U.S. strike on Iran: why not both? After all (“in my opinion”), it’s clear to anyone with a brain that Jeffrey Epstein was an Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations (Mossad) asset—though some, mainly in the British press, seem to have misplaced theirs—and that the State of Israel would be the prime geopolitical beneficiary of any U.S. attack on Iran, given (at a minimum, though maybe least of all) the two countries’ military exchanges in the summer of last year. Of course, if the U.S. hadn’t already involved itself in the campaign against the Islamic Republic, then we might have to worry that Israel would attack the U.S. itself to draw it into the conflict, as they did with the USS Liberty during the Six-Day War in 1967.Understanding that, it’s curious to note that claims asserting a legitimate first contact between the U.S. and extraterrestrial life already arose from (among others) an actual Israeli official, as NBC News reported in 2020. That official was Haim Eshed, retired brigadier general in Israeli Military Intelligence (Aman) and former director of the Space Committee at Israel’s Ministry of Science, Technology, and Space. In an interview published in English by The Jerusalem Post, Eshed alleges that aliens exist and that for years both the U.S. and Israel have been in contact with a group he calls “the Galactic Federation.” According to him, President Trump was aware of these aliens in his first term and had been on the verge of revealing their secrets, but this so-called Federation asked him not to in order to prevent mass hysteria. The retired general claims that humanity isn’t ready and that aliens don’t want to reveal themselves until humanity evolves and understands “what space and spaceships are” (whatever that means). Eshed also claimed that an agreement exists between the U.S. government and aliens for research into “the fabric of the universe” at a secret underground base on Mars. “If I had come up with what I’m saying today five years ago, I would have been hospitalized,” said Eshed—with his translator perhaps not knowing what the phrase “come up with” usually implies in English. (If anyone in the British press is reading, it usually refers to something produced under pressure, like an excuse or deception.) Eshed hit the press again in December 2025 to reiterate his outlandish claims that the U.S. and Israel both maintain diplomatic relations with extraterrestrials. After all, that’s not the only thing that the two imperialists do together: last summer, they conducted joint strikes on Iran, and obviously look like they’ll work together again—even though the White House claimed last year that it had destroyed all the Iranian nuclear facilities over which it now pretends to want a deal. “We eliminated the threat, but the threat remains imminent!” Of course, we’ve been hearing about this imminent threat for decades: for over 30 years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. Beginning in 1992, he claimed Iran was only a few years away from nuclear capability—a prediction he reiterated throughout the 1990s, in U.S. congressional testimony in 2002, in private remarks revealed by WikiLeaks in 2009, and dramatically at the United Nations in 2012 with a visual depiction of a bomb. Despite shifting intelligence assessments—including statements this year from the U.S. Director of National Intelligence indicating Iran is not building a nuclear weapon—Netanyahu continues to argue that Iran could obtain one within months or weeks. His message of imminent threat has remained largely unchanged across decades of diplomatic developments and evolving intelligence findings.Maybe we’ll get a Whitest Kids U’Know reunion this year, too, since it seems like everything old is new again. But until then, we’ll wait with bated breath for the U.S.-Israel strikes on Iran that their sketch depicts as the real purpose behind American disclosures of extraterrestrial life. In the meantime, we can learn more about Iran’s position from Max Blumenthal’s interview of Professor Mohammad Marandi for The Grayzone last Friday.Professor Marandi explains (at ~0:19) that Iran’s military drill simulating closure of the Strait of Hormuz is meant as a deterrent message to Washington and Tel Aviv. He outlines multiple methods Iran could use to shut the waterway: sinking ships in its narrow passage, targeting vessels across the Persian Gulf, and striking oil and gas infrastructure. He stresses that Iran does not require long-range missiles for regional warfare, citing its arsenal of medium- and short-range missiles, cruise missiles, drones, anti-ship systems, and asymmetric naval capabilities. With control of one coastline and strategic islands, Iran holds geographic leverage over Gulf monarchies hosting U.S. bases, including Al-Udeid in Qatar, from which the drone that killed General Soleimani was launched.Providing historical context (at ~3:42), Marandi describes Iran’s restraint toward Gulf states after the Iran-Iraq War, despite their financial backing of Saddam Hussein and Western support for chemical weapons used in atrocities like the 1988 Halabja massacre. He recounts how Iran restored relations even after immense losses and notes Tehran later supported Qatar when it faced Saudi-UAE pressure, despite Qatar’s prior role in Operation Timber Sycamore and Syria’s destabilization.He warns (at ~6:22) that a regional war would halt oil and gas exports from the Persian Gulf and Caucasus, potentially triggering a global economic crisis worse than 1929. Even if the U.S. is energy self-sufficient, he argues, soaring oil prices would shutter businesses before eventual collapse in demand. While Iran would retaliate against U.S. bases, Israel, and naval assets, the most devastating impact would be the shutdown of regional energy and trade flows.Marandi discusses (at ~8:51) Ali Larijani’s outreach to Gulf states, describing them as fearful but unwilling to defy U.S. policy. He criticizes their symbolic gestures for Palestine while permitting U.S. military operations. The discussion turns (at ~11:20) to Turkey, where Marandi accuses Ankara of facilitating Israeli energy flows and destabilizing Syria, weakening its own strategic buffer. Blumenthal recounts (at ~13:38) a 2024 Istanbul conference where critics questioned Iran’s Palestine support despite Turkey’s gas trade with Israel, highlighting economic dependence on Western financial systems and Iran’s relative autonomy.Emphasizing (at ~15:43) Iran’s sacrifices for Palestine, Marandi describes decades of sanctions, war, and propaganda. He identifies three hostile trends toward Iran: Western establishment elites, segments of the Western left, and Wahhabi-Salafi movements. He recalls surviving chemical attacks and visiting Halabja (at ~18:10), criticizing Western silence on Saddam’s crimes and the 1988 downing of Iran Air Flight 655. He analyzes (at ~20:29) coordinated anti-Iran narratives, including sectarian disinformation and orientalist stereotypes.Blumenthal notes (at ~25:14) hostility from Trotskyist and liberal factions, while Marandi argues (at ~26:36) that those demonizing Iran while opposing war enable military escalation, citing U.S. admissions of economic pressure campaigns and intelligence involvement in unrest. He clarifies (at ~29:00) that Iran’s deeper Syria involvement began in 2013 to counter foreign-backed insurgency serving Israeli interests. Discussing ISIS (at ~31:18), he says Iran intervened early to defend Baghdad and Erbil when the U.S. hesitated.Detailing military capabilities (at ~42:18), Marandi describes expanded underground missile systems, an asymmetric naval doctrine, and a strategic shift from defensive to offensive posture targeting U.S. forces. He outlines regional allies’ strength (at ~47:24), contrasting small Gulf monarchies with populous Yemen and Iraq. Predicting domestic U.S. resistance to war (at ~48:30), he cites economic fragility and political division.Blumenthal recounts (at ~51:04) Israel’s initial strike in the 12-day war, and Marandi reiterates Iran will not initiate conflict but may preempt imminent attack. He notes (at ~58:21) expanded Iran-Russia-China cooperation, describes (at ~1:03:46) hostile Western media appearances in which he clashed with surprise guests supporting the former Iranian monarchy, and cites (at ~1:13:15) massive Iranian counter-demonstrations following riots, dismissed by some Western commentators. The interview concludes (at ~1:21:12) with warnings about U.S. economic pressure campaigns targeting sanctioned states, as well as Marandi’s cautious optimism that global awareness of geopolitical and financial power structures is growing despite escalating tensions.Of course, the pair never got around to talking about aliens. Undoubtedly they’d agree that the topic is silly nonsense compared to the imminent threat of an armed conflict that might include nuclear powers like China and Russia—or, for that matter, that Israel finds itself on the losing side, and and decides to execute its Samson Option and deploy the nuclear weapons it developed with technology stolen from the U.S. and other allies.Still, some of you with a predilection for the paranormal might wonder if aliens like those that Eshed described wouldn’t intervene to prevent a nuclear exchange. After all, a group of former U.S. Air Force personnel held a press conference in 2010 at the National Press Club claiming that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) had interfered with nuclear weapons systems. Former Capt. Robert Salas described a 1967 incident at Malmstrom Air Force Base in which 10 intercontinental ballistic missiles reportedly became inoperative as a glowing object hovered nearby. Retired officers also referenced the 1980 Rendlesham Forest incident near RAF Bentwaters and Woodbridge in England, where military personnel reported seeing a triangular craft, unusual ground markings, and unexplained lights. Some speakers said their reports were dismissed or classified as “top secret.” Researcher Robert Hastings, who organized the event, suggested the phenomena indicated extraterrestrials were monitoring nuclear weapons as a warning to humanity. However, the Pentagon had theretofore insisted that it cannot substantiate the existence of extraterrestrial craft.So here we are. On one hand: retired Israeli officials describing a “Galactic Federation,” former U.S. presidents flirting with alien rhetoric, and the Pentagon promising document dumps about extraterrestrials. On the other: carrier strike groups repositioning, ten-day ultimatums, recycled nuclear countdown clocks, and a region that could ignite in ways that would not be confined to the desert.While we are invited to contemplate life on Mars, very real human beings are contemplating life under sanctions, drone surveillance, and missile defense systems. While social media debates whether UFOs disable nukes out of cosmic benevolence, oil tankers still pass through the Strait of Hormuz under the shadow of war games. While headlines ask whether humanity is ready for interstellar diplomacy, Washington appears ready—again—for regime diplomacy by other means.That’s the pattern that The Whitest Kids U’Know sketch understood intuitively: when the press conference gets weird, check the flight radar. Because these “disclosures” aren’t really about extraterrestrials: they’re about narrative management. If there were truly a Galactic Federation observing us, one imagines they wouldn’t be confused by our technology, but by our storytelling: by our ability to recycle urgency, our talent for turning distraction into doctrine, and our habit of announcing existential threats on a loop until they become background noise.Most likely, no alien intervention is coming to prevent escalation in the Persian Gulf. No triangular craft will descend and hit the off-switch on imperialism. If war comes—or if it is narrowly avoided—it will be because human beings made those decisions, calculated those risks, and bore those consequences.Which leaves us with something much less cinematic but far more important: attention. Attention to carrier movements, to economic warfare, to how “imminent threats” age, and above all, to who benefits when the spotlight shifts upward.Maybe that’s the real first contact—recognizing that we are not being visited, but managed. Not invaded from space, but shepherded through narratives. Not distracted by accident, but by design.Welcome back to Earth.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

As you might have heard, earlier this week Officer Jonathan Ross of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) shot and killed 37-year-old U.S. citizen (and mother of three) Renee Nicole Good between East 33rd and East 34th Streets on Portland Avenue in Central Minneapolis. Good’s death has since inflamed national controversy, sparked widespread protests, and made headlines across the country. Video footage obtained from multiple angles—including cellphone video from Ross himself—shows an interaction in which ICE officers approached Good’s vehicle as she was stopped diagonally in the roadway during an enforcement action. An agent shouting orders reached toward the vehicle, and Ross shot Good as she attempted to drive away. Good’s vehicle then crashed further down the block, and she was pronounced dead at the scene.Federal authorities initially released limited details, and have framed Good’s actions as a threat to ICE agents—President Donald Trump claimed that she “viciously ran over the ICE Officer”—though this characterization has been challenged by local officials and independent video analysis. (Ross was involved in a prior vehicle-related incident in June 2025, during which a motorist refused to exit during a stop and dragged him approximately 300 feet, possibly providing relevant context for his later threat perception.) In the aftermath, the federal government’s handling of the investigation has drawn criticism: state authorities, including Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, have disputed parts of the federal narrative and called for transparent review of the evidence. The FBI is reportedly leading the probe, and state and local agencies have expressed frustration over restricted access to key material.Public response has been immediate and intense: protests have taken place in Minneapolis and are being organized in cities nationwide, often calling for ICE accountability and raising broader concerns about federal law-enforcement tactics. The incident has become a flashpoint in the larger national conversation on policing, immigration enforcement, and civil liberties, with tensions between federal and local officials further complicating efforts to reach a common understanding of the facts on the ground.Longtime Radio Free Pizza gourmets may note this as an escalation of the city’s more longstanding tensions with policing and civil liberties, recalling our January 2024 dispatch that traced the long shadow of the late-May 2020 unrest following George Floyd’s death, when protests escalated into riots, the Minneapolis 3rd Precinct was abandoned on orders and then burned, and more than a thousand properties were damaged. We detailed how the aftermath has been marked not only by material destruction but by a lingering civic demoralization, sharp disagreements over policing, and a persistent sense among residents that public safety has deteriorated. More recent aficionados of our reporting might also remember last year’s journal describing renewed fears about political violence, then made concrete by the politically motivated killing of Minnesota lawmakers unfolding amid nationwide unrest, protests against immigration enforcement (”What else is new?”) and a polarizing military parade in Washington that symbolized deep national division.Accordingly, we can certainly call it fitting that broader conflicts between state and federal governments might here find a potential flashpoint. (If that should become the case, then perhaps we shouldn’t have stopped short of predicting it in a slice from the start of 2024 that noted how American society has become increasingly primed—psychologically, politically, and culturally—for internal conflict, whether sparked by a singular catalyst or from pressures already built into the system.) This killing, then, may well provide a litmus test for how authority, accountability, and restraint are exercised when federal power meets local resistance on the ground. For now, however, open questions remain about the precise sequence of events, the decisions made by the officers on the scene, and how federal use-of-force policies are interpreted and applied in dynamic, high-stakes encounters. To shed light on these questions, we turn now to the analysis of Rev. Augustus Corbett, Esq.Here, Corbett explains (at ~6:40) the foundational decision in Tennessee v. Garner (1985) establishing that, under the Fourth Amendment, police officers may use deadly force to prevent escape only if they have good faith belief the suspect poses significant threat of death or serious physical injury to officers or others. He emphasizes this case forms the starting point for legal analysis in all law enforcement deadly force situations, noting that officers should not kill suspects merely to prevent escape unless the threat condition is met.From there, Corbett goes on to detail (at ~8:45) Graham v. Connor (1989), which set the governing “objective reasonableness” standard for evaluating police use of force. Under this framework, actions are judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, accounting for the fact that officers often make split-second decisions under tense and uncertain conditions. Of course, he points out (at ~19:20) the difficulty of prosecuting law enforcement officers, citing built-in protections from Supreme Court precedent and jury bias favoring police, noting that most cases aren’t even indicted—and even if Minnesota files state charges, Ross may receive Supremacy Clause immunity under the precedent of In re Neagle (1890), which may protect federal officers performing lawful duties if they reasonably believed their conduct was necessary. To determine if Ross has that immunity, courts must consider the totality of circumstances, including the severity of the alleged crime, whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and whether the suspect was actively resisting or attempting to flee. Corbett emphasizes that this analysis explicitly excludes the officer’s subjective intent—whether good or bad—as well as hindsight judgments informed by slow-motion video review.Applying these principles (at ~23:15) to the available video, Corbett focuses heavily on the direction of the vehicle’s front tires at key moments, arguing that still frames appear to show the tires turned away from the officer rather than toward him, suggesting that the vehicle’s movement was oriented away from the officer’s position. Corbett therefore notes that if the tires had been pointed directly at the officer, the government would have a far stronger argument that deadly force was justified. Instead, the available imagery raises questions about whether an imminent threat existed at the moment shots were fired.Corbett further observes (at ~30:00) from video frames that at the moment of his first shot, Ross’s feet were not positioned directly in front of the vehicle, appearing to have space to move aside rather than fire, which weakens claims of immediate danger. He also addresses what may have been a second shot, arguing that if fired after the vehicle was clearly moving away and no threat remained, justification under Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor would be even more constrained. Examining (at ~35:03) wider video shots showing no apparent bystanders in the vicinity who would have been endangered if the officer had allowed Good to escape, Corbett notes that—since the vehicle was moving away from the officer and no one else appeared to be at risk—the use of deadly force wasn’t justified under Tennessee v. Garner. However, he acknowledges that Graham v. Connor factors still apply, providing built-in protections for law enforcers.Beyond the strictly legal analysis, the case has also exposed how rapidly questions of use of force become subsumed into broader moral and political narratives. In a separate commentary, Glenn Greenwald examines the same footage and public reaction not to adjudicate the shooting itself, but to interrogate how different factions have responded to it—particularly the tendency, across the ideological spectrum, to justify or even celebrate death when it befalls perceived political enemies. Here, Greenwald details how conservatives have pointed to Ross’s own footage as evidence that the agent reasonably feared for his life and therefore acted in self-defense, while critics argue the video instead shows the driver turning away to flee rather than attempting to strike the agent, making the use of lethal force unjustified. Greenwald emphasizes that although the driver and her partner had behaved antagonistically toward officers before the shooting, adversarial or disrespectful speech at a protest is constitutionally protected and cannot, on its own, justify deadly force. He also highlights contextual details about the victim—who reportedly had no meaningful criminal record—to argue that the leap from protest behavior to an assumption of homicidal intent toward officers is unsupported.Greenwald then widens the lens (at ~1:54) to examine reactions across the media and political spectrum. On parts of the right, he observed a shift from legal arguments about use of force to overt dehumanization of the victim, including inflammatory labels, emphasis on her sexual orientation, and narratives portraying the agent as heroic for supposedly “saving” the child from her parents. Some political figures escalated further, referring to the victim as a “domestic terrorist” or implying she deserved to die. On the left and center, the shooting was broadly condemned as murder, but Greenwald draws a parallel to past instances in which online commentators celebrated the on-camera killing of Charlie Kirk, underscoring that the celebration of political opponents’ deaths is not confined to any one ideological camp. He stresses the importance of distinguishing between legitimate criticism of public figures and the moral collapse represented by rejoicing in someone’s death, noting with concern that expressions of mere criticism are often punished more harshly than explicit celebrations of violence.At the core of his analysis, Greenwald critiques (at ~8:53) what he describes as a broader societal coarsening and dehumanization of political adversaries, accelerated by polarized media ecosystems, online anonymity, and groupthink. He links this domestic moral erosion to U.S. foreign policy, arguing that a nation perpetually engaged in war must continually dehumanize external enemies, a habit that eventually seeps back into domestic culture. Citing Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1967 Riverside Church speech, Greenwald argues that violence abroad and violence at home are morally and psychologically connected. Greenwald further challenges what he describes as an inconsistent pro-law-enforcement standard embraced by some on the right: that if a person defies lawful orders and an officer reasonably fears for their life, lethal force is justified. Applying that logic consistently, he argues (at ~21:25), would imply that Capitol Police should have used far more lethal force against violent participants on 6 January 2021. Of course, many of these same voices would reject that conclusion, revealing a politically selective application of principle. For Greenwald, both the Minnesota shooting and the killing of Ashli Babbitt on 6 January fail the same ethical test: deadly force should be an absolute last resort. He concludes that the gravest danger lies not in disagreement over individual cases, but in the abandonment of consistent moral standards altogether—replaced instead by factional judgments about who deserves to live or die. In his view, resisting that trend requires reaffirming strict thresholds for lethal force, rejecting the dehumanization of political opponents, and refusing opportunistic double standards driven by partisan loyalty.Taken all together, Greenwald’s analysis situates the Minneapolis killing within a wider cultural pattern of dehumanization, selective outrage, and inconsistent standards for lethal force, in response to which one must ask what kind of society is being shaped by how we talk about who deserves to live or die.In the end, Good’s killing cannot be responsibly reduced to a slogan, a clip, or a partisan verdict rendered in advance of full evidence. As Corbett’s legal analysis makes clear, the governing standards for deadly force are demanding by design, precisely because the power to kill in the name of the state must remain exceptional, constrained, and accountable. At the same time, as Greenwald’s broader critique underscores, the danger does not lie only in whether this single shooting meets a legal threshold, but in how readily Americans now sort such deaths into moral categories based on political allegiance—excusing, condemning, or even celebrating them accordingly. If this case is indeed a litmus test, it is not only for federal use-of-force policy or intergovernmental friction, but for whether a society already strained by violence, polarization, and mistrust can still insist on consistent principles, sober judgment, and the basic sanctity of human life. Until the facts are fully known, restraint—legal, moral, and rhetorical—remains the only position compatible with justice rather than faction.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Here we go again: this weekend, the United States violated the territory of a sovereign nation for the purpose of regime change, with airstrikes on Venezuelan military targets and critical urban infrastructure cutting electricity across the Venezuelan capital of Caracas before U.S. special forces kidnapped Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife. U.S. President Donald Trump announced their abduction on Truth Social, later posting a photo of President Maduro blindfolded and handcuffed aboard the USS Iwo Jima, in transit to the U.S. to stand trial as the supposed kingpin of Tren de Aragua and Cartel de los Soles, the Venezuelan crime syndicates—despite the conclusion in an April report from the U.S. National Intelligence Council that Maduro has nothing to do with the former, and the fact that the latter isn’t a hierarchical organization but a moniker invented to describe corruption in Venezuela’s armed forces. What a way to start the year, huh? But our October bulletin on the subject speculated that “maybe a U.S. invasion is on hold until the court renders its ruling” on conflicts of interest in the auction of PDV Holding, parent company of Citgo Petroleum, the U.S. refining and marketing arm of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA). That ruling came on 25 November, with a judge approving Elliott Investment Management’s takeover of PDV Holding—clearing the path for the privatization of Venezuela’s crown-jewel foreign asset, pending approval from the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control.So, maybe we should just feel surprised that the U.S. waited more than a month to kidnap President Maduro. After all, President Trump told us last month that the U.S. “had a lot of oil there […] and we want it back,” though many economists and historians reject the claim, noting that foreign companies never owned Venezuela’s oil and that nationalization—accomplished in stages between 1976 and 2007—followed global norms of resource sovereignty. Though U.S. and European oil companies lost billions in assets, they were partially compensated through arbitration.With U.S. sanctions since 2014 having cripple Venezuela’s oil sector and finances, Venezuelan exports now represent a small share of worldwide oil supply. Accordingly, those looking ahead might expect less of a shock to global energy markets, and more of a contextual shift in currency markets: since Trump told us yesterday that U.S. intends to “run” Venezuela in the interest of “taking out a tremendous amount of wealth out of the ground” to benefit “people from outside of Venezuela that used to be in Venezuela”—i.e., Western oil companies—we can surely expect petroleum exports from the Bolivarian Republic will be sold for U.S. dollars. Thus, the petrodollar system—the original purpose and recent decline of which we’ve covered a couple times in years past—looks like it has found fresh support against its gradual erosion. Regarding just how the U.S. plans to run Venezuela—or rather, what proxies it will employ—our October bulletin contained another speculation that may have had a a similar degree of foresight: installing Venezuelan opposition leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient María Corina Machado as the country’s president. Naturally, Machado welcomed the U.S. intervention for which she has long advocated, declaring that Venezuela’s “hour of freedom” had arrived and calling for 2024 opposition candidate Edmundo González to assume the presidency after Maduro’s removal—though apparently stating elsewhere that she is preparing to take power herself. For his own part, Trump has expressed interest in the latter but hasn’t yet committed.Turning now to the U.S., the implications of Maduro’s kidnapping naturally reflect the declining empire’s efforts to maintain hegemony over the Western Hemisphere Trump claimed that the kidnapping represents an exercise of the Monroe Doctrine, under which the Western Hemisphere was declared off-limits to European colonization or intervention while promising U.S. non-interference in European affairs, but the absence of any efforts to bring Venezuela into the European sphere of influence renders Trump’s claims absurd on their face. Though the doctrine’s logic underpinned U.S. actions in Latin America throughout the Cold War—with presidents like Ronald Reagan invoking anti-communism to rationalize proxy wars, sanctions, and support for authoritarian allies—its latest invocation explicitly radicalizes the doctrine, dropping the pretense of opposition to European imperialism and instead simply asserting unilateral U.S. control over the Americas.Continued exercise of this expanded doctrine—or, really, the continued assertion of U.S. hegemony over the Western Hemisphere—could mean laying the foundation for a long-theorized North American Union, which we here at Radio Free Pizza detailed almost one year ago, and which now warrants renewed attention. What once seemed dormant has been reanimated by Donald Trump’s post-2024 expansionist rhetoric—from musing about Canada as a “51st state,” to renewed interest in Greenland’s strategic resources, to threats against Panama—occurring alongside direct U.S. intervention in Venezuela, including regime-change operations, seizures of Venezuelan assets like Citgo, and the extraterritorial application of U.S. courts and force.Placed in that context, Venezuela begins to look less like an isolated case and more like a testbed: a demonstration of how sovereignty can be overridden through sanctions, courts, and military power under the banner of security, narcotics control, or democracy promotion. While mainstream voices dismiss the North American Union as conspiracy, the pattern echoes older supranational ambitions—from NAFTA and the Security and Prosperity Partnership to CFR blueprints for a “North American Community”—now resurfacing amid U.S. anxiety over a multipolar world in which blocs like BRICS+ challenge American primacy.The contradiction is telling. Trump’s earlier obsession with border walls coexists uneasily with continental ambitions, suggesting not a coherent nationalism but a reactive strategy to declining dominance. Of course, the risk is that “integration” and “stability” become pretexts for upward consolidation of power, elite control, and the erosion of democratic self-determination. Whether the North American Union emerges as policy, pressure tactic, or political theater, the through-line remains the same: who governs, by what authority, and for whose benefit—an unresolved question now being answered, most starkly, in Venezuela, and in what government takes shape following the success of U.S. efforts toward regime change.If the events of this weekend tell us anything, it is that the language of international law, democracy promotion, and even counter-narcotics has finally collapsed into something far cruder: open force exercised without consent, mandate, or restraint. The kidnapping of a sitting head of state—preceded by airstrikes on civilian infrastructure and followed by boasts on social media—is not an aberration. It is the logical endpoint of a decades-long trajectory in which sanctions, courts, covert operations, and proxy politics gradually replaced diplomacy, only to give way again to naked coercion when those tools proved insufficient.Venezuela now stands as the clearest warning of where that path leads. Its oil was first strangled through sanctions, its foreign assets seized through U.S. courts, its political process delegitimized through narrative warfare, and its leadership finally removed through military force—all while the rhetoric shifted seamlessly from “democracy” to “security” to “we want it back.” That sequence is not unique to Venezuela; it is simply the most complete case to date.As the Monroe Doctrine is refashioned into an explicit claim of hemispheric ownership, and as expansionist talk bleeds into concrete action, the question is no longer whether old imperial patterns have returned, but whether they will now be normalized under a unitary executive that recognizes no meaningful limits. The future hinted at here—whether labeled a North American Union or something else entirely—is one in which sovereignty flows upward, accountability evaporates, and governance is imposed rather than chosen.History suggests that such projects rarely end where their architects intend. What remains to be seen is whether the peoples of the Americas will accept this moment as inevitable—or recognize it, clearly and soberly, as a line that has already been crossed. We here at Radio Free Pizza presume that Latin Americans recognize that already, and hope that the U.S. population soon catches up and mobilizes to reverse the course.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

In the past month, the Somali community of Minnesota—the largest outside Africa—has faced heightened tension after President Donald Trump launched repeated attacks against Somali immigrants, threatened to revoke their legal protections, and supported upcoming immigration enforcement actions targeting the community. Conservatives like President Trump have used isolated fraud cases to malign Somalis broadly, intensifying scrutiny of the community and fear within it.At the risk of sounding heartless, we could say that the community (particularly its elders) probably finds the feeling familiar. Following the start of the Somali Civil War in 1991, refugees were initially resettled across the country, but soon began arriving in Minnesota because of its reputation for effective refugee support, a stable economy, and perceived safety and kindness. Many more later moved to Minnesota through “secondary arrivals,” drawn by family connections, strong refugee resettlement agencies, and economic opportunity. Today, about 84,000 Somali Americans live in the state, with a large share U.S.-born and the vast majority holding U.S. citizenship.Of course, perceived kindness means vulnerability to exploitation, and allegations of fraud seem well-founded: the largest case, Feeding Our Future, involves a COVID-era scheme in which defendants claimed to feed millions of children but instead diverted funds. (Compared to the scheme that was the pandemic itself, this one is at a scale we might call “cute.”) Overall fraud losses across multiple cases could exceed $1 billion, according to prosecutors’ estimates from early December, though more recent estimates put the figure at $9 billion. Most of the defendants—more than 90% across the major cases—are of Somali descent, though prosecutors note the alleged ringleader in the largest case was a white American woman. In addition to labeling Minnesota’s Somalis as “garbage,” President Trump and conservative outlets have suggested fraud proceeds may have funded Al-Shabaab, the Somali terrorist organization that has for two decades wreaked havoc across the country, but Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent acknowledged that investigators have so far found no evidence to support terrorism allegations, and no such charges have been filed.Naturally, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN), the first Somali American elected to Congress, condemned Trump’s remarks as racist and dangerous. Community leaders describe themselves and their fellow Somalis as “under siege,” but note strong support from Twin Cities leadership and resilience within the community. Nonetheless, most Somali Americans in Minnesota continue to face deep socioeconomic challenges: a majority live in poverty or near-poverty, with low median incomes, lower educational attainment, and low homeownership rates compared to other groups. Many small businesses struggle to survive, and language barriers remain common. Researchers and community leaders argue that these patterns resemble earlier immigrant groups and expect second-generation Somalis to achieve significantly better outcomes, but stress that persistent poverty within the community poses a long-term economic challenge for Minnesota as a whole.Again, at the risk of sounding heartless, we could say that the Somali community (particularly its elders) is probably familiar with economic challenges: the estimated $9 billion in fraud sits at just under three-quarters of Somalia’s current GDP, with the country’s economy predictably handicapped after more than three decades of a civil war that has internally displaced more than 2 million Somalis, generated over 900,000 registered refugees in East Africa alone, and led to repeated famines that killed hundreds of thousands. But Somalia’s long-running crisis is not simply the result of internal failure but has been deeply shaped—and worsened—by decades of foreign intervention, particularly by the U.S. and its allies, as historians like Elizabeth Schmidt of Loyola University of Maryland and documentaries like that from Africon Productions make clear.Africon Productions begins its analysis (at ~1:37) with Somalia’s colonial roots during the late 19th century scramble for Africa. The British established a protectorate in the north (British Somaliland) in 1887, while Italians controlled the south (Italian Somaliland) in the 1880s and 1890s. France seized territory now known as Djibouti, while parts of the Somali population remained in what became Ethiopia and Kenya. This fragmentation inaugurated irredentist tensions that persist to this today, and inspired the resistance led by Sayyid Mohammed Abdullah Hassan, who conducted a 21-year rebellion (1899–1920) against British, Italian, and Ethiopian forces, seeking to unite all Somalis under one Islamic government. After World War II, Italian Somaliland came under UN trusteeship in 1950 while remaining under Italian administration, and British Somaliland gained internal autonomy in 1960.The documentary goes on to detail (at ~3:24) British Somaliland’s independence on 26 June 1960, quickly followed by voluntary merger with Italian Somaliland on 1 July, forming the Somali Republic. Aden Abdulle Osman became the first president, and the unification was celebrated across the Somali world as a triumph of nationalist aspirations. The newly independent Somalia adopted a democratic system and aimed to promote unity, democracy, and Pan-Somali nationalism, though the dream of Greater Somalia including all Somali-inhabited regions led to tensions with neighboring Ethiopia and Kenya. Despite these challenges, the 1960s represented a hopeful period when Somalia embraced self-rule, joined the United Nations, and pursued development and national pride before political instability and dictatorship derailed their vision. Detailing (at ~6:35) the aftermath of President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke’s 1969 assassination, the documentary describes how General Mohamed Siad Barre seized power in a bloodless coup. He then suspended the constitution, banned political parties, and declared Somalia a socialist state based on scientific socialism inspired by the Soviet Union and China. Initially, Barre’s regime achieved significant gains through literacy campaigns, infrastructure projects, and anti-corruption measures, positioning himself as a modernizer and Pan-Somali nationalist. However, despite publicly denouncing clanism as backward and divisive, his regime covertly relied on clan favoritism, serving his own Marehan clan (part of the larger Darod clan family) along with allied Ogaden and Dulbahante clans, forming the MOD alliance. State institutions, military, and intelligence services were dominated by these groups, deeply alienating other major clans, especially the Isaac in the north and Hawiye in central regions.We learn next (at ~7:51) how Barre launched a military campaign in 1977 to annex Ethiopia’s Ogaden region, home to ethnic Somalis. Initially successful, Somalia’s army advanced deep into Ethiopian territory. However, the Soviet Union switched sides to support Ethiopia, providing massive military aid and facilitating support from Cuban troops, leading to Somalia’s decisive defeat. The Ogaden War proved disastrous both militarily and economically, humiliating the regime, discrediting Pan-Somali aspirations, and causing massive financial strain. Barre broke ties with the Soviet Union and aligned with the U.S., but the damage was irreversible. The war created thousands of refugees and displaced persons, straining local communities and government resources while causing many Somalis to lose faith in Barre’s leadership.The aforementioned Schmidt describes how U.S. backing after the Ogaden War kept Barre in power despite widespread repression, corruption, and economic collapse. Once the Cold War ended, Washington withdrew its support and criticized Barre’s human rights abuses. Deprived of external backing, his regime fell in 1991, plunging Somalia into state collapse. Warlords and clan militias carved up the country, while Islamist organizations filled the vacuum by restoring basic law, order, and social services—gaining popular support in the process.Africon Productions’ documentary also points (at ~9:07) to the role that competition over foreign aid played in fomenting and fueling the Somali Civil War. As Somalia entered a deep economic crisis in the 1980s, corruption became rampant as the elite, especially those linked to the ruling clan alliance, looted state resources and funneled foreign aid into private accounts rather than supporting development. When the central government collapsed in 1991, international humanitarian agencies rushed into Somalia to address famine and mass displacement. However, with no functioning state authority, warlords and clan militias quickly moved to control ports, airports, and distribution centers where aid arrived. These groups seized shipments, taxed aid convoys, and used relief supplies as currency to buy weapons and recruit fighters. The struggle to dominate aid routes intensified rivalries between warlords like General Aidid and Ali Mahdi. Meanwhile, Schmidt adds, though the U.S.-led UN intervention in the early 1990s initially claimed humanitarian goals, it escalated into a military campaign against selected warlords, especially General Aidid—whose militia, the documentary tells us (at ~17:11), saw foreign troops as threats to his authority. Civilian casualties from airstrikes and raids provoked widespread hostility, culminating in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu, where U.S. Rangers attempted to capture Aidid’s top lieutenants. The operation failed, resulting in 18 U.S. soldiers’ deaths and hundreds of Somali casualties. Images of a dead American soldier dragged through the streets shocked the world. By 1995, the U.S. and UN withdrew, admitting failure and abandoning Somalia to its warlords.Following Aidid’s death in 1996, we learn (at ~18:15), no single faction could dominate Somalia, leaving the country fragmented. Clan-based administrations emerged in regions like Bay, Bakul, Jubaland, and Gedo, each run by local warlords or businessmen. Amid the chaos, Islamic courts based on Sharia law began gaining influence, initially as community-led efforts to provide justice and security where the state had failed. Over time, they united into the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). By 2006, the ICU controlled most of southern Somalia, including Mogadishu, bringing unprecedented stability. However, the ICU also had radical elements, with its leadership including figures accused of links to Al-Qaeda, and its rise alarming both Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and neighboring Ethiopia.Schmidt here would hasten to add that, following the collapse of the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001, Somalia was re-cast through the lens of counterterrorism. The U.S. treated Islamist movements as inherently extremist, ignoring their social-service role and local legitimacy. For that reason, Washington backed both Ethiopia and Somali warlords, and propped up the TFG—which she characterizes as weak and corrupt—as Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia in December 2006 with TFG support and ousted the ICU within weeks. Subsequent U.S. strategy relied on “low-intensity warfare”: drone strikes, special forces, and private contractors. These tactics killed leaders but failed to dismantle the movement, instead fueling recruitment and spreading violence regionally, including attacks in Kenya. As Africon Productions details (at ~20:30), the Ethiopian occupation was deeply unpopular among Somali residents, and consequently sparked a new insurgency. From the ICU’s ashes, the aforementioned Al-Shabaab (Harakat al-Shabaab al-Mujahideen)—originally a non-violent youth militia defending Islamic courts—emerged as an extremist jihadist group with global ambitions and Al-Qaeda allegiance. Al-Shabaab launched a fierce insurgency against the Ethiopian-backed TFG using guerrilla tactics, suicide bombings, and assassinations, gaining control of vast areas in southern and central Somalia. In 2009, facing heavy resistance and mounting casualties, Ethiopia withdrew from Somalia. The TFG similarly returned to Mogadishu, but remained weak as Al-Shabaab continued growing and imposed harsh Sharia law in controlled areas. In 2012, Al-Shabaab officially pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, becoming part of the global jihadist movement and recruiting foreign fighters from America, Europe, and East Africa.The documentary continues (at ~23:18) its discussion of the civil war’s devastating consequences, including the collapse of the country’s formal economy, with key sectors including banking, manufacturing, infrastructure, and public services destroyed. Major ports like Mogadishu and Kismayo fell under militia control, the national airline ceased operations, and roads and bridges were destroyed. Livestock trade, informal markets, remittances, and piracy became main income sources. Diaspora remittances, estimated at over $1.5 billion annually, became a vital economic lifeline for families relying on relatives abroad. Warlords, arms dealers, and smugglers built a war economy based on looting, extortion, and illegal trade of charcoal, arms, and people. The conflict profoundly destabilized the Horn of Africa region, with Kenya facing major Somali refugee influxes, extremist cells, and deadly Al-Shabaab terrorist attacks. Its impact gained even greater geopolitical scope as piracy off the Somali coast became a global concern between 2005–2011, with armed Somali pirates hijacking commercial ships in the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean, demanding millions in ransom. Global shipping lanes were disrupted, requiring multinational naval force deployment to patrol Somali waters. The conflict fueled cross-border arms smuggling, human trafficking, and drug trade that affected Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula. Africon Productions also details (at ~31:51) how the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) has played a critical role since 2007 in fighting Al-Shabaab and in stabilizing parts of the country. Thousands of African troops, primarily from Uganda, Burundi, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti, died in the mission. (We here at Radio Free Pizza wonder if the Alliance of Sahel States feels at all impressed, since the bloc departed the Economic Community of West African States [ECOWAS] in 2024 for its failure to effectively counter terrorism, and received consequent sanctions from the African Union.) The documentary concludes optimistically (at ~33:51) that, despite devastating consequences lasting over three decades, signs of recovery are emerging in Somalia: a federal government exists, local administrations are functioning, and parts of the economy are rebounding, fueled by diaspora remittances and international aid. However, significant challenges remain with Al-Shabaab still active, political divisions persisting, and humanitarian needs remaining high. International efforts have often been criticized for being disjointed, overly militarized, and insensitive to Somali political realities, with Western backers supporting unpopular governments and peace-building initiatives failing to meaningfully include local stakeholders. Despite massive aid, Somalia remains heavily dependent on external support, and the withdrawal of AMISOM—first restructured as the African Union Transition Mission in Somalia (ATMIS) and now as the African Union Support and Stabilization Mission in Somalia (AUSSOM), whose current mandate expires one year from today—poses future risks. Nonetheless, one must certainly admire the resilience shown by the Somali people in enduring such immense suffering in their ongoing struggle to rebuild their nation.Taken as a whole, the Somali experience illustrates how sustained U.S. intervention in foreign affairs—shaped less by local realities than by shifting geopolitical priorities—has repeatedly deepened instability rather than resolved it. From Cold War patronage that propped up an increasingly repressive dictatorship, to abrupt abandonment after strategic usefulness expired, to post-9/11 counterterrorism policies that conflated local governance with global jihad, U.S. actions consistently undermined Somali sovereignty and social cohesion. Military solutions displaced political ones; externally imposed governments displaced indigenous legitimacy; and short-term security objectives eclipsed long-term state-building. The rise of warlordism, the militarization of humanitarian aid, and the transformation of community-based Islamic courts into extremist insurgencies were not aberrations but predictable results of intervention policies that consequently perpetuated instability, marginalized grassroots peacekeeping efforts, and ensured that ordinary Somalis bore the ongoing cost of endless war. Somalia’s decades-long suffering thus stands as a cautionary case: when U.S. power is exercised without accountability to local populations or respect for internal political processes, it does not merely fail to bring stability, but actively manufactures the very chaos it later claims to combat.Seen in this fuller historical light, the social-services fraud now being weaponized against the Somali community in Minnesota is less an aberration than a downstream effect of prolonged foreign intervention and displacement. When a people shaped by humanitarian dependency, institutional vacuum, and predatory aid regimes are resettled into a wealthy state whose social programs are complex, under-supervised, and suddenly flush with emergency funds, some degree of exploitation is not surprising: it is structural. To treat such fraud as evidence of cultural pathology or moral failure is to erase the conditions that produced it, many of them authored or amplified by U.S. policy itself. If the U.S. wishes to prevent these outcomes, the remedy lies not in collective punishment or racialized scapegoating, but in reckoning honestly with how intervention abroad deforms incentives at home, and building systems—in both domestic and foreign policy—that emphasize accountability, inclusion, and dignity rather than extraction, suspicion, and spectacle.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Dear Radio Free Pizza gourmets,Here we go again: another chapter of the oblique autobiography I’ve been writing as “journals”—which some critics might just call filler, since the typical content I produced in my first couple of years has been largely absent for the majority of 2025. The first charted the path from my early Mexico years through early trips, deep friendships, a 2018 seizure and coma, and a doomed real-estate investment meant to secure my father’s retirement. I found myself back in Mexico City again this past April, where I found myself with my job ending and my future uncertain, but trying to trust that every stalled chapter eventually turns. But that chapter turned for the worse, and the second found me back in Minneapolis—jobless, shaken by losses, and facing a nation devolving into political turmoil. In that unrest, I turned toward stillness, faith, and the idea of resilience as both spiritual grounding and active renewal. In the third, I wrote about driving from Minneapolis to Chicago for the Center for Political Innovation’s Great Unity Convention, after which I came home (to a new job) convinced once more of the importance of building bridges rather than conducting purity tests, of rejecting political violence, and of organizing for material peace: work, housing, healthcare, education, and dignity for working families at home and abroad.So, given the nobility of those aims, let me tell you that no one regrets more than I do the relative absence of content here to support them. Without going into further detail, suffice it to say that this has been the hardest year of my life.This journal, I hope, will mark the beginning of a (likely slow) return to form. To that end, I’d like to delve a little deeper than usual on spiritual matters, with reference to the same dispatch touched upon in a previous journal. There, I introduced what I called Liberation Vitalism—my attempt to braid the justice-focus of liberation theology with a life-affirming vitalism. I reflected on Gustavo Gutiérrez’s legacy, noted the familiar critiques that liberation theology edges into Marxism, and walked through today’s debates on “Christian vitalism,” Bronze Age Mindset, and the deeper cultural metacrisis—a crisis born of our loss of the sacred. Overall, I attested the obvious: that living beings carry an intrinsic value machines never can.Against that backdrop, I sketched the core of Liberation Vitalism—human dignity, authentic desire, compassionate strength, deep community, and spiritual resistance to dehumanization—and I closed by insisting, with a quote from the Epistle of James, that faith without deeds is dead, and any philosophy that fights oppression is worth meeting halfway.Either before or while composing that dispatch (I honestly can’t remember), I happened to come across an October 2024 video from the estimable Dr. John Campbell—surely a familiar name to dissidents of the 2022–’23 coronavirus pandemic, and to whose work we referred in February 2024—that might have put the idea of addressing Christianity into my mind.Here, Campbell walks through the Shroud of Turin from a multitude of angles—scientific, medical, historical, and of course spiritual—explaining how this 14-foot linen cloth bears a photographic-negative image of a crucified man, something impossible to produce before the invention of photography, and how the image even encodes real three-dimensional information that NASA’s VP8 analyzer can translate into accurate relief. I learned that the image is incredibly superficial, with only the outermost fibers bearing it, and that they contain no paint, pigment, dye, or stain, making artistic forgery essentially impossible. Campbell also lays out the pathological details visible in the image: scourge marks, crown-of-thorns wounds, wrist-nail placement, a spear wound, bruising, and blood patterns—all medically consistent with Roman crucifixion practices, and with the Gospel accounts.The biological findings were also compelling: real human blood with high bilirubin levels, Jerusalem-matching limestone under the blood, and pollen that traces the object’s historical movement from Jerusalem through Turkey and into Europe. Campbell also addressed the controversial 1988 carbon-dating result that placed the Shroud in the medieval period, explaining how the test came from a repaired corner contaminated with later materials, and how newer dating methods and textile comparisons suggest a much earlier, possibly first-century origin. The connection to the Sudarium of Oviedo—a separate head cloth with bloodstain patterns that match the Shroud perfectly and whose provenance reaches back over a millennium—was especially striking. By the end, I came away feeling that while absolute certainty may be impossible, the convergence of scientific, forensic, and historical evidence makes the Shroud far more mysterious, and far more compelling, than I ever expected.Campbell has since returned, now and then, to the topic of the Shroud, but until today these have escaped my attention. Still, Christianity remained a subject of interest in my mind long after developing Liberation Vitalism, and became an even larger one after suffering my many setbacks of 2025. For that reason, what little philosophical investigations I’ve undertaken this year have concerned themselves largely (if not entirely) with Christian metaphysics, of which I’d like to share some results. These won’t address the mystery of the resurrection, however—and in fact I must warn the faithful among you, they’re potentially heretical, depending on your ecclesiastical framework. But if (knowing my own audience) concerns about heresy don’t trouble you, then I hope you’ll find them enlightening.With that in mind, let’s turn to (an audiobook of) Neville Goddard’s At Your Command (1939), the inaugural text of the author’s career, in which he explores the idea that consciousness is God and that our awareness of being is the creative power shaping our reality: that through which people create their experiences, according to their consciousness and beliefs. Goddard’s central teaching is that to manifest desires, one must assume the feeling of already possessing what is wanted, rather than begging “God” as an external deity. Accordingly, he interprets biblical stories (at ~1:46) not as historical record or biography, but as a psychological drama taking place in human consciousness, and suggests that by claiming this understanding as your own, you can transform your world from “barren deserts of Egypt to the promised land of Canaan.” In his view, we learn (at ~3:42), the numerous biblical appearances of “I am” statements—such as when God introduces himself to Moses as “I Am That I Am” and instructs him to tell the Israelites “I Am hath sent me unto you” (Exodus 3:14)—reveal that the true identity of God abides in our own awareness of being. Furthermore, Christ’s statement in John 14:6 that “I am the way” indicates how consciousness itself is the resurrecting power. Goddard explains that man is always “out-picturing” what he is conscious of being, and this truth makes man free from self-imprisonment. Accordingly, he urges readers to give up beliefs in a God apart from themselves and claim God as their awareness of being, as Jesus and the prophets did.Goddard goes on (at ~5:11) to interpret Jesus’ seemingly contradictory statements “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) and “my Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), explaining that consciousness (the Father) is greater than what one is conscious of being (the Son), yet they remain one—like a conceiver and his conceptions. Accordingly, consciousness is the Father drawing manifestations of life to you, and you are currently drawing into your world whatever you are conscious of being. For that reason, he tells us (at ~7:40) of his own reading of Christ’s dictum that, “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3):If you are dissatisfied with your present expression in life, the only way to change it is to take your attention away from that which seems so real to you and rise in consciousness to that which you desire to be. You cannot serve two masters; therefore, to take your attention from one state of consciousness and place it upon another [state of consciousness] is to die to one and live to the other.On the same principle, Goddard reinterprets Christ asking Peter, “Whom say ye that I am?” (Matthew 16:15) as an eternal question addressed to oneself, explaining that your conviction of yourself determines your expression in life. Thus, Goddard explains (at ~9:11) why millions of prayers go unanswered: people pray for change while their consciousness remains fixated on what they desire to see changed. He teaches that successful prayer must be claiming rather than begging—turning away from pictures of lack by denying mere appearance and instead assuming the state of consciousness in which one already possesses that for which one prays—and emphasizes (at ~10:21) not questioning how what one desires will appear. Because signs always follow and never precede, he advocates instead that, in prayer, one should simply establish the state of consciousness in which one possesses what one seeks, and letting manifestations follow naturally.Goddard continues his reinterpretation of the Gospels, staging (at ~11:31) the biblical story of Mary not as a woman giving birth to Jesus, but as the awareness of being that remains virgin regardless of how many desires to which it gives birth, and invites readers to see themselves as Mary being impregnated through desire, becoming one with their desire to the point of embodying it—even in the absence of logical reason to believe what one wants is possible—by making your awareness your husband, and thus conceiving the eventual manifestation of one’s desires. This in turn mirrors the first verse of John—“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1)—which, Goddard tells us (at ~13:38), describes the process of creation. He explains that “the beginning” is the present moment when desire arises, with “the Word” being desires seeking embodiment, which can attain to no reality until united with the awareness of being. That, however, comes with Goddard’s caveat (at ~16:28) that you cannot put “new wine in old bottles”—you cannot take your present beliefs, fears, and limitations into new consciousness. He instructs readers to take attention away from problems and dwell upon “just being” by declaring “I am” without conditions until feeling formless. Within this expanded consciousness, one can give form to new conceptions by feeling oneself to be what is desired. He describes this state as containing all possibilities, interpreting 2 Corinthians 5:8 (“willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord”) as leaving behind former self-conception to assume a new identity. Naturally, this may require revaluing oneself, and so Goddard encourages readers (at ~19:16) to awaken to the “everlasting Father” that is their own awareness of being—their true power beyond human limitations.In another dissection of a biblical appearance of the phrase “I am,” Goddard interprets (at ~21:11) Christ’s assurance that “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11) to mean that awareness is the shepherd, and what one is aware of being are the sheep that follow. He describes awareness as “a voice calling in the wilderness of human confusion” that always finds expression, and which therefore has never lost any “sheep” that it has been aware of being. Similarly, Goddard reinterprets “The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want” (Psalm 23:1) to mean that consciousness never lacks evidence of what one is aware of being, and therefore enjoins the reader to become aware of positive qualities rather than restricting one’s awareness to their opposites.Goddard emphasizes again (at ~22:53) that your world reflects your consciousness—you don’t have your present consciousness because of your world, but rather, your world is what it is because of your consciousness. He acknowledges this principle seems too simple for “the wisdom of man that tries to complicate everything,” and notes that this revelation initially seems blasphemous as it contradicts beliefs in an external God. Still, he reiterates that his reconciliation of the apparent contradiction in “I and my father are one, but my father is greater than I” implies that you are one with your present self-conception, but nonetheless, you remain greater than what you’re currently aware of being. But before attempting to shift one’s awareness and transform one’s world, he stresses (at ~23:35) establishing the foundation that “I am the Lord”—that one’s awareness of being is God—and warns that without firmly establishing this understanding, one will return to former limiting beliefs. Discussing further biblical appearances of the phrase “I am,” Goddard reinterprets (at ~35:11) Christ’s assertion that “I am the vine, ye are the branches” (John 15:5) to mean that consciousness is the vine, and the qualities one is conscious of being are the branches. Since things have no life except insofar as one is conscious of them, just as branches wither without sap, things in your world pass away when you withdraw attention from them. He again advises dissolving problems by removing attention from them and becoming indifferent, while instead feeling yourself to be the solution. Turning next (at ~37:23) to Jesus’ arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, Goddard interprets his inquiry “Whom [do you seek]?” and his assertion that, indeed, “I am he” (John 18:4–5, 7–8) as crystallizing a principle of manifestation. He explains that whatever you seek salvation from—whether hunger, poverty, imprisonment, disease—your savior is the state you desire—food, riches, freedom, health. He instructs readers to claim “I am he” by feeling themselves to be the thing desired, not in words but in consciousness, and explains that “feeling after” a quality in consciousness until you feel yourself to be it causes that quality to embody itself as healing in your world.Goddard further encourages readers (at ~39:38) to believe in their awareness of being as God and to claim for themselves all attributes previously given to an external deity, interpreting “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it” (Psalm 127:1) to mean that unless what you seek is first established in consciousness, you labor in vain to find it. He therefore urges readers (at ~41:36) to stop blaming others and find themselves as the cause of everything in their lives, explaining that “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” (John 6:44) means that consciousness draws all manifestations—for example, for a poor man to find wealth until he first claims himself wealthy.Using the parable of the prodigal son, Goddard illustrates (at ~42:50) how one must realize they brought about their own conditions of lack and make the decision to rise to a higher level. He notes there was no condemnation of the prodigal when he claimed his inheritance, explaining that others condemn us only as long as we condemn ourselves. Accordingly, Goddard advises readers (at ~44:30) to stop questioning whether they are worthy to receive their desires, explaining that desires are fashioned within us based on what we claim ourselves to be. He instructs readers to “leave all judgments out of the picture,” elevate one’s consciousness to the level of what one desires and to claim it as present reality, interpreting “My grace is sufficient for thee” (2 Corinthians 12:9) as having faith in unseen claims until conviction is born.Goddard emphasizes (at ~45:45) not being anxious about results, which will follow “as surely as day follows night.” He encourages looking upon desires as “spoken words of God,” and therefore as promises. He explains that most people fail to realize desires because they constantly condition them, describing (at ~47:06) how people habitually judge by appearances and see things as real, forgetting that the only reality is consciousness. Addressing the question of whether destructive desires come from God, he tells readers that no one truly desires to kill another, but rather desires freedom from them. He states that because people don’t believe the desire for freedom contains its own fulfillment, they distort God’s gifts through lack of faith. Explaining (at ~50:00) that the heavenly state one seeks exists only in consciousness, as “the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:21). Goddard states that we are currently living in the heaven we’ve established within ourselves. He encourages creating a new heaven by entering a new state of consciousness, which will cause a new earth to appear. He interprets “behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me” (Revelation 22:12) to mean that consciousness quickly rewards us with whatever we deeply believe about ourselves, as “God is not mocked.” Commenting (at ~51:16) on the biblical story of the disciples fishing all night without success until Jesus appeared, Goddard contrasts fishing “in the night of human darkness” (seeking external things through effort) with fishing as directed by Christ (with one’s awareness of being). He instructs readers to “fish in consciousness” for desires, explaining that to catch what is beyond present capacity, one must “launch out into deeper water” by taking attention away from current problems and limitations.Describing (at ~53:16) the process of expanding consciousness by declaring “I am” without conditions, Goddard explains that this practice causes one to feel an expansion “as though you were actually growing.” He reassures readers not to fear this experience, as former limitations will die as one moves away from them: in this expanded consciousness, one finds oneself to be “a power never dreamt of before.” Because “I am” is “the resurrection and the life,” Goddard locates the power to make one’s appear in your world in personal identification with their fulfillment: when feelings of desired states (like wealth, freedom, strength) become fixed within, one’s “formless being will take upon itself the forms of the things felt,” and Goddard describes this as becoming “crucified upon the feelings” of these qualities and “buried in the stillness of these convictions.” He promises that “as a thief in the night,” these qualities will be resurrected in one’s world as living reality. Goddard reinterprets (at ~55:45) the story of Daniel in the lion’s den as a manifestation principle, explaining that Daniel turned his back on the lions (problems) and looked toward the light (desired state). He instructs readers that when in the “den” of poverty or sickness, they should remove attention from problems and dwell instead upon what they seek, promising that by not looking back in consciousness to problems, but continuing in faith, “prison walls” will open and desires will be realized. Illustrating this promised result, Goddard recounts (at ~57:08) the biblical story of the widow with three drops of oil who, following the prophet’s instructions, poured from these drops into many vessels. He interprets the reader as this widow—in a “barren state” without a husband to make them fruitful. He explains that awareness is now the “Lord or prophet” that has become your husband, instructing readers to follow the widow’s example by recognizing something (three drops of oil) rather than nothingness, going within and “closing the door” to sensory evidence of emptiness, and feeling the joy of having received what is desired.In his conclusion, Goddard declares (at ~59:06) that “recognition is the power that conjures in the world.” He explains that everything one has ever recognized, they have embodied, and what one recognizes as true today becomes their experience. He encourages readers to be like the widow and recognize joy, no matter how small the beginning, promising generous rewards. As the biblical declaration “I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage” (Exodus 20:2) reveals, acknowledging awareness itself as “the Lord thy God” allows one to “decree the unseen to appear” and thereby fulfill our every desire.We need not review Goddard’s published works any further today: as you may have noticed, he tends to cycle his themes. But in the interest of making this “journal” more complete, let’s turn to a lecture on the Book of Job—a text containing themes with which this year has made me deeply acquainted—that Goddard gave in approximately the 1960s.Goddard opens by insisting that the Book of Job is everyone’s story, a three-act drama—prologue, dialogue, epilogue—in which a “cruel plot” is carried out against a man who has done nothing wrong. But in his reading, it isn’t Satan but God who authors Job’s suffering: he points to Job 42:11, where Job’s family comforts him for “all the evil that the Lord had brought upon him,” and argues (‎at ~1:53) that the brief appearance of Satan in the first two chapters is a literary device inserted later to “soften the blow” against God. On the whole, he frames the Book of Job as an exploration of suffering without any notion of karma, reincarnation, or retributive justice, instead portraying God as subjecting Job—and, by extension, all of us—to “furnaces of affliction” for the sake of purification, like gold in fire.Of course, the narrative strips Job of everything: messengers arrive to report his livestock gone, servants killed, and finally his children crushed in a collapsing house. Job’s response—“Naked came I out of my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return […] the Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (Job 1:21)—is held up as an almost impossible standard of faith. Then comes the last blow: Job is smitten with boils from head to foot, shunned by everyone, yet still not sinning with his lips. From the second chapter onward, he becomes “the most impatient being in the world,” rehearsing his good works and clinging to a “law of retribution”: if he has been righteous, he deserves acquittal. Godard argues that this mindset is precisely what the book dismantles: echoing Jesus’ words about the man born blind—“Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him” (John 9:3)—he insists that suffering is not payback for sin. “Were it not for infinite mercy,” he says (at ~12:13), “no one could be saved—because you can’t earn it.”What struck me most is how he ties Job’s arc to our own shift from inherited religion to direct encounter. Job begins with second-hand faith—“I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear”—and ends with “but now mine eye seeth thee” (Job 42:5), which Goddard reads as the move from received doctrine to lived experience. He notes (‎at ~17:07) that the very name “Job” can be rendered “Where is my father?” or “Where is the altar of my life?”, capturing the way suffering drives us to ask where God actually is in all of this. He insists that the “way to the Father” which Christ identified in John 14:6 is a pattern of mystical experiences known only to the Son, through which God, having “sheathed Himself in humanity,” brings out of us what He conceived from the beginning—His own image. In this framework, Goddard tells us (at ~32:37), repentance isn’t groveling, but “a radical change of attitude toward life.” As examples of repentance, he offers wartime and workplace stories of a man whose antisemitism and racism were shattered when his life was twice saved—first by a Jewish soldier in New Guinea, then by a Black coworker in a factory fire. For him, these are not random coincidences but orchestrated “positions” in which God kills our delusions and prejudices.Taken all together, Goddard presents a God who is both terrifying and merciful, conceiving the “most cruel experiment in the world” but nonetheless promising salvation to the test subjects. Job’s restoration, he notes, comes not from arguing his righteousness but from a change of heart when, in Job 42:10, he prays for his friends—men who had defended a God of retribution—and his own captivity is lifted. Goddard contrasts (at ~53:07) the persistent human craving for payback with Jesus’ plea, “Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do” on the cross (Luke 23:34). The fire that burns us, he says, is the same fire that refines gold: if gold could feel, it would scream in the furnace, but only that heat can separate it from its dross so it can be shaped into something beautiful. In that light, Job’s own words—“shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?” (Job 2:10)—stop sounding masochistic and start reading like a hard-won trust.The takeaway I’m left with is simple and bracing: if Job is my biography, suffering is not a moral invoice, and my task is not to ask “Why me?” but to change my attitude—to use imagination and faith to extricate myself from the pit I’ve found myself in, and trust that, as Goddard puts it (at ~41:23–41:44), Be patient. Our playwright may show in some fifth act what this wild drama means. And He will. And then you will see everyone will come out and everyone will be perfect, and all will be God, nothing but God. For it takes this most horrible play as described in Job to produce it.But… what do we do in the interval? (“Compare Goddard’s ‘awareness of being’ to the capital-B Being of Martin Heidegger?” Nope—not this time, anyway!)If Liberation Vitalism was my attempt to say life is worth fighting for, then Goddard and Job together feel like an answer for what we do when life starts fighting back. Meanwhile, the Shroud, with its incredible image lending credence to the biblical resurrection; Goddard’s insistence that “I am” is not a slogan but an engine of creation; Job’s refusal to curse God even when everything collapses—in some way, these all circle the same point: that consciousness, suffering, and grace are somehow entangled in a way no manifesto can quite resolve.I don’t pretend to have unknotted that tangle: I’m still trying to learn how to “fish in consciousness” while the lions in the den pace and snarl. But if the Book of Job really is my biography, then at least I know this isn’t the epilogue, just somewhere in the middle acts—one more furnace in which lingering impurities are burning off.In the meantime, I’ll keep trying to match my politics to my life, to trust my life to reflect my budding faith, and (I suppose) to fasten my faith to the declarative “I am.” If you’ve been in your own pit this year, I hope some part of this helped you feel a little less alone, and reminded you that the fifth act hasn’t run yet. So, we might as well hope for our own resurrections—after all, we can see from the Shroud that stranger things have happened.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

A little more than two weeks ago, the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize to María Corina Machado—Venezuela’s leading opposition figure and mentor to the opposition candidate Edmundo González defeated in the 2024 election—as a stalwart champion of democratic principles against authoritarianism. Of course, that characterization flies in the face of her participation in a 2002 coup attempt that declared the Venezuelan constitution null and void, and she receives the Peace Prize despite her past calls for foreign military intervention against President Nicolás Maduro, whom (as Radio Free Pizza covered last year) the country’s own National Electoral Council (CNE) and international observers (including the U.S.’s National Lawyers Guild [NLG]) named the legitimate winner of the country’s 2024 presidential election, citing transparent electoral procedures with strong audit mechanisms, biometric verification, and paper backups.From an ideological standpoint, Radio Free Pizza celebrated Maduro’s win as a victory against imperialism and a model for our own aspirational vision of “Libertarian Communism” in the U.S.—a system combining worker ownership, national resource control, and local democratic governance inspired by Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution. Meanwhile, supporters argued that Maduro’s economic recovery program, diversification efforts, and resistance to sanctions had restored growth (now at 17 straight quarters, and 9% in Q3 2025) and sharply reduced inflation. They saw his victory as proof of the resilience of Bolivarian socialism, Venezuela’s integration into the multipolar BRICS+ bloc, and the failure of U.S. efforts to topple the government.Of course, Washington can’t have any of that. Accordingly, the second Trump Administration has followed in the steps of the first, continuing to posture against Venezuela since February, when it designated the Venezuelan prison gang and international crime syndicate Tren de Aragua as a terrorist organization. That gave the administration its pretext for increasing U.S. naval deployments in the Caribbean Sea in August—and in the same month announcing an increased bounty of up to $50 million for information leading to the arrest of President Maduro—before conducting its first “kinetic strike” against an alleged Venezuelan drug-trafficking vessel in September, extrajudicially killing eleven. Now, as of last Friday, the U.S. has conducted ten such strikes in the past two months, raising the known-death toll to forty-three.But this American belligerence hasn’t proceeded unopposed. At the start of this month, a bipartisan Senate resolution to halt President Donald Trump’s military strikes on alleged Venezuelan drug traffickers narrowly failed, 51–48. The measure, led by Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA) and supported by Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), sought to reassert Congress’s war powers, arguing that the strikes—conducted without congressional authorization—were unconstitutional. Democrats and Republicans alike accused the Trump Administration of bypassing established maritime interdiction protocols, with lawmakers from both parties saying it has provided no proof of the victims’ identities or ties to narcotics trafficking. Meanwhile, though one can easily forgive observers for interpreting the Nobel Committee’s award to Machado as support for U.S. aggression—given her aforementioned calls for military intervention—this imperial adventurism naturally has its international critics. Earlier this month, Colombian President Gustavo Petro contradicted Trump Administration claims that U.S. military struck boats trafficking drugs for Tren de Aragua, saying that at least one vessel hit had been carrying Colombian civilians. Then, the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights last week published a press release describing how its experts condemned the U.S.’s covert actions and military threats against Venezuela, saying they had been carried out with no legal justification and calling them violations of Venezuela’s sovereignty, international law, and the UN Charter. Rejecting claims of self-defense against groups like Tren de Aragua, noting that these organizations are not attacking the U.S., the office urged Washington to end unlawful operations, respect international law, and pursue dialogue and peaceful solutions instead of a regime change that could destabilize the region.Still, despite domestic and international condemnation, U.S. aggression has only increased. Just three days after the UNOHCHR press release, President Trump announced that U.S. forces are “coming in by land” in Venezuela, escalating his anti-narcotics campaign into what critics view as a potential act of war. At a White House press conference, President Trump called Latin American drug cartels “the ISIS of the Western Hemisphere,” saying he would not seek a declaration of war but would “kill people that are bringing drugs into our country.”Though he won’t seek a declaration of war, the U.S. seems prepared to wage one, having now deployed nearly 10,000 troops, 10 warships, a nuclear submarine, and the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier to the Caribbean—its largest force presence there in decades. President Trump also claimed to have authorized covert CIA operations in Venezuela and—probably just out of spite for undermining his claims on the international stage—he added the aforementioned President Petro to the U.S. sanctions (OFAC) list after calling him a “drug leader.” But the U.S. intelligence community would most likely contradict President Trump, since it already contradicted his earlier claims that President Maduro directs Tren de Aragua. Meanwhile, the aforementioned Sen. Rand Paul challenged President Trump’s claims about the threat that the criminal syndicate poses to the American public, noting that fentanyl isn’t produced in Venezuela and that the attacked boats lacked the range to reach U.S. shores, and therefore calling the Administration’s rationale logistically implausible.Given Washington’s deepening descent into unilateral militarism against a sovereign Venezuela, the Nobel Committee’s recognition of the coup-plotting Machado (whom Hugo Chávez once mocked as “a little bourgeoise”) hints at the imperial playbook in the South American theater: invade the country under the pretext of a “war on narco-terrorism” and install as its president a free-market conservative who welcomes the U.S. intervention and who will then dutifully privatize the country. (Coincidentally—or not—courts will hear final arguments on Tuesday about conflicts of interest in the auction of Citgo Petroleum’s parent company, PDV Holding, a state-owned enterprise belonging to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. So maybe a U.S. invasion is on hold until the court renders its ruling.) That, of course, follows the tried-and-true choreography of Western imperialist interventions throughout South America and the rest of the world. As Radio Free Pizza has long argued, the struggle unfolding in Venezuela is not merely about one government or one ideology, but about the right of nations to chart their own course free from coercion. Whether the world drifts toward yet another manufactured war or moves instead toward genuine multipolar cooperation will depend on how firmly the peoples of the Americas—and especially those within the U.S.—insist on dialogue over domination, law over violence, and self-determination over empire. But if in the coming months or years the world sees a President Machado of Venezuela, it won’t be because she won an election.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Since Bitcoin’s launch in 2009, cryptocurrency has slowly reshaped the contours of money and finance—blurring the lines between technology and currency, decentralization and control, speculation and strategy.That could be by design: longtime Radio Free Pizza gourmets may recall our Bitcoin Pizza Day bulletin in May of last year, in which we explored the recurring theory that Bitcoin may have been created by the American deep state through the cryptography research of the National Security Agency (NSA), linking BTC to: a 1996 NSA paper on “digital gold”; the SHA-256 algorithm that originated with the NSA; and speculation around Satoshi Nakamoto’s true identity residing with the cypherpunks who worked with U.S. intelligence. Then, in a January spectacle, we spoke with Golden Monarch of Golden Monarch Domain about the political implications of cryptocurrency. Once an early crypto investor, Golden Monarch now critiques the industry as a scheme co-opted by elites, financial institutions, and intelligence agencies. He traces Bitcoin’s shift from a revolutionary idea to a tool for surveillance and control, noting how figures like RFK Jr., Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Saylor, and Donald Trump helped mainstream it alongside Wall Street players such as BlackRock and Coinbase, and warns of a coordinated push toward Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and a cashless society. Since then, dozens of public companies—including Trump Media & Technology Group—have begun adopting digital asset treasury strategies, following MicroStrategy’s example of using corporate reserves and leverage to buy Bitcoin. The trend, fueled by soaring crypto prices and friendlier U.S. policy under President Trump, has attracted firms from energy to consumer goods, though analysts warn the volatility could spark liquidity risks if prices fall.More recently, the mainstreaming of cryptocurrency on Wall Street resulted in notable fireworks this week as three very different companies—Eightco Holdings, CaliberCos Inc., and QMMM Holdings—all delivered eye-popping stock moves. Each story has its own twist, but they all share one theme: crypto-fueled speculation colliding with shaky fundamentals.The first jaw-dropping move came from Eightco Holdings (then trading as OCTO) on Tuesday after the company announced a $250 million private placement alongside a $20 million strategic investment from BitMine Immersion Technologies to launch the world’s first Worldcoin (WLD) treasury strategy. The proceeds will fund the adoption of Worldcoin as Eightco’s primary treasury reserve asset, with cash and Ethereum as secondary reserves. The transaction, led by MOZAYYX with participation from investors including World Foundation, Discovery Capital, Pantera, Kraken, and others, also brings Dan Ives—noted Wall Street analyst and AI expert—in as Chairman of the Board. According to the press release, BitMine’s investment is part of its “Moonshot” strategy to support Ethereum-aligned innovations, with leadership citing the World Foundation’s zero-knowledge Proof of Human (PoH) technology as essential for trust in the AI era. Co-founded by Sam Altman of OpenAI infamy, Worldcoin has already created nearly 16 million PoH accounts across 45 countries using its iris-scanning Orb hardware. Though the announcement came at 6:48 a.m. EST, shares of OCTO (now ORBS) had been rising markedly for over an hour in premarket trading, surging from $1.81 at 4 a.m. to reach a high of $83.12 in the first hour of the regular session for a 4,487.29% increase. While the combination of a crypto pivot and fresh leadership was enough to spark a frenzy, but beneath the surface, the story looks far less shiny: Eightco has no analyst coverage, and TipRanks’ AI engine rates the stock as only Neutral, with a one-year target of $1.50—a fraction of where it traded post-spike. The AI cites negative cash flow, unattractive valuation metrics, and ongoing capital-raising needs. Accordingly, TipRanks writer Ben Yoffe judged it the definition of a hype-driven rocket, with fundamentals suggesting caution for anyone thinking beyond the next headline. Of course, ORBS still closed on Friday at $15.24 compared to the previous week’s close of $1.47. Not too shabby, for a company that on 20 August reported net losses of $2.15 per diluted share for the second quarter of 2025.Next, CaliberCos Inc. stock (CWD) exploded this past Wednesday after the real estate and digital asset management firm unveiled it had taken the first steps in its Digital Asset Treasury (DAT) Strategy, confirming it had completed an initial purchase of Chainlink (LINK) tokens. The initiative calls for consistent, incremental LINK acquisitions funded by cash reserves, an existing credit line, and equity issuance, with the goal of building a material position that generates both long-term appreciation and staking yield. CEO Chris Loeffler emphasized a disciplined, institutional approach designed to ensure proper custody, tax, accounting, and governance infrastructure. Shares of CWD surged immediately with the announcement, rising from $2.20 at 7:30 a.m. EST to reach a high of $56.06 in the next hour-and-a-half—a 2,452.73% increase—before selling off for the rest of the day to close regular trading hours at $9.11, up 130% on the day. Besides these gains, Caliber’s announcement also allows it to claim bragging rights as the first Nasdaq-listed company to center its treasury policy on Chainlink. Investing.com reports that Loeffler called it a “disciplined, institutional approach” to building a LINK position, with funding coming from a mix of cash reserves, an existing credit line, and equity issuance. Over time, Caliber intends to expand its holdings, generate yield through staking, and give shareholders direct exposure to the Chainlink ecosystem. That positioning at the intersection of real assets and digital assets sparked huge investor enthusiasm, but it also raises questions about long-term execution and the risks of mixing corporate balance sheets with volatile crypto assets.CWD’s surge certainly reflects the growing investor appetite for corporate crypto plays. However—like the aforementioned Yoffe wrote about ORBS—Investing.com cautions its readers that fundamentals and follow-through will matter more than the initial headline. But after closing the previous week at $2.07 and finishing on Friday at $7.79, the company has still had similar success despite having also reported in August second quarter losses amounting, in its case, to $3.87 per diluted share.But the wildest of the past week’s “crypto pivot” trades was QMMM Holdings, a Hong Kong-based digital media advertising and virtual avatar technology company, that on the same day announced its strategic expansion into the cryptocurrency sector with plans to integrate artificial intelligence and blockchain to build a decentralized data marketplace and crypto-autonomous ecosystem, enabling AI-driven analytics to support traders and power automated agents for tasks such as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) treasury management, metaverse experiences, and smart contract security. As part of this initiative, QMMM will establish a diversified cryptocurrency treasury targeting Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Solana, with an initial goal of $100 million. CEO Bun Kwai said the move underscores QMMM’s commitment to innovation, regulatory compliance, and ecosystem partnerships as it seeks to bridge the digital economy with real-world applications. That day, QMMM’s shares opened regular trading hours at $14.95 and rose through as many as ten trading halts to a high of $303.00 in the last hour of trading, rocketing as much as 3,816% before sliding back in after-hours and over the rest of the week. Of course, it was an amazing run—but such gains look especially anomalous knowing that, as Anders Bylund reported for The Motley Fool, QMMM raised only $8 million in June by nearly quadrupling its share count, and before this week, it was fighting off delisting notices with shares as low as $0.54. That makes the funding ambitions look shaky at best, and the sudden market cap leap to nearly $5 billion looks hard to justify. Indeed, the setup feels eerily similar to the 2016 wave of companies pivoting to “blockchain” just to juice stock prices. Many of those stories ended in collapse, and skeptics argue QMMM could meet the same fate without a real business plan.QMMM’s pop may go down as one of the year’s biggest, but in Bylund’s estimation, it also screams “buyer beware.” Unless management shows credible execution, the long-term outlook is highly questionable—and we have little guidance from the company, from which the most recent earnings available extend only to 31 March 2025, having been made available in August, with estimated losses of $0.17 per diluted share for twelve trailing months. Nonetheless, after closing the previous week at $7.60, QMMM ended Friday’s regular session at $73.28, showing again that speculators don’t care too much about fundamentals. But these strategic decisions from (formerly?) small-cap companies might reflect a great deal of care about the fundamentals of the global monetary system, which Taylor Kenney outlined for ITM Trading this past week.Here, Kenney presents claims that Anton Kobyakov, a senior advisor to Russian President Vladimir Putin, has exposed a U.S. scheme to manage its $37 trillion debt burden, having stated at the Eastern Economic Forum that the U.S. plans to move its debt into cryptocurrency, devalue it, and then reset the system with gold revaluation. Kenney warns this would impact not just cryptocurrency users but the entire dollar system, affecting savings, retirement funds, and paychecks.Kenney discusses (at ~1:14) how President Trump signed the Genius Act, creating regulatory frameworks for stablecoins: cryptocurrencies pegged to real-world assets like the dollar. While publicly presented as innovation to keep the U.S. competitive, Kenney suggests this legislation could be the foundation for using stablecoins as a “lifeline” for U.S. debt, while also referencing concerns (similar to those that Golden Monarch expressed about CBDCs) that stablecoins could be a “Trojan horse” for financial control over Americans, potentially limiting freedom and privacy.Since U.S. debt exceeds $37 trillion, Kenney notes (at ~2:12) the country faces a “buyer’s crisis” with foreign central banks dumping treasuries and moving to gold, indicating declining trust in the dollar. This creates higher yields and interest rates, making it harder for the U.S. to manage its debt. Kenney suggests stablecoins backed by U.S. treasuries could create artificial demand for U.S. debt, providing a needed lifeline for the system.Elaborating on Kobyakov’s claim, Kenney observes (at ~4:03) that once enough U.S. debt is tokenized into stablecoins, they could be depegged or devalued: for example, instead of maintaining a 1:1 ratio with USD, they might be revalued at 1:0.50, causing holders to lose 50% of their wealth while significantly reducing the U.S. debt burden without officially declaring default. This devaluation would affect all dollar-denominated assets, including savings, retirement funds, and paychecks—echoing some of the historical U.S. financial maneuvers that Kenney details (at ~4:59), including gold confiscation in the 1930s—when President Roosevelt revalued gold from $20.67 to $35 per ounce, effectively reducing the dollar’s purchasing power by 41%—and a U.S. “default” in the 1970s when President Nixon ended the dollar's convertibility to gold, after which Americans lost half their purchasing power to inflation over the following decade. Kenney suggests these events demonstrate how gold provides true wealth protection during currency devaluations.Kenney goes on to discuss (at ~6:53) Kobyakov's claim that the U.S. is trying to “rewrite the rules with gold,” referencing U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent’s discussions about gold revaluation and a Federal Reserve research note from last month on how nations have used gold revaluations to help pay off debt. The presenter suggests a possible two-pronged approach: first, offloading debt into stablecoins before devaluing them, and, second, implementing an official gold revaluation to restore trust in the American system, potentially driving gold prices to “tens of thousands of dollars.” Accordingly, Kenny predicts (at ~8:02) that public awareness of this alleged scheme could accelerate central banks’ historic pace of gold buying as nations position themselves for a financial reset. She predicts countries might rapidly offload U.S. treasuries while BRICS+ nations could make strategic moves to position themselves at the center of a new financial system, and quotes Kobyakov saying “the world is moving away from fiat money and dividing into zones”—or, perhaps we might say, regional blocs.Certainly, any efforts to offload U.S. debt into stablecoins (and there devalue it) would make Bitcoin’s hypothesized origins with the NSA into a masterstroke of geopolitical maneuvering that would allow the U.S. to maintain its preeminence in the global financial system. In that case, the three companies profiled above would be getting ahead of the game, and investors would be wisely rewarding them for it. One wishes, of course, that the U.S. would prioritize real needs like reparations and healthcare over digital currency hype, as Golden Monarch advocated in January, but it seems worldwide financial dominance is the deep state’s greater priority, as it has been since long before the NSA or anyone else introduced cryptocurrency to the public.But regardless of any speculations about Bitcoin’s origins, the week’s wild stock surges and the warnings about a looming U.S. debt reset all point toward the same truth: cryptocurrency is no longer a sideshow, but a central theater in the struggle over the future of money. Whether deployed as corporate hype, institutional hedge, or geopolitical lever, digital assets are now woven into the fabric of global finance, where questions of trust, power, and survival collide. The challenge, then—for investors, citizens, and states alike—is to discern whether crypto represents a path to liberation, or merely a tool of control in disguise.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Dear Radio Free Pizza gourmets,This summer, yours truly took a road trip from Minneapolis to Chicago for the Great Unity Convention of the Center for Political Innovation (CPI) on 12 July 2025 to show my support for the organization, its opposition to globalism and imperialism, and its advocacy for domestic and international peace. I didn’t speak onstage, but I waved an American flag, confident that it matched my shirt.As a sociopolitical education project and community dedicated to advancing an optimistic, pro-growth, anti-imperialist vision, CPI emphasizes what people can achieve collectively, advocating for development, collaboration, and the use of resources for the common good. Together—because it’s definitely something I’d sign off on—we propose a Four-Point Plan to Rescue America: * Mass mobilization to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure and educational institutions, employing millions at union wages and revamping universities while coordinating national resources through a detailed five-year plan. * Public ownership of natural resources, arguing that profits from oil, gas, coal, and timber should serve the people rather than enrich corporations and Wall Street monopolists. * Public control of banking, replacing profit-driven lending with a network of national, state, and local banks to direct credit toward long-term growth, while also calling for a debt jubilee to end economic stagnation. * Adopting an Economic Bill of Rights, echoing FDR’s vision of guaranteeing jobs, housing, education, and healthcare for all. CPI concludes that America’s economic crisis stems from a system that enriches monopolies and bankers at the expense of communities, fosters poverty amidst abundance, and risks global war. Rejecting the ruling elite’s vision of “de-growth,” CPI calls for a government of action that empowers working families, unleashes human creativity, and ensures prosperity and abundance for everyone, as Caleb Maupin—the ideological leader of CPI, whom longtime readers will surely recall—made clear in his opening speech.Maupin began with philosophical references (at ~4:03–8:22) from Confucianism, Karl Marx, and biblical texts to illustrate humanity’s capacity to build a better world free from suffering and oppression. He quoted from the Book of Rites about Confucius’ vision of a world “shared by all alike,” where the elderly, able-bodied, young, widows, orphans, and sick are all properly cared for. He connected this to Marx’s vision of a communist society where labor becomes “life’s prime want” and society operates on the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Maupin noted that Marx’s phrase was a biblical allusion to the Book of Acts. He emphasized that throughout human history, there has been an understanding that humanity has the capacity to build a better world free from suffering and oppression.Of course, that contrasts with the reality we face today, in which Maupin describes (at ~8:58–10:34) that human progress has been held back by “a small group of bankers and billionaires in Wall Street and in London” who maintain their power by “keeping the world poor and sowing chaos and instability.” He references various terms for this system, including “the English system” (used by Henry Charles Carey, advisor to Abraham Lincoln), “imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism” (Vladimir Lenin’s term), and contemporary Russian and Chinese discussions of “geopolitics and civilizations of the land and empires of the sea.” Maupin identifies this system as “the main barrier to human progress” preventing humanity from building a better world.For that reason, Maupin tells us (at ~10:35), CPI has dedicated itself “to trying to build a movement here in the United States to oppose globalism-imperialism. We need a government of action to fight for working families,” arguing (at ~10:51) that the only viable future for the U.S. requires it join the “new economy” rising around the world through initiatives like BRICS, the Belt and Road Initiative, and the Eurasian Economic Union. That, of course, conflicts the country’s current trajectory of stoking international conflicts while its domestic infrastructure crumbles, despite widespread understanding across domestic political divides that American leadership isn’t working in the interests of ordinary people.Maupin goes on (at ~13:12–26:51) to detail the many activities CPI has undertaken over the past year, including: publishing a book about Kamala Harris that was briefly banned by Amazon; distributing literature at the Democratic National Convention; launching Operation PeaceMAGA to emphasize antiwar themes during Trump’s campaign; sponsoring the “Rage Against the War Machine 2” protest; supporting the Uhuru movement in Florida during their legal battles; and demonstrating in solidarity with Palestinians, with the Houthis of Yemen, and with Burkina Faso’s leader Ibrahim Traore, whom he praises as a prime example of pro-growth leadership—of the innovationism for which CPI exists to advocate. Additionally, he stresses (at ~27:11–31:31) the importance of rejecting political violence, arguing that “if there’s one thing that will prevent a real mass movement, bringing the country together, it'll be violence and killing.” He references historical examples from Italy in the 1970s-80s and from Jamaica in the 1980s where political violence led to demoralization and prevented positive change, and suggests that the “celebration and glorification of political violence we’re seeing all across social media is not accidental” but rather “an operation to demoralize, to make the population weary.” For that reason, Maupin criticizes the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), which planned a demonstration during Trump’s second inauguration that could have facilitated “another bloodbath in Washington, DC” to match that from his first inauguration in 2017. But CPI put out a press release and Maupin appeared on George Galloway’s Mother of All Talk Shows calling on the PSL to cancel the demonstration, and suggesting that their efforts contributed to the fact that there was no bloodbath during the inauguration.Naturally, such political violence would only work against any efforts to build a mass movement of people working together in communities, building solidarity and taking real action. In the interest of such, Maupin emphasizes (at ~31:27–34:08) that “podcasts don’t cut it” and stresses the importance of people who “rely on each other and can work together, can learn together, can be patient with each other and can get things done,” wisely observing that “sometimes the people who agree with you can be completely useless” while “sometimes people you might not agree with, but you have some common ground around, they can be the most helpful and important people.” Accordingly, he tells us, CPI plans to establish “a building, an organizing center here in the Chicago area” to organize in communities and build “the anti-imperialist network that is definitely needed to get the United States into the new economy” before yielding the stage for an awards ceremony to honor Kabula Mutombo of the Uhuru Movement for defending civil liberties in U.S. courts, Libertarian Party Chair Angela McArdle for her leadership in antiwar protests, Rev. Miilhan Stephens of the Boston Family Church for his advocacy of Korean reunification.Mutombo received the award in honor of the African People’s Socialist Party and the Uhuru Movement it leads for its proud resistance to FBI raids and to the political prosecution of the Uhuru 3 (Omali Yeshitela, Penny Hess, and Jesse Nevel) under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Introducing him, CPI member John McCarthy—himself a recipient of a “Voice of Resistance Award” or his consistent advocacy for the Uhuru 3 case since the FBI raids in July 2022—provides (at ~6:07–15:53) extensive details about the case against the Uhuru 3, explaining that Chairman Omali Yeshitela was charged as a Russian agent for giving speeches about Black liberation and reparations, and for having connections with Russian political organizations. McCarthy highlights how the jury inconsistently acquitted the defendants of being Russian agents but found them guilty of conspiracy charges, and emphasizes that the defendants were sentenced to community service, essentially what they were already doing in their communities—such as with their response to a current crisis in St. Louis, where tornado damage was being used as pretext to displace Black residents from North St. Louis by tagging houses and cutting power to force residents out in the interest of expanding the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency facility. The Uhuru Movement organized community efforts to repair homes and resist the residents’ displacement.Taking the stage (at ~16:25–24:04) to accept the award, Kabula Mutombo describes the FBI raids that occurred three years prior, when SWAT teams and armored vehicles broke into their homes at 5:47 AM, pointing rifles at children and seizing laptops and archives. He explains they were targeted for saying “the U.S. is an imperialist power, that Africa deserves reparations, that African people charge the U.S. with genocide” and details the lack of evidence in the government’s case, noting that their own FBI agent admitted there was “zero evidence” that anyone in the Uhuru Movement took any orders from Russia. Mutombo also describes the movement’s response to the charges, including door-to-door organizing, flyer distribution, and 1,600 letters written to the court in support of the Uhuru 3. He emphasizes that the jury found them not guilty on the main charge before connecting their struggle to other global issues, telling us (at ~22:48) that, The same FBI targeting us raids Palestinian organizers. The same State Department funding exploitation of Congo […] and the rest of the colonized peoples of the world. The same system that jails Julian Assange tries to silence us all. But when we fight, we win. When we fight, Haiti rises; when we organize, Congo resists; when we win, the empire trembles.Accordingly, the Uhuru Movement’s legal victory was important not just for the defendants, but for protecting free speech rights for all Americans who oppose war and advocate international cooperation—among whom stands Angela McArdle, the Libertarian Party Chair who received the next award.Honored for her efforts organizing the Rage Against the War Machine rally in early 2023, which brought together people from across the political spectrum to oppose U.S. involvement in the Ukraine war, McArdle first expresses (at ~5:25–9:51) her appreciation for CPI’s efforts to bridge political divides, and observes that anti-war sentiment among the American populace seems to be reaching new heights. McArdle goes on to describe (at 10:57–14:43) her own experience organizing the anti-war rally while seven months pregnant, eventually hosting it with her two-and-a-half-month-old baby, calling the rally an “issue coalition project” that united people from different political backgrounds, particularly libertarians and communists, before humorously noting that working with communists was “so much easier” than working with some members of her own party. Still, she details challenges faced while planning the rally, including a controversy surrounding one of the invited speakers that nearly derailed the entire event. But despite social media conflicts and threats of counter-protests, they managed to overcome these obstacles and host what she describes as a “wildly successful event” that “changed public perception of the war in Ukraine.”She also shares (at ~14:50–25:36) lessons learned from working with the political left, particularly praising their discipline, long-term planning, and ability to maintain focus on goals. McArdle advises all those committed to political organizing that they maintain cheerfulness in activism work despite dealing with serious issues like war, noting that the pleasant working environment with passionate volunteers gave her energy to continue with difficult work. (Only with such dedication, of course, can she celebrate victories like President Trump fulfilling the promise he made to her to pardon Ross Ulbricht.) Using Star Wars as a metaphor, McArdle also discusses the importance of intergenerational knowledge transfer and leadership succession. She criticizes the boomer generation, specifically mentioning Nancy Pelosi, for hoarding power rather than mentoring younger leaders, and emphasizes that older anti-war activists need to pass their knowledge to younger generations to maintain a strong movement. Because “peace begins at home,” she reminds us that unity not just across generations but between left and right political factions is crucial—referencing again how the Rage Against the War Machine event fostered unexpected connections between people with different political views—and promises to use her relationship with the Department of Justice to advocate that it drop its opposition to the Uhuru 3’s appeal during her next visit to Washington, DC.The next award went to Rev. Miilhan Stephens, who humbly accepts it (at ~6:06–16:29) on behalf of the Family Federation and acknowledges his colleagues from the Universal Peace Federation before expressing appreciation for CPI’s fearlessness in stepping outside comfort zones and its approach to peace-building, particularly in “nudging” the boulder of destructive change just enough to shift its course away from our families, loved ones, and as much of humanity as one can preserve, rather than trying fruitlessly to stop it altogether. He defines peace as “the constant pursuit of harmonizing our differences,” rather than simply the absence of conflict, and quotes 1 Corinthians 12:25–26 about unity in shared suffering and rejoicing. Stephens goes on to explain that he’s participating despite his busy travel schedule because he feels called to create a peaceful world for children. He quotes Malachi 4:5–6 about turning the hearts of parents to children and vice versa to avoid destruction, thereby emphasizing the urgency of peace work in the age of artificial intelligence—arguing that we need to teach empathy and goodness rather than just intelligence—before identifying apathy, ignorance, and lethargy as key obstacles to peace.Regarding specific peace initiatives, Stephens describes (at ~16:36–25:14) a trio of proposals from the Rev. Dr. Sun Myung Moon. First: an ambitious tunnel spanning the Bering Strait to physically link Alaska and Russia, a project dating back to proposals from the late 19th century and modernized by advocates like Moon as part of a global peace highway. Second: the creation of a transboundary peace-and-nature park in Korea’s Demilitarized Zone—an ecologically rich region long untouched by human development—to both preserve its biodiversity and memorializing those fallen on both sides in the Korean War. Third: promoting cross-cultural marriages between people from historically adversarial nations as a grassroots means of bridging divides and fostering peace, underscoring how human-level connections are essential to healing geopolitical rifts. Clearly this last proposal carries particular meaning for Stephens, who shares his personal connection to cross-cultural marriage, being the child of an American father and Japanese mother whose marriage initially faced rejection from his Japanese grandparents due to post-WWII tensions before the birth of his sister changed his grandparents’ hearts. Stephens concludes (at ~25:17) his speech—and the convention’s morning session—by sharing stories about Reverend Moon and Mother Moon’s early spiritual experiences. He recounts how Father Moon, after asking God about suffering, felt called to dedicate his life to pursuing world peace despite persecution and imprisonment, while Mother Moon, traumatized as a child during the Korean War, resolved at age seven to devote her life to creating peace—commitments they have both upheld ever since. Accordingly, Stephens challenges the audience to consider their own role in creating peace, telling the audience, “Let’s innovate together.”Iranian-American activist Seyed Hosseini launched the convention’s afternoon session with a powerful and wide-ranging speech linking Iran’s history, Shia tradition, and global struggles into a call for justice and resistance. Hosseini begins (at ~5:19–9:52) by thanking the audience for being present “not just physically in this room, but emotionally, intellectually and spiritually,” framing the discussion as being about truth, dignity, and “the cost of standing alone when the world demands your silence.” Referencing the convention’s branding (“Working Families First, Defeat the Deep State for a New World of Peace and Innovation”), Hosseini asks what kind of peace is being discussed and who gets to innovate. He argues that peace means different things to different people: for some it’s bombs stopping, for others it’s a ceasefire to bury their children, and for those in power, it often means “total silence, total obedience and total submission […] but […] peace is not the absence of war. Peace is the presence of justice.” Of course, from the simple mention of a ceasefire, you know that Hosseini’s talking about Palestine. But he’s also talking about Iran, challenging the portrayal of Iran in Western media as a villain, noting that Iran hasn’t started a single war since 1979 despite being “surrounded by bases, bombed, sanctioned, threatened, lied to” for forty-five years. He recounts how in the 1980s, Saddam Hussein invaded Iran with backing from the U.S., European countries, and Arab monarchies, using chemical weapons on Iranian civilians. He emphasizes that Iran survived not because of military might or nuclear weapons, but because of its belief in resistance. He states that what global empires fear most is “a nation that refuses to kneel” and “people who say we will stand alone. We will pay the price, but we will not sell our soul.”In particular, Hosseini addresses (at ~9:51–12:37) the recurring claims about Iran seeking nuclear weapons, noting that Israel has been claiming since 1992 that Iran is “a year or two away from having nuclear bomb,” with similar claims repeated in 1995, 2003, 2006, 2010, and 2012. He argues that if Iran truly wanted nuclear weapons, it would have them by now. He points out the double standard where Israel possesses nuclear weapons without signing the Non-Proliferation Treaty, allowing inspections, or facing sanctions, while continuing to bomb Syria, threaten Iran, invade Lebanon, and occupy Palestine “and yet somehow it is never the problem.” Ditto the U.S., which claims always that “we are the good guys, we want peace,” despite supporting coups in Latin America, assassinating of elected leaders, overthrowing foreign governments, bombing Cambodia, leaving Afghanistan in ruins, invading Iraq in 2003 “based on a lie,” and destroying Libya.Naturally, Hosseini argues (at ~14:11–18:40) that real peace doesn’t come from predator drones, sanctions that starve children, or selective outrage where “some lives are sacred and others are disposable.” He acknowledges that Iran isn’t perfect, but defends its support for Palestine, Yemen, and “the oppressed of the world” as stemming from its own experience of isolation. Hosseini links it also to the doctrine of resistance in Shia Islam as a political culture evolved through over a thousand years of oppression, describing how Shia communities historically were marginalized minorities within empires, facing imprisonment, execution, and silencing, yet built a tradition of resistance even when standing alone. He recounts the story of Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad, who in 680 CE refused to give allegiance to a “corrupt brutal empire” despite being vastly outnumbered. Hussein was killed along with his family, but became “immortal" as a symbol of resistance to tyranny. Hosseini connects Hussein to other revolutionary figures like Che Guevara, describing him as a symbol for anyone who “stands when others choose silence,” while resistance is “something humanity creates every time the powerful abuse the powerless.”Hosseini then broadens his discussion (at ~18:41–21:42) to resistance movements beyond Iran and Islam. He discusses Latin America, particularly Che Guevara, who abandoned privilege to fight against hunger and colonialism in South America. He lists U.S. interventions in Guatemala in 1954, in Chile in 1973, its occupation of Nicaragua from 1912 to 1933, in El Salvador in the 1980s, in Panama in 1989, and ongoing efforts to subvert Venezuela, asking “What is that if not deep state policy? What is that if not the crushing of resistance?” Accordingly, Hosseini draws parallels between Shia Muslim resistance and Latin American resistance movements, arguing that both were “not about winning battles” but “about not giving in,” and sees the spirit of resistance living on in Palestine, Cuba (which has withstood sixty years of sanctions), and Venezuela.Which of course would lead almost anyone to ask, did any of that profit the average American? Of course not: turning (at ~21:46–29:38) to domestic American issues, Hosseini discusses economic hardship in California, where even those earning $100,000 annually are considered low income. He contrasts American struggles with the billions in aid sent to Israel ($3.8 billion annually in direct military aid plus $14 billion added recently). He argues this money could provide healthcare for millions, universal pre-K education, or housing vouchers for homeless veterans. Instead, it goes to “an apartheid regime that denies Palestinians the most basic human rights” and an army that receives free healthcare while Americans choose “between groceries or insulin.” He criticizes the political system where questioning foreign aid leads to being labeled “anti-American” or “antisemitic.”Returning (at ~29:40–32:56) to Palestine, Hosseini rejects claims that the situation is “complicated.” He states plainly: “Colonialism is not complicated. Apartheid is not complicated,” describing neighborhoods leveled in Gaza, ambulances targeted, journalists shot, and basic services blocked. Hosseini asks the audience to imagine their response if someone “kicks you out of your home, burns your village, shoots your brother, imprisons your sister, starves your community.” He points out that international law declares occupation, targeting civilians, settlements, and ethnic cleansing illegal, but these laws are only applied to “poor countries,” “brown countries,” countries without “billion dollars lobbyists”—highlighting the double standard where, When Israel bombs a hospital, it’s self-defense. When a Palestinian throws a rock, it’s terrorism. When Iran responds to an assassination on its soil, [it’s] destabilizing the region. But when the U.S. assassinates foreign generals in another sovereign country, [it’s] restoring order. I’m sure you see the game by now: it’s not about peace, it’s not about law, it’s about power.Accordingly, Hosseini implores us (at ~33:32–36:07), “Let’s reclaim this word ‘resistance,’” arguing that it is “not chaos... not hatred... not destruction” but “the most human act in the face of dehumanization.” He describes resistance as workers organizing unions, students refusing silence, families rebuilding after bombings, and cultural expressions like graffiti declaring “we exist” or poetry written behind barbed wire. He defends Iran’s support for resistance groups as standing with “people who fight back when their homes are taken, their families are killed, and their futures erased.” He argues Iran’s stance comes from remembering its own trauma and following a simple doctrine: “Wherever oppression exists, we stand with the oppressed.”In his conclusion, Hosseini argues (at ~36:13) that the greatest innovation needed today is “moral clarity”: the courage to declare “the system is broken... this empire is killing... this silence is violence.” He connects struggles across locations: “From Karbala to Gaza to Chicago to Caracas to Tehran, we’re all facing the same machine.” He identifies the victims of current policies: Palestinian mothers watching sons die, Iranian children unable to get medication due to sanctions, Yemeni fathers burying families after airstrikes, American nurses unable to afford insulin, teachers working second jobs, Black families in Flint with poisoned water, and Native elders without accessible healthcare. Therefore, Hosseini calls on the audience to “speak now, stand now, resist now” for Palestine and all oppressed peoples, concluding that “resistance is not radical: silence is.”Next up came CPI member Noah Shenk, whose speech focused on the Houthi movement in Yemen and his outreach efforts following the October 7th events and the Houthis’ blockade of Israeli and American ships in the Red Sea. Describing (at ~2:08–9:56) how he distributed thousands of books about the Houthis at mosques and pro-Palestine rallies, carrying boxes containing 500 books each. Shenk shares that while some people were suspicious or hostile, many eagerly took the books, particularly at a Shia mosque where older members from Iran and Pakistan grabbed copies despite his attempts to be respectful during prayer time. Nonetheless, he criticizes superficial online support for the Houthis, arguing that genuine political positions should come from understanding rather than antagonism, and expresses disappointment with Americans who celebrate potential violence against American servicemen, arguing that people should weep for American servicemen dying for “Israel’s unjust war.” Shenk suggests this reflects a broader cultural problem where people adopt political positions not out of genuine belief but to antagonize others they dislike, comparing it to people who claim to be evangelical Christians but can’t explain Jesus’ teachings.Providing background (at ~10:14–16:17), Shenk unpacks Yemen’s deep poverty: citing the CIA World Factbook, he states that 25% of Yemen’s population lacks proper access to food and nearly 30% is completely illiterate. Shenk argues that Yemen’s poverty persists despite its natural resource wealth because of “imperialism” or “globalism,” where powerful countries and corporations intentionally underdevelop nations to create captive markets, forcing Yemen to sell crude oil cheaply to Saudi Arabia and buy back refined products at inflated prices. Explaining Yemen’s internal divisions, noting that many Middle Eastern borders were artificially drawn by the British after World War I, Shenk describes how southern Yemen was once a separate country and the only Soviet-style socialist nation in the Middle East, while northern Yemen is predominantly Zaidi Shia, a branch of Islam that Shenk characterizes as a “compromise between Shia and Sunni”: while most Shia Muslims are “Twelvers” who recognize twelve Imams after Prophet Muhammad, Zaidi Shia only recognize five Imams, up to Imam Zayd, who was killed leading an uprising against corrupt rulers and whose body was desecrated as a warning to others. Shenk then introduces (at ~17:09–23:17) the Houthis as an anti-austerity, self-determination movement founded by Hussein al-Houthi, who launched the “Young Believers” in 1992 to educate impoverished children and promote self-sufficiency. Shenk quotes from Hussein al-Houthi’s sermons about the importance of self-sufficiency and cultivation as a means to independence, arguing that the education programs weren’t “brainwashing” but efforts to help people “self-actualize” and compares the Houthis’ opposition to agricultural policies to Dutch farmers’ protests and Mexican farmers’ struggles under NAFTA. He next recounts how the U.S.-backed Yemeni government became increasingly intolerant of the Houthis after they opposed the Iraq war and criticized the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” rhetoric. Following a meeting with then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, Yemeni then-President Saleh placed a $55,000 bounty on Hussein al-Houthi’s head. Before his death, Hussein survived a bombing that killed twelve of his followers and gave a final sermon predicting that the Houthis would eventually be the only people with the courage to stand up for Palestinians. After Hussein’s death, his followers embraced the name “Houthi” (previously used as a slur) as a badge of honor.As Shenk explains (at ~23:34–25:43), the now-proud Houthis proved the courage that their founder predicted long before their blockade of the Red Sea in response to Israel’s genocide in Gaza began in 2023: during the 2010 Arab Spring, which Shenk characterizes as “U.S.-backed chaos,” the Houthis acted as bodyguards protecting protesters against then-President Saleh’s forces. He explains that they built a “progressive coalition” of various groups opposed to austerity and imperialism, including Zaidi Shias, communists from southern Yemen, and even a feminist group led by Layla al-Attar. In 2015, this coalition successfully ousted Saleh and seized the presidential palace, with popular support galvanized by the government’s decision to cut fuel subsidies under pressure from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank.In what seems to me an inspired connection to draw, Shenk links (at ~26:02) the Houthis to American historical figures and movements. He notes their support for the right to bear arms and their logo featuring a rifle and a shaft of grain symbolizing economic prosperity, and accordingly compares the Houthis’ charitable work and education programs to the Black Panthers’ free breakfast program, their blockade of the Red Sea to the Boston Tea Party, and their religious zeal to abolitionist John Brown. Shenk reads from John Brown’s speech before his execution for leading a slave revolt and urges the audience to see themselves in the Houthi movement, which to him embodies the “real America” that yearns for justice and a better tomorrow.Continuing the afternoon session, Gavin Lockhart (another CPI member) next took the stage. Lockhart began his speech (at ~2:13–11:53) with an explanation of how his political awareness began with his progressive parents, who had encouraged him to follow current events: as a teenager, he read Wikipedia articles and was introduced to Al Jazeera by his sister. He describes learning that Al Jazeera had fabricated a story about Muammar Gaddafi bombing his own people in Tripoli, which led him to question mainstream media narratives. After calling Libya from the 1970s through 2010 “Africa’s most prosperous democracy”—with free healthcare, education, startup funding for young couples and farmers, and the continent’s largest clean water pipeline project—Lockhart details how Libya was destroyed in 2011 when anti-government riots escalated into an armed uprising, followed by NATO intervention that led to Gaddafi’s death and the country’s destruction. The uneven coverage of those events in alternative media soon led Lockhart to the aforementioned Caleb Maupin, whose article about Libya that resonated enough with him for Lockhart to join SYNA (Students and Youth for a New America), founded by Maupin in 2016 after he leaft the Workers World Party. Lockhart notes that SYNA received criticism from leftists for being patriotic but emphasized that CPI believes in reclaiming patriotism because “we love our country and want to see it become better for everyone.”During college, Lockhart tells us (at ~11:59–21:02), he became a Christian, and takes pains to address the perceived incompatibility between Christianity and socialism. He cites Martin Luther King, Jr. as an example of a Christian socialist, and shares his experience of having been nonetheless expelled from his local DSA (Democratic Socialists of America) chapter because of his Christian beliefs. Afterward, Lockhart “began to wonder if left and right have become irrelevant categories. I’d strongly agree with Jim Hightower when he said that said today that politics isn’t left versus right, it’s top versus bottom.” While he hastens to add that CPI is not an exclusively communist organization, Lockhart still recognizes communism’s achievements while acknowledging its flaws: he observes that many socialist or anti-imperialist countries today are more religious than Western pro-imperialist countries, citing examples from Cuba, Iran, Venezuela, and Nicaragua; and while China represents an exception among communist countries, with its market-based economy, “it has lifted almost a billion people out of extreme poverty.” That, for Lockhart, demonstrates socialism’s compatibility with Christian values; to underscore it, he quotes Matthew 25:35–36 about helping the hungry, thirsty, strangers, naked, sick, and imprisoned.Lockhart concludes his speech (at ~21:05) with another example of Christian values, sharing the parable of the Good Samaritan to make a different point: that achieving common goals requires unity across political and religious divides.The people we’re being taught to hate, just as the Jews were taught to hate the Samaritans, are the people we need and need us in the fight against imperialism and all of the edifices it builds to justify itself. We need to find our commonalities, not what divides us. We need to stop saying that only if you completely agree with every one of our fifty-two points, we can let you into our group. We need to unite to fund healthcare, housing, schools, and to clean up the environment, and to stop funding endless wars. We need to work with everyone who agrees with these goals, whether they’re a conservative Christian like me or a Muslim or any other religion, whether they’re an African nationalist or a libertarian or any other political belief. This is what CPI stands for.In this way, Lockhart frames CPI’s mission as building a broad, principled coalition that transcends ideological and religious boundaries, uniting all who share a commitment to peace, justice, and the uplift of working families against imperialism—a group of which one should certainly feel proud to call oneself a member. Next, Geoff Young took the stage, a longtime political activist from Kentucky, the suppression of whom by the Democratic Party of that traditionally Republican state inspired him to co-found the Kentucky Party. Young introduces himself (at~2:29–8:38) as a 45-year resident of Lexington, Kentucky, originally from Massachusetts, and shares his first political thought at age six during the Cuban Missile Crisis, when he questioned the purpose of nuclear weapons and concluded they should be eliminated. He describes his brief libertarian phase in high school before discovering Noam Chomsky’s work, which revealed to him how mainstream media often functions as propaganda regarding U.S. foreign policy and military actions, allowing him to identify spin, falsehoods, and distractions in reporting, in which mainstream media presents “what the system wants you to think” rather than reality. No longer watching television news even to analyze it, today he gets all his information online.Young then describes (at ~8:41–20:41) working for the Kentucky state government for 15 years before retiring early to become a full-time peace and environmental activist. He began running for office in 2012, initially as a Green Party member, then as a Democrat for U.S. House elections, and later as a Republican in 2020. Young details his experiences with both major parties, stating they employed similar tactics to marginalize his candidacies, including pretending he didn’t exist and providing unreported in-kind contributions to preferred candidates. This led him to file multiple lawsuits against party leadership for election rigging, though all were dismissed by the courts. He describes the pattern of dismissals from circuit courts through the U.S. Supreme Court, with judges consistently ruling that he “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” without substantive analysis. Based on his legal experiences, Young tells us, he concluded that the judicial branch is “by far the most corrupt branch” of government, with judges and lawyers ignoring or violating laws to protect the establishment. He emphasizes that without a functioning legal system, there are no checks and balances.After telling us of his experience with the major parties, Young recounts (at ~20:42–27:10) the formation of the Kentucky Party in 2024, which he co-founded with Jeff Vesta and Anna Keller. Unlike the Green Party with its extensive platform, the Kentucky Party was established with just two core pillars: being pro-peace (anti-war, anti-nuclear weapons, anti-imperialism, anti-genocide) and anti-corruption in Kentucky. Young describes the Kentucky Party’s inclusive approach, allowing anyone to join and supporting candidates regardless of their positions on other issues. He emphasizes the party’s commitment to organizing debates for all candidates, even if major party candidates refuse to participate, and explains that the party aims to inform voters about their choices rather than having them vote based on inertia or limited information from TV ads.Young concludes (at ~27:11) by suggesting that similar parties could be established in every state with simple, foundational principles like anti-imperialism, providing alternatives to the two major parties and forums for voter education. He emphasizes the importance of encouraging people to run for office regardless of financial resources, and closed with a philosophical reflection on what truly matters at the end of life—not political affiliations or wealth, but the relationships formed with others.Of course, when you boil it down, that’s what politics is all about.Speaking next we heard Keith Preston of Attack the System First describing (at ~3:33–10:02) his early political consciousness beginning in elementary school during the Nixon era, Preston recountss being taken to a Nixon campaign event where children were instructed to chant “We want Nixon,” but he instinctively refused to participate. He also shares his confusion about the Vietnam War as a child, questioning why Americans were being drafted to fight in a foreign conflict. Preston explains how seeing a Vietnam veteran with a prosthetic arm at an amusement park prompted him to ask his father about the draft, leading to his early realization that he opposed government-mandated military service. He continued his contrarian political stance through his youth, supporting Jimmy Carter when his conservative community overwhelmingly favored Republicans.Detailing (at ~10:03–18:14) his involvement with various radical groups in his twenties, including the Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies), Workers Solidarity Alliance, anarchists, early Green movement meetings, libertarians, and survivalist communities, Preston explains how he started a public access television show featuring discussions with people from different radical groups. When introduced to the internet, Preston decided to create a website as a “pan-radical, pan-dissident platform” where anti-establishment viewpoints from across the political spectrum could be expressed. The name "attackthesystem.com" was suggested by a young college student who attended their meetings; since then, the site has been running for approximately 25 years, evolving through multiple iterations. Discussing how his platform has influenced others over its 25-year history, Preston describes encountering former readers or associates who have gone on to develop their own political initiatives—sometimes crediting his influence—and mentions receiving messages from people in other countries who have translated his books into languages like Portuguese. Throughout his life, he tells us, he has witnessed a significant “political psychic sea change,” with more people becoming aware of issues like American imperialism, citing the example of increased awareness about the Palestinian struggle and noting that, when he first became a supporter in 1988 after meeting a Palestinian refugee from Lebanon, most Americans had little understanding of the conflict—far less than the populace today.This leads Preston to draw (at ~18:24–22:25) comparisons between the 19th century and today. He describes the 19th century as a time of rapid change when “pre-modernity really started to fade away” and modernity began to develop. He sees parallels in how industrial capitalism rose then and digital capitalism is rising now, with the imperial center simply moving “from London to Washington.” Preston notes both positive developments (like medical advancements) and negative ones (class polarization, wealth disparities, social dislocations). Just as the 19th century saw the emergence of alternative social visions (utopian socialists, Marxists, anarchists), today we’re witnessing various “niche radical cultures” with overlapping critiques.Next, Preston analyzes (at ~22:27–34:21) divisions within the American ruling class, identifying three main factions: the liberal northeastern establishment (the “Rockefeller Malthusian wing”), the Sun Belt wing (national industrial bourgeoisie/manufacturing class), and what he calls “new capital” (tech oligarchs, hedge funds, financial entities like BlackRock). He discusses how many tech oligarchs and financial entities have shifted from supporting Democrats to backing Republicans and Trump. Preston suggests that some tech oligarchs have tried to co-opt the MAGA movement for their own ends, citing figures like Peter Thiel and his connection to neoreactionary thinker Curtis Yarvin. He also notes how Zionist plutocrats have “lurched rightward” since the Gaza conflict began, as many on the left embraced the Palestinian cause. But simultaneously, Preston observes with concern that the U.S. has been drifting into “a 19th-century-model class system” with the negative impacts of neoliberalism and globalization, referencing Ross Perot’s warnings about NAFTA creating a “sucking sound” of jobs leaving the country. Preston shares personal experiences with infrastructure failure, including water outages in his city, and warns us that the United States is “falling apart” not only economically but also in terms of its political culture.Preston concludes his speech (at ~34:22) with a warning about the potential for civil conflict in the U.S. similar to Italy’s “Years of Lead” or Northern Ireland’s “Troubles.” He points to recent political violence, including this summer’s murder of state legislators in Minnesota and assassination attempts against Donald Trump, as warning signs. Preston discusses how different ruling class factions are “trying to tighten their own grip” through measures like weaponizing law enforcement agencies, which he sees as “the kind of stuff that can be a prelude to civil war.” On the international front, he notes the rise of multipolarity (which he views positively) alongside a global trend toward autocracy and increased repression by ruling classes who feel threatened by changing power dynamics. “A lot of ruling classes are worried […] that they’re losing their grip. You know, when a ruling class starts to escalate repression, that shows they’re scared”—which altogether underscores the importance of innovating the political message that can consolidate the masses into a united bloc.The convention’s keynote speaker was also one who traveled the farthest to attend: David Fox, a boilermaker and union organizer hailing from Australia. In his introduction (at ~1:03–4:33), Fox explains how he learned about class politics from fellow workers on the shop floor, including boilermakers, painters, doctors, and electricians. They taught him fundamental principles: workers have no common interests with employers, and workers must stick together to achieve anything. He proudly describes the Australian union movement’s history of supporting social causes and opposing imperialism, He provides examples including opposition to conscription during World War I, support for Indonesian independence by refusing to load Dutch ships, and dock workers refusing to load pig iron to Japan before World War II in solidarity with Chinese people. He emphasizes how labor actions, including work stoppages, were crucial in Australia’s withdrawal from the Vietnam War. Though he notes infiltration in the movement, likely referring to intelligence agencies like the CIA, which caused damage to labor solidarity, nonetheless Fox tells us how many unionists continued international solidarity work, up to and including recent union contingents supporting Palestine at rallies. He mentions the need for more outreach and education among members who may not fully understand these issues.Fox goes on to highlight (at ~4:30–7:50) the historical achievements of the Australian labor movement, including being among the first to secure the eight-hour workday on 25 April 1856, when stonemasons in Melbourne marched and ceased work. He notes that Australian unions set benchmarks in occupational health and safety, holidays, and other benefits. He emphasizes that organizing begins with building relationships with ordinary people, and provides the example of an interaction with a Trump voter at his hotel who simply wanted a secure future for their family. He draws parallels to Australia, where similar circumstances exist with cost of living issues and housing crises leading to homelessness. He attributes these problems to neoliberalism and describes witnessing social decay, factory closures, and offshoring of manufacturing over the past 40 years.Of course, those domestic challenges come paired with imperialist foreign policies: turning (at ~7:51–14:13) to Australia’s partnership with the U.S., Fox criticizes Australia’s commitment to the AUKUS security pact, particularly the $368 billion submarine project. He expresses doubt that Australia will ever see these submarines and explains that the agreement allows the U.S. to take the submarines if war breaks out, noting even former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating condemned the current government for this agreement, despite the Labor Party being in power. But Australia’s foreign policy has been shackled to U.S. foreign policy, making Australia a potential target in conflicts. Fox naturally questions why Australia is positioning itself against China when China is Australia’s biggest trading partner., and again quotes former Prime Minister Keating who said Australia’s security is “in Asia, not from Asia,” meaning that Australia’s economic future lies with Asia. He therefore argues that imperialism and Anglo-American finance have held Australia back economically. From there, Fox returns (at ~15:09) to the history of the Australian labor movement: specifically, to the Eureka Rebellion, beginning with gold discoveries in Victoria in 1851 that led to mass migration to the goldfields. The colonial government imposed a gold tax that had to be paid even by those who found no gold and by non-miners like shopkeepers. This led to “monster meetings” of protest, culminating in the unfurling of the Eureka flag on Bakery Hill on 11 November 1854, as an act of defiance against colonial authorities. Then, on 3 December 1854, government forces attacked the miners’ stockade in what became a massacre. Despite the defeat, British authorities feared a full revolution and made concessions, including universal male suffrage. This led to the formation of proper parliaments and fostered the development of the union movement. The Eureka flag became a symbol carried in many subsequent union struggles and represents Australia’s path toward independence—and in a heartwarming act of international solidarity, Fox presents the Eureka flag as a gift to his American hosts and quotes a motto of the Australian labor movement: “if you don’t fight, you lose.” In exchange he receives a Gadsden flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”) in return, underscoring the global scope of popular struggles.Leaving Chicago, I felt less like I’d attended a conference and more like I’d witnessed a blueprint take shape: one for a movement that rejects managed decline, refuses sectarian litmus tests, and insists that peace is made by rebuilding what’s broken—at home and abroad. From Maupin’s call for a government of action, to Mutombo’s defense of civil liberties, to McArdle’s coalition-building, to Stephens’ family-first vision of peace, to Hosseini’s demand for moral clarity, to Shenk’s reminder to understand before we endorse, to Lockhart’s Good Samaritan politics, to Young’s third-party pragmatism, to Preston’s warning against reactionary political drift, and Fox’s gospel of labor solidarity—the message was the same: don’t agonize, organize. That means choosing bridges over purity tests, debates over smear campaigns, labor over lobbyists, and material improvements over performative posturing. It means saying no to political violence and yes to organizing centers, cross-movement cooperation, and economic projects that lift working families. It means remembering that peace isn’t the pause between wars but the presence of justice—paychecks, housing, healthcare, education, and dignity. I went to wave a flag that matched my shirt; I left determined to match my life to my politics. The work begins now.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

On Friday, President Donald Trump wrote a Truth Social post to fire Erika McEntarfer, head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), after a jobs report showed sharply weaker employment growth and large downward revisions for May and June: the July report showed only 73,000 new jobs and a rise in unemployment to 4.2%. May and June job gains were revised down by a combined 258,000—the largest non-pandemic adjustment since 1979. Trump criticized the revisions as implausible, politically biased, and “rigged” to make him look bad, while accusing McEntarfer, a Biden appointee, of politically manipulating the data but provided no evidence. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer confirmed her removal, with Deputy Commissioner William Wiatrowski named acting director.The move sparked concern over the politicization of trusted economic data—traditionally considered nonpartisan and critical to financial markets, which dropped after the report’s release. Critics, including economists and former officials, warned that this unprecedented move threatens the credibility of U.S. economic data. Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers likened the act to authoritarian behavior, and experts stressed the danger to public trust.Of course, McEntarfer was no stranger to downward revisions during the Biden Administration—as the Trump White House hastened to point out—coming under heavy criticism for a pattern of significant data inaccuracies and operational failures that, according to critics, undermined public trust in one of the federal government’s most vital economic agencies. During her tenure, the BLS repeatedly published overly optimistic job growth numbers that were later revised sharply downward. In one instance, a major benchmark revision in 2024 reduced job growth by 818,000—marking the second-largest correction on record. Taken all together, over 1.18 million jobs were reportedly overstated across various months. These flawed reports had wide-reaching consequences, including influencing the Federal Reserve to delay interest rate cuts based on an inaccurate picture of labor market strength.In addition to the statistical errors, the BLS under McEntarfer faced a series of technical and procedural failures. Sensitive data was leaked prematurely on multiple occasions, including to Wall Street firms that reportedly gained early access to unreleased figures. The agency also experienced delays in public data releases and internal communication breakdowns that further eroded confidence. These incidents occurred at critical times, such as just before major Fed policy announcements, intensifying market sensitivity to any perceived bias or mishandling.The cumulative effect of these missteps led to escalating scrutiny from lawmakers. Republican leaders in the House, including the Education and the Workforce Committee, launched oversight inquiries, accusing the BLS and the Biden Administration of manipulating data to present a more favorable economic outlook. Reports from Bloomberg, The Heritage Foundation, and other outlets reinforced concerns about the agency’s credibility. Accordingly, the Trump Administration and its supporters argue that McEntarfer’s removal was necessary to restore the integrity of government labor statistics and ensure that future data is free from political influence and operational error.But it’s worth noting that, even prior to downward revisions, the official unemployment figures—the U-3 rate—already comes with significant drawbacks when used as an economic indicator, since it includes only those who are unemployed and actively seeking work. Accordingly, it fails to capture the full extent of labor underutilization, as it excludes discouraged workers—those who have stopped looking for work—and part-time workers who want full-time jobs. In contrast, the U-6 unemployment rate offers a more comprehensive measure of unemployment, including not only those counted in U-3 but also discouraged workers, marginally attached workers, and those working part-time for economic reasons. Because of this wider scope, the U-6 rate is always higher than the U-3 and is seen by many economists as the truer reflection of labor market conditions: for example, during the coronavirus pandemic in September 2020, the U-3 rate was 7.9%, while the U-6 rate was significantly higher at 12.8%. Since it captures more of the “hidden unemployment,” the U-6 represents a valuable tool for understanding labor market dynamics beneath the surface; therefore, despite the prominence of U-3 in the media, many economists argue that U-6 should be given more weight when evaluating the true health of the job market.Still, with the U-6 rate at 7.9% in July 2025 compared to a U-3 rate of 4.2%, the statistics on unemployment aren’t even close to what we’d call catastrophic. However, we should temper that assessment with the May 2025 analysis from the Ludwig Institute for Shared Economic Prosperity (LISEP) finding that the bottom 60% of American earners don’t make enough to afford a basic standard of living, estimating the rate of “functional unemployment” at over 24%—describing those with annual incomes of less than $67,000 (and averaging only $38,000) who can’t afford costs beyond essential food and housing for products and services like education, healthcare, technology, and professional needs. But even if you hold the U-3 and U-6 as useful figures, they remain lagging indicators—meaning they respond to economic changes after they occur—and U.S. economic forecasts have grown increasingly uncertain. With a tariff deadline looming, dozens of countries face potential U.S. tariffs up to 50%, though the administration has granted Mexico a 90-day extension and struck deals with other nations, such as South Korea. Trump claims the tariffs are enriching the U.S., but economists remain skeptical.Jason Furman, former head of the Council of Economic Advisers under Obama, argues that while the economy hasn’t collapsed, the U.S. is showing signs of stagflation—slow growth and rising inflation. Tariffs have contributed to increased prices for consumer goods like furniture, toys, and electronics. Although initial fears may have been overstated, Furman stresses tariffs are still economically harmful and a poor method of raising revenue.Consumer inflation is beginning to rise again, especially in areas directly impacted by tariffs. Companies are responding differently—some like Procter & Gamble are raising prices, while Walmart is cutting them. Furman notes that major industries like autos can’t indefinitely absorb higher costs without passing them on to consumers.Although the White House has secured some trade deals, Furman cautions against viewing them as victories. He says the economic damage from U.S.-imposed tariffs outweighs the benefits of foreign concessions, and while a full-scale global trade war has been avoided, the current strategy still harms American consumers and businesses. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce warns that tariffs are placing a significant burden on U.S. small businesses, which make up over 97% of the country’s importers. While intended to combat unfair trade practices abroad, the rising costs from tariffs are hitting small retailers hardest, forcing many to raise prices, reduce product offerings, or absorb the added costs—often at the expense of profitability and growth. The National Retail Federation warns that these challenges not only threaten the survival of small businesses but also impact local economies, as small businesses account for nearly half of all private-sector jobs in the U.S. Of course, Trump’s tariffs don’t just increase uncertainty for the U.S. economy, but for global trade. At the 30th anniversary of the World Trade Organization (WTO), marked earlier this year in Geneva, Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala emphasized the organization’s importance as a stabilizing force amid growing turmoil—particularly due to Trump’s aggressive protectionist measures, including broad “Liberation Day” tariffs and country-specific duties. These moves have disrupted supply chains, raised costs for U.S. consumers, provoked retaliatory tariffs, and challenged the WTO’s authority, escalating longstanding criticisms of the institution.Trump’s actions represent the most protectionist U.S. stance since the 1930s. He argues that decades of trade liberalization, especially since China’s WTO accession in 2001, have hollowed out American industry and hurt workers, and further accuses the WTO of favoring China through “developing country” status and lax enforcement of trade rules. While China is often cited for distorting trade through subsidies and quotas, it continues to benefit from WTO protections. Accordingly, his supporters see tariffs as a way to reshore jobs and rebalance trade.These critiques, however, predate Trump. The WTO has faced global backlash since the 1999 “Battle in Seattle,” when 50,000 protesters decried corporate influence and the organization’s ability to override domestic labor and environmental standards. Over time, workers in wealthy nations and leaders in developing countries alike have grown disillusioned. Developing nations argue that WTO rules block industrial growth, and permit rich countries to subsidize their own industries while restricting such support in poorer nations.Internally, the WTO is weakened by its consensus-based system and the U.S.'s deliberate obstruction. Trump paralyzed the WTO’s dispute resolution mechanism by blocking appointments to its Appellate Body—a standoff that continued under President Biden. The result is a global trade body unable to enforce its own rules. This impasse was underscored when the WTO ruled Trump’s steel tariffs illegal, but the Biden Administration refused to remove them.Accordingly, the WTO now faces an existential crisis. Without effective enforcement, countries may increasingly violate trade rules, opting instead for bilateral deals and escalating tariff wars. While some hope for reform that better addresses both North-South inequalities and modern economic challenges, others fear the organization is sliding into irrelevance. As Okonjo-Iweala optimistically calls for renewal, many observers warn the WTO’s future remains uncertain—and possibly bleak.As debates over trade, data integrity, and economic leadership intensify, the stakes are not just about short-term job numbers or tariff rates—they are about the credibility of American institutions and the rules-based order that underpins the global economy. While the Trump Administration frames McEntarfer’s removal on Friday as a corrective measure to restore credibility to federal labor data, critics view it as an unprecedented political intrusion into a historically nonpartisan agency—raising fears about the erosion of institutional independence under authoritarian overreach. But in the grand scheme, that unceremonious firing, amid the escalating use of tariffs with potentially frightful domestic repercussions, represents only an ancillary detail in an increasingly turbulent chapter for the global economy. While tensions with international trade institutions grow, the administration’s aggressive protectionist agenda contributes to inflationary pressures, global trade uncertainty, and growing strain on small businesses at home. Despite scattered trade deals, the broader economic consequences of these policies—ranging from distorted market signals to weakening trust in global institutions like the WTO—are becoming harder to ignore. Thus, some more imaginative observers (like us here at Radio Free Pizza) may therefore speculate that the Trump Administration isn’t just working to reconfigure the U.S. domestic economy—as we suggested while first exploring Trump’s tariffs in February—but, indeed, plans to reconfigure the global capital order. If that’s the case, then what may seem like erratic trade policy could, in hindsight, reveal itself as the scaffolding of a deliberately engineered rupture—one meant to fracture the prior Western consensus and unapologetically usher in a new world system, as we touched on in our three-part exploration of the nascent North American Union from January. What may come of this, perhaps no one can know for sure, but you can count on us here at Radio Free Pizza to keep tracking it. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

You’ve probably heard already, but the mounting tensions between Iran and Israel have erupted into unrestrained war: on 13 June 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, striking key Iranian nuclear and military sites, including Natanz and Tehran’s District 18, in an effort to halt what Prime Minister Netanyahu called Iran’s imminent nuclear threat. The campaign killed over 220 people, including top Iranian military and nuclear figures. Iran retaliated with the long-awaited Operation True Promise 3, firing over 100 missiles at Israel, one of which struck a hospital in Beersheba. In response, Israel escalated further with missile strikes on Tehran—one of which struck the IRIB studio during a live broadcast—and later hitting Iran’s Khondab heavy water nuclear reactor (formerly known as Arak) before claiming full air superiority over the Islamic Republic.Little less than a year ago, a slice from our mid-year dispatch documented how Israel had solidified its role as the primary kinetic force in its escalating conflict with Iran, shifting from covert sabotage to overt military strikes with its 1 April 2024 airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, killing top Iranian generals and provoking Iran’s first-ever direct missile and drone retaliation, to which Israel responded with a limited strike on the Iranian nuclear facility at Isfahan. The sudden death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash weeks later intensified speculation of Israeli involvement, further elevating Mossad’s reputation for covert reach. These actions, alongside ongoing tensions and the specter of cyber warfare, underscored Israel’s aggressive posture and pivotal influence over the region’s volatile security dynamics.A further bulletin last year documented the mounting tensions that have now engulfed West Asia following Israel’s 26 October 2024 strike on Iran’s Parchin nuclear facility, which precipitated preparation of the aforementioned Operation True Promise 3 amidst considerable uncertainty regarding its timing. Our initial analyses highlighted Israel’s expansionist ambitions, Iran’s revolutionary legacy, and the U.S.’s enduring imperial interests, particularly under the then-incoming administration of President Donald Trump. Subsequently, we traced the escalation in 2025, noting Iran’s retaliatory operations, the U.S. designation of Iran and its allies as security threats, and the intensification of military posturing by all actors involved. Despite official overtures toward renewed nuclear negotiations, diplomatic efforts faltered as Iran—supported by China and Russia—rejected U.S. deadlines, prompting significant deployments of American military assets and expansion of conflict zones, notably into Syria. These developments not only heightened the risk of widespread regional destabilization but have also imperiled global economic stability through potential disruptions in oil supplies. Now, the U.S. has officially entered the conflict on behalf of Israel, despite reportedly claiming little more than a week ago that it would not provide offensive support, conducting airstrikes early Sunday morning local time on three key Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—using B-2 stealth bombers launched not from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where our bulletin from April reported more than a third of the bombers had been stationed, but instead from Missouri. Trump announced the “very successful attacks” via Truth Social, declaring the aircraft had exited Iranian airspace and calling for peace following the strikes. The move marks a historic escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran, now in its tenth day, and represents a sharp departure from past U.S. efforts to avoid direct intervention, provoking Iranian threats of retaliation and fears that the conflict could rapidly expand across the region.Despite Trump's prior reluctance and a last-ditch diplomatic outreach through a potential backchannel meeting in Istanbul, failed contact with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini led Trump to conclude that military action was necessary. (Surely it had nothing to do with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim less than a week ago that the assassination attempts on Trump from last July and September were Iranian plots, doubling down on allegations covered in our bulletin from last December.) Trump had increasingly questioned Israel’s ability to neutralize Iran’s fortified facilities without U.S. support and ultimately decided to act unilaterally (supposedly) to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons after a week of Israeli operations aimed at dismantling Iran’s air defenses and offensive missile capabilities. While Iran has yet to officially acknowledge the attacks, U.S. and Israeli officials emphasized the strategic necessity of American involvement, noting that only U.S. bombers carrying 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs capable of destroying Iran’s deeply buried nuclear infrastructure.While Israel was notified in advance, the strikes introduce significant risks of Iranian retaliation against American forces in the region, with Trump’s direct intervention in the war having dramatically escalated the conflict and drawn the U.S. into a volatile regional war. Though Trump claims to have “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, the true extent of the damage is unclear, and Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear activities. Israel, which had pushed for U.S. support, claims the strikes set Iran back years and applauds the escalation. However, the move has drawn sharp international condemnation, with the UN warning of catastrophic consequences and analysts warning it could either entrench or destabilize the Iranian regime. Domestically, Trump faces fierce backlash for bypassing Congress, prompting bipartisan accusations of constitutional violations and even calls for impeachment. As fears mount over regional retaliation, oil markets panic, and anti-war protests spread in the U.S., Israel remains central to a widening crisis that now threatens global stability. Netanyahu opened his latest address not in Hebrew to his own people, but in English, directing praise toward U.S. President Donald Trump for launching strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites—an action Netanyahu long advocated. For over 15 years, Netanyahu pushed American leaders to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program, insisting only the U.S.’s bunker-busting bombs could penetrate Iran's fortified facilities. With the recent U.S. intervention, Netanyahu may now claim his primary war aim has been achieved, potentially marking a turning point in the conflict. However, Iran insists it had already moved its nuclear material, casting doubt on the strategic impact. While Israel might have continued a slower campaign on its own, the decisive U.S. strike gave Netanyahu a symbolic victory. The broader question now is how Iran and its allies—such as the Houthis—will respond. With American interests in the region newly exposed, and the U.S. signaling it does not seek regime change, the Middle East stands on edge, uncertain whether this moment signals de-escalation or the start of a far deadlier phase in the war.For its own part, the U.S. seems to be signaling a preference for de-escalation. Earlier this morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that the recent U.S. strikes were not aimed at regime change but at neutralizing perceived threats from Iran’s nuclear program. While the Pentagon emphasized restraint and a desire to avoid escalation, Tehran responded by firing missiles at Israel, though it has so far held back from major retaliation against U.S. forces. The U.S. has repositioned military assets and reinforced defenses in the region amid fears of broader conflict, including threats to the vital Strait of Hormuz, while officials stressed the campaign is not open-ended but will continue if American interests are attacked.In this fraught moment, the balance between catastrophe and containment rests delicately in Iran’s hands. Though Trump warned Iran against retaliation, the world still watches for Tehran’s next move. Wounded by Israeli bombardment and now American intervention, Iran now faces immense pressure to respond, yet options are limited. With their missile stockpiles drawn down and facing the looming threat of U.S. escalation, hardliners urge retaliation while moderates may seek restraint to avoid a broader conflict. Iran could strike U.S. bases, target Gulf oil infrastructure, or attempt symbolic gestures to save face. Some argue that, for Khomeini, each path carries grave risks—military defeat or domestic collapse. (The latter would align with Tarot by Fergus’s reading from our spectacle at the start of the year.) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Israel's military campaign against Iran could lead to regime change, calling Iran's government “very weak” and suggesting a majority of Iranians would oust their leaders if given the chance. Israel’s strikes have gone beyond targeting nuclear infrastructure, hitting military and media sites in an apparent attempt to destabilize the regime and encourage internal dissent. Others, however, argue that Iran’s core institutions remain intact, and despite significant losses—including the deaths of senior commanders and vulnerability in key strategic sites—opposition groups are fragmented and lack traction inside the country. Contrary to his Defense Secretary, Trump has hinted at support for regime change but remains ambiguous, with his administration divided over deeper involvement. Meanwhile, having pressed its long-standing campaign to its logical conclusion, Israel stands emboldened by American military backing. The U.S., once a reluctant actor, is now an active belligerent in a rapidly widening war, with its forces, assets, and global credibility at stake. Iran, wounded but not broken, may face a crucible: retaliate and risk annihilation, or restrain and risk collapse from within. With regional proxies weakened, global markets rattled, and diplomacy all but extinguished, the stakes have never been higher. Whether this marks the climax of a decade-long standoff or the opening salvo of a much broader conflagration depends not just on Tehran’s next move—but on the world’s collective ability to pull back from the brink.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Dear Radio Free Pizza gourmets,I’m writing this from a place where the streets still remember my footsteps: the slow ones of childhood, the hurried ones of adolescence, and now these more thoughtful steps of return—streets I remember all too well. Yes, after the Mexican saga that I detailed in my March journal—confronting the emotional and financial fallout of a failed real estate investment—and now jobless, I’m back in my hometown of Minneapolis, which longtime readers will remember from my January 2024 dispatch examining the mainstream narrative of George Floyd’s death in 2020 and the city’s ongoing unrest.Since coming back in April, I’ve felt like a prodigal son returned—carrying the weight of my mistakes and losses, which since my last journal have only multiplied, I’m altogether devastated by how far I’ve fallen. Every day feels like a struggle to reclaim the life I once had, haunted by regret but also holding onto a flicker of hope that restoration is possible. The journey back has been painful, but I’m determined to rise from this broken place stronger and wiser.Still, I’m not just haunted by past mistakes, but terrorized to consider the present. When I departed the U.S. last year, I had growing concerns about political violence and unrest. Those realities now feel too close for comfort. Just yesterday, that fear was made tragically real again in Minnesota: Democratic state leader Melissa Hortman and her husband were fatally shot in their home, and another lawmaker, John Hoffman, and his wife were critically wounded in a related overnight attack. The suspect, dressed as a police officer, exchanged gunfire with real officers. Following this, authorities launched a massive manhunt with roadblocks and tactical teams searching the area, and remains at large. Authorities recovered writings naming multiple lawmakers multiple firearms inside a fake police car, and linked the shooter to a private armed security firm.Governor and 2024 Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz and national leaders condemned the attack as part of a disturbing trend of violence against public officials, highlighting deep political divisions. The Minnesota iteration of the “No Kings” protests were canceled due to safety concerns, though they proceeded yesterday in nearly 2,000 locations across the U.S. to oppose President Trump’s recent immigration raids and the deployment of National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles, where clashes with protesters had turned violent. Still, local demonstrators nonetheless gathered peacefully. Later that evening, Washington, D.C. hosted a massive military parade celebrating the U.S. Army’s 250th anniversary and coinciding with Trump’s 79th birthday. The event featured tanks, helicopters, 6,600 troops, and flyovers, fulfilling Trump’s long-standing desire for a grand display of American military power. However, the spectacle drew widespread criticism and sparked protests in Washington and across the country, where demonstrators accused Trump of politicizing the military and behaving like a dictator.Protesters held signs, marched toward the White House, and staged satirical displays, including a Trump puppet on a golden toilet. Critics also objected to the parade’s $45 million cost and the potential damage to city infrastructure. A majority of Americans surveyed said it was not a good use of government funds. The parade included historical military reenactments, armored vehicles, and a concert with fireworks. Trump planned to swear in 250 troops at the event’s conclusion. The day underscored deep divisions in the country, with Trump brushing off protests and weather concerns, vowing the parade would go on “rain or shine.”And yet, in the midst of national chaos and personal grief, I’ve found myself needing more than just headlines to make sense of the world—I’ve needed stillness. The violence in my own backyard, the spectacle in Washington, and the tremors of unrest shaking the nation only deepen the urgency I feel to re-root myself. Not in cynicism, but in something quieter, older, and more true. Coming home now—to the very place where so many of those worries took root in my heart—is more than just a physical move: it’s spiritual. After all the motion, ambition, and the often-chaotic chase of the past season, something in me needed grounding. Not just in geography, but in soul. Minneapolis has seen the best and worst of me. It has known my rising hopes and (at least a few of) my quiet defeats. Still, finding spiritual grounding here feels like trying to pray through an earthquake—each moment of stillness shattered by the tremors of political unrest and a nation on edge. But despite all that, I return not as someone looking backward, but as someone anchoring a fresh burst of forward momentum. As Daniel G. Amen wrote in Conquer Worry and Anxiety (2020), “people who do not give up interpret […[ setbacks as temporary as opposed to permanent; limited instead of pervasive; and changeable instead of out of their control.” For that reason, he offers the formula that optimism plus reality equals resilience. This formula offers an interesting contribution to my dispatch from last November on what I called “Liberation Vitalism”: there, I presented resilience as a deep, spiritual response to crisis that involves wrestling with complex social, theological, and philosophical challenges. In that context, resilience becomes a sacred, communal strength rooted in intrinsic cosmic values, nurtured by spiritual traditions and community, and expressed through courageous action to transform suffering and build a just, flourishing world.Now, in these turbulent times—both personal and national—I am learning that resilience is not merely about surviving hardship but about embracing the tension between hope and reality, pain and possibility. Returning to Minneapolis has brought me face-to-face with the fractures in my own life and in the society around me, yet it has also offered a chance to root myself anew in faith, community, and purpose: hence, some of my recent dalliances organizing with the Minneapolis branch of the Center for Political Innovation. As I move forward, I carry with me the conviction that true resilience calls for steadfast courage, honest reckoning, and a commitment to transformative action. It is in this spirit that I continue to walk these streets—old and familiar—seeking not just restoration, but renewal, not just endurance, but meaningful change. Accordingly, I’m working to anchor myself in a deeper truth: I haven’t missed my calling. I haven’t forfeited my future, and I am still becoming. Being here doesn’t mean I’m settling: it means I’m healing. I’m building something again. Brick by brick. Prayer by prayer. Dream by dream. There’s power in that—in starting from the ground you first sprang from.For those of you walking through your own season of rebuilding—I see you. Sometimes, the comeback starts right where it all began.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Earlier this year, we analyzed the geopolitical and economic developments stemming from the Trump Administration’s tariff policies and foreign strategy, suggesting that while these may initially seem divisive, they may inadvertently push toward deeper integration into a North American Union. With Chinese influence in Panama increasing through infrastructure investments, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio toured Central America, pressuring Panama to reduce Chinese ties, especially around the Panama Canal, with Panama withdrawing from China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Though China urged Panama to resist U.S. pressure, the regional imbalance of power suggested that the U.S. will likely maintain influence.The next month, that seemed even more likely, with President Trump celebrating a U.S.-led consortium, spearheaded by BlackRock, acquiring most of CK Hutchison’s $22.8 billion global ports business (held under the subsidiary Hutchinson Port Holdings), including key ports at both ends of the Panama Canal, with U.S. investors set to control 90% of Panama Ports Company, which operates the Balboa and Cristobal ports. Trump framed the deal as part of “reclaiming” the canal from Chinese control—though CK Hutchison is a Hong Kong firm not financially tied to China’s government—while Panama’s leadership pushed back against Trump’s rhetoric, with Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino strongly denying any U.S. takeover and reiterating Panama’s full sovereignty over the transoceanic corridor. Nonetheless, the ports’ strategic location is vital to the U.S., as most ships using the canal are U.S.-bound—and the sale might further strain U.S.-Panama relations, especially given Trump’s controversial statements and the canal’s sensitive historical context. CK Hutchinson had expected to finalize the planned transition by 2 April. But on 28 March, China’s antitrust regulator, the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), announced it will review CK Hutchison’s $22.8 billion sale of its global ports business—including the two strategic ports on the Panama Canal—to the U.S.-led consortium featuring BlackRock. The move raises uncertainty around the deal, which had already drawn criticism from Chinese state media, which called it a betrayal of Chinese interests. While the Panama ports represent a small portion of the overall deal, SAMR is assessing whether the sale could undermine competition in China’s domestic and international shipping sectors. Experts consulted by the regulator suggested that conditions may be imposed to protect Chinese shipping competitiveness. Simultaneously, Panama’s auditor-general is conducting an audit of CK Hutchison’s compliance with the port concession terms, further complicating the transaction. Analysts warn that if China blocks the deal, it could rattle global financial markets and damage Hong Kong’s standing as a financial hub.Of course, China isn’t the only nation with regulators complicating the deal: just last week, Panama’s Comptroller-General Anel Flores announced that CK Hutchison violated the terms of its concession. An audit found “many breaches,” including $1.2 billion in unpaid fees, misuse of tax exemptions, and previous irregularities. Flores said he would file a legal complaint over the violations. Some analysts suspect that the audit findings had been politically timed to justify Panama canceling its concession to CK Hutchinson, thereby appeasing the Trump Administration: the report was released just before U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s visit to Panama, though Flores denied any connection.But in the context of Trump’s desire to reestablish American influence over the Panama Canal, the U.S. isn’t waiting around: as Stavroula Pabst reports, Hegseth’s visit coincided with the announcement that it would deploy U.S. troops near the Panama Canal for military training and other activities under a new agreement with the Panamanian government, with the move appearing to represent a political concession over the fees charged to U.S. ships transiting the canal. While Trump allies previously floated the idea of reestablishing U.S. military bases in Panama, the agreement stipulates that troops will operate from Panama-controlled facilities—some of which are old American-built sites—while the Panamanian government has emphasized it will not permit foreign military bases.The deployment comes amid mixed signals on U.S. recognition of Panamanian sovereignty. Although a Spanish-language joint statement affirms Panama’s control over the canal, the English version omits this, and U.S. officials have offered vague responses on the issue, instead focusing on countering “malign influence,” particularly from China. While the U.S. ceded control of the canal to Panama in 1999, this announced deployment suggests a resurgence of American “gunboat diplomacy” amid increasing U.S.-China tensions.In response, Panamanian opposition leaders have accused the U.S. of carrying out a “camouflaged invasion” following the U.S. troop deployment. Naturally the deployment has sparked domestic outrage, with critics arguing it violates Panama’s sovereignty and the canal's neutrality treaty, which prohibits foreign military installations. Despite government claims that the new U.S.-Panama agreement is temporary and does not establish military bases, opposition figures argue that the arrangements effectively constitute foreign military bases and recall painful memories of “Operation Just Cause,” the 1989 U.S. invasion.Adding to the controversy, the U.S. also secured a deal to reimburse its navy ships for canal fees, which may further violate neutrality terms and create pressure for additional concessions. President Mulino faces mounting domestic criticism for his lack of transparency and for handling negotiations unilaterally, with two-thirds of Panamanians disapproving of his leadership amid broader political discontent and anticipated protests against both the U.S. presence and domestic policies. Popular demonstrations began at the start of Hegseth’s visit, with more expected to follow.Taken all together, these developments point to a reassertion of U.S. power in the Western Hemisphere, with the Panama Canal once again becoming a flashpoint in the broader contest between Washington and Beijing. The BlackRock-led attempted acquisition of CK Hutchison’s ports, the audit-driven legal pressure in Panama, and the strategic return of U.S. troops to canal-adjacent facilities all reflect a coordinated effort to limit Chinese influence and reinforce American dominance over a historically vital trade artery. Yet the implications extend far beyond maritime logistics—testing Panama’s sovereignty, stirring regional anxieties, and redefining the limits of global economic integration under rising great power rivalry. As geopolitical alignments shift and legal battles unfold, it seems certain that the Panama Canal’s symbolic and strategic importance will ensure that it remains a fulcrum of international politics for the foreseeable future.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Many worry about an oncoming World War III: and though we’ve been trying to keep our cool, you know that includes us, if you read between the lines of our last bulletin. But it’s not just Americans like us who have reason to worry that their government is positioning itself for war. Europeans, too, have reason for concern. Naturally they focus on the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, which—when we here at Radio Free Pizza last covered it—in late 2024 launched U.S. and UK missiles into Russian regions, prompting Russian President Vladimir Putin to revise Russia’s nuclear doctrine, lowering the threshold for nuclear response, before firing back with a hypersonic missile strike on Ukraine’s Yuzhmash missile plant. Meanwhile, NATO allies continued doubled down on their support Ukraine, with France confirming permission for Kiev to use French missiles on Russian targets. Despite fears of nuclear escalation, many analysts believed Russia’s rhetoric is more posturing than a real threat—though others proposed that, under the second Trump Administration, NATO might supply Ukraine with tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), potentially provoking a Russian nuclear response.Of course, such speculations have surely lost support, given the developments of 2025. In early February, the Trump Administration has proposed that the U.S. receive 50% ownership of Ukraine’s rare earth minerals as reimbursement for military and financial aid provided since the war began in 2022. (Though Trump famously claimed during the 2024 campaign that he’d have the Ukraine war “done in twenty-four hours,” he has apparently awoken to the impossibility of that, and began seeking instead the best deal he could secure from protracted peace negotiations.) The mineral deal would give the U.S. direct access to valuable materials essential for technology production—instead of monetary repayment.Trump emphasized the strategic importance of these minerals, calling access to them a matter of U.S. “security”—similar to his rhetoric about a U.S. acquisition of Greenland. He claimed Ukraine was open to the deal and has pushed for the U.S. to gain $500 billion worth of mineral access as a way to recoup the costs incurred over three years of support for Ukraine—and, indeed, the idea of trading critical resources for continued U.S. support has been part of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s so-called “Victory Plan,” with Ukraine’s survival depending heavily on ongoing U.S. support. (Of course, many of these resources are currently in Russian-occupied territory, complicating matters.) Later that same month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met in Riyadh for the most extensive U.S.-Russia talks since the Ukraine war began. The talks opened the door to potential U.S.-Russia cooperation in energy and raised the possibility of easing U.S. sanctions on Russia, depending on future progress. The diplomats agreed to restore diplomatic staffing at their respective embassies and set up working groups to explore a negotiated end to the conflict, including possible territorial concessions and security guarantees. Amusingly, these talks excluded Ukraine and Europe, angering Zelensky, while Trump further stirred controversy by blaming Ukraine for failing to prevent the war.Meanwhile, the Trump team had been divided on whether U.S. troops would be deployed to Ukraine: Vice President JD Vance said it’s “on the table” if peace talks with Russia fail, though Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth denied any such plans.But I’m guessing that Vance cleared those plans off the table himself after a highly anticipated 28 February meeting between Trump and Zelensky at the White House ended abruptly without the signing of a critical minerals agreement. The meeting, intended to solidify U.S.-Ukraine cooperation on developing Ukraine’s natural resources, devolved into a public confrontation over the ongoing war with Russia when Vance emphasized the necessity of diplomacy to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and Zelensky countered by expressing deep distrust toward Putin, citing previous unsuccessful diplomatic efforts. He urged Trump not to compromise with Putin, whom he referred to as a “killer.” The exchange intensified, leading Trump to accuse Zelensky of disrespecting the U.S. and questioning his readiness for peace negotiations. Subsequently, Trump directed aides to end the meeting prematurely, instructing Zelensky to leave the White House.The failure to sign the minerals deal left Ukraine without a potentially significant avenue for economic collaboration with the U.S., which Kiev had hoped would bolster its position in the war and facilitate additional aid from Congress. European leaders quickly rallied in support of Zelensky, with German chancellor candidate Friedrich Merz emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between aggressor and victim in the conflict while Zelensky engaged in discussions with French President Emmanuel Macron, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, and EU Council President Antonio Costa to seek further backing.President Trump’s approach signaled a shift in U.S. policy toward a more conciliatory stance with Russia, causing concern among traditional European allies. NATO’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, warned of a potential full-scale Russian attack on Europe by 2030, emphasizing the strength of the NATO alliance in defending its members. Ukraine’s prolonged war with Russia has led neighboring countries, especially those bordering Russia, to ramp up defense spending. Some fear that if Kiev falls, Russia could target the Baltic states or Poland, which could trigger NATO intervention and escalate into a global conflict.In response, European nations are preparing for crisis situations by urging citizens to stockpile food, water, and other emergency supplies. Sweden, Finland, and Germany have updated their civil defense strategies, with Sweden mandating military service and Finland focusing on readiness due to its long border with Russia. Additionally, European nations are bolstering their air defense systems, with discussions about developing an independent European nuclear deterrent, as concerns about U.S. commitment to European defense grow.Meanwhile, Russia’s military operation in Ukraine is causing ripple effects across the region, and the increasing militarization in Europe indicate a widespread anticipation of further instability, particularly in Eastern Europe. Zelensky acknowledged the risks of escalation, with some experts suggesting that World War III might already be unfolding in certain ways.Certainly there’s good reason some analysts have been pointing to the U.S. to explain Europe’s dedication to a war footing, given the shifting dynamics between the U.S. and Europe regarding the ongoing war in Ukraine and broader defense concerns. Those concerned highlight the increasing tensions between the Trump Administration and European allies—particularly in light of the U.S. distancing itself from Ukraine’s military needs—and the potential long-term consequences for European security.Under the second Trump Administration, the U.S. has prioritized military engagement in the Indo-Pacific region—as we discussed last time on Radio Free Pizza—pressing Europe to build up its own defense capabilities, which has been resisted due to concerns about the cost and the potential for an American withdrawal. Despite some European efforts to increase defense spending after the 2014 Crimea annexation, Europe’s military readiness remains insufficient to independently support Ukraine or defend against Russian aggression: the U.S.’s reduced commitment to Ukraine risks creating a security vacuum that Europe would need to fill, but Europe faces significant challenges in ramping up its defense industry, including fragmentation, lack of cohesion, and insufficient investment. While Europe might aim to produce much of the military equipment Ukraine needs, it lacks the coordination and infrastructure to do so at scale. Additionally, NATO’s reliance on U.S. logistical support also complicates Europe’s ability to transition to self-sufficiency.Moreover, the aforementioned analysts also note that European nations must overcome internal divisions and work together to address these issues. This will require political will, increased defense spending, and better coordination between EU countries, the UK, and Ukraine. They argue that the U.S. could support Europe in this transition, but must choose whether to allow Europe to take on more responsibility or force Ukraine into a less favorable settlement with Russia.However, others see European militarization stemming not from genuine security concerns, but from more cynical motives. Economist Martin Armstrong argues that Europe’s push for war is motivated more by financial and political interests than by genuine security concerns. He outlines three main reasons behind this strategy. First, he suggests that war offers governments a way to reset their financial obligations by defaulting on debt under the cover of forming a new government—a tactic with historical precedent, such as the U.S. defaulting on the Continental Congress currency. Second, Armstrong claims that European leaders view war as a distraction from their own economic failures, including the fallout from pandemic lockdowns, net-zero climate policies, and sanctions against Russia. By blaming Russia for worsening economic conditions, leaders could deflect public anger and maintain power. Third, he contends that European elites see war as a means of accessing Russia’s vast natural resources, estimated to be worth $75 trillion. Conquering and dividing Russia, Armstrong argues, would strengthen Europe’s economic position and challenge U.S. dominance. While Europe launches its militarization efforts, its erstwhile U.S. partner seems to have growing concerns about the likelihood of a negotiated end to the conflict. Last month, Trump threatened to impose 25% to 50% secondary tariffs on countries buying Russian oil if Moscow blocks his efforts to end the Ukraine war. Frustrated with Putin’s criticism of Zelensky and the lack of ceasefire progress, Trump warned that buyers of Russian oil could lose access to U.S. markets, emphasizing his willingness to act within a month if no deal is reached and reiterating that Ukraine would never join NATO. He also criticized Zelensky for hesitating on the aforementioned rare earth minerals deal that would give the U.S. access to Ukraine’s natural resource income. Despite his anger at Putin, Trump claimed their relationship remains strong if progress is made toward ending the war.The threatened tariffs could heavily impact China, India, and others reliant on Russian oil. Trump also signaled potential sanctions against buyers of Iranian oil if Iran doesn’t halt its nuclear program. These measures would undoubtedly impose further disruptions to the global economy, increasing the likelihood of a sovereign debt default in Europe. If Europe’s war footing feels desperate, that’s because it is. Whether driven by genuine fears of Russian aggression or by cynical efforts to paper over economic decay, Europe is now staring down a financial abyss—one that may make a debt default not just possible, but strategically desirable.The signs are unmistakable. Years of economic mismanagement, costly energy policies, pandemic fallout, and the financial strains of militarizing against Russia have pushed European debt loads to historic highs. Add to that the U.S.’s shifting posture—no longer underwriting Europe’s defense unconditionally—and the cracks are starting to show.If Armstrong’s thesis holds water, the ramifications of a European debt default would be profound. For starters, a default framed within the chaos of war could allow European governments to wipe their slates clean, dissolving obligations to creditors, gutting pension liabilities, and blaming it all on Moscow. Simultaneously, war-driven nationalizations or the seizure of assets (foreign or domestic) could provide temporary fiscal breathing room.But this is a high-risk play. A coordinated or cascading European default would send shockwaves through global financial markets, hammering the euro, imperiling the European banking system, and likely triggering capital flight on a scale not seen in decades. Geopolitically, such a scenario could accelerate the fragmentation of the Western alliance. Whether by accident or design, Europe appears to be approaching a point of no return. A debt default may be Europe’s last gasp—but it would not be a quiet one. It would reshape the global order, redraw alliances, and almost certainly deepen the chaos already spilling out of Ukraine. As the Old World strains under the weight of history, the real question may not be whether Europe defaults, but whether it survives.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Last year, we highlighted tensions between the Islamic Republic of Iran, the State of Israel, and the United States of America as they escalated through a series of attacks, intelligence accusations, and assassination plots. Iran launched Operation True Promise in April after Israel bombed its Damascus embassy, while U.S. intelligence increasingly framed Iran as a national security threat following the death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi last May. Over the following months, Iran was accused of election interference, cyberattacks, and influencing protests, culminating in the FBI arresting an alleged IRGC-linked assassin targeting Donald Trump. In October, Iran launched Operation True Promise 2 in retaliation for Israel’s assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran. After Trump’s November election victory, Iran postponed further military actions, though tensions persisted. As Trump’s 2025 inauguration neared, uncertainty remained over whether his administration would pursue diplomacy or further escalate toward conflict.Viewers of our New Year spectacle know that we’ve been betting on further escalations, and (at least in this arena) Trump hasn’t disappointed us. Just two days after his second inauguration, he re-designated Yemen’s Ansar Allah—popularly known as the Houthis—as a terrorist organization, reversing President Biden’s 2021 decision to lift the designation due to humanitarian concerns. The move aligns with the interests of Israel, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman pledging $600 million in U.S. investments simultaneous to the terrorist designation. The decision followed continued Houthi attacks on commercial ships and military targets, despite previous U.S. and UK airstrikes. Trump’s order cited the Houthis’ ties to Iran’s Quds Force and their disruption of global trade through their attacks on ships in the Red Sea in response to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. (The Houthis, who had paused attacks following a Gaza ceasefire in January—which Trump helped broker with assistance from Egypt and Qatar—recently announced they would resume targeting Israeli-linked vessels following Israel’s repeated violations of that ceasefire deal.) Trump directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to finalize the designation within 45 days and ordered a review to halt any U.S. aid that could benefit the Houthis.On 15 March, seven days after Rubio’s deadline for finalizing the designation, the U.S. launched its first strikes against Yemen, killing at least 21 people, including civilians, according to Houthi officials. The airstrikes targeted sites in Sanaa and Saada as part of Trump’s intensified military campaign against the group, with Trump vowing to use “overwhelming lethal force” against the Houthis and warning Iran to halt its support for them—despite these strikes having no congressional approval, and therefore violating Article 1 the U.S. Constitution and of the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Those strikes became the first of a campaign that continued for at least a week and a half, shifting from targeting missile launch sites to attacking Houthi leadership and urban areas that killed 36 more—and though concerns over civilian casualties are growing, the U.S. has not publicly acknowledged any. Trump has given the U.S. military greater autonomy to conduct strikes without White House approval, leading to a higher frequency of attacks. Analysts suggest airstrikes alone will not eliminate their capabilities without ground forces. Trump’s warning to Iran followed his proposal to reopen nuclear talks with the Islamic Republic, despite having withdrawn the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018—having then criticized the deal for its sunset clauses, which he believed would eventually allow Iran to resume nuclear activity, and for not addressing Iran’s missile development and regional influence—in favor of a “maximum pressure” campaign that imposed strict sanctions on Iran in an effort to secure a new agreement. That proposal set a two-month deadline for negotiating a new nuclear deal, after which the risk of U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities would increase—with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu having thanked Trump at the start of the month for sending munitions that had been held up by the previous administration, stating they would help Israel “finish the job against Iran’s terror axis.”However, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Masoud Pezeshkian both rejected Trump’s offer, accusing the U.S. of trying to impose further demands beyond nuclear restrictions, including limiting Iran’s missile capabilities and regional influence. Additionally, China and Russia expressed strong support for Iran—their fellow BRICS+ member since 2024—issuing a joint statement after talks in Beijing emphasizing that dialogue should only resume based on “mutual respect” and insisting that all sanctions be lifted. They also reaffirmed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy use.But in the wake of that proposal’s rejection, the U.S. began escalating its military presence in the Middle East by deploying a second aircraft carrier, the USS Carl Vinson, to the Red Sea to join the USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group, while Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth extended the Truman’s deployment by at least a month. The buildup aims both to counter persistent Houthi attacks on commercial and military vessels, and to deter Iranian support. Additionally, Trump lowered the authorization threshold for offensive strikes, granting U.S. Central Command the ability to act offensively without White House approval—and, as previously mentioned, without congressional authorization. Naturally, that double deployment signifies a significant shift in U.S. military focus toward the Middle East. Reinforcing its military presence in the region also involved the deployment of seven B-2 Spirit stealth bombers—more than a third of its B-2 fleet—to Diego Garcia, a remote U.S.-UK military base in the Indian Ocean dating to the 1960s, when the British forcibly displaced native islanders to lease the land to the U.S. for military use. Since then, the island has served as a strategic outpost for U.S. military operations in the Middle East and Indo-Pacific—including bombing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan—especially when access to bases in the Gulf states has been restricted.Of course, Iran didn’t sit idly by. On 22 March, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) announced the deployment of advanced 15th Khordad air defense missile systems on three strategic islands in the Persian Gulf—Greater Tunb, Lesser Tunb, and Abu Musa—positioned near the vital Strait of Hormuz, a crucial shipping route for Middle Eastern oil, as part of the Islamic Republic’s broader efforts to expand its military presence in the Gulf. The missiles, capable of striking targets within 600 km (370 miles), are intended to target “enemy bases, vessels, and assets” in the region. The move strengthens Iran’s anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) capabilities, challenging U.S. and allied military operations in the Gulf. The 15th Khordad system can detect and engage a range of aerial threats, including stealth aircraft and cruise missiles, in a deployment that enhances Iran’s ability to counter U.S. surveillance and carrier strike groups, potentially restricting freedom of operation in the region. Meanwhile, the international community fears that escalating militarization in the Strait of Hormuz could disrupt global oil supplies and lead to armed conflict, reshaping the security landscape of the Persian Gulf.Notably, Iran seems to have played its offensive capabilities closer to the vest, not mentioning whether the USS Carl Vinson, the USS Harry S. Truman, or other U.S. military assets might face its Fattah-1 or Fattah-2 hypersonic missiles, to which the aforementioned aircraft carriers are extremely vulnerable—though the IRGC has announced plans to soon debut a new model of hypersonic cruise missile. Soon after the announced deployment of its air defense systems, the IRGC upped the ante with its revelation of another underground missile city, adding to one for naval warfare unveiled in February and to an underground naval base disclosed in January. These announcements came concurrent with naval exercises that took place this month, in which Russia and China joined their BRICS+ fellow in the Gulf of Oman (near Iran’s port of Chabahar) for their Marine Security Belt 2025—the fifth China-Iran-Russia naval exercise since 2019—aimed at enhancing counter-piracy, anti-terrorism, and maritime security operations. Russia deployed two corvettes, the Rezky and Aldar Tsydenzhapov, along with a tanker from its Pacific Fleet. China sent its Type 052D destroyer Baotou and the Type 903A replenishment ship Gaoyouhu from its 47th escort task group, while Iran contributed warships from both its Navy and the Revolutionary Guards. The exercises included hijacked vessel rescues, search and rescue missions, and live-fire drills. Additionally, Azerbaijan, South Africa, Oman, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Qatar, Iraq, the UAE, and Sri Lanka participated as observers.Chinese experts emphasize that the drill is not directed at any third party but is intended to maintain regional stability and global peace, but of course this year’s exercise holds greater geopolitical significance as Trump’s foreign policy shifts, disrupting Western alliances while strengthening pressure on Iran. Like the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman remains a key oil trade route, with the U.S. Fifth Fleet stationed nearby in Bahrain—some 4,397 km (2,732 miles) from the U.S. base on Diego Garcia. China’s efforts to downplay any foreign concerns about the naval exercise wisely anticipated the likely reaction of an increasingly belligerent U.S. president. Despite claims of being an “anti-war” president, analysts observe that Trump's actions suggest otherwise as he escalates conflict in the Middle East. At the start of the U.S. airstrike campaign in Yemen, the White House released photos of Trump watching U.S. strikes against the Houthis while dressed in golf attire, wearing a red MAGA hat and a headset. The post framed the strikes as an effort to protect U.S. shipping and deter terrorism. The images quickly went viral, sparking mixed reactions: critics questioned his “anti-war” stance, accusing him of prioritizing Israel’s interests, while supporters praised him for taking action. Others mocked him for ordering airstrikes while golfing. Meanwhile, Israel moved troops into Syria, and U.S. airstrikes targeted Syrian anti-aircraft artillery, creating a path for possible strikes on Iran. Though Trump has expressed a preference for negotiations but warned of severe consequences if talks fail—and the deployment of B-2 bombers, capable of carrying massive bunker-buster bombs needed to strike Iran’s underground nuclear sites, signals U.S. preparedness for potential military action. But Iran’s nuclear ambitions are shaped by historical lessons from its neighbors, observing that Iraq and Libya were dismantled while North Korea, with nuclear weapons, deterred intervention, as Kevork Almassian persuasively argues. The U.S. initially engaged with Iran through the 2015 JCPOA, limiting its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, but Trump, influenced by Netanyahu, withdrew from the deal in 2018, escalating tensions.Almassian contends that U.S. policy toward Iran is less about nonproliferation and more about control, aiming to force Iran into submission rather than ensuring regional stability. This strategy, which he describes as imperial bullying, aligns with broader U.S. and Israeli goals of dominance in the Middle East. Netanyahu’s long-standing vision allegedly involves using military intervention to pacify the region and maintain U.S.-Israeli hegemony. While Iran faces heavy sanctions and threats over its nuclear potential, Israel, which has nuclear weapons and never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), faces no such consequences, indicating the hypocrisy of the “rules-based international order.” Almassian therefore questions why global denuclearization efforts do not extend to all nations, highlighting a double standard that favors powerful allies while punishing adversaries.As tensions escalate in the Middle East, the trajectory of U.S. policy under Trump’s second administration becomes increasingly clear: military action and coercion take precedence over diplomacy. The re-designation of the Houthis as a terrorist organization, the intensifying airstrike campaign in Yemen, and the growing military buildup in the region all point toward a widening conflict. Meanwhile, Iran continues to strengthen its defenses, bolstered by support from China and Russia, as the U.S. and its allies increase pressure.Despite Trump’s insistence that he seeks negotiations, his administration’s actions—deploying stealth bombers, enabling unilateral strikes, and aligning with Netanyahu’s military ambitions—suggest otherwise. The historical pattern remains unchanged: Washington demands submission, and when defied, resorts to force. The hypocrisy of the so-called “rules-based order” is evident in the double standards applied to Iran versus Israel, reinforcing the notion that global power structures remain dictated by military might rather than true diplomacy.As the Persian Gulf becomes a flashpoint for potential kinetic conflict, the question remains: will the world witness yet another devastating war, likely to cripple the global economy through its effect on global oil supplies, or will strategic interests force an uneasy balance of power? Given Trump’s two-month deadline for reaching a new nuclear deal, the coming months will determine whether Trump’s brinksmanship leads to a negotiated settlement—or yet another catastrophic confrontation.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Dear Radio Free Pizza gourmets,As you might have noticed, it’s been about a month and a half since I’ve delivered a dispatch, bulletin, or spectacle. Maybe you've started to wonder what happened to me. To make it up to you for my absence, I’ve decided to tell you a little of what’s happened to me, in an autobiographical format that doesn't lean too much on the royal “we” and which instead keeps it all first-person: that is to say, welcome to this newsletter’s first journal. (Yeesh! I find this so tiresome. I’m not a memoirist, I'm a deep-trends analyst and undercover fiction writer. But, here we are, and here we go: my sincere apologies if this homespun slop doesn’t meet our menu’s typical standards.)But to put what’s happened to me in context, I’m going to have to go back a lot further than February 2025: in fact, let's take it back to December 2012, when I first visited Mexico City. On a whim born only the week before—though one which had doubtless germinated for years, given how much I adored Roberto Bolaño’s The Savage Detectives, which first introduced me to the metropolis in text—I flew into town just to ride a bus two more hours to nearby Teotihuacán, the archaeological site of a bustling pre-Columbian city, where I and perhaps a few hundred others would celebrate the end of the Mayan calendar.After spending the night in a nearby hotel, the other tourists and I hurried before dawn to the gates of Teotihuacán, rushing to beat the sunrise. We made it to the Pyramid of the Sun just in time, and dawn found me standing on its top level. There, I had the peculiar sense of history bearing down on us, though I didn't put any stock in the Mayan calendar: I just thought it would be a cool place to be on a day that in recent years the popular culture had been pumping up. Nonetheless, the air buzzed with anticipation as hundreds or even thousands gathered, drumming, chanting, and embracing the dawn of a new era. The energy was electric, a mix of mysticism and celebration, as if the ancient city itself pulsed with renewed life. As the sun rose over Teotihuacán, I closed my eyes and breathed it all in, feeling as if I had witnessed something extraordinary, even if the world kept turning just as it always had.Then I took a nap on top of that pyramid for a couple hours.After returning to Mexico City, I had the pleasure of launching one of my life’s great friendships when I met the host for my couchsurfing, who goes by the name of Chessterina and who on that trip introduced me to the pleasures of her neighborhood, Coyoacán: for example, the legendary bar El Hijo del Cuervo, and Museo Frida Kahlo. Chessterina would become the host on every trip I made to Mexico City until 2019, allowing me to sleep in a room above Estación del Té, the now-shuttered coffeeshop in Benito Juarez that she operated with her friend Marina (and now mine too), among others like then-barista Rodro, guitarist for the phenomenal Molinette Cinema. For years after we met, I would spend college semesters for both my bachelor’s and master’s degrees in my hometown of Minneapolis, and spring breaks and summers in my room above Chessterina’s coffeeshop in Mexico City. On these trips I met my friend Dr. Edgar Avendaño Mejía, who has hosted me a few times since 2019, and whom longtime subscribers will remember from a spectacle posted last year, and who also introduced premium subscribers of this newsletter (as well as those familiar with my earlier podcast miniseries) to one of my life’s darker episodes. That transpired In March of 2018 when, on my second day back in Mexico, I had an epileptic seizure while descending a tile staircase in Estación del Té. Not having yet lived through the 2020–’23 coronavirus pandemic, I hadn’t developed the same distrust of pharmaceuticals that characterizes me now. I never thought my anxiety medication would betray me, but looking back, the warning signs were there all along: the year before my worst seizure, the smaller ones had already begun—brief, disorienting jolts that I brushed off as stress or exhaustion. These included one attack that occurred while I was eating a torta in the park across the street from Estación del Té on St. Patrick’s Day 2017, one of several near-death experiences on that day that inspired Chessterina to nickname me Patricio, which of course bears some resemblance to the name “Patrizio”—as in “Patrizio della Luna.” (In the Nahuatl language, “Mexico” means “navel of the moon.”) The fact that St. Patrick’s Day 2017 was the theatrical release date for T2 Trainspotting—the underrated cinematic sequel (as opposed to the unremarkably literary one) for the famous tale of Scottish heroin addicts—should have clued me in to the reality of my drug problem. I had been on benzodiazepines for years, leaning on them like a crutch, unaware (or unwilling to admit) that my body had become dependent. Then, one day, as I descended the stairs, everything unraveled. A sudden, violent convulsion took hold, and I lost control, my body collapsing before I could even register what was happening. Fortunately, my friends at Estación del Té managed to get my unconscious body to Star Médica, the private hospital in Colonia Roma, where the doctors gave me a 50/50 chance of survival. Through a friend in Minneapolis, those in Mexico City managed to get in touch with my father, who cashed in his 401(k) to travel and negotiated with the travel insurance provider from my own airline ticket to have my body returned to Minneapolis on a private plane. Some two-and-a-half weeks later, I woke up out of a coma in the middle of the night, slowly becoming aware of my endotracheal intubation. My first conscious thought was, “This doesn’t belong here,” and I removed the intubation myself—a very ill-advised decision, though I was fortunate enough not to suffer the damage to my vocal cords and trachea that it risked—before I stepped out of bed to use the bathroom, though of course my weakened legs couldn’t support my weight and I collapsed to floor, where I immediately began emptying my bowels. Nurses rushed into my bedroom, and I learned then that I had been in a coma and that they hadn’t been sure if I would ever wake up. But I survived, and then began frustrating months of physical and occupational therapy before returning to graduate school for the summer semester, where (I’m proud to say) I still finished my master’s degree a semester early despite my medical catastrophe. Acquiring that degree opened the doors for me to high-income professional contracts, while the combination of travel insurance and Minnesota’s medical benefits for low-income taxpayers (as I’d been while in my coma) meant that I didn’t suffer the financial handicap of hospital bills. But my father hadn’t been so lucky, after cashing in his 401(k). Accordingly, he began to consider more seriously the idea of retiring in Mexico, where his social security would buy him a lifestyle of near-luxury compared to what he’d enjoy in the U.S. In the interest of paying him back, I decided to help. However, I didn’t have many years as a high-earner, and not having had the savings or job history then and having too much student debt to purchase a home outright in the U.S., I eagerly invested in a pre-construction property in Puerto Vallarta, where the sea-level would better accommodate my father’s weakening lungs, signing papers in November 2019 for a condominium scheduled for delivery in February 2021—a span of time during which I’d earn enough to cover the purchase, and come out of it with a property worth much more than the cost.Guess what happened in the meantime! That’s right: the governments of the world shut down the economy for fear of the newly declared coronavirus pandemic. But Mexico didn’t shut down to the same degree: as I recall, the country’s state of emergency lasted only two months before essential industries like construction started operating again. (Forgive me if these “journal” posts don’t put the same effort into fact-checking.) Still, the blow to projects like that in which I’d invested proved difficult for real estate developers to overcome. Though the one developing the condominium project in which I’d invested still managed to limp along another year—during which time my father and I rented a home in Puerto Vallarta, where we drove from Minneapolis in January 2021 with a van full of his furniture that we put into storage, then expecting the condominium’s delivery before the end of the sales contract’s grace period in August of that year—slow sales led to payroll suspensions that led in turn to workers’ strikes, during which time the end of pandemic unemployment benefits forced my return to the U.S., with my father following some six months later to take advantage of Medicare as he addressed some newfound health concerns.Though bridging loans allowed construction to begin again in the second half of that year, it only lasted a few months before the bank that had provided the developer his original mortgage placed a lien on the property after losing a court case (and its appeal against the judgment) that would likely force the liquidation of its assets—and then another lien appeared from the financier who provided the aforementioned bridging loan. Thus began about two years of annexes and modifications to my original sales contract while the developer continued courting other financiers, forwarding their letters of interest to myself and the other buyers to prove he was trying, and doing his best to sweeten our deals so as not to have to refund us with money that he didn’t have—or, otherwise, which he’d done his best to hide. During this time, my work as a consultant in technical writing kept me employed in lucrative positions, though ones in which the terms of the companies’ leases for their laptops kept me from working abroad.Finally, toward the end of 2023, I’d had all I could stomach of the opportunity cost of having my savings tied up in a project that may never be completed. On the advice of my real estate agent and of the attorney I’d hired in the interim, I negotiated a termination agreement: supposedly those are easier to enforce than the refund protocols contained in the sales contract, if it should come to litigation. The developer signed that termination agreement in February 2024 before sending it to my attorney, and I returned to Mexico in April (my first time visiting since I left in 2021) to supply my own signature, and to finally acquire a temporary residency visa if, as expected, the developer failed to pay me and I needed to initiate litigation—and also taking the time to meet Marina and Chessterina at the latter’s new deli. That termination agreement mandated the payment of my investment and contractual penalties by June 2024, with further penalties agreed upon if that payment didn’t arrive. Of course it didn’t, and so my attorneys filed a brief in the federal court in Guadalajara. Naturally I trusted them to handle my case with integrity; but instead, they deceived me. By August 2024, the court had already dismissed it as improperly formatted and inconsistent, but one of those attorneys misled me, claiming that the court had only requested an explanation while charging me for drafting a response. In reality, he was supposed to file a second brief, but he never did. Of course, something else happened that same August: Mexico’s federal judiciary initiated an indefinite strike to protest then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s proposed reforms, which aimed to transition the appointment of judges and magistrates to a popular vote system. The judiciary argued that this change threatened judicial independence and disrupted the balance of power. The strike led to the suspension of federal court activities nationwide, impacting legal proceedings and raising concerns among investors and international observers. After nearly two months, the strike concluded in October 2024, though the judiciary continued to express opposition to the reforms, emphasizing the potential risks to the rule of law.In the meantime, I negotiated with my employer to allow me to continue working for them from Mexico on a laptop matching theirs which I purchased only for the purpose of continuing to work, where I could oversee my case and take some greater comfort from simple proximity.That judicial strike gave my duplicitous attorneys some cover for neglecting to file a second brief. Then, in November, the one who misled me in August lied to me again, telling me he had filed a motion for continuance—something that was impossible, given that the original brief had been dismissed and no second brief had been submitted. I would continue waiting for the federal courts to admit my case until this past January, when my inquiries with another attorney revealed the dishonesty of those I’d hired, which likely constituted the crime of simulating a legal or judicial act. So, in February this year—on the same day I released the spectacle featuring the esteemed Daniel Natal, in fact—I returned to Puerto Vallarta, where I hired a new attorney and proceeded to liquidate the storage unit for my father’s furniture that I’d rented since 2021. Selling that furniture felt like dismantling my childhood piece by piece. Every item held memories for me—lazy Sunday mornings, family dinners, the quiet comfort of a home that no longer existed. Trading away the furniture I had grown up with, I felt a deep, aching sorrow settle in, selling off the tangible evidence of a life that had once been whole. The echoes of laughter, the warmth of familiar spaces, all reduced to price tags and transactions. And when the unit was finally empty, I stood there, staring at the hollow space, knowing I had just lost something I could never get back, and knowing meanwhile that my fight to recover my financial investment would continue for months or years.Spending a month in Puerto Vallarta felt like dipping a toe into the life I wanted but couldn’t quite claim as my own. I wandered the cobblestone streets, drank mezcalitas at sunset, and let the ocean breeze convince me, if only for a moment, that I belonged. But the other gringos—the ones who had made this place their home—moved with an ease I envied. They had figured it out, found the way to stay, to trade in the grind for golden afternoons and slow, sun-drenched mornings. I watched them stride confidently toward the beach, their tan lines permanent, while I remained a visitor, counting down the days until my departure, knowing I’d be leaving behind more than just a vacation.Now I’m back in Mexico City, the city I’ve always preferred above all others, waiting again for news of progress in the courts—which I understand have admitted the latest brief, assuming I can trust my lawyer’s word—and still caught between past and future, haunted by thoughts of what could have been. When I first decided to invest in a pre-construction property in Puerto Vallarta, I never imagined I’d end up trapped in a nightmare of uncertainty: I only wanted to pay back my father with a beautiful retirement in paradise. Obviously I regret taking the risk I did, investing in a real estate development that’s still only half-finished more than five years after work first started. But the best I can do now is wait on the courts and hope that the dream I bought into doesn’t turn into a total loss. Meanwhile, other aspects of my life now demand my attention: a business slowdown at the company where I’ve been working as a consultant for the past two years has led them to trim their staff, meaning that as of April Fool’s Day, I’ll be out of a job. But still I walk the streets, sip coffee on rooftops, and let the city’s hum drown out the echoes of dead dreams, of failed investments, and of ongoing legal battles swirling around me as I wait for the resolution with which I can finally move forward. Even so, I remind myself that life goes on, and that someday this chapter will end as so many others have: with a new beginning. Until then, at least, I have the free time again to distract myself with new issues of this newsletter. A lot has happened in the past month to introduce fresh chapters of many stories I’ve been covering, and to give me a lot of content to produce and release. So, if you’ve made it this far, think about supporting my work as a premium subscriber: help me see some return on the time invested to distract myself while I wait to see if I can recover my losses. The story isn’t over yet. Let’s turn the page together—because, trust me: there’s plenty more to come.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Here Zach interviews Daniel Natal—author of Actionable Ethics (2022) and host of the now-on-hiatus The Daniel Natal Show, on which Zach appeared last year—about the historical and contemporary implications of the international bond market for geopolitics. Daniel first explains (at ~2:45) the historical development of the international bond market and how the current Anglo-American financial system evolved from when the Baring Brothers created the concept of an international market for sovereign debt in the 18th century, allowing for cross-border investment in government bonds that financed infrastructure projects, wars, and nation-building efforts. Accordingly, Daniel emphasizes the bond market’s role in shaping global events through sovereign debt, detailing how this system has influenced revolutions, nation-building, and economic policies worldwide, explaining how the British Empire used financial instruments to create new countries and reshape global politics, citing examples from South America and Europe. Through this lens the interlocutors discuss the potential purchase of Greenland and the historic role of the bond market in maintaining economic stability in comparison to its current fragility, particularly in Europe, where negative interest rates emerged in the previous decade. Daniel references (at ~10:34) Edward Dowd’s analysis of the 2020–’23 coronavirus pandemic as a potential cover for protecting the bond market.Discussing (at ~21:04) the impact of technological changes on global governance, Daniel considers the potential implications of cryptocurrency and digital currencies on traditional financial systems. He explains how these technologies could further disrupt existing power structures and potentially lead to new forms of governance, with the current financial system therefore required to adapt to these new realities. From there, Daniel suggests (at ~29:46) potential solutions to the current system, advocating for a return to more traditional, community-based social structures, emphasizing the importance of family and local governance as alternatives to the current global financial system that he calls (at ~35:39) “anti-human.”Their conversation also ranges (at ~52:08) across the future of nation-states and financial systems, potentially leading to the emergence of smaller, more localized systems. Daniel explains how technology is driving this change, comparing it (at ~1:21:36) to how industrial revolutions have historically disrupted social structures, leading to urbanization, family breakdown, and social problems. To address these, he favors Robert Owen’s vision of community-based solutions and criticizes modern society’s attempts to address symptoms rather than underlying social issues. This modern society, he tells us (at ~1:24:32) lacks effective social machinery compared to traditional religious institutions, with the focus on economic metrics over social cohesion has led to surveillance states and technological solutions rather than addressing fundamental human needs.Returning to the potential disruptions that emerging financial technologies may present, he warns (at ~1:27:00) about the potential dangers of cryptocurrency systems, particularly how they could be used to implement expiration dates on money, prevent wealth accumulation, and force constant participation in the economic system. He also discusses how this connects to broader issues of social control and the treatment of less economically productive demographics, such as elderly populations.The conversation concludes (at ~1:29:44) with a discussion of solutions, emphasizing the importance of returning to family-centered, community-based social structures. Daniel argues that the answer lies not in new economic systems, but in restoring traditional social bonds and human-centered ways of living.On the whole, Daniel presents a compelling critique of the modern financial system that emphasizes its historic role in shaping global events and its increasing fragility today. He warns of the dangers posed by emerging financial technologies while advocating for a return to traditional, community-based social structures as a means of restoring stability and human-centered governance. Ultimately, the discussion underscores the tension between financial globalization and localized social resilience, leaving us with much to consider about the future of economic and political systems—which we here at Radio Free Pizza will surely continue working to unpack.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Last week’s bulletin covered tariffs that the Trump Administration imposed on Canada, Mexico, and China, and proposed that such could inadvertently act as a catalyst for establishing the North American Union between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, even as it seems to push countries further apart initially. Of course, just a day later, President Trump delayed his 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico for 30 days after both nations agreed to fortify their borders with additional troops, though a 10% tariff on Chinese imports still took effect. Meanwhile, Chinese countermeasures became clearer after the country imposed its own 15% tariff on certain types of coal and liquefied natural gas, as well as a 10% tariff on crude oil, agricultural machinery, and large vehicles. Additionally, China imposed export controls on over two dozen metal products, including tungsten and tellurium, which are crucial for industrial and defense applications. The Chinese government also added U.S. companies Illumina and PVH Group to its “unreliable entities” list, accusing them of violating market principles, and launched an anti-monopoly investigation into Google.But that wasn’t the only example either of escalating tensions between the two superpowers, or the only one of U.S. aggressions in Latin America: at the start of this month, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio arrived in Panama—which devotees will know took center stage in one of our first year’s dispatches—to begin his tour of five Central American and Caribbean nations (Panama, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic) focusing on immigration, drug trafficking, and countering Chinese influence. That tour started hot on the heels not just of President Trump’s opening salvo in a trade war, but of his false claims during his inaugural address that China controls the Panama Canal, and his vows to take it back. This follows his earlier accusations that Chinese soldiers operate the canal, a claim which both Panama and China have strongly denied. Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino reiterated that no foreign nation interferes with the canal, which has been fully controlled by the Panama Canal Authority since 1999.U.S. concerns naturally stem from China’s growing economic presence in Panama and influence in Latin America, especially after Panama cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan in 2017 and joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). While China does not own or operate the canal, Chinese companies, including Hong Kong-based Hutchison Port Holdings, manage two major ports near the waterway. China is also the canal’s second-largest user and has invested heavily in Panama’s infrastructure. Though President Mulino rejected Secretary Rubio’s push for the return of the Panama Canal to U.S. control, the latter’s warning of potential retaliation if Chinese control over the canal area was not reduced compelled Panama to announce its withdraws from China’s BRI two days after Rubio’s arrival and to terminate a key development deal with Beijing and to begin an audit of Hutchison Port Holding’s canal operations that could lead to a rebidding process.Later that week, the U.S. State Department claimed that Panama had agreed to no longer charge transit fees for U.S. government vessels passing through the canal, but Secretary Rubio soon walked that claim back after President Mulino strongly denied it. The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) confirmed no fee changes had been made but expressed willingness to discuss the matter with U.S. officials.In response to Panama’s withdrawal from the BRI, China criticized the U.S. for “coercion” and accused Washington of undermining its infrastructure program, which has faced concerns over debt and environmental impact. But few if any countries in the Western Hemisphere have the capacity to resist U.S. influence. As the sole superpower in the Americas, last century’s premiere empire needs now to adapt to a multipolar world, as ZeroHedge argued last week. In their view, President Trump’s tariffs on Mexico, Canada, China, and possibly the EU, along with his deportation policies, attempts to reclaim the Panama Canal, and interest in purchasing Greenland, all reflect a shift in U.S. strategy to adapt to a multipolar world. This marks a departure from the post-World War II globalist approach, aligning domestic economic policies with geopolitical interests. Secretary Rubio himself acknowledged this shift, stating that the U.S. must now prioritize its own interests rather than maintaining a unipolar global order. Historically, the U.S. followed protectionist trade policies until the Cold War, when it embraced free trade to strengthen its capitalist allies. The Trump administration is reversing this, using tariffs to reinforce U.S. influence over Mexico and Canada, curb China’s economic power, and protect domestic industries. Deportations are framed as an economic and geopolitical necessity, while reclaiming the Panama Canal and acquiring Greenland align with the Monroe Doctrine, signaling a retreat from globalist policies. The closure of USAID further reflects this shift, as the U.S. moves away from funding foreign interventions and political movements. But naturally, these policy changes also have financial implications, particularly for cryptocurrency markets, with some arguing that Trump’s tariffs could drive Bitcoin prices higher. (We here at Radio Free Pizza seem to have been thinking along the same lines, with our last bulletin having explored how the cryptocurrency sector reacted to these changes, especially with Trump’s recent executive order on digital assets—doubtless a push toward the cashless society discussed in our subsequent spectacle.) Investors are monitoring how these geopolitical moves impact market trends and potential buying opportunities. Of course, some disagree: as retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor explained (at ~31:07) last week in an interview with Edmund DeMarche of The Trends Journal, the U.S. has “no reason to go into Panama. The Chinese are either end of the canal conducting repairs and harbor improvements […] The reason the Panamanian government hired them is because our firms in the United States declined to do the work. So if you really don’t want the Chinese down there on that canal in any shape or form, pick up the phone, call Beijing and say, ‘We’ll buy out your contracts.’ And then we’ll send our contractors down there. We've got to get out of this business of assuming, ‘Oh there’s a danger there to us,’ and so forth. It’s nonsense.”Still, we must disagree here with Macgregor, or rather, add a caveat: the U.S. has no reason to go to Panama and assume control of the canal unless the country has decided to surrender international hegemony in favor of becoming one of the world’s “ten kingdoms” as the center of a regional bloc. But others see less rhyme or reason: while investors might look for buying opportunities, the uncertainty surrounding these tariffs is already impacting the U.S. economy, leading businesses to pause hiring and investment. Many business owners, including those in retail and manufacturing, fear higher costs and declining profits. Overall, the tariff uncertainty is hurting business confidence, slowing hiring, and threatening economic growth. Many executives feel more stressed, and 47% cite economic uncertainty as their biggest concern heading into 2025.Meanwhile, other economic indicators suggest headwinds, with canal traffic now below pre-2023 drought levels—except for container ships, which continue to operate efficiently due to priority scheduling—though Trump has linked delays to China without evidence. China of course urged Panama to resist U.S. interference and prioritize long-term bilateral relations, but given the apparent shift in U.S. geopolitical doctrines—and the physical proximity from which it can exercise force to achieve its aims—few seem to expect Panama to follow that advice. As U.S. expansionist policies in Latin America continue to unfold, Panama’s response to American pressure serves as a clear example of the shifting geopolitical landscape. While the Trump Administration’s moves—tariffs, deportations, and efforts to reassert control over strategic assets—reflect a broader strategy of adapting to a multipolar world (one in which the U.S. seems to regard China as chief among rivals), the economic and political consequences remain uncertain. Investors are weighing opportunities, businesses are grappling with instability, and the future of U.S.-China relations in the region remains highly contested. Whether Panama and other Latin American nations can resist U.S. influence or will ultimately realign with Washington’s vision remains an open question—one we will continue to track closely.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Show Notes🎧 In This Episode: Golden Monarch reveals how Bitcoin and cryptocurrency have evolved from a decentralized dream into a system manipulated by Wall Street, intelligence agencies, and global power players.✨ Featured Guest:Golden Monarch:Twitter: https://x.com/Golden__MonarchSubstack: Golden Monarch News🎧 Main Topic(s):How cryptocurrency has become a tool for financial control rather than liberation.🔑 Key Questions Answered:How has Wall Street taken over the cryptocurrency space?What role do politicians like RFK Jr. and Donald Trump play in promoting Bitcoin?Is Bitcoin truly decentralized, or was it created as a tool for surveillance?What’s the connection between intelligence agencies and the rise of crypto?💡 Big Ideas Explored:The transition from cryptocurrency to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs).Market manipulation by financial institutions and elite investors.The role of geopolitical forces in shaping the future of digital assets.🌟 Support the Show:Leave a Review:Spotify: ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2NADDZQYqE2tW2G4TQtEuM⁠Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/radio-free-pizza/id1766164547⁠Donate or Become a Member:Substack: ⁠https://www.radiofreepizza.com⁠Patreon: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/c/radiofreepizza⁠Buy Me a Coffee: ⁠https://www.buymeacoffee.com/radiofreepizza⁠💬 Let’s Connect!Follow Us:Facebook: ⁠https://www.facebook.com/radiofreepizza⁠Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/radiofreepizza⁠Subscribe to Our Newsletter: ⁠https://www.radiofreepizza.com⁠Join the Conversation:Discord: ⁠https://discord.gg/xts6cEKMSubstack Chat: https://substack.com/chat/1583569 Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Following last month’s three-part exploration of the nascent North American Union, the first of this month saw developments that might throw a wrench in that agenda: the introduction of President Trump’s long-planned tariffs, sparking fears of a global trade war. His 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico—dropping to 10% for Canadian energy resources—and 10% on China are harsher and broader than the measures taken during his first term, and take effect almost immediately under emergency powers, citing illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking as justification. Of course, experts naturally warn that the tariffs will hurt American consumers and businesses, particularly in industries like autos, agriculture, and energy, and estimate that Mexico and Canada’s economies could shrink by 1–2%, while the U.S. impact may be smaller but still significant. Canada and Mexico responded the same day. North of the border, Prime Minister Trudeau immediately imposing 25% tariffs on $106.6 billion of U.S. goods, including beer, wine, appliances, and sporting goods, mirroring U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports escalating the developing trade war between neighbors. Though Trump justifies these tariffs as a response to illegal immigration and drug trafficking, Trudeau disputes these claims, arguing that the shared border is not a security threat. Meanwhile, experts warn that tit-for-tat tariffs will quickly hurt consumers and businesses on both sides, increasing prices and disrupting trade. Trump has signaled further tariff increases if retaliation continues. But these tariffs will “damage the U.S.’s reputation around the world,” warns Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 to 2013 and of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 currently seeking to become leader of Canada’s Liberal Party after Trudeau’s departure.South of the border, Mexico’s President Sheinbaum strongly rejected U.S. accusations about her government’s ties to criminal organizations and asserts that the real issue lies in American gun sales and drug consumption. Her statement highlights her country’s efforts in drug seizures and arrests while criticizing the U.S. for failing to curb domestic fentanyl use and money laundering. “Coordination yes; subordination, no,” she wrote, emphasizing the need for cooperation over confrontation while calling for mutual respect and sovereignty in joint efforts against drug trafficking. But in response to Trump’s disrespectful tone and belligerent actions, she directed Mexico’s Secretary of Economy to implement the Plan B that her administration has developed to impose tariff and non-tariff measures to defend their country’s economic interests. Though Sheinbaum’s statement offers no specifics, reports from last month indicate that Mexico has prepared itself to respond with 5%, 10%, and 20% tariffs on various U.S. goods—targeting pork, cheese, apples, whiskey, and steel, strategically affecting Trump’s voter base while excluding the automotive sector to protect its key industry—with the warning that tariffs could cost 400,000 U.S. jobs and raise consumer prices.For its own part, China has announced it will file a legal case against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in response to Trump’s 10% tariffs on Chinese goods, calling them a violation of trade rules. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce vowed further countermeasures but did not specify what actions it would take. However, with Trump having previously weakened the WTO’s ability to resolve disputes by blocking judges’ appointments during his first term and thereby restricting it for now only to compiling reports, the legal case may have little immediate impact.That leaves Trump largely free to next implement tariffs targeting the European Union, having accused the bloc of treating the U.S. “terribly” and warned he will do “something substantial” without specifying details. The EU, which exported $576.3 billion to the U.S. in 2023, is preparing to retaliate. Officials in Brussels have expressed willingness to engage diplomatically, but Trump has shown no hesitation in igniting trade wars: “Am I going to impose tariffs on the European Union?” he told reporters yesterday. “Absolutely, absolutely.”Naturally, financial markets are already reacting negatively, and global uncertainty is rising. Most notably, the cryptocurrency sector has already fallen dramatically, with Bitcoin alone having declined more than 5% from its intraday peak on Friday as of this writing. This came little more than two weeks after the inauguration of the self-declared “crypto president” whose administration quickly enacted pro-crypto policies with the “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” presidential action that he signed last month. That executive order fulfilled many industry hopes by replacing Securities and Exchange Commission leadership and repealing an accounting rule (SAB 121) that had made it difficult for banks to engage with cryptocurrency markets and paving the way for broader adoption. Further reinforcing his crypto-friendly stance, Trump signed an executive order promoting the advancement of digital assets and exploring the idea of a U.S. digital asset stockpile. A new Working Group on Digital Asset Markets will assess the feasibility of a stockpile, potentially using lawfully seized cryptocurrencies, under instructions to submit regulatory and legislative proposals in 180 days—on 22 July 2025, for those who want to follow the market’s progress during that time. Simultaneously, the order explicitly bans the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC). While many view deregulation of financial institutions in general and cryptocurrencies in particular as steps toward greater liberty for the private citizen—particularly given the aforementioned ban on a U.S. Federal Reserve CBDC—it’s worth noting that digital currencies echo one feature emphasized in last century’s Technocracy Movement that we detailed in our first bulletin on the North American Union: specifically, the economic system of “energy accounting” wherein production capacity is measured by energy usage. In this system, all citizens receive equal energy credits used to acquire goods and services, with prices measured in those goods’ and services’ energy inputs. With the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network already ranging between the world’s 10th and 15th largest economies, it’s not hard to imagine that the energy required to generate a unit of a given cryptocurrency would make it a modern analog to technocratic energy credits. Accordingly, and assuming that the North American Technate proposed last century had been genuinely intended to prefigure the later agenda for a North American Union, we would find some justification for the theory that U.S. intelligence agencies themselves developed Bitcoin, which we first explored last year. Of course, it’s difficult to see just how Trump’s tariffs might support the introduction of digital currencies as energy credits—except by crashing the prices of those risk-on assets through July, allowing financial institutions to add them to their holdings at a discount compared to their prices at the time that Trump signed the aforementioned executive order. Perhaps one might say the same about whether Trump’s tariffs could in any way support the establishment of a North American Union: after all, launching a trade war with one’s neighbors hardly seems like a step toward joining them in any economic bloc.But while many can see the higher inflation rate for consumer prices in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico as a sure short-term result of these tariffs, one can still imagine less obvious results in the long term. Viewers of our New Year spectacle may recall our query to Tarot by Fergus about the apparent contradiction between forecasts of a second American civil war and those of an integrated North American Union, in response to which our esteemed soothsayer considered it possible that the former would serve to help instantiate the latter. Remembering this, it seems likely to us now that the enhanced economic turmoil that Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans will soon begin suffering may provide a similar precondition. Such hardships might make citizens of all three countries more inclined toward reaping economic benefits like those supposedly available in the “economic union” between the U.S. and Canada that Kevin O’Leary proposed in December, on which we commented in our first and second North American Union bulletins. After Trump suggested that Canadians could save 60% on taxes by joining the U.S. as its 51st state, O’Leary proposed a more limited integration, focusing on energy and natural resources, where the two nations could immediately benefit. Outlining the potential benefits of combining the U.S. and Canadian economies—including a shared currency, harmonized taxes, and increased trade—O’Leary suggested that Canadians, especially given the hardships they’ve faced under Trudeau’s leadership, would be open to such a union.Thus, while President Trump’s aggressive tariff policies and the subsequent trade wars may appear to be a direct conflict with the notion of a North American Union, they could inadvertently set the stage for deeper economic integration between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. As the tariffs begin to strain consumers, businesses, and economies across all three countries, citizens may begin to reconsider the benefits of cooperation over confrontation. The idea of an economic union may one day offer a potential pathway out of the economic turmoil exacerbated by these tariffs, with the promise of greater tax relief, resource sharing, and harmonized economic policies—along with, perhaps, the shared currency of a digital “Amero” facilitating cross-border payments. (Which might, of course, be a CBDC of its own: after all, Trump’s aforementioned executive order did nothing to prevent any future “Central of Bank of the North American Union” from issuing one.)Ultimately, though the short-term impact of the tariffs is likely to be painful, the long-term effect could be a push towards the very integration that was once considered an improbable outcome. In this way, what initially seems like a barrier to cooperation may turn out to be a catalyst for a North American Union, as citizens may become more inclined to seek stability and shared prosperity in the face of economic hardship. This, then, is one of the “deep trends” that you can count on Radio Free Pizza tracking in the months and years to come.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

🎧 In This Episode:Collin Radix-Carter's interview with Zach explores his journey from grassroots advocacy to founding INN, his insights on education policy, activism, and global Black solidarity, and his dedication to community upliftment as both an independent media host and educator.✨ Featured Guest:Collin (Ogbonna) Radix-Carter: https://x.com/ogbonna_collinINN YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@IndieNewsNetworkINN Substack: https://www.innnewsletter.com/t/collin-radix-carterINN Linktree: ⁠https://indienews.network/⁠🎧 In This Episode:Main Topic(s): Collin Radix-Carter's journey into independent media, the challenges facing public education under shifting administrations, the effectiveness of activism in the modern political climate, and the intersection of race, class, and global Black solidarity.Key Questions Answered:What led Collin to transition from advocacy work to becoming a founding member of the Independent News Network?How do education policies under different administrations impact vulnerable populations like immigrant and special education students?What role does substantive activism play in driving meaningful societal change beyond protests?How can global Black solidarity address historical injustices while honoring the diversity of Black communities’ experiences?Big Ideas Explored:The need for continuous advocacy for equitable education policies regardless of political leadership.The limitations of performative activism and the necessity of deeper, action-oriented efforts.How independent media and community upliftment intersect to create impactful change.🌟 Support the Show:Leave a Review:Spotify: ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2NADDZQYqE2tW2G4TQtEuM⁠Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/radio-free-pizza/id1766164547⁠Donate or Become a Member:Substack: ⁠https://www.radiofreepizza.com⁠Patreon: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/c/radiofreepizza⁠Buy Me a Coffee: ⁠https://www.buymeacoffee.com/radiofreepizza⁠💬 Let’s Connect!Follow Us:Facebook: ⁠https://www.facebook.com/radiofreepizza⁠Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/radiofreepizza⁠Subscribe to Our Newsletter: ⁠https://www.radiofreepizza.com⁠Join the Conversation:Discord: ⁠https://discord.gg/xts6cEKMSubstack Chat: https://substack.com/chat/1583569 Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Last Wednesday’s bulletin continued our exploration from last Sunday of the resurgent North American Union conspiracy theory, sparked by President-elect Donald Trump’s comments over the past few months about expanding U.S. territory to include Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Such comments connect interestingly to a great deal of evidence supporting the aforementioned conspiracy theories, in reverse chronological order: 2011’s The North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future, by Robert Pastor; the 2005 “Three Amigos” where then-President Bush, then-President Fox, and then-Prime Minister Martin of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America to lay the foundation for a “North American Community” like that which the aforementioned Pastor aimed to chart; the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document titled Building a North American Community, released in the same year, which the aforementioned Pastor co-authored; the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994; the Canada-U.S. Bilateral Agreement in 1989; a 1980 meeting of the Bilderberg Group; the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth; and the prophesied “ten kingdoms” from the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation, which seem to prefigure the Club of Rome’s proposal to divide the globe into ten regional blocs.Critics of Trump’s rhetoric warn that such imperialist expansion could provoke Latin American resistance, potentially strengthening ties with China. But on the same day we published that bulletin, the pseudonymous 009 of The World Is Not Enough released his own examination of recent events pointing to an incoming North American Union, focusing on Mexico’s eager role within this plan. In 2023, former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) met with imminently outgoing U.S. President Biden and the recently resigned Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the 10th North American Leaders’ Summit to sign the “Declaration of North America” that committed its signatories to “1) diversity, equity, and inclusion; 2) climate change and the environment; 3) competitiveness; 4) migration and development; 5) health; and 6) regional security.”Former President AMLO spoke favorably of the idea some months before signing that declaration, describing a private conversation on the subject with outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken while comparing it to the European Union model: “I think that Mr. Blinken spoke about consolidating the region of North America […] in favor of a unity of the entire American continent, like the way the first European community emerged and converted into the European Union, that’s what we want.” That comment prompted an October 2022 letter to Blinken from former Congressman Matt Gaetz calling such an idea “nothing less than a war on American sovereignty.”Citing the 2008 “North American Union Fact Sheet” from the American Policy Center, 009 identifies key initiatives including the establishment of a common currency—like that for which Canadian capitalist Kevin O’Leary recently advocated—which they called the “Amero,” and shared military defense largely provided by the U.S., and U.S.-funded benefits extended to citizens of Mexico and Canada. Another significant component is the construction of a “NAFTA Super Highway” spanning from Mexico to Canada, designed to streamline trade by eliminating tariffs and reducing border inspections. That, of course, echoes one proposal from the 2005 “Three Amigos” initiative mentioned above: North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), a transnational infrastructure project aimed at supporting supply chains, and which faced stiff resistance due to the significant land seizures it would have necessitated.009 frames Mexico’s integration into a North American Union as part of the broader globalist strategy to consolidate nations into regional blocs controlled by technocratic elites—aligning it with United Nations frameworks like Agenda 2030, which incorporates policies on climate change, equity—and pandemic preparedness like those named above in 2023’s Declaration of North America. While he notes that critics like Tucker Carlson have expressed strong opposition to merging with Mexico, citing its ongoing cartel violence and systemic corruption, 009 challenges this perspective, calling it hypocritical given similar levels of corruption and criminality within U.S. governance, critiquing the American exceptionalism that leads commentators like Carlson to downplay domestic U.S. issues while magnifying Mexico’s challenges. That said, we here at Radio Free Pizza feel some reason for apprehension about the possibility of the U.S. merging with Mexico in the North American Union: however, that’s not because of the disparities that Carlson notes between the two countries, but because of the observations that Dr. Edgar Avendaño Mejía shared with us in our November spectacle on Mexican humanism. Here, Avendaño critiques some aspects of “Mexican humanism” for continuing neoliberal policies under a new guise: he highlights how AMLO, despite advocating for the poor, implemented market-driven policies as Mexico City’s regent, such as privatizing urban development. President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, AMLO’s successor, mirrors this duality by promoting sustainability while prioritizing car-centric infrastructure over broader public transit needs, evidenced by controversies like the 2021 subway collapse during her own tenure as regent.Nonetheless, Avendaño acknowledges that AMLO’s social programs, such as scholarships and pensions, remain popular and effective, especially in rural areas, and emphasizes that these represent meaningful progress in reducing poverty. Though Sheinbaum’s environmental focus aligns closely with the trademark globalist focus on sustainability, both she and her predecessor engage in strongly nationalist, sovereignty-oriented discourse that may preserve Mexican independence more than those concerned about the North American Union may expect.(Though we might have to admit that Sheinbaum’s response earlier this month to Trump’s proposal to rename the Gulf of Mexico as “the Gulf of America”—in which she dryly suggested calling much of the continental U.S. “América Mexicana”—might unintentionally feed into their concerns.) But whatever one might think about Sheinbaum’s retort, or about her reaffirmed commitment to the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a modified NAFTA negotiated in Trump’s first term (though her commitment to it hasn’t earned her an invitation to the incoming U.S. president’s second inauguration), it seems difficult to cast her as a controlled opposition to the globalist agenda. Just one week ago Sheinbaum delivered a speech celebrating the achievements of her first 100 days in office that strongly repudiated “the neoliberal model”—in contrast to Avendaño’s assessment of her tenure as Mexico City regent—while also celebrating Mexico’s progress under her leadership and outlining her administration’s plans. She reaffirmed her commitment to Mexican humanism, prioritizing social welfare, reducing inequality, and continuing AMLO’s transformative agenda. Achievements include job growth, foreign investment, infrastructure projects like the Maya Train, and significant social reforms, including a minimum wage increase and improved healthcare access.Sheinbaum emphasized upcoming initiatives such as judicial elections, enhanced support for Indigenous and marginalized communities, expanded education, and housing projects. While expressing optimism about relations with the U.S. during Trump’s second term, she defended Mexican immigrants’ contributions in the U.S. and vowed to protect their rights amid deportation threats. She concluded by reiterating Mexico’s sovereignty and her dedication to the nation’s prosperity.This, in turn, might align more closely with another point of 009’s: his critique of “the American-dominated ALTCOM (alternative community)” that opposes globalist plans like the proposed North American Union, suggesting that their reactionary stance stems from fear of change rather than a nuanced analysis of long-term consequences. Instead, he argues that political and societal evolution is natural and has shaped human history, from agricultural communities to modern nation-states, driven by science and technology. While acknowledging the risks of globalist control, such as a potential techno-feudal surveillance state, 009 stresses the need to shape a multipolar world that preserves democracy and freedoms rather than rejecting change outright. Though ALTCOM has a crucial role in resisting excessive globalist dominance (what 009 calls elsewhere “the Great Deceleration” under which resistance will dismantle the unsustainable globalist vision embodied in the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset”), it must nonetheless do more to guide humanity toward a freer, more democratic future.In the interest of offering some idea of just what such a future might look like, let’s turn to a piece from astrophysicist Adam Frank published in Big Think last month. Here, Frank explores the viability of the nation-state in addressing planetary-scale challenges, which is driving humanity to reimagine political, economic, and social structures. In his view, this shift stems from the recognition of global interconnectedness of human projects must take into account their own context of being embedded within Earth’s coupled systems—the biosphere and the underlying geospheres—now entering the Anthropocene epoch after the stable Holocene.The nation-state, born just a few centuries ago, remains the dominant form of governance, yet it struggles to address transboundary issues that affect the entire planet. While a centralized world government might seem a logical solution, widespread resistance to top-down mandates, particularly in democracies, suggests that a better approach might involve what Frank calls multi-scale governance. This model would see decisions made locally, at levels like cities or counties—something, I suppose, like the system proposed by Peter Kropotkin, from whom I drew a certain inspiration last year while articulating a Libertarian Communism—with broader frameworks for action operating above the nation-state level. (Of course, that last part makes it sound like a model for one of the “ten kingdoms” with extra steps, but as usual, we’ll take what works and leave the rest.)In keeping with this approach, Frank tells us how the Planetary Summit of California’s Berggruen Institute and its associated book, 2024’s Children of a Modest Star, emphasize the need for innovation in governance while staging decentralization and bottom-up decision-making as crucial for managing planetary-scale crises. While no one expects the nation-state to vanish immediately, the summit suggests that it may no longer serve as humanity’s primary organizing principle in the long term as humanity grapples with how to organize itself in alignment with the realities of a finite, interconnected Earth.It’s interesting to note, of course, that Frank stages climate change as a challenge that might drive humanity toward more localized political structures, given how many of us see concerns about climate change as part-and-parcel with globalism—as Frank himself must acknowledge, since he takes the time to warn us that, in responding to planetary-scale challenges, “going up a level to a world government is unlikely to be the answer […] while there may need to be governing organizations that work at a level above the nation-state, the power to decide how action is implemented should always be carried out at the smallest scale possible.” That in mind, it seems as though a more appropriate method through which Sheinbaum might exercise her environmentalism wouldn’t come through any North American Union like that which her predecessor apparently supported, but instead for the Mexican state to surrender sovereignty downward to smaller-scale communities throughout the country: something perhaps modeled on the ejido, a system of communal land tenure established after the Mexican Revolution and formalized in the 1917 Constitution to promote equitable land distribution and support rural farmers who collectively own the land but have individual use rights. While the advent of a North American Union seems to reflect a global trends toward consolidating nations into regional blocs to create a multipolar world order—as BRICS+ seems to prefigure, though without its regional trappings—this restructuring poses significant risks of diminished freedoms and authoritarian controls alongside the potential benefits of increased cooperation and efficiency. Preserving individual liberties may require us to pursue instead a model of local sovereignty that champions democratic values amid political transformations, and which resists the technocratic ideal of (supposedly) “scientific” governance. As discussions of a North American Union and other globalist initiatives continue to evolve, we may find that prioritizing bottom-up governance and empowering smaller communities better ensures the preservation of local autonomy and democratic values against technocratic overreach.We’ll see if Trump starts talking about any of that. (But we won’t hold our breath.)Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Last Sunday we covered the resurgence of conspiracy theories about a North American Union following once-and-future President Donald Trump’s provocative comments about expanding U.S. territory to include Canada, Greenland, and Panama, to which we drew parallels with the consequently revived conspiracy theory of the North American Union. However, we took no time to discuss the irony of those comments in comparison to Trump’s past fervent advocacy for a southern border wall, aimed at fortifying national boundaries. That of course contrasts starkly with any contemporary interest in territorial expansion, which would involve erasing or redrawing borders to incorporate foreign land. This shift underscores a paradox: a figure once committed to rigidly protecting the sanctity of geographic limits now entertaining ambitions that could fundamentally alter them. The juxtaposition naturally highlights how flexible ideology can become when power and influence are at stake.But, what threat does Trump see to the power and influence of the U.S.? We addressed one answer to that question in our final dispatch of 2024: the ascendance of BRICS+. Here, we cited critics like Riley Waggaman, Joseph P. Farrell, and the pseudonymous 009, who each note that BRICS+ and the G20 both embody similar globalist agendas, aligning with the World Economic Forum’s (WEF) vision of a centralized, technocratic global governance system. They argue that advancements in AI, blockchain, and quantum computing are being leveraged by elites to dismantle nation-states and consolidate power under regional blocs like BRICS+, facilitating increased surveillance and control through initiatives like “smart cities.” The North American Union, then, would represent a similar regional bloc. Though we’ve noted the idea as one now enjoying a revival after first appearing only a few decades ago, others trace its lineage back millennia, like the presumably pseudonymous J Shannon. As Shannon writes in “What Is the Ten Kingdoms Project?” from earlier this month, the concept of a one-world government composed of ten global regions has been linked to prophetic visions dating back to ~600 BC; meanwhile, Trump’s recent proposals echo the Club of Rome’s map dividing the world into ten “kingdoms.” We should note, however, that from our own research, said map seems not to come from the Club of Rome’s 1972 The Limits to Growth, but from William Cooper’s 1991 Behold a Pale Horse, which critiqued the proposals from the Club of Rome text.Regardless of the map’s specific origins, modern discussions surrounding the North American Union certainly align with this vision, suggesting a regional bloc encompassing the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and possibly extending further south. Critics argue that this reflects a globalist agenda aimed at replacing nation-states with centralized, technocratic governance controlled by elites.Shannon links these concerns to biblical prophecies, which describe a final world kingdom arising under the Antichrist, marked by authoritarian control, technological sophistication, and global dominance. Prophecies from the Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelation foretell a coalition of ten rulers or regions under one leader, who will oppose God and be ultimately defeated by Christ. Meanwhile, Shannon also cites more secular analysts who, like those named above, link this vision to contemporary globalist efforts to consolidate power through regional blocs and advanced technologies like AI and blockchain: namely, Patrick Wood, who discussed Trump’s expansionist rhetoric earlier this month in Technocracy News & Trends.Here, Wood explores how Trump’s policies and rhetoric align with historic technocratic visions of a North American super-state stretching from Greenland to Panama. This vision, which Wood similarly traces to early 20th-century proposals from the Technocracy movement like that featured in our last bulletin, seeks to consolidate political systems into regional blocs managed by technocratic elites. Wood goes on to elaborate the history of the North American Union concept, linking it to the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and subsequent efforts under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama: Bush’s “Three Amigos” initiative in 2005 aimed to integrate Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. into a “North American Community” to enhance security and economic cooperation. This initiative included the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) and the North America’s SuperCorridor Coalition (NASCO), a supply chain and infrastructure project that faced resistance due to its potential for massive land seizures.Under Obama, the North American Union evolved into a climate and energy partnership tied to NAFTA, promoting liberalized trade rules and clean energy standards: initiatives which have been critiqued as steps toward a technocratic reorganization of governance, aligning with globalist goals for centralized control—echoing the criticisms that Waggaman, Farrell, and 009 leveled at BRICS+, as described above.Trump’s proposals represent a dramatic resurgence of the North American Union, reflecting historical aspirations for uniting the continent under a single regime. As Wood notes, commentators like Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec have approvingly compared Trump’s rhetoric to Manifest Destiny, the 19th-century belief in American territorial expansion. Naturally, such discussions highlight the tension between nationalist aspirations and technocratic globalism, underscoring the enduring influence of historical ideas on contemporary geopolitics. Of course, Wood hasn’t been the only analyst in independent media to address their colleagues’ apparent willingness to abandon their past interest in maintaining territorial integrity in favor of expansionary adventurism: Parallel Mike, Monica Perez, and Hrvoje Morić gathered once more as Cognitive Dissidents (whose coverage we last featured in the aftermath of the 2024 U.S. election) in a conversation that covered the North American Union in its latter half.Their discussion of the North American Union begins (at ~58:40) in earnest with a clip of the same Kevin O’Leary from our last bulletin using the proposed bloc’s infamous name: I had two topics that I wanted to talk to [Trump] about. Number one was integrating Canada towards a North American Union for greater strength just period. The world’s a a difficult place these days and most Canadians would like to look at that opportunity without giving up their sovereignty. So low hanging fruit would be combined currency, for example, combining the Bank of Canada with the Fed, things like that […] and [Number two was] just to ask him because this was on Saturday to say these meetings you’re having with Trudeau and finance ministers from Canada with all due respect, sir, a complete waste of time. This guy is gonna get eradicated out of the Canadian political landscape. Give the Canadians a chance to re-elect a leader just like you got re-elected that has a four-year mandate just like you have and let’s get down to business. Certainly the significance of O’Leary using the term “North American Union” isn’t lost on Morić, who says (at ~1:00:14), “This used to be conspiracy theory, and now it’s mainstream stuff—Fox, CNN—and it’s like, ‘It’s a wonderful thing!’ It’s like, ‘It doesn’t exist, you’re conspiracy theorist! Oh here it is, it’s a wonderful thing!’”Thereafter, Morić goes on to display the same map we included above, along with a 1976 New York Times article describing the Club of Rome dividing the world into ten regions, before referring (at ~1:01:51) to his own December 2013 interview with “the father of the North American Union, Robert Pastor.” Their conversation digresses slightly to name some of the “controlled opposition” figures who have reversed their positions on such proposals only because now they’re coming from Trump, as we mentioned above. Soon enough, however, the Cognitive Dissidents begin detailing some of the documents produced over the past century that should have had us contradicting more forcefully in our last bulletin the idea that any plan for the North American Union lacks credible evidence. That evidence includes a 2005 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) document titled Building a North American Community, which outlines proposals for deeper integration between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, along with recommendations for harmonizing labor and environmental regulations, facilitating freer movement of goods and people, and establishing a North American energy and emissions regime. It also proposes creating a North American Advisory Council and promoting interoperable military and law enforcement practices.The Cognitive Dissidents trace (at ~1:06:05 1:13:29) the origins of these ideas to globalist forums, notably a 1980 meeting of the Bilderberg Group, highlighting its influence on subsequent agreements such as the Canada-U.S. Bilateral Agreement in 1989 and NAFTA in 1994—milestones in a broader effort to implement regional integration. Key figures mentioned include: Heidi Cruz—wife of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and investment manager at Goldman Sachs—who participated in the task force behind the aforementioned CFR document; William Weld—former Republican governor of Massachusetts who in 2016 became the vice presidential running mate of Libertarian Gary Johnson—who also participated in that CFR task force; and the aforementioned Robert Pastor, an advocate for regional integration and author of 2011’s The North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future.For the Cognitive Dissidents, the Bilderberg Group represents a key player in shaping these agendas, with agendas developed at its closed-door meetings later influencing national policy decisions, with ideas discussed in elite global forums being eventually translated into policy frameworks over decades. Overall, their discussion underscores the legitimacy of the concerns among so-called “conspiracy theorists” about the broader agenda of regional integration and the unconstitutional nature of supranational policymaking. Of course, such integration would have significant implications for sovereignty, governance, and the balance of power in the Western Hemisphere. Certainly the other countries in that hemisphere would be interested to know what those implications mean for them—and not just Canada and Panama, either. Trump’s threat to reclaim the Panama Canal with or without force has provoked a strong regional backlash throughout Latin America, with Panama firmly rejecting the idea and receiving solidarity from neighboring nations like Mexico, Chile, and Colombia. These threats may risk undermining U.S. standing in the region, feeding ongoing tensions over U.S. imperialism. Historically, Latin America has resisted U.S. dominance, as seen in Panama’s long struggle for and eventual acquisition of internationally recognized sovereignty over the canal. Many remember the U.S. transfer of its former territory in the Canal Zone as representing a broader “Good Neighbor” policy designed to prevent regional alienation and maintain hemispheric stability: a diplomatic legacy that Trump’s aggressive rhetoric threatens to undermine. Meanwhile, conquering the Panama Canal with military force would likely render the canal inoperable—accomplishing the opposite of Trump’s stated desire to make the canal more favorable to U.S. businesses—and divert U.S. resources from its other geopolitical theaters. Accordingly, some analysts fear that such threats could push Latin American countries closer to China, seeking security and counterbalance against U.S. aggression. China’s strategic investments, such as the $2.8 billion Chancay port in Peru and expanding trade agreements, reflect its commitment to strengthening economic and diplomatic ties in the region. Over the past two decades, China has grown into a top trading partner for many Latin American countries, with trade increasing from $18 billion in 2002 to $500 billion in 2023. In contrast, Trump’s “America First” policies, including potential tariff increases and reduced regional aid, could push Latin American countries to further strengthen their relationships to China, which offers significant investments through its Belt and Road Initiative with far fewer political demands.But pushing Latin America toward China—particularly its Mexican and Central American components—seems to run counter to the theorized aim to establish a North American Union. (Maybe then our New Year spectacle was on to something in examining whether a second U.S. civil war might happen first, a speculation we first discussed more than a year ago, and which briefly resurfaced in a June bulletin covering Trump’s criminal conviction.) But Trump’s recent rhetoric toward that end runs counter to his previous positions on the need to secure the borders of the continental U.S., as we mentioned above, and placed within this context, his rhetoric isn’t the only one: for example, Rev Laskaris of the RTSG research collective quoted Jackson Hinkle—whom we’ve mentioned once or twice as a figurehead of MAGA Communism, and who has a similar relationship within the American Communist Party that we covered last year—saying in 2023, “The United States needs to invade and liberate Canada.” While that might not be a call for a political merger, it’s not exactly socialism in one country either.Of course, maybe nothing will come of Trump’s rhetoric—even with the “Make Greenland Great Again” bill submitted this week in the U.S. House of Representatives that would empower the incoming president to negotiate the purchase of Greenland from Denmark. But regardless of whether Trump’s vision represents a genuine policy shift or mere political theater, its implications—both domestic and international—demand careful scrutiny. As the debate unfolds, it serves as a reminder of the enduring influence of past ideologies on present-day politics and the challenges of balancing national sovereignty with global interconnectedness in an increasingly multipolar world. Meanwhile, such discussions revive anxieties about centralized global governance and the erosion of nation-states, reflecting both historical and prophetic frameworks that continue resonating with critics and supporters alike.As Trump’s rhetoric stirs both historical echoes and contemporary anxieties, its consequences—whether symbolic or substantive—are sure to shape the evolving geopolitical landscape. Here at Radio Free Pizza, we’ll do our best to chart it.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Viewers of our most recent spectacle may recall our query about plans to engineer a North American Union—a supranational bloc in the mold of the European Union—following once-again-soon-to-be-President Donald Trump’s cheeky rhetoric since late November about adding Canada to the U.S. as a 51st state, which in December developed into his expressed interest in acquiring Greenland as a U.S. territory from Denmark (in part for its critical mineral wealth) and in reasserting control over the Panama Canal.Though his rhetoric struck a favorable chord with Canadian capitalist and media personality Kevin O’Leary, the recently resigned Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau naturally rejected Trump’s proposal, as did Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen—whose Defense Minister coincidentally announced an ~$1.5 billion increase to Denmark’s spending on Greenland’s defense—while Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino asserted his country’s sovereignty over the canal, which the country gained in 1999 under a neutrality treaty guaranteeing equal access for all nations. However, Trump’s comments nonetheless signal a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy, in addition to raising long dormant concerns about plans for a North American Union.(Interestingly, I learned yesterday from Daeha Ko that this isn’t the first time in U.S. history that the country’s officials have discussed purchasing Greenland, with internal discussions about the takeover springing up in the presidential administrations of 1867, 1910, and 1946, with Secretary of State William H. Seward—who purchased Alaska from Russia—nearly completing negotiations to purchase both Greenland and Iceland from Denmark in 1868. Ko proposes that, since the Northwest Passage along Canada’s northern coast is now ice-free for much of the year, with Greenland therefore expected to become a major stop along that passage, and with security requirements in the region expected to increase almost exponentially. Accordingly, U.S. interests for national security and strategy may motivate Trump’s interest in establishing a sovereign claim to the area—and of course it’s unlikely that Canada would going to give up any island.)The aforementioned conspiracy theory of the North American Union posits (more or less) that the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico have been secretly working to merge into a single superstate, eliminating national sovereignty and creating a unified currency, often referred to as the “Amero.” Proponents of the theory argue that this integration was previously advanced through trade agreements like NAFTA and policies that supposedly erode national borders. Of course, it’s interesting that Trump would stoke fresh fears over a North American Union, given that NAFTA’s succesor, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) replaced NAFTA in 2020, fulfilled Tump’s 2016 campaign promise to overhaul what he called the “worst trade deal ever made.”Certainly critics will point out a lack of credible evidence supporting the existence of any plan for a North American Union, and would suggest the theory has been fueled by concerns over globalization and loss of national identity, which allowed it to gain traction in certain political and fringe circles. However, those critics may not be aware yet of similar proposals in history: for example, the “American Technate” championed by the Technocracy movement during the Great Depression, which advocated for a technocratic society led by engineers and technicians and aimed to replace capitalism and representative government with scientific planning, emphasizing energy-based economics and centralized control. Under Howard Scott, the movement proposed authoritarian measures, including strict economic controls and isolationism, and territorial expansion to create a “Technate of America” encompassing North America, Central America, the Caribbean, and beyond. Though of course the Technocracy movement didn’t succeed in founding any such Technate, it’s interesting to note that the map of their proposal bears a striking resemblance to the appearance of North America in Maurice Gomberg’s 1942 Post-War New World Map, which proposed a radical reorganization of global governance following an Allied victory in World War II while advocating for a “New World Moral Order” for lasting peace, security, and justice. Gomberg’s vision divided the world into federations such as the United States of America, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United States of Europe, and others, while quarantining Axis nations like Germany, Italy, and Japan under strict international oversight. The plan called for demilitarization, nationalization of resources, and establishing a World League of Nationalities to ensure global cooperation and peace enforcement. Though controversial, the map reflected optimistic socialist ideals of global unity, though it also contained elements of authoritarianism and exclusionary policies.This historical context of supranational ambitions and speculative proposals underscores the enduring appeal—and controversy—of projects aimed at reimagining national borders and, consequently, global governance. But what’s the through-line between these concepts and contemporary fears about Trump’s expansionist rhetoric? To help fill in that gap, we can turn to Alex Jones’s 2009 documentary Reflections and Warnings: An Interview with Aaron Russo, in which Trump’s recent rhetoric has prompted a revival of interest.This extensive interview with filmmaker Aaron Russo, whose insights and allegations bring a more personal and provocative perspective to the conversation, sheds light on the intersection of political agendas, economic policies, and conspiracy theories like the North American Union. Here, Russo describes how his personal friendship with an alleged Nicholas Rockefeller—someone whom the much admired James Corbett estimates may have at least claimed to be a member of the infamous dynasty of American oligarchs—shaped his supposedly controversial views about 9/11, the Federal Reserve, and world government conspiracies. He asserts that the 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were orchestrated by elements within the U.S. government and banking system to justify the subsequent War on Terror to create a perpetual state of fear and control, just as he claims his Rockefeller friend had predicted. But for these conspirators’ goals, the North American Union only serves as a stepping-stone, and Russo outlines (at ~23:51–25:28) just how far beyond the mere expansion of U.S. borders they aim:So the ultimate goal that these people have in mind is the goal to create a one-world government run by the banking industry, run by the bankers, and they’re doing it in sections. The European currency, the Euro, and the European Constitution is one part of it. Now they’re trying to do it in America with the North American Union, right? And they wanna create a new currency called the Amero […] the whole agenda is to create a one-world government where everybody has an RFID chip implanted in them. All money is to be in those chips, right? There’ll be no more cash. And this is given me straight from Rockefeller himself, this is what they wanna accomplish […] Instead of having cash, any time you have money in your in your in your chip, yhey can take out whatever they wanna take out whenever they want to. If they say you owe this much money in taxes, they just deduct it out of your chip digitally. Total control […] [if] you’re protesting what they’re doing, they can just turn off your chip and you have nothing. You can’t buy food, you can’t do anything. It’s total control of the people […] And so they want a one-world government controlled by them, everybody being chipped, all your money in those chips, and they control the chips and they control and you become a slave, you become a serf to these people. That’s their goal, that’s their intention.Russo goes on to emphasize (at ~55:51) the need to shut down the Federal Reserve system—something we here at Radio Free Pizza can surely get behind, though our proposed solution in the preceding link of a nationalized central bank likely runs at odds with Russo’s own thinking, unless we add provisions to prevent surveillance and control over personal monies—with the filmmaker explaining that the central bank has created a debt-based economy and controlling both major political parties to destroy American sovereignty. Accordingly, he calls (at ~2:05:43) for an uprising against the banking elite and advocates (at ~2:20:50) for restoring the constitutional republic, suggesting (at ~2:21:17) the mobilization of everyday Americans to stand against government tyranny. Throughout the interview, he stresses the need for public awareness and action to reclaim individual freedoms and dismantle the current system of high finance controlling national politics and international policy.Trump’s expansionist rhetoric and the consequent re-emergence of the North American Union conspiracy theory reflects a complex intersection of historical precedent, political intrigue, and the enduring appeal of grand geopolitical visions. While the theory seems to lack substantive evidence and remains firmly in the realm of speculation, its persistent popularity underscores deep-seated anxieties about globalization, sovereignty, and the concentration of power.Historical examples like the Technocracy movement, Gomberg’s post-war map, and Russo’s controversial claims provide a vivid tapestry of ideas that resonate with both legitimate concerns and outlandish fears. They remind us that proposals to redraw borders, consolidate power, or reshape governance have long captured the imagination—though often fraught with authoritarian undertones and practical obstacles.Ultimately, whether Trump’s rhetoric signifies a genuine shift in U.S. foreign policy or merely serves as political theater, it invites us to examine broader questions about national identity, global cooperation, and the balance between security and liberty. As history has shown, such ambitions, whether real or imagined, demand vigilant scrutiny to ensure that bold visions do not erode the principles of representative governance and national self-determination. In the end, perhaps the real challenge lies in distinguishing between pragmatic strategies to control mineral deposits or shipping lanes (of which not just Greenland has both, but Panama too) and the emotional allure of grand conspiracies—though of course we can’t say why these should be mutually exclusive.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Welcome to 2025, Radio Free Pizza gourmets! To mark this latest January in our species’ never-ending march, I hope you’ll humor me enough to review our publication’s history, and thereafter to outline its journey forward.Some among you might have noticed that our dispatches and bulletins now come with audio voiceovers that Substack syncs to various platforms—Apple, Spotify, and YouTube, to be precise—generated with a voice clone of yours truly from ElevenLabs. Including the music (courtesy of Suno) that bookends and provides internal transitions to these voiceovers, this has all resulted in almost twelve hours (~11:59:37) of audio generated from Year One alone. To that total we can add another ~13:16:04 for the dispatches and bulletins from May through December of last year—though again, that’s including ~1:16:36 of intros, transitions, and outros. Disregarding those, we’ve produced the text for ~23:59:05 of speech in our audio podcasts, which run ~1:1:15:41 if we include them. So, we’ve either produced about 45 seconds shy of a full day of audio content, or more than 25 hours of it, depending on how you want to measure it. That’s all spread across 52 total text posts published here on Radio Free Pizza since its launch in April 2023, with an average of 4115.25 words each—213,993 total.That’s quite a lot, I’d say: about three books’ worth. The longest so far was last month’s “2024 in Retrospect” with its eight (decreasingly narrow) slices: however, as I told Indie (eponymous and pseudonymous co-founder of the Indie News Network) about this format in July, “What a silly thing for me to do, I could’ve just posted the sub-headers as their own articles. 🤷‍♂️ I’ll have to transition away from this ‘Year in Forecast / in Progress / in Retrospect’ format next year.” So, you won’t be seeing any “2025 in Forecast” dispatch this month—not from me, anyway. But that’s not the only change we have in store! As some of you may have also observed, in last year’s final quarter we started releasing “spectacles,” as I’ve chosen to call these video podcast episodes—such as an interview with the aforementioned Indie released last month, or one with Tarot by Fergus (whose fortune-telling replaced the missing “2025 in Forecast”) released on the first of this year. These, I expect, will become the predominant mode of media in which we release our content. Still, as you might have guessed from my emphasis above on our word count so far, I don’t plan on abandoning the written word entirely. Especially not while I continue my longstanding efforts with Diaphora Co.!While I have some plans to present future posts featuring some of the indie novels (and comics) mentioned in the brief description of Radio Free Pizza that appears in our various social media profiles, there’s also the question of the to-do list featured in “Year One” last April, reprinted below with additions inspired by the dispatches and bulletins that followed it in the rest of 2024:* Crime Rates, Wealth Inequality & Population:* Research and compare crime rates in the U.S., USSR, and Russian Federation during the ’90s—maybe throw in the PRC and DPRK for good measure—and compare these to data on wealth inequality, elite overproduction, and population to assess secular cycles* Examine the relationship between foreign policy positions and domestic political stability* U.S. Housing Crisis, Middle-Class Decline, & Tenants Union Inquiry:* Research the U.S. housing crisis and its connection to corporations like BlackRock buying up the single-family houses in U.S. cities* Examine when the American middle-class really started to decline and “the American Dream” ended* Research the activity of tenants unions nationwide* Develop plans to address land and housing concentration issues based on historical precedents* Dismantle Economic Imperialism:* Research options for busting or nationalizing monopolistic corporations* Consider methods of nationalizing the U.S. Federal Reserve and replacing it with a state-owned central bank* Investigate policies to support worker-owned enterprises with ESOP ownership share compensation plans* Examine approaches for reducing big money donor influence in U.S. politics* Develop proposals to increase working class political representation* Basic Needs Guarantee, Workplace Productivity & Wage Growth Analysis:* Research the idea of guaranteeing basic needs like healthcare and housing in exchange for service in programs like Americorps* Have an open discussion on shifting cultural attitudes about the necessity of full-time work and how to move incrementally* Compile data on worker productivity gains over past decades compared to wage growth and changing workplace expectations* Financial Systems Investigation & CBDC Adoption Monitoring:* Research the history of money, central banking, and the potential manipulation of metals markets to suppress gold and silver prices* Look further into cryptocurrencies as an alternative to central bank-controlled fiat money* Consider the benefits of returning to a gold standard or similar system* Pay attention to how the adoption of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) plays out globally in comparison to El Salvador’s adoption of Bitcoin* Geopolitics, Economics, & Systemic Issues:* Investigate the ongoing economic battle between the U.S. and China in Latin America, focusing on the fight over resources* Continue documenting and reporting on the impact of U.S. sanctions and intelligence operations on Latin American economies like that of Venezuela* Reflect on how current systems contribute to issues like pandemics, climate change, biodiversity loss, and mental health crises* State Enterprises & Sustainability Investigation:* Examine the merits and flaws of nationalizing or establishing state enterprises in different sectors of the American economy* Explore ways of supporting innovations aimed at sustainability, rebuilding natural systems, and reforming economic incentives* Media Advocacy & Fairness:* Examine approaches toward establishing an equitable media ecosystem that serves the public interest and supports independent outlets* Explore policy changes to regulate corporate media* Continue advocacy for press freedom and protection of journalists who expose government crimes* Examine ways to promote critical thinking and media literacy in discussions about conspiracy theories* Inner Development Reflection & Transformative Experiences Exploration:* Reflect on whether modern comforts waste internal value by substituting them for inner development and transformation* Consider ways to seek challenging experiences and frontiers outside of political solutions to transform oneself* Develop proposals transitioning to localized communities that cultivate wisdom practices rooted in unique contexts and intimate relationships* Libertarian Communism:* Explore ways to instill a national ethic in the U.S. of patriotic service to one’s local community* Research socialist-inspired efforts to foster a sense of shared purpose and reduce socioeconomic disparities to promote social cohesion and communal responsibility* Promote citizen engagement in grassroots-level political participation, with a focus on local oversight and participation in government to ensure democratic integrity that holds both political and corporate elites accountable* Examine strategies for effectively communicating anti-imperialism to disaffected working-class communities in the interest of building a mass movement centered on workers’ rights and improving living standards* Investigate the five-year plans under Stalin and other aspects of his “socialism in one country” for ideas to incorporate into the proposed “socialism with American characteristics”As I said before, “we’ll see how soon I get around to any of that”—though I do think I’ve made some indirect inroads on a few of them. But regardless of how soon I address the above list—or in what order I do so—you can be sure it will be sooner than the last time I said it, since I plan to make these the focus of our dispatches in the coming year. But with that said, I may modify the release schedule of those dispatches: while I’ve maintained a last-Sunday-of-every-month schedule since last April for dispatches, and released bulletins on intermittent Wednesdays (at least until the appearance of our first spectacle), I’m feeling a degree of burnout after publishing three books’ worth of written material in the past year and a half. Accordingly, to keep the quality up to par, I expect to become less exacting in the frequency (and/or regularity) with which dispatches, bulletins, and spectacles appear. That will give me more time to write edit the novels of Patrizio della Luna, whose Metropotamia series has (until now) been put unfortunately on the back burner.Thanks as always for tuning in! I can’t tell you how much I’m looking forward to 2025, and finding out just what Radio Free Pizza will deliver.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

To ring in 2025, Zach interviews Brian (Tarot by Fergus), a professional tarot card reader, about what he can tell us for the coming year. The friends spend a few minutes discussing their shared history in Minneapolis—which we delved into here almost a year ago—while Brian explains his reasons for leaving Minneapolis, citing increasing social tension, the 2020 riots, and subsequent urban decay.Soon enough, however, Zach inquires (at ~8:14) about possible alien-related events in 2025, partially inspired by recent drone sightings in New Jersey, and partially by a mid-1990s interview of journalist Jim Goodall. Brian’s reading suggested these events were more about mental manipulation and control rather than actual extraterrestrial activity—in other words, the old psy-op routine.In his second question, Zach broaches (at ~17:11) the question of coming lockdowns in the U.S. resulting from bird flu, prompted by recent statements from Peter Hotez and Gavin Newsom’s emergency declaration in California. Brian's reading indicates preparation for potential pandemic measures rather than immediate implementation.Third, Zach asks (at ~20:20) what Brian can tell us about potential conflict between U.S.-Israel and Iran. Brian’s reading suggests a quick resolution resulting in U.S.-Israel control over Iran, triggered by some form of significant event or attack—potentially one marking the end of conflict between Russia and Ukraine.Finally, Zach inquires (at ~27:26) about the likelihood of a second U.S. civil war—something their aforementioned experience with civil unrest in Minneapolis might make them particularly wary of—versus that of establishing a North American Union, given President-elect Trump’s recent comments about adding Canada as the 51st state. Brian interprets the cards to suggest a complex process wherein the fracturing of the U.S. might precede an eventual North American Union, with secret forces potentially orchestrating both scenarios. The discussion concludes with broader predictions about significant structural changes not in 2025 but in the decade to come, particularly regarding potential changes to traditional systems of governance.Taken all together, Zach’s conversation with Brian offers a fascinating glimpse into speculative possibilities for 2025 and beyond, blending tarot insights with current geopolitical, social, and cultural contexts. While Brian’s readings suggest that the immediate future may bring shifts in perception, preparation for broader systemic changes, and the potential for significant events, the overarching theme is one of transformation. Rather than definitive predictions, their discussion encourages reflection on the intricate interplay of global events and the hidden forces shaping them, leaving listeners with both curiosity and caution as they face the year ahead.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Finally! We’re almost at the end of it! Best (belated) wishes to celebrants of the holidays on the Gregorian calendar, and to all those who outlived the northern hemisphere’s 2024 winter solstice—first to Radio Free Pizza gourmets, of course, and then to humanity in general. As the year draws to a close, it’s only fitting to look back at the year that was. For this final dispatch of 2024, let’s revisit the major developments that defined the past twelve months, update any lingering narratives we’ve followed, and consider what these stories tell us about the road ahead. Paging All the DoctorsOur coverage of Israel’s genocide in Gaza began in last year’s retrospective, focusing on its impact on energy geopolitics, suggesting that control over the Gaza Marine gas field—which contains an estimated $3–4 billion in natural gas that has been inaccessible due to the Israeli blockade since 2007—might have been a driving factor behind Israel’s extermination campaign, drawing parallels between it and historical imperialist practices (such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the 2002 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline) to emphasize how the need to control energy markets has frequently underpinned geopolitical conflicts. That coverage continued in June, exploring the controversy surrounding the claims of Hamas’ atrocities on 7 October 2023, including allegations of mass rape, which independent investigations, human rights organizations, and journalists found to lack forensic evidence or reliable testimony. Of course, we criticized the mainstream media narratives and atrocity propaganda, including claims of sexual violence, as unverified, politically motivated, and used to justify the genocide—one that The Lancet estimated in July might have claimed as many as 186,000 lives (7.9% of Gaza’s population), with projections indicating a potential total of 335,500 deaths by the end of the year. As of last month, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) found that women and children accounted for nearly 70% of the verified civilian deaths in the conflict’s first six months, with children alone accounting for nearly 44%—meaning that the aforementioned projected year-end total death count may include as many as 147,620 children.Certainly “genocide” isn’t a contentious term to describe Israel’s campaign: after all, in January 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found it “plausible” that Israel has been committing and a genocide, and ruled that the state must take measures to ensure its troops do not commit genocide and to preserve evidence of any allegations of such acts. But apparently Israel didn’t abide by the ruling, since the UN Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices reported last month that Israel’s warfare in Gaza aligns with characteristics of genocide, citing mass civilian casualties, deprivation of basic necessities, and obstruction of humanitarian aid.While that report cited Israel’s deprivation of medical supplies from the civilian population, it did not go so far as to mention Israel’s deliberate targeting of medical personnel. The most recent example of such came with last month’s murder of Dr. Ahmed Al-Kahlout, the director of the Intensive Care Unit at Kamal Adwan Hospital in the north of Gaza, who was killed by a drone strike at the hospital’s gate. Other examples include Dr. Adnan Al-Bursh, a renowned orthopedic surgeon in Gaza, who had dedicated his career to treating patients at Al-Shifa Hospital and later relocated to other hospitals after Israeli forces targeted Al-Shifa, including the Indonesian Hospital (into which Israeli tanks fired on 20 November 2023, killing at least twelve) and Al-Awda, with each one facing escalating attacks and deteriorating conditions. Captured by Israeli forces in December 2023, Dr. Al-Bursh was detained at the Sde Teiman processing facility, where allegations of sexual abuse are widespread, before he was transferred to Ofer Prison near Jerusalem in April, arriving in critical condition—“with injuries around his body” and “naked in the lower part of his body”—before dying shortly afterward, under circumstances that remain unclear and for which Israeli authorities have provided no explanation. Accordingly, some speculate that Israeli guards raped Dr. Al-Bursh to death—which would be consistent with the aforementioned UN Special Committee report, which noted “serious concerns about the arbitrary and punitive nature of these arrests and detentions,” with detainees subjected to “threats of rape and anal rape with an object by Israeli security personnel” (p. 21). (Of course, the allegations from the UN Special Committee report are very interesting, given the narratives of mainstream media and of the Israeli state about Hamas’ use of mass rape as a wartime strategy in its attack on the Nova music festival, which we covered in June. Though alleged sexual assault survivors appeared in the April 2024 documentary Screams Before Silence, the UN’s Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict report from March said that its team “did not meet with any survivor/victim of sexual violence from 7 October despite concerted efforts encouraging them to come forward” [p. 4]—leaving us therefore to wonder why these survivors didn’t meet with the Office of the SRSG-SVC’s team, but one month later appeared in the documentary to make their claims.)Other Palestinian surgeons reportedly suffered similar abductions—some after a two-siege of Al-Shifa Hospital in March that killed at least 400—though these surgeons’ fates remain as yet unknown. However, Israeli targeting of medical personnel hasn’t been restricted to Gaza: as of October, over 100 Lebanese rescue workers had been killed in airstrikes, most of them since 23 September 2024, after which Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon had killed more than 2,100 and displaced 1.2 million. While Israel claims that its operations target Hezbollah militants, Lebanese officials and humanitarian groups report deliberate strikes on rescue centers with no military presence. Civil defense workers describe their missions as near-suicidal due to persistent airstrikes, even on evacuation and rescue operations. Videos and eyewitness accounts reveal Israeli forces blocking rescue efforts, leaving civilians and workers vulnerable to further attacks.Those airstrikes came on the heels of Israel’s 17–18 September 2024 pager attacks against the Lebanese, an act of terrorism carried out with explosives concealed inside the lithium batteries of pagers and walkie-talkies—manufactured in a supply chain spanned Taiwan, Hungary, and Norway, with Israeli intelligence reportedly using shell companies to disguise its involvement—that were detonated via remote electronic signals to explode in public areas, universities, and hospitals, where they killed at least 37 people and injured nearly 3,000, including civilians and children. Though these attacks nominally targeted the Hezbollah militia, there’s good reason to consider medical staff a secondary target, with pager technology still in persistent use in hospitals despite the availability of more modern communication methods. Despite the apparent advantages of the latter, attempts to introduce them failed to improve either patient wait times or organizational efficiency, and medical staff still favor pagers for their reliability, their long battery life, and (perhaps most importantly) their ability to function during power outages or disasters. Though these Israeli attacks blindsided Hezbollah—which had adopted analogue communication tools to avoid infiltration—its leadership largely escaped harm, as many used older pager models. While UN officials condemned the attack as a violation of international law, warning of potential escalation in the region, the incident marks a dangerous new precedent in modern conflict, prompting calls for international accountability and de-escalation. Of course, neither appear forthcoming—and neither does the arrest of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu following the warrant issued last month by the International Criminal Court (ICC), with countries like France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands already hinting that they wouldn’t abide by the ICC’s orders, and with U.S. Senator Tom Cotton even threatening the ICC with military reprisal in the event of Netanyahu’s arrest.Certainly the ongoing genocide in Gaza and the conflicts in its surrounding regions highlights a disturbing confluence of geopolitical, humanitarian, and legal crises. Israel’s systematic targeting of Palestinian medical personnel and hospitals—which have lost 75% of their capacity—and its terroristic pager attack in Lebanon underscore a broader pattern of disregard for international law and human rights. Despite mounting evidence and international condemnation, accountability remains elusive, with key global powers complicit in shielding perpetrators from justice. Of course, that won’t help keep the 2024 Palestinian death toll from reaching the 335,500 projected in September—especially not with so many doctors dead or detained. As the world watches, the collective failure to address these crimes risks entrenching impunity and perpetuating cycles of violence. Those risks therefore demand urgent intervention and an unwavering commitment to truth and accountability. However, given U.S. President-elect Trump’s threat at the start of this month that “there will be ALL HELL TO PAY in the Middle East” (not just in Gaza) if Hamas doesn’t release its Israeli hostages before his inauguration—alongside his advocacy in October for strikes on Iran’s nuclear research facilities three weeks before Israel’s attack on the same, and the interest that his nominee for Secretary of Defense expressed in 2018 to see the construction of a Third Temple on the site currently occupied by the Aqsa Mosque—the incoming administration seems to have as little interest as its predecessor in holding the State of Israel accountable for its crimes against humanity. Accordingly, it looks less and less likely (at least under the current international order) that we can expect anything like humanitarian intervention and commitment to accountability will be at all forthcoming.Breaking the ChainsWe go now to Africa, happy to correct our habit of neglecting the continent. (We’ll get to you too someday, Australia!) Of course, the world’s second largest and second most populous continent deserves better coverage, particularly given the political developments in member-nations of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). That regional organization, established in 1975 to to promote economic integration and cooperation among West African states, has struggled with internal disagreements following military coups in Mali (2020 and 2021), Guinea (2021), Burkina Faso (2022), and Niger (2023), leading ECOWAS to suspend these nations’ memberships and impose sanctions in efforts to restore the previous regimes. However, these measures had limited success, and tensions escalated. In January, Burkina Faso announced plans (along with Niger and Mali) to leave ECOWAS, citing disappointment with the bloc’s inability to address security challenges and accusing it of straying from its Pan-Africanist ideals. Despite initial sanctions (lifted in March), negotiations, and threats of military intervention, the departing governments have distanced themselves from former colonial power France, fostered closer ties with Russia, and in 2023 formed the Alliance of Sahel States (AES) for defense cooperation against ongoing insurgencies by al Qaeda and Islamic State-linked groups, raising concerns about ECOWAS’s declining influence in the region. Additionally, their participation in the West African Monetary Union (UEMOA), which uses the CFA franc currency, could be affected, as the monetary union has previously restricted financial access to Mali and Niger following the coups. These withdrawals naturally raise concerns about the impact on regional integration, including freedom of movement and the common market for ECOWAS’s 400 million residents. These concerns only increased when Burkina Faso introduced new biometric passports in September without the logo or mention of ECOWAS, signaling its commitment to withdrawing from the West African bloc, which requires a formal one-year notice for leaving. Certainly the new AES has been taking its own steps to restrict the freedom of movement—of capital flight out of Africa, that is. Last year, the AES member-nations began discussing plans for a new currency, further distancing the three nations from the West African CFA franc—a euro-pegged currency often criticized as a colonial relic—with Burkina Faso’s leader, Ibrahim Traoré (whom in October survived his second assassination attempt), emphasizing the alliance’s potential to evolve into a comprehensive economic union. The countries’ finance ministers proposed measures to support this vision, including the establishment of a joint stabilization fund, an investment bank, and a committee to study the feasibility of an economic and monetary union. These discussions are part of a broader push for sovereignty as the countries increasingly reject French influence—with the former colonial power having previously required the nations to hold a portion of their foreign reserves with the French Treasury until its 2019 constitutional reform—and resist international sanctions imposed following military coups.The interest of AES nations in developing their economic sovereignty also threatens Europe’s energy security, particularly for countries like France, heavily reliant on West African uranium. By reforming mining codes, the AES nations are facilitating economic partnership in their uranium mines with the Russian Federation, which last month opened the first ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum in Sochi, aiming to build on last summer’s Russia-Africa summit and to further strengthen Russia’s ties with African nations, with Russian President Vladimir Putin has emphasizing the expansion of political and business relations with African leaders. This raises the possibility that economic tensions between the Russian Federation and the European Union will result in a decision to limit uranium exports that could lead to supply shortages, energy price hikes (on top of those seen since the 2022 sabotage of the Nord Stream pipeline), and economic disruptions in Europe. While France has a two-year uranium reserve, prolonged disruptions could incite public unrest and destabilize internal markets. Such destabilization may already be in progress: earlier this month, Niger’s military authorities took control of uranium mining operations previously managed by the French nuclear firm Orano, after revoking its permit in June to exploit one of the world’s largest uranium deposits, leading the company to suspend production. Niger, which accounts for 5% of global uranium output and was a significant supplier to France, has made it clear that foreign companies must provide the country with greater benefits from its resources.Of course, it’s not just uranium extraction that the AES is disrupting: in November, authorities in Mali detained Terence Holohan, CEO of Australia’s Resolute Mining, and two other employees during discussions with mining and tax authorities about the company’s gold mines. Resolute Mining agreed to pay $160 million to the Malian government to settle the tax dispute, and Malian authorities released the detainees from the Economic and Financial Centre of Bamako, who then left the country. Continuing the trend, this month Mali issued an arrest warrant for Mark Bristow, CEO of Canada’s Barrick Gold, and for Abbas Coulibaly, general manager of the Loulo-Gounkoto gold complex—which accounted for nearly 14% of Barrick’s annual gold production and 12% of revenue in 2022—over alleged money laundering. The arrest warrants follow the detention of four Barrick employees last month, tied to disagreements over Mali’s demands for additional economic benefits from its largest gold mine and for payment of over $840 million following a controversial sector-wide audit that led to the aforementioned Holohan’s detainment. The government is also pressuring mining firms to adopt a revised mining code that increases royalties tied to gold prices, with Mali’s finance minister hinting at revoking Loulo’s permits when they expire in 2026 if no agreement is reached. In contrast to Resolute Mining, Barrick has yet to settle, offering $370 million to address the audit claims.Mali and its AES partners seem to be inspiring other African nations to assert their sovereignty, with President Bassirou Diomaye Faye of ECOWAS member Senegal calling last month for the closure of French military bases in his country, citing France’s historical responsibility for a massacre of Senegalese soldiers in 1944. Just a few hours later, Foreign Minister Abderaman Koulamallah of Chad released a statement announcing the abrupt end of its defense cooperation agreement with France, emphasizing his country’s desire to assert full sovereignty and redefine its strategic partnerships—much in the mold of AES member-nations, which individually demanded the withdrawal of French forces from Mali in 2022 and from Niger and Burkina Faso in 2023.Without a doubt, the unfolding political and economic shifts in West Africa represent a significant reordering of the region's relationships with former colonial powers and global actors. As countries like Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger assert their sovereignty, their growing ties with Russia and their push for economic independence—especially in critical sectors like mining—are reshaping the landscape of African politics and international trade. The potential disruption of vital resources such as uranium and gold could have far-reaching consequences, not just for Europe’s energy security, but also for the global economy, underscoring the geopolitical and economic risks posed by the trio’s realignment and deepened ties with the Russian Federation. As African nations increasingly reject Western influence, the continent’s political trajectory is poised for greater autonomy, challenging traditional power dynamics and creating new avenues for international cooperation. The evolving situation calls for closer attention to the shifting balance of power and the implications for both African nations and the wider world—which we here at Radio Free Pizza look forward to covering more diligently in the coming years.Law Laid LowIn June we noted how former-and-now-future President Donald Trump’s conviction on 34 felony charges related to financial misconduct marked a historic first for a former U.S. president, and naturally sparked intense debate. Critics argued that the prosecution was politically motivated, highlighting potential double standards in the justice system, and warned of a broader erosion of the rule of law. Economic forecaster Martin Armstrong tied the conviction to a predicted decline in U.S. stability, suggesting it accelerates a trajectory toward systemic collapse and global conflict by 2032, signaling a turbulent future.For now, maybe that turbulence has been delayed: federal cases like the D.C. election interference and Florida classified documents cases have been dismissed or stalled, while state-level cases linger with unresolved legal questions—though a New York court rejected his legal team’s attempt to dismiss his conviction for falsifying business records, ruling that presidential immunity does not apply to personal acts. In Georgia, the state election interference case remains paused as Trump challenges the court’s jurisdiction, citing his presidential status and federal guidelines. As the legal dust settles, Trump’s return to the presidency could shield him from further prosecution in several cases until 2029, adding a unique twist to ongoing discussions about constitutional questions of presidential immunity, state versus federal jurisdiction, and the justice system’s ability to hold high-ranking officials to account.Of course, Trump’s cases weren’t the only ones that had our attention this year. Also in June, we covered Hunter Biden’s conviction on three felony charges for falsely claiming he was not using drugs during a 2018 firearm purchase. Key witnesses for the prosecution included his ex-wife, ex-girlfriend, and Hallie Biden, who disposed of the gun for safety reasons. The defense highlighted his condition at the time through testimonies, including one from his daughter. Hunter faced a potential 25-year sentence, while outgoing President Joe Biden then took a firm stance against pardoning his son, whose foreign business dealings and additional tax crimes were under intense scrutiny—notably the Biden’s relationship with the Ukrainian gas company Burisma, the board of which Hunter joined after the Maidan coup in 2014. But that scrutiny need trouble the Bidens no longer, with the outgoing president having broken his word and delivered his son a pardon on the first of this month. Naturally the outrage was immediate, resulting in sharp criticism for contradicting his previous pledges to uphold judicial independence and avoid interventions in his son’s legal cases. Among those critics stands Glenn Greenwald, who on 3 December reviewed the ignominious decision on System Update, with clips from the episode posted the next day on YouTube.In the first clip, Greenwald details how President Biden and his administration repeatedly promised over several months that he would never pardon Hunter, emphasizing this as evidence of his commitment to the rule of law. Of course, Greenwald notes (at ~7:15) the initially lenient plea deal offered by Biden’s DOJ—which seems to us to undermine that expressed commitment, and which soon unraveled under judicial scrutiny, leading to more serious charges. But now, reaching the end of his tenure, Greenwald observes (at ~10:37) how the text of Biden’s pardon asserts that his son was “selectively, and unfairly, prosecuted,” contradicting previous Democratic rhetoric about respecting institutions. In addition, Greenwald describes (at ~14:06) how the outgoing president’s pardons applies not just to existing felony convictions, but covers all potential crimes from 2014 to 2024, including possible foreign influence dealings—casting the soon-to-be-former president’s claims of unfair prosecution in further doubt. The scope of the pardon also shields both Hunter and Joe Biden from investigations related to foreign business dealings in Ukraine and China, as Greenwald explains (at ~14:06) while comparing it to George H.W. Bush’s Iran-Contra pardons:This pardon, in other words, doesn’t just shield his son from the criminal convictions […] it shields him for all possible crimes, going back to influence, peddling, and trading in Ukraine and China, for which there’s evidence that Joe Biden himself may have had criminal exposure […] The only other example I can think of is when George Bush 41 who was knee-deep in the crimes of the Iran-Contra scandals during the Reagan administration when George Bush was Ronald Reagan’s vice president, especially in the second term when Reagan […] was suffering from Alzheimer’s and a kind of cognitive decline of the type Joe Biden has been suffering […] George H. W. Bush, rather, had a lot of foreign policy experience: he had previously been the director of the CIA, he played a major role in what became the illegal selling of arms to Iran in order to take that money and fund the Contras to overthrow the government of Nicaragua, even though the Congress had banned any funding in order to do that. And there was a criminal investigation and it was arriving at the doorstep of George H. W. Bush and his close ally, Caspar Weinberger, who had been Defense Secretary under Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush issued a pardon on his way out for every single person involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, which included protecting George H. W. Bush himself: because once those criminal investigations were barred by the pardon, it meant that there was no avenue anymore to investigate the president himself. The difference here is that Joe Biden was actually pardoning his own son after spending a year swearing he would never do so.But the implicit self-preservation of President Biden’s pardon isn’t the only aspect of it that Greenwald finds reason to criticize: in the second clip, the esteemed journalist discusses its contrast with Biden’s contrasting approaches to drug policy—his harsh stance as a legislator versus his protective attitude towards his son Hunter Biden. Here he highlights how Biden, alongside the lifelong segregationist Strom Thurmond, championed severe mandatory minimum sentences for crack cocaine possession in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly affecting poor and minority communities. (It’s worth noting, then, that the aforementioned Iran-Contra affair introduced crack cocaine into those marginalized communities.) Greenwald notes that Biden advocated for five-year mandatory prison terms for possessing small amounts of crack cocaine, while now seeking to protect his son Hunter from similar consequences despite documented drug use. For that reason, Greenwald criticizes (at ~4:04) portrayals of Biden as a compassionate father, pointing out the hypocrisy given Biden’s historical role in criminalizing drug addiction:We covered this at the time this first emerged when we were told that Joe Biden is such a loving, compassionate father: “We should applaud him for protecting his son, Hunter, because of the compassion he's showing for drug addiction,” which, again, I would have been empathetic to had it not been for the fact that Joe Biden is responsible for sending thousands, if not tens of thousands, of other people’s kids to prison for a long, long time for doing exactly what Hunter Biden did. In fact, Hunter Biden did a lot worse. He didn’t just use crack cocaine addictively the way a lot of people who were sent to prison by Joe Biden’s policies for a long time did, but he did these other kinds as well from which he's now being protected. Accordingly, Greenwald criticizes the liberal media’s portrayal of Biden and discusses the declining public trust in institutions, citing (at ~11:32) a recent poll showing FBI approval at 41%. He also addresses (at ~13:57) the broader implications for Democratic Party support among minority groups, which of course most would expect to decline. As it should: Biden’s pardon underscores a glaring hypocrisy that risks deepening public cynicism toward the justice system and eroding trust in democratic institutions. While Trump’s critics decry his alleged abuses of power and evasion of accountability, Biden’s actions in pardoning his son Hunter reveal an unsettling double standard, undermining supposed commitments to judicial independence and respect for institutional norms. Certainly this hypocrisy becomes even starker when viewed through the lens of Biden’s past: as a legislator, Biden was a staunch advocate of harsh drug policies that disproportionately punished marginalized communities—policies that starkly conflict with his leniency toward his own son’s offenses. Such double standards not only invite comparisons to past presidential scandals but also validate accusations of political favoritism, emboldening critics who argue that the justice system operates differently for the powerful and connected, furthering the perception that accountability is a privilege reserved for the less fortunate. This selective application of justice tarnishes efforts to hold others accountable, weakening the moral high ground necessary for critiquing Trump and others. Ultimately, this episode reinforces a damaging narrative: that principles are often sacrificed for convenience or self-preservation. In a time of widespread institutional distrust, leaders must strive to demonstrate integrity and fairness; President Biden’s actions, however, risk further polarizing an already divided nation, sowing deeper doubts about the impartiality of the justice system. Accordingly, if a turbulent future of political instability in the U.S. has been at all delayed, we can’t imagine it has been forestalled for too long.Free PlayOne of our October bulletins covered the 2024 BRICS+ summit in Kazan, Russia, which marked a significant moment for the bloc’s growing influence. With major leaders from countries like Russia, China, India, and South Africa discussing expanding economic ties, financial analysts anticipated the potential introduction of a new currency—the UNIT. This hypothesized digital currency, aimed at reducing reliance on the U.S. dollar, would have been backed by a basket of assets including gold and national currencies. With more than 30 international delegations present, the summit promised to showcase the ambitions of BRICS+ to reshape global finance and challenge Western-led economic systems—though its internal tensions and complicated geopolitical dynamics underscored the complexity of such talks.But, as you might have noticed, BRICS+ didn’t debut the UNIT: instead, the best they could offer turned out to be a mock-up banknote symbolizing the bloc’s awareness of its member-nations’ need for alternatives to the U.S. dollar. Nonetheless, a unified BRICS+ currency remains a distant prospect, with geopolitical complexities and financial system disruptions making such a currency impractical in the short term. Instead, BRICS+ nations have focused on expanding the use of national currencies in trade and exploring digital financial systems, including the aforementioned potential gold-backed digital currency and the blockchain-based BRICS Pay digital payment system discussed in our October bulletin. However, these discussions remain speculative, with no formal timeline for implementation.Still, with regard to payment systems, the BRICS+ members seem to be making significant strides. In a 24 October appearance on Judging Freedom with Andrew Napolitano, Dr. Gilbert Doctorow notes (at ~19:54) that BRICS+ will establish new commodity exchanges for grain, gold, and silver to compete with Western institutions. Additionally, he offers (at ~20:36) further details on the bloc’s plans for economic integration: As to currency, everybody expected that the decision on a BRICS currency. Well, there isn’t going to be one. But what they are going to do is continue their work, and probably this will be implemented rather quickly because there are prototypes, both in Russia and in China, for a SWIFT-equivalent messaging service for all banks participating in it, whereby the U.S.-controlled, Belgium-based SWIFT will be not used. Similarly, they are going to put in place a method of handling [imbalances] in the commercial exchanges that they do state-to-state using national currencies. These are world-changing institutional changes. They are not a military alliance, but they are of key importance for global governance. Will BRICS soon have two eyes in it? Will it be B-R-I-I-C-S, the second eye being Iran? Well, however we spell the acronym, the reality is that there are now nine full members [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates] […] there is a two-tier organization with an inner and outer. The inner side is already made. I think they will be announcing some new members, memberships being offered to key Southeast Asian countries. As we know, the big expansion last year was in Northeast Africa and West Asia. So they have a big gap to fill in the other most dynamic part of the world economy, which is Southeast Asia. And Malaysia is certain to be admitted to BRICS in short order. So there will be a bigger number than nine, but thirty members are not going to become full BRICS members. Just a handful of them will. And the rest will be partners. is to avoid a period of confusion, to water down what cohesion they have now. Doctorow also discusses (at ~26:04) the bloc’s strategy regarding the U.S. dollar, noting that it doesn’t aim to replace it entirely but to reduce its dominance in global trade and as a reserve currency. Perhaps that’s for the best: after all, at the end of last month, the again-incoming President Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on the members of the bloc if they pursue efforts to undermine the U.S. dollar.However, it seems the trend toward de-dollarization wasn’t entirely stymied: following the summit, Governor of the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) Mohammad Reza Farzin announced on 11 November that Iran and Russia have implemented financial settlement mechanisms to bypass the dollar-based SWIFT banking system. The two nations, both subject to U.S. and Western sanctions, now rely on Iran’s SEPAM financial messaging service and a newly linked payment system that enables Iranian bank card holders to withdraw cash from ATMs in Russia. Future phases of the initiative will allow reciprocal access for Russian card holders in Iran and the use of Iranian cards at point-of-sale machines in Russia. Additionally, Iran is exploring similar payment system linkages with other countries, though specific details remain undisclosed.Still, some question how much of a change BRICS+ truly offers in comparison to the global capital order under which we suffer at present. Just after the summit, Riley Waggaman of Edward Slavsquat gave an overview of what he sees as a bait-and-switch. As he explains, the summit’s Kazan Declaration underscored the coalition’s commitment to multilateralism and global governance reforms. The declaration reaffirmed the United Nations’ central role, emphasized equitable representation in international organizations, and supported sustainable development, public-private partnerships, and climate action. BRICS+ also endorsed carbon markets, the role of the World Health Organization (WHO) in global health, vaccine development, and digital transformation with emerging technologies like 5G.While hailed as a step toward multipolarity, some argue the bloc’s policies mirror existing globalist frameworks, potentially repositioning rather than redefining global power dynamics. The summit’s theme, “Strengthening Multilateralism for Just Global Development and Security,” hardly contrasts at all with the then-upcoming focus on “Building a Just World and a Sustainable Planet” of the Group of Twenty (G20) meeting in November, sparking debate over the real ideological distinctions between these global coalitions. Critics like Waggaman and others therefore note the overlap between BRICS+’s stated goals and broader globalist agendas, and they accordingly question whether BRICS+ truly represents an alternative to Western-centric globalization—including Joseph P. Farrell, who asserts that despite the bloc’s anti-globalist image, its agenda aligns with the same centralizing, technocratic principles seen in organizations like the G20, highlighting how both entities advocate for global governance, sustainable development, public-private partnerships, and centralized health and climate policies, demonstrating the same authoritarian ambitions masked with mere euphemisms. Accordingly, Farrell argues that the bloc’s rhetoric of resistance to the Western-led global order is superficial, with the group’s policies reflecting the same elitist agendas as their supposed rivals. He compares the globalist visions of BRICS+ and the G20 to a “Mafia enterprise,” under which various factions engage in a covert struggle for dominance, and revisits his long-held theory of “Mafia wars,” emphasizing that beneath both sides’ polished rhetoric of cooperation lie unresolved national and geopolitical tensions that could lead to open conflict as these factions approach their goal of centralized power.For hints of significant factionalism within BRICS+, Farrell points to the absence of discussions about integrating the militaries of the bloc’s member-nations. He suggests that no member of this “global Mafia” is willing to relinquish its enforcement power, knowing it will be critical in any future struggles for supremacy. In his analysis, the unity projected by BRICS+ is a façade, designed to maintain appearances while rivalries simmer beneath the surface. Ultimately, Farrell predicts that the globalist project—whether driven by BRICS+ or the Western-led G20, is inherently unstable, with reliance on centralized control representing a recipe for eventual collapse, fueled by internal competition among the elites vying for control of the system. Despite the lofty language of sustainability and multilateralism, Farrell concludes that the geopolitical landscape remains shaped by old power dynamics and self-interest, casting doubt on the feasibility of a truly unified global order.The comparisons that Waggaman and Farrell draw between BRICS+ and the G20 seem to accord with the depiction in the pseudonymous 009’s analysis from 3 October of Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum (WEF)—whom we ourselves first targeted last December—arguing that they are spearheading a covert “billionaires’ revolution" aimed at dismantling nation-states and replacing them with a global governance system managed by technocratic elites who seek to employ advancements in artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and quantum computing as mechanisms for consolidating power under a centralized, corporate-style technocracy. 009 argues that this agenda hinges on “syndicated regionalism,” which seeks to replace the traditional nation-state system with regional blocs coordinated by groups like BRICS+, and goes on to critique the WEF’s vision for “smart cities”—characterized by AI-managed infrastructure, urban density, and sustainability—as eroding personal freedoms and increasing surveillance under the guise of progress. While these technological advancements promise societal benefits, critics like 009 see them as less about improving humanity’s collective well-being and more about entrenching control in the hands of a small elite.In the interest of promoting resistance to this perceived global takeover, 009 emphasizes the need for public engagement in shaping the future of technology and society. Rather than allowing billionaire technocrats to dictate the trajectory of human civilization, he advocates for a revolution grounded in equity, compassion, and genuine empowerment of individuals. According to 009, humanity must rise to the challenge of confronting and defeating this billionaire class to secure a future defined by freedom and dignity rather than centralized control.While initiatives like BRICS Pay show the bloc’s potential to challenge Western-led global systems, critics raise important questions about whether BRICS+ represents a genuine alternative to Western-centric globalization, or if it represents a mere rebranding of similar technocratic frameworks. While the bloc’s push for multipolarity and de-dollarization could redefine global trade and financial systems, but internal divisions, competing agendas, and overlapping globalist policies may hinder its long-term cohesion. Whether BRICS+ can evolve into a true counterweight to Western dominance or will merely perpetuate existing power dynamics remains an open question—one that will shape the trajectory of global governance in the years ahead.As the world watches, the challenge lies not only in forging an inclusive and equitable financial system but also in ensuring that such efforts genuinely serve the interests of nations and their citizens rather than reinforcing centralized, elitist control. Whether BRICS+ can deliver on its vision of transformative change, or if it succumbs to the pitfalls of its critics’ warnings, will ultimately determine its legacy.Tea-Time Taiwan (“What’s Taking So Long?!”)As we discussed in “2024 in Forecast” from last January, Chinese President Xi Jinping’s New Year’s address reaffirmed the inevitability of China and Taiwan’s reunification, escalating long-standing tensions between the U.S. and China over the island. This declaration came a few months following the Vanguard Group’s announcement of its Shanghai offices’ closure and the end of its joint venture with Ant Financial—raising speculation about the future of U.S.-China economic ties amid rising geopolitical strains—which came only a couple weeks before U.S. President Biden declined Xi’s request to publicly endorse peaceful reunification and reject Taiwanese independence, later referring to Xi as a “dictator.”Vanguard’s withdrawal from Shanghai may reflect broader concerns about the escalating conflict, particularly as its investments include Chinese defense industry subsidiaries subject to U.S. sanctions. While these developments don’t necessarily predict imminent military conflict, they underscore the increasing complexities in U.S.-China relations and their broader implications for global economic and political stability, and highlight the deepening divide between the two nations’ approaches to Taiwan, with the U.S. maintaining a policy that indirectly supports Taiwan’s de facto independence.Later on, our “2024 in Progress” described how China’s reiteration of its commitment to reunification—deemed inevitable by President Xi Jinping—clashed with Taiwan’s pro-independence regime under President Lai Ching-te, which the U.S. has been supporting with military aid while avoiding outright endorsement of independence, further straining relations with China, which has responded with sanctions and military exercises. Amid growing fears of conflict, the U.S. began conducting military preparations in East Asia, while China bolstered its military with advanced technology, often in collaboration with Russia. Amid the tension between these superpowers, China proposed reforms to the United Nations to amplify the voice of developing nations and enhance the UN’s ability to manage global challenges, advocating for dialogue, diplomacy, and respect for sovereignty as solutions to global conflicts, while positioning itself as a proponent of international regulations and cooperative global governance.Of course, we haven’t yet mentioned a recent landmark in the increasing antipathy between the U.S. and China: the CHIPS and Science Act, signed into law by President Joe Biden on 9 August 2022, which allocated $280 billion to revitalize domestic semiconductor manufacturing while reducing U.S. reliance on foreign supply chains during a global chip shortage, and to strengthen scientific research and innovation in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and clean energy. Knowing the dominance of the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), which produces over 90% of the world’s advanced chips, it’s impossible to miss the subtext: the CHIPS Act represents one tactic of a broader strategy to ensure that the U.S. retains access to advanced semiconductors critical to national security and economic stability following China’s promised reunification with its erstwhile island territory.Distributing the corporate grants allocated under the CHIPS Act became more urgent following the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with Republican leaders, including President-elect Trump, criticizing the Act and hinting at its possible repeal. But just the day after the election, TSMC and GlobalFoundries (formerly the manufacturing arm of California’s AMD) reportedly finalized agreements with the U.S. Department of Commerce to receive their CHIPS Act funding, with GlobalFoundries using its $1.5 billion award to expand and modernize its New York and Vermont facilities—focusing on automotive, defense, AI, and next-generation gallium nitride (GaN) chips—and TSMC using its $11.6 billion in grants and loans to add a third Arizona factory for advanced semiconductor production. According to the Biden White House, the funding will drive $65 billion in private investment from TSMC, creating tens of thousands of jobs by the decade’s end and solidifying President Biden’s legislative legacy before President-elect Trump assumes office. Meanwhile, companies like Intel, Samsung, and Micron have pushed for accelerated funding to avoid renegotiation under Trump’s second administration, with the President-elect having criticized the CHIPS Act as favoring wealthy companies and suggested tariffs as an alternative strategy, despite concerns about increased consumer costs. Nonetheless, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer emphasized earlier this month that the funds are legally locked in and protected from potential changes under the incoming Trump administration.However, Schumer’s statement came one week after China announced its own ban on exports to the U.S. of key materials, including gallium (key to GlobalFoundries’ aforementioned GaN chips), germanium, and antimony in retaliation for U.S. restrictions on semiconductor-related exports, with China’s Commerce Ministry explaining that the export restrictions were necessary to protect its national security. These materials—essential for products such as computer chips, cars, and military technology—are critical to both countries’ industries. China is the leading global supplier of gallium and germanium, and the export controls have already caused a surge in prices for these minerals.Therefore, we can predict that whether or not Trump can impose his planned tariffs, prices of consumer electronics will rise regardless of increases to domestic production. But despite the economic context for escalating U.S.-China tensions, we shouldn’t imagine that this is only a trade war, as the esteemed Dr. Jeffrey Sachs, American economist and professor at Columbia University, explains in a clip posted last month. Here, Sachs describes a deep resentment in the U.S. towards China’s rise, arguing that U.S. leaders—often ignorant of modern history—view China’s progress as an affront to American dominance, and notes having observed how, starting around 2014, the U.S. began recasting China as an enemy rather than a recovering nation. Consequently, Sachs explains (at~1:34), the U.S. adopted a containment policy, seeing that China’s rise no longer serves U.S. interests. He criticizes this approach, noting that the U.S. seems to believe it has the right to determine China’s prosperity, while observing that canny Chinese leaders have not failed to note this shift in U.S. policy. Sachs argues (at ~2:05) that the West, having led the world for a brief 250-year period, feels entitled to continue doing so, and therefore the attitude among the Group of Seven (G7) major global economies of feeling privileged to decide international norms, citing Obama’s approach to writing trade rules for Asia without China’s input as an example—a mindset he calls naïve, dangerous, and outdated.Sachs goes on to criticize the U.S. approach to foreign policy as militarized and often disregarding other countries’ security interests, which he traces to the Soviet Union, when some American leaders embraced the idea of a “unipolar world.” He criticizes the subsequent militarization of U.S. foreign policy—citing (at ~4:20) a Tufts database showing over 100 U.S. military interventions since 1991—and shares his personal observations of the U.S. prioritizing military solutions in various regions, such as in Ukraine, which he argues (at ~5:37) could have been avoided through negotiations had the U.S. not rejected diplomatic efforts. He explains that Russia had been expressing concerns about NATO expansion into the Black Sea region for years, and reveals that he attempted personally to contact the White House in late 2021 to urge the Biden Administration to engage in diplomatic talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but was told that this was “off the table.”Unfortunately, Sachs warns (at ~7:02) that the U.S. is taking actions in East Asia similar to those that led to the Ukraine conflict. He criticizes the U.S. for organizing alliances and building up weaponry while antagonizing China, and specifically mentions Speaker Pelosi’s 2 August 2022 visit to Taiwan (just one week before Biden signed the CHIPS Act) despite Chinese requests to lower tensions. Accordingly, he expresses his concerns that these actions could lead to war, emphasizing the dangerous nature of current U.S. foreign policy, calling (at ~7:42) for a fundamental change in how the U.S. conducts its foreign relations—noting that the U.S. represents only 4.2% of the world’s population and therefore should not attempt to dominate global affairs—and emphasizing the need for the U.S. to adopt a more cooperative stance in global affairs.Naturally, that would help alleviate tensions with China. But the U.S. seems unlikely to abandon its strategic policy measures aimed at increasing its domestic production of essential semiconductors, and China’s retaliatory export controls underscore the deepening rivalry between the two superpowers. However, as Sachs notes, these ongoing trade disputes are not just about economic dominance, but result from broader historical and ideological shifts in U.S. policy, and his critique of the U.S.’s militarized foreign policy and its disregard for diplomatic engagement suggests that the current trajectory may lead to further instability in East Asia. As the U.S. and China navigate this precarious path, it is clear that the future of global governance, trade, and security hinges on the ability of both nations to reconsider their approaches and foster more cooperative relationships, rather than resorting to adversarial tactics. While the risk of conflict remains high, the Chinese proposals (which we discussed in June) for diplomatic and structural changes at the UN may offer a potential path toward de-escalation and international stability. But whether this vision can influence current power dynamics and avert strategic disasters remains uncertain—or rather, quite doubtful, given the U.S.’s competitive influence and domineering capacity. Still, only time will tell if a new era of diplomacy can emerge or if tensions will continue escalating: either way, however, the implications for international order will surely be profound.Errors & OmissionsLongtime Radio Free Pizza gourmets may have noticed how eagerly we correct our reporting when the occasion demands it, such as our mistaken recollection of Superman’s origins that we confessed last March, or the false understanding of Saudi Arabia’s supposed BRICS+ membership addressed in October. In addition, sometimes we miss the opportunity to offer further insight, as we did in November with the lost chance to explore potential connections between the mononymous Parker’s six chivalric virtues and our beloved The Once & Future King (mentioned at ~21:41 in the clip featured in the immediately preceding link). In keeping with the former tradition, and in an attempt to rectify the latter, we’ll try now to address similar shortcomings in our dispatches and bulletins from 2024 in the quartet of narrow slices that follow, presented in the order of each one’s first appearance. Amending “Split Value Circuits”Our May dispatch investigated the economics of our proposed Libertarian Communism, which attempts to blend American individualism with nationalized essential industries and worker-owned enterprises—both very communist, of course. Meanwhile, we highlighted the common ground that communists share with libertarians in their criticisms of central banks, which the latter argue erode currency values to the benefit of financial oligarchs. We humorously compared the libertarians’ opposition to central banking to Vladimir Lenin’s advocacy for nationalized banks, and accordingly advocated for establishing public banks to counteract the resulting upward wealth transfer and immiseration of the working class.However, we may have been too optimistic that libertarians would find that agreeable. In fact, they’ve long critiqued the U.S. government’s control over currency—in addition to seeing the Federal Reserve as a coercive institution that drives inflation, debt, and potential default—since the 1970s, many libertarians have championed alternatives like a return to the gold standard and, more importantly, privately issued, decentralized currencies.(Of course, readers with impeccable memory will recall that we already found occasions to address a point omitted from that original dispatch, with a July bulletin citing the connection drawn by Peter Coffin between the labor theory of value and the gold-backed currencies that libertarians often promote. As he explains, the labor required to mine gold gives it intrinsic value, aligning with Marxist thinking about economic value being derived from labor.) Key figures, including economist Friedrich August von Hayek, supported the introduction of privately issued currencies. In his Denationalization of Money (1976), Hayek argued that the government monopoly on currency should be replaced with free-market competition among private banks. Hayek argued that a single national currency and central bank have historically caused significant inflation, and therefore, unregulated private currencies could serve as a counter to the government’s monopoly over the national currency. That, of course, explains the libertarians’ devotion to Bitcoin—though one therefore wonders if they’re aware of the evidence for tracing its origins to the U.S. National Security Agency.So, while our initial optimism about finding common ground between libertarians and communists on the issue of central banking may have been premature, the ongoing debate highlights an interesting convergence of ideas around the role of money in society. Libertarians’ long-standing critique of government control over currency aligns with some of the communist critiques of central banking and wealth inequality. However, their solution—privately issued, decentralized currencies—offers a stark contrast to the nationalization and public banking alternatives that we propose. In the end, the challenge lies in reconciling the goals of economic freedom, stability, and fairness, and understanding that while the paths we take may differ, the ultimate aim should be to create a more just and equitable financial system for all. The question remains: can we find a way to balance private innovation with public accountability, ensuring that monetary policy serves the broader needs of society rather than just the interests of the few? Stay tuned to see if we can figure it out!Y Tú, “Ya Haz Grande Latinoamérica!”One (narrow) slice from “2024 in Progress” featured Bret Weinstein in a discussion with colleague and wife Heather Heying on the DarkHorse podcast, hypothesized that the migration crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border and Panama’s Darien Gap could mask a covert geopolitical strategy involving Chinese military-aged males. Based on his observations during a trip to Panama, Weinstein noted distinct patterns among Chinese migrants, including their secrecy, skewed sex ratio favoring military-aged males, and organized transportation, suggesting potential facilitation by the Communist Party of China (CPC). He speculated that this might be tied to the CPC’s historic one-child policy, which produced an overabundance of males. Weinstein and Heying also discussed the broader vulnerability of U.S. systems to foreign influence and how policies like COVID-19 vaccine mandates for the military could weaken readiness. Then-recent U.S. and Panamanian actions to curb asylum requests and NGO activities highlighted tensions between policy and humanitarian efforts, emphasizing the need for a nuanced approach to migration.But some have since given us reason to suspect Weinstein might have been disingenuous. This past September, Johnny Vedmore—whom we cited last year for his research into Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum—published his investigation into Bret’s brother Eric, in which Vedmore describes the United Nations International Labour Organization’s (ILO) initiative to create a free-market solution for economic migration, which critics argue undermines native workers in host countries. Led by Manolo Abella and with contributions from Eric Weinstein, the project aimed to align employer and native worker interests by introducing market-based mechanisms, such as allowing natives to sell labor market access rights. Weinstein’s 2002 contribution “Migration for the Benefit of All: Towards a New Paradigm of Economic Immigration” analyzed the economic and social impacts of these migration programs, arguing that while employers benefit from hiring migrants due to lower wages, this often disadvantages native workers unless offset by compensatory measures, such as redistributing income or creating marketable labor access rights. He of course acknowledged societal challenges associated with economic migration—including stress, environmental impacts, and security risks, which could make such policies unpopular among electorates— and consequently proposed strategies for redistributing wealth and managing societal effects to address these issues in order to balance the interests of all stakeholders.Though Weinstein recognized the negative consequences of migration, such as wage suppression, ghettoization, and long-term labor shortages for native populations, these issues were not presented as reasons to limit migration. Accordingly, critics have accused Weinstein and the ILO of advancing a “globalist” agenda that prioritizes economic migrants at the expense of native populations. Vedmore therefore critiques Weinstein’s proposals as an example of large-scale migration policies implemented without democratic consent as debates about the social and economic impacts of such policies continue worldwide.Cynthia Chung provided her own critique in October, beginning with her analysis Bret Weinstein’s closing remarks at the Rescue the Republic event on 29 September, in which invoked the myth of the Phoenix while urging a dramatic and destructive rebirth to save the West from its perceived decline. Chung interprets his metaphor as a call for societal upheaval akin to the devastation associated with past policies like the Vietnam-era Operation Phoenix—the CIA program, notorious for its brutality, used the Phoenix symbol to represent its counterinsurgency tactics, which included torture and mass killings— and therefore highlights the dangers of embracing destruction as a pathway to renewal, while linking these methods to broader attempts at societal control, rooted in psychological manipulation and “mind control” experiments by organizations like the Tavistock Institute. These historical parallels, coupled with the symbolism of the Phoenix, raise concerns about the implications of advocating for crisis-driven renewal.Chung goes on to critique Weinstein’s geopolitical commentary, particularly regarding Chinese construction projects in Panama, portraying his warnings as suspect for echoing historical U.S. military operations in the region. While his commentary may seem on its face antagonistic to his brother Eric’s prioritization of migrants over native populations and endorsement of wealth redistribution despite the negative impacts on native societies, Chung criticizes Bret’s rhetoric for echoing the historic manipulation of the Ghost Dance Religion among 19th-century Native Americans, which Jesuit teachings and other external forces manipulated into tools for control, offering promises of salvation that ultimately led to devastation among indigenous communities. Accordingly, she accuses Weinstein of promoting a dangerous narrative of purification through destruction, manipulating contemporary concerns about migration and societal collapse into instruments of ideological control.Perhaps that narrative represents the second act of a longer-term saga, with Eric Weinstein having contributed to the first. For further details on that first act, we can turn to a clip from The Jimmy Dore Show posted 9 December 2024 from a stream conducted on 6 December. Here, the eponymous Dore and co-host Kurt Metzger discuss recent comments from UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer on immigration policies—which Starmer admits (in a clip available at ~2:20) had been deliberately liberalized, acknowledging that this was “by design, not accident”—and their impacts across Western nations. Dore and Metzger go on to cite (at ~11:14) Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who points in another clip to George Soros’ September 2015 plan published in Project Syndicate, which outlined accepting at least one million asylum seekers annually in the European Union and establishing financing through Eurobonds.Dore and Metzger also note (at ~19:09) how similar policies have been implemented in the U.S., with reference to Jeffrey Jaxen’s interview on Del Bigtree’s The Highwire, in which the interlocutors note the UN Population Division’s March 2000 report “Replacement Migration” while discussing how NGOs facilitate migration through the Darien Gap as a key migration route. Of course, the hosts point out (at ~21:53) how the rhetoric around immigration from politicians in the domestic U.S. establishment has changed dramatically, particularly among Democratic politicians.Needless to say, the narratives surrounding migration, societal transformation, and geopolitical influence remain deeply contested, revealing layers of historical precedent, ideological entanglements, and contemporary strategy. Bret Weinstein’s warnings about migration routes and potential CPC involvement, alongside his brother Eric’s contributions to UN migration policies, highlight a broader tension between national sovereignty and globalized frameworks. However, critics like Cynthia Chung and Johnny Vedmore provide sharp critiques of the Weinstein brothers, connecting these contemporary issues to historical patterns of manipulation, societal upheaval, and control.Through Bret Weinstein’s metaphors like the Phoenix and references to historical programs like Operation Phoenix and the Ghost Dance Religion, commentators argue that the rhetoric of renewal through destruction risks perpetuating cycles of manipulation and harm. Whether through direct policy proposals, such as those advocated by Eric Weinstein, or through broader cultural and geopolitical commentary, as exemplified by Bret Weinstein, these ideas’ implications demand our observation of historical lessons from the exploitation of indigenous populations to properly examine the liberalization of immigration policies across the West.As discussions continue, the need for transparency, informed consent, and critical engagement with these ideas becomes ever more urgent. Whether these narratives represent calculated strategies or misguided interpretations, their potential consequences demand careful scrutiny. The stakes are not just policy decisions, but the broader social and cultural cohesion of nations now struggling to navigate complex and often competing visions of progress, sovereignty, and global interconnectedness.Really: “Someone Tried It in Butler”?As you all surely remember, once-and-future U.S. President Donald Trump survived an assassination attempt on 13 July 2024 during a campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, which left one attendee dead and two critically injured. The assailant, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds before being killed by a Secret Service sniper. Subsequent criticism focused on how the Secret Service missed obvious security risks, including the presence of the gunman on a nearby rooftop. This incident, the first of its kind involving a former or sitting president since 1981, raised serious concerns about security lapses and potentially intentional negligence by the Secret Service, and intensified discussions on political violence and its impact on American democracy. Additionally, it generated speculations that the shooting was a deep-state plot to destabilize the political landscape, with both the left and right theorizing that the assassination attempt was a staged event to inspire support for Trump, or a globalist conspiracy to eliminate him as a supposed rival. However, Peter Yim observed last month how, though The New York Times had published a video the day after the assassination attempt featuring a photograph central to widespread media coverage that purportedly captured the path of a bullet narrowly missing Trump which was later scrutinized as fraudulent. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request sought records from the FBI regarding the photograph, specifically whether The New York Times had provided it to the agency. The FBI responded on 6 November—the day after Trump’s successful election—stating it found no records indicating that the photograph had been submitted. This absence raised further doubts about the assassination attempt’s legitimacy.That said, a fraudulent photograph wasn’t the only thing raising those doubts, though many would consider that other item rather unorthodox as “evidence.” Big Mad Crab, whom appeared in one of our July bulletins published just ten days before the shooting in Butler, posted a video on Twitter nine days after it: a clip from the cartoon Ugly Americans (2010–2011) showing an assassination attempt in which a bullet grazes its target’s ear just seconds before his finger presses the button to activate a doomsday device to inaugurate the End of Days.Surely that will remind longtime readers of our February dispatch on the 2020–’23 coronavirus pandemic that discussed predictive programming: the theory that media—through subtle conditioning—prepares the public for planned societal changes or major events through their depiction in entertainment, reducing resistance by framing them as natural or inevitable.Of course, the assassination target in that cartoon receives the flesh wound in his left ear, whereas Trump received it in his right: so, nothing to worry about—regardless of any potential connection between the doomsday device in the cartoon and Trump’s continual claims that he will need only 24 hours to conclude the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which seems increasingly to risk turning into a nuclear war. Nonetheless, as the world awaits Trump’s inauguration to see if he can make good on his promises of swift resolutions to the crisis, questions linger not only about the attempted assassination itself, but also about the far-reaching consequences of its symbolism in an era increasingly defined by uncertainty and polarization. But as far as the potential approach of doomsday is concerned, rest assured that we’ll be keeping an eye on it!Repeating “The Horrible Rumors About Comet Ping Pong”Our July dispatch discussed various scandals linking intelligence agencies to child sex-trafficking, along with one we considered a hoax: the Pizzagate conspiracy theory of 2016 alleged that prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton and John Podesta, operated a child sex-trafficking ring inside the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C., fueled by interpretations of “coded” messages in emails appearing on WikiLeaks. Fact-checkers debunked these claims, but they became intertwined with conspiracy theories surrounding the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich, whose 2016 death, officially labeled a botched robbery, spurred speculation that he was assassinated for leaking sensitive DNC emails to WikiLeaks, challenging the narrative that Russian hackers were responsible. But Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) criticized the official assessment, suggesting forensic evidence indicated a local leak rather than a remote hack, and WikiLeaks’ reward for information on Rich’s murder—as well as statements by founder Julian Assange (freed this year on a plea deal with the U.S. government)—fueled theories of Rich’s involvement in the email leak. Therefore, it seems to us that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory served to delegitimize the leaked DNC emails. Interestingly, however, some online commentators continue associating news stories with Pizzagate: last year, in connection to James Gordon Meek, the former ABC News reporter who in 2023 pleaded guilty to one count of distribution and another of possessing child pornography, for which a court sentenced him to six years in prison. In 2017, Meek co-authored an article titled “Behind #SyriaHoax and the Russian propaganda onslaught” that briefly mentioned Pizzagate as a “debunked” conspiracy theory in the context of discussing alleged Russian disinformation efforts. But the trend continued this year after the arrest on charges related to child pornography of Slade Sohmer, former editor-in-chief of The Recount, with some online commentators claiming he wrote a similar “debunking” article. However, those online commentators did manage to link Sohmer to the aforementioned Podesta, who tweeted his thanks in 2017 for Sohmer’s reporting on a sinkhole at Mar-a-Lago.Kind of annoying, isn’t it? That true crimes might continue finding some association with debunked ones that seem to us to have only been invented to cover up the source for leaked emails and to smear a geopolitical rival. But nonetheless, thanks to this latest apparently false claim that Sohmer had at one time debunked Pizzagate, we discovered another curiosity: though James Alefantis, the owner of Comet Ping Pong, told Metro Weekly in 2015 that the restaurant stored canned tomatoes in its basement, after the Pizzagate debacle in 2016, Alefantis told BBC Trending that the restaurant had no basement.Still, the persistence of associations between real crimes and debunked (for now?) conspiracies like Pizzagate underscores the challenges of navigating a digital landscape rife with misinformation, selective memory, and speculative connections. While these narratives often distract from substantive issues—such as credible criticisms of intelligence agencies or inconsistencies in official accounts—they also reveal the enduring power of narratives to obscure truths and shape public perception. As we continue to sift through claims both credible and fabricated, it’s imperative to maintain a commitment to evidence-based analysis and accountability, resisting the allure of oversimplified explanations that obscure more complex realities.Diddy Done What?Our June dispatch discussed how Sean Combs, formerly known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, has come to face numerous legal allegations, including sexual assault and sex trafficking, were accompanied by civil lawsuits, FBI raids, and claims about his involvement in orchestrated blackmail schemes within the music industry. Critics and conspiracy analysts, such as Craig “Pasta” Jardula and Ian Carroll, linked Combs’s actions to systemic abuses in the entertainment world, drawing parallels to historical scandals like those surrounding the late (good riddance) Jeffrey Epstein. Meanwhile, journalist Nick Bryant connected these allegations to intelligence agency-backed blackmail operations targeting figures of influence, with his investigations highlighting patterns of abuse, exploitation, and institutional cover-ups in the U.S., exemplified by cases like the Franklin scandal. Of course, these findings suggest deeper issues within elite circles, implicating intelligence agencies and organized crime in facilitating and protecting these operations.When we last left Combs, federal investigators had only been preparing to bring (some of) his accusers before a grand jury. They came through, and Combs was arrested on 16 September following a grand jury indictment on federal charges of racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Despite multiple bail requests—including a $50 million bond offer and house arrest proposals—judges consistently denied his release due to concerns over community safety, witness tampering, and his alleged pattern of violence. (Amusingly, Combs’s lawyers responded to Judge Arun Subramanian’s 22 November request for written submissions with one that referenced legal precedent from United States v. Trump to argue against pretrial speech restrictions.) Throughout his detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, Combs’s legal team highlighted poor conditions and accused the Department of Homeland Security of leaking incriminating videos, which the prosecution denied. While those bail hearings were being held in September, Ian Carroll—whom we cited in our previous coverage of Combs—presented a detailed analysis of a 2018 incident involving Jonathan Oddi at Trump National Doral Hotel in Miami, when Oddi entered with a gun and American flag, caused property damage, engaged in a shootout with police, and eventually surrendered after being shot in the leg. During his police interrogation, Oddi asserts (at ~8:24 in his interrogation) alleges Combs’s membership in a secret society called the Black Boulét, which he describes as a Black branch of the Illuminati, with Combs’s fame arranged by the Black Boulét to serve its agenda. He describes himself as Combs’s “sex slave” and makes allegations about his sexual activities, including involving paid sex workers and filming sessions, now echoed in recent lawsuits. Soon after presenting his analysis, Carroll appeared on Redacted to discuss Combs’s case further. He first highlights the absence of Lucian Grange (CEO of Universal Music Group) from the indictment despite being initially named in lawsuit previously filed against Combs by producer Rodney “Lil Rod” Jones alleging grooming, sexual assault, drugging, and forced participation in sex acts, has spoken out amid ongoing legal proceedings, before Carroll and host Clayton Morris go on to detail (at ~3:414) suspicious property purchases along the southern border wall near Tijuana by Faheem Muhammad, former security head for Michael Jackson before becoming Combs’s security chief. The property in question, connected to Muhammad through media reports, is listed on tax records under the “Dior Sunset Foundation,” based in Los Angeles, which promotes youth programs focused on social skills, gang prevention, and healthy living. For Carroll and Morris, this suggests potential connections to child trafficking operations—perhaps something like those discussed in our July dispatch—though they note (at ~6:07) the absence of child trafficking charges in Combs’s current indictment, before discussing the challenges in prosecuting such cases and the broader prevalence of child trafficking in the U.S.Since Combs’s arrest, another hip-hop star has come under similar scrutiny: at the start of this month, a rape complaint filed against Combs by the Buzbee Law Firm was refiled to additionally accuse rapper Shawn “Jay-Z” Carter of participating in the sexual assault on the victim on 7 September 2000, when she was just thirteen years old. Carter first sued the eponymous Tony Buzbee anonymously, then issued a strong public denial of allegations, accusing Buzbee of blackmail and theatrics. In that statement, Carter alleged that Buzbee sent a demand letter attempting to leverage public scrutiny for a settlement. Refusing to comply, Carter called the allegations “heinous” and encouraged filing a criminal complaint rather than a civil suit, asserting that such crimes against minors warrant imprisonment. (Of course, the statute of limitations on the alleged assault has long expired.) Combs’s legal team also condemned Buzbee, labeling his lawsuits as baseless publicity stunts meant to extort money from celebrities while reiterating Combs’s innocence.It’s worth noting that contradictions in the accuser’s story have emerged—including conflicting accounts of the evening’s events and photos showing Carter and Combs at a different location—for which reason Carter’s lawyers have asked the court to dismiss the case. Now 38, the accuser maintains her allegations and has offered to undergo a polygraph test. Advocacy groups, including RAINN, note that inconsistencies in memory are common in trauma survivors, particularly when drugs are involved, and should not invalidate claims. The accuser hopes her case will inspire others to come forward. Buzbee said his firm continues to investigate her claims.But with that said, Carter’s Roc Nation label seems to have taken some extra-legal steps that don’t seem like innocent behavior: little more than a week ago, the Buzbee Law Firm filed its own lawsuit against Roc Nation, attorney Marcy Croft, and law firm Quinn Emanuel, accusing them of engaging in illegal activities such as barratry and impersonation of public officials, claiming that Roc Nation representatives posed as state officials and approached former Buzbee clients with an offer of $10,000 to file lawsuits against the firm. Buzbee alleges that these actions (captured on tape) occurred over 24 times and resulted in at least two lawsuits against his firm, representing part of a coordinated effort to harm the firm’s reputation and interfere with ongoing litigation involving Combs, whose prosecutors have vowed to disclose all evidence by the end of 2024 in preparation for a trial set for 5 May 2025. The unfolding scandals surrounding Combs and Carter paint a troubling portrait of power, abuse, and manipulation within the entertainment industry. Regardless of the cases’ outcomes, these revelations demonstrate the need for closer scrutiny of the entertainment industry’s systemic issues and its intersections with institutional power, underscoring the need for accountability—not only for alleged perpetrators but also for enablers and protectors within elite circles.As the legal battles unfold, they also highlight the challenges survivors face when seeking justice, from navigating public skepticism to confronting powerful adversaries. Whatever the verdicts, this moment calls for introspection, reform, and a collective commitment to dismantling the structures that allow exploitation to persist. Only through such efforts can the entertainment world (and society at large) begin to reconcile with these dark truths and move toward a more equitable future. Though critics may maintain skepticism about meaningful change due to the entrenched power structures involved, you can be sure that we here at Radio Free Pizza will have at least one eye on the case—if only to see if the determiner in Katt Williams’ September claim that “all lies will be exposed” wasn’t just hyperbole. What Ever Happened to Our Right-on-Time Crimefighter?Habitual Radio Free Pizza gourmets may remember how often “Pizza-Man” (the urban superhero themed around pizza) appeared throughout our newsletter’s “Year One”: the more curious among them might therefore have wondered why that silly AI-generated mascot disappeared from our bulletins and dispatches—except for one parenthetical reference on May Day, that is.“What ever happened to Pizza-Man?” they might wonder, but I can’t give you any firm answer. I suppose he must have returned to train with his mentor. “Who’s that?” you might ask. Well, some of you may have seen the AI-generated images depicting “Gumbo Slice”—supposedly credited as “the first thing I've ever seen where I can’t tell if it's AI or not”:But fewer among you might know that user drangis_ posted the AI-generated backstory to Gumbo Slice on the subreddit dedicated to the Midjourney image-generating AI:Gumbo Slice was not always a fat shirtless black man eating pizza with alligators in a swamp. He used to be a successful chef and restaurateur in New Orleans, known for his signature dish: gumbo with a slice of pizza on top. He had a loyal clientele, a loving wife, and a bright future. But everything changed when Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005. Gumbo Slice lost his restaurant, his home, and his wife in the devastating storm. He was left with nothing but his name and his passion for cooking. He wandered the streets of New Orleans, looking for a place to start over. He found it in the bayou, where he met a group of friendly alligators who shared his love of pizza. He befriended them and learned their ways. He built a shack in the swamp and started making pizza with whatever ingredients he could find. He also learned how to wrestle alligators, which he did for fun and exercise. He became known as Gumbo Slice, the fat shirtless black man eating pizza with alligators in a swamp. He was happy and content, until one day, he encountered an alligator that was not so friendly. It was a rogue gator that had been terrorizing the swamp for weeks. It attacked Gumbo Slice while he was enjoying his pizza, and tried to bite off his leg. Gumbo Slice reacted quickly and kicked the gator in the face, sending it flying into the water. He then grabbed his pizza and ran back to his shack, where he celebrated his victory with his alligator friends. He took a selfie with his phone and posted it online, with the caption: “Don’t mess with Gumbo Slice!” The photo went viral and became a meme sensation. People loved Gumbo Slice’s quirky personality and fearless attitude. They made jokes, captions, and remixes of his photo, spreading it across the internet. Gumbo Slice became an internet celebrity overnight. He did not mind the fame, as long as he could keep eating pizza with alligators in a swamp. He was happy and content, and he never looked back. He was Gumbo Slice, and he loved his life.However, absolutely none of you could possibly know (because I’m making it up right now) that the beloved Gumbo Slice also plays a key role in the backstory of our very own hot and fresh Pizza-Man, becoming our heroic mascot’s mentor in the ancient Creole art of alligator-wrestling. You see, adapting the lyrics from various versions of “En Sexto, un Agil”—translated into English from the gibberish Spanish that one AI had provided when it wasn’t instructed to generate an instrumental, and which another AI had transcribed from the audio output of the first—Pizza-Man first met Gumbo Slice as a sixth-grader working after school in a pizza shop. No one remembers his real name anymore, since his nickname “Nomor” took off around town, with everyone having too often heard him saying to himself, “No more.” But he didn’t need to go on too much longer: dodging traffic around the gas station, he didn’t see the open manhole ahead of him, and so Nomor the pizza-boy went plunging into the sewer—lucky for him, because wouldn’t you know it, Gumbo Slice was the very customer who had placed the order, and he kept the alligators in the sewer from tearing into young Nomor once he hit the water.“Hey there, little Nomor! You okay, boy?” Nomor squinted through the dim light of the sewer, trying to make sense of the silhouette waddling toward him. The figure was shirtless, broad, and unmistakable: Gumbo Slice himself, cradling a half-eaten slice of pizza in one hand and flanked by two lounging alligators. “How’d you know my name?” Nomor stammered, still gripping the battered pizza box. “Ain’t much goes on in this town I don’t hear about,” Gumbo Slice said, gesturing up toward the open manhole as he pulled Nomor out of the muck. “Plus, that pizza smells like it’s got my name on it.”Nomor handed over the box, groaning as he found his footing and feeling a strange mix of awe and terror as Gumbo Slice opened it and took a bite, unbothered by its bedraggled state. “Sorry: I tried to tell whoever answered the phone that you gotta be careful with the address,” Gumbo Slice said between chews. “But y’know, you got lucky. That manhole? Leads to my favorite shortcut. Come on, let me show you.” Nomor pulled his bicycle out of the water and just like that he found himself following Gumbo Slice through the maze-like sewers, lit only by the glow of the faint bioluminescence of the swamp water. “What does that?” Nomor asked.“Fluoride bacteria,” Gumbo told him. “The species evolved to absorb them through granules on its cell wall, and their riboflavin phosphates reacts with the fluoride.”The journey was surreal, not least because of the bioluminescence, but also because Gumbo Slice’s alligator companions—affectionately named Pepperoni and Mozzarella—ambled behind them, their tails sloshing in the water. By the time they reached Gumbo’s sewer shack, Nomor had learned more about life—and pizza—than he ever thought possible. Gumbo Slice was a fountain of wisdom, sharing sewer survival tips, the secret to his signature gumbo-pizza fusion, and even his philosophy on life: “See, Nomor, life’s like a slice of pizza. Even when it’s a little burnt or a little wet, it’s still worth savoring. You just gotta know which parts to bite into and which parts to leave for the gators.” So, Nomor’s fall into the sewer wasn’t the disaster it seemed at first. That night, as he sat by the fire outside Gumbo’s shack, surrounded by the sounds of the city above them echoing through the sewer and the comforting presence of Gumbo and his gators, he realized that falling into the sewer might have been the best thing that ever happened to him. Gumbo Slice became Nomor’s mentor, and taught him the art of alligator-wrestling so that Nomor would know how to protect himself.As the years passed, Nomor discovered that developmental exposure to the bioluminescent bacteria gave him unnatural speed. That, of course, gave him an advantage in pizza deliveries, even as public speech became increasingly confused. Growing ever faster, he found more and more time to ponder that confusion, and decided he’d do his best to get to the bottom of it, taking on the name of Pizza-Man as his alter ego to learn as much as he could from the man on the street without allowing any prior impressions of his secret identity to prejudice them.Hot and fresh, the Pizza-ManZooms all through this land Right on time he’s always thereWith a taste beyond compareCity lights the streets are meanBut he serves that cheddar dreamNeedy folks in every blockPizza faster than the clock Hot and fresh Pizza-ManSaving lives with sauce and panSuper-speed, he’s on his wayBringing joy to every dayFrom the oven to the doorHero we’ve been waiting forPepperoni flying highThrough the night he’s slicing byEvery topping in his handQuick delivery he’ll standAnd the kids all dance and cheerWhen Pizza-Man is nearHot and fresh Pizza-ManSaving lives with sauce and panSuper-speed, he’s on his wayBringing joy to every daySuffice it to say, Pizza-Man’s disappearance from our dispatches mirrors the ebb and flow of life’s absurdities, much like his origin story—a blend of surreal mentorship, bioluminescent bacteria, and swampy heroics—reminds us to embrace the unexpected twists that shape our journeys. Whether he’s off honing his alligator-wrestling skills with Gumbo Slice or fighting crime under our noses, Pizza-Man serves as a reminder that even the quirkiest tales can carry nuggets of wisdom: life, like a pizza, is best enjoyed with a sense of adventure and a willingness to savor every strange, soggy, or slightly burnt slice.That’s a wrap, everyone! See you all next year.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

🎧 In This Episode:Zach interviews Indie, co-founder of INN, on his journey to anti-Zionism, the influence of Zionism in Jewish communities, the fight for Palestinian sovereignty, and the vital role of independent media in exposing imperialist narratives.✨ Featured Guest:Indie (Co-Founder, Indie News Network): https://x.com/IndLeftNewsINN YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@IndieNewsNetworkINN Substack: https://www.innnewsletter.com/INN Linktree: ⁠https://indienews.network/⁠🔗 Links & Resources:"Indie's Origin Story": ⁠https://www.indiemediatoday.com/p/indies-origin-story⁠Indie Media Awards: ⁠https://indiemediaawards.substack.com/⁠Show Notes: ⁠https://www.radiofreepizza.com/p/independence-from-the-ideology⁠Corrections (at ~30:58):Association of Religious Data Archives: ⁠https://www.thearda.com/us-religion/history/timelines/entry?etype=1&eid=97⁠Washington Report on Middle East Affairs: ⁠https://www.wrmea.org/2015-october/the-scofield-bible-the-book-that-made-zionists-of-americas-evangelical-christians.html⁠🌟 Support the Show:Leave a Review:Spotify: ⁠https://open.spotify.com/show/2NADDZQYqE2tW2G4TQtEuM⁠Apple Podcasts: ⁠https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/radio-free-pizza/id1766164547⁠Donate or Become a Member:Substack: ⁠https://www.radiofreepizza.com⁠Patreon: ⁠https://www.patreon.com/c/radiofreepizza⁠Buy Me a Coffee: ⁠https://www.buymeacoffee.com/radiofreepizza⁠💬 Let’s Connect!Follow Us:Facebook: ⁠https://www.facebook.com/radiofreepizza⁠Instagram: ⁠https://www.instagram.com/radiofreepizza⁠Subscribe to Our Newsletter: ⁠https://www.radiofreepizza.com⁠Join the Conversation:Discord: ⁠https://discord.gg/xts6cEKMSubstack Chat: https://substack.com/chat/1583569 Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Here at Radio Free Pizza, we’re waiting on tenterhooks for the Islamic Republic of Iran to launch Operation True Promise 3 against the State of Israel for the latter’s 26 October attack on its nuclear research facility in Parchin, twenty miles southeast of Tehran. While Israel framed the strike as a preventive measure aimed to delay Iran’s nuclear program, skeptics question its effectiveness against the overall nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic, which has naturally vowed to retaliate.Viewers of our 2024 U.S. election spectacle will have surely noticed the concerns I voiced about the potential for an American attack on behalf of Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The U.S. would certainly justify such an attack as a defense of its primary imperial outpost in the region, and has already begun laying the groundwork for it: the aforementioned viewers may also recall mention of a chat on the Discord server for Radio Free Pizza where I posted links to a handful of articles demonstrating its efforts to do so. Those articles begin with one dating to May—hot on the heels of Iran’s first reprisal against Israel in April for bombing its Damascus embassy (which Hayat Tahrir al-Sham [HTS] rebels stormed last week, before Israel began bombing the city) codenamed Operation True Promise, as well as the heels of the May death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi—that describes Iran as part of a “diverse and complex” threat landscape alongside Russia and China. Come June, unnamed sources from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence were calling Iran a “chaos agent” known for experimenting with online tactics aimed at stirring voter anger and potentially inciting violence in efforts to influence U.S. elections. The next month, Director of National Intelligence Sarah Haines voiced the accusations herself, alleging that Iran had been using social media to exploit U.S. protests against Israel’s genocide in Gaza to undermine confidence in U.S. democratic institutions, and had even been funding protesters. Haines released her statement only: three days before the FBI arrested Asif Merchant for an alleged Iranian-backed plot to assassinate former (and now future) President Donald Trump, with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) reportedly offering $1 million for the hit, as part of its ongoing campaign to avenge the 2020 killing of General Qasem Soleimani; four days before the (first) assassination attempt against Trump; fifteen days before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu referenced alleged Iranian plots against Trump (to avenge his 2020 order to kill Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani) during his address to the U.S. Congress; and nineteen days before the late Raisi’s successor, the reformist Masoud Pezeshkian, assumed the Iranian presidency.The narrative of Iranian aggression against American democracy went into overdrive in August, when Microsoft’s Clint Watts reported that a hacking group affiliated with the IRGC targeted high-ranking officials in the Trump campaign with an email phishing attack. That report, of course, received immediate pushback: as noted in The Dissident that same month, it has only minimal credibility after Watts’s prior involvement in discredited narratives like Russiagate and the Hamilton 68 project. Critics highlight the report’s lack of concrete evidence linking Iran to alleged operations, such as fake websites with pro-U.S. government rhetoric, which undermine the claims of Iranian influence. Observers argue the narrative mirrors past allegations of foreign interference, repackaged to target Iran, with skepticism raised about the report’s bias and potential role in fueling anti-Iranian sentiment and censorship.The Iranian delegation to the United Nations denied the allegations in September, but Trump’s campaign still requested unprecedented security measures in October—ten days after Iran’s second reprisal against Israel for the regime’s July assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, codenamed Operation True Promise 2—including military aircraft and heightened protection against drones and missiles. Though at the end of the same month Trump suggested that he would encourage peace negotiations between Israel and Iran rather than seeking to overthrow Iran’s regime if re-elected, just three days after the 5 November election the U.S. Department of Justice charged Farhad Shakeri—reportedly an asset of the IRGC—along with Carlisle Rivera and Jonathan Loadholt—whom Shakeri met in a U.S. prison before being deported in 2008—in a series of alleged Iran-linked murder plots against President-elect Donald Trump, an Iranian-American activist, and two Jewish Americans in New York, as well as other U.S. and Israeli targets. So, I really think you should feel silly if you don’t believe the U.S. has been preparing to go to war with Iran in defense of Israel after Trump takes office for the second time. However, Western imperialist interest in Iran long predates the formal invention of Israel. In the early 20th century, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC), a British-owned company (renamed as the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company [AIOC] in 1935) and a predecessor of today’s BP, controlled Iran’s vast oil reserves. This arrangement was extremely profitable for Great Britain, especially as British industries, government, and military depended on Iranian oil. By the 1950s, however, growing nationalist sentiments in Iran, coupled with resentment over the unequal benefits of the oil industry, led democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh to introduce legislation to nationalize the AIOC, renaming it as the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). The British viewed Mosaddegh’s nationalization policy as a major threat to their economic interests and influence in the Middle East. For help, the British turned to the U.S., with which they collaborated to execute Operation Ajax. This involved a combination of propaganda, bribery, and support for street protests to destabilize Mosaddegh’s government and ultimately led to his removal—as well as laying the template for the “color revolutions” with which we’ve become so familiar.After the coup, the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, returned to power with the support of the West and granted foreign oil companies access to Iran’s oil industry again. This episode left a lasting impact on Iranian society, sparking widespread resentment toward Western interference lasting into the 1970s, during which Iran’s economy grew rapidly due to high oil prices while the distribution of wealth remained highly unequal. The Shah’s ambitious modernization and industrialization projects produced rising inflation and social inequalities. This economic situation, paired with a sense of cultural disconnect from the Shah’s modernization efforts, led to growing discontent among Iranians, particularly the working class and rural populations, leading to the Iranian Revolution of 1979 after Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini returned from exile. The revolutionary movement quickly consolidated power, establishing the Islamic Republic through a national referendum in April 1979. Khomeini and his supporters worked to dismantle the old regime’s institutions, including the monarchy, and replaced them with a new Islamic government structure based on Shia Islamic principles and the concept of velayat-e faqih (guardianship of the jurist), which gave Khomeini supreme authority. Since then, the Islamic Republic’s opposition to Western powers have led to decades of economic sanctions in an effort to stunt the country’s economic growth and isolate it on the global stage. Even so, the revolution inspired similar Islamic movements across the Middle East, having demonstrated that a secular, pro-Western government could be overthrown by a popular religious movements, and Iran began supporting Shia movements in other countries, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Ansar Allah (“the Houthis”) in Yemen, to reshape the region’s geopolitical dynamics.The Islamic Republic’s history of resistance to Western imperialism and support for its neighbors in resisting the same has set the stage for its growing stature in the region today as the Middle East increasingly unites against the genocidal Zionist regime. With a larger conflict seeming to loom over West Asia, we can turn to Islamic.Socialist Analysis for discerning insight into the strategies and goals of both Israel and Iran. With regard to the first, the newsletter detailed its plans for “Greater Israel” in November 2023, describing the Zionist regime’s core objective as territorial maximalism, aiming to establish a Jewish-majority state across much of the Middle East, citing the strategies of violence and terrorism used by the Zionist paramilitary group Irgun prior to the State of Israel’s founding as predecessors to those of Netanyahu and the modern Likud Party. These expansionist goals align with U.S. and Saudi interests in the region, for which reason Western interventions, particularly in Syria, have served as part of a broader effort to destabilize the Middle East and advance the Greater Israel agenda. Accordingly, Islamic.Socialist Analysis calls for global opposition to Zionism, equating it with fascism and likening it to historic ideologies like Nazism.With regard to the second, the newsletter honored the anniversary of Hamas’ 7 October 2023 uprising with a discussion not just of Israel’s slaughter of an estimated 100,000 Palestinians (as well as its own citizens killed according to its Hannibal Directive), but of its provocations against Iran, Yemen, and Lebanon, with which it aimed to escalate the conflict into a regional war. That, of course, has only swelled the ranks of the resistance forces, to the point that Islamic.Socialist Analysis reported later that month on Iran’s President Pezeshkian’s visit to Saudi Arabia shortly after executing Operation True Promise 2, where he told his Saudi counterparts that the two countries “should permanently close the chapter on our differences,” signaling the formation of a new alliance between the two nations. Following the visit, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Kuwait have collectively assured Iran of their neutrality in the Iran-Israel conflict, signaling the formation of a new alliance between Iran and Saudi Arabia. This stance restricts the U.S. from leveraging military bases in these countries in any potential conflict with Iran.Still, that won’t necessarily keep the U.S. from trying to start one. In the assessment of former CIA analyst Larry Johnson (whom longtime Radio Free Pizza gourmets will remember from our July dispatch), the alleged murder plot targeting an Iranian-American activist may have been part of a broader intelligence operation aimed at creating a pretext for a U.S. attack on Iran before Donald Trump assumes the presidency. Johnson argues that the operation likely involved collaboration between the FBI, CIA, and DEA, including the recruitment of the aforementioned Shakeri as an informant under the guise of being an Iranian intelligence asset.Trump, however, appears to have derailed this alleged plan by taking diplomatic steps, such as sending Elon Musk to meet with Iran’s UN Ambassador, signaling a serious interest in negotiations to avoid conflict. Of course, this move contrasts with Trump’s simultaneous nomination of hardline figures like Marco Rubio, Pete Hegseth, and Michael Waltz to key positions in his administration, and Johnson therefore speculates that these appointments may be part of a strategic negotiation tactic, presenting a tough stance while pursuing diplomacy—a hallmark of Trump’s Art of the Deal approach. Highlighting the unprecedented speed of Trump’s cabinet formation, Johnson suggests it reflects a deliberate, premeditated strategy, and while the ultimate outcome of Trump’s decisions remains uncertain, the coming months will reveal whether these moves represent poor judgment or a calculated plan to reshape U.S. foreign policy.Nonetheless, some seem nervous about Trump’s approach. The day after Johnson published his analysis, another appeared from The Dissident critiquing Trump’s 2024 cabinet picks as evidence of deep influence from the pro-Israel lobby, drawing parallels to corporate influence during Obama’s presidency. The eponymous Dissident highlights significant contributions from Miriam Adelson, a major pro-Israel donor, suggesting her financial backing has shaped Trump’s appointments. Cabinet members like Marco Rubio, Michael Waltz, Elise Stefanik, Pete Hegseth, and Tulsi Gabbard have aligned themselves strongly with pro-Israel policies, often receiving substantial funding from lobbying groups like AIPAC. Accordingly, the writer accuses both political parties of supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza and complicity in its genocidal policies, and contrasts this support against the outcry over alleged Russian influence with the silence on “Israelgate,” arguing that pro-Israel lobbying has a far greater impact on U.S. policy than the Russian Federation might have ever had under the debunked narrative of Trump’s collusion. That, of course, makes a U.S. attack on Iran a genuine risk—a concern which others seem to share. Writing the next day, the retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor cautions against the U.S. engaging in a potential war with Iran, emphasizing the profound risks and the need for careful deliberation. He argues that the U.S. must first clarify its purpose in such a conflict and whether it seeks to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities, dismantle its government, or reduce its ability to wage war. Each objective would require a distinct strategy and significant resources, and history suggests that achieving such goals is often more complex and protracted than anticipated. The effectiveness of U.S. military power, particularly reliance on air and missile strikes, also raises questions. Macgregor points to historical examples, such as the Kosovo air campaign, which inflicted significant damage but failed to decisively impact enemy ground forces or compel surrender. Iran’s advanced defenses and powerful alliances with nations like Russia and China further complicate the prospects of success.Additionally, Macgregor emphasizes the importance of defining a clear end-state for any conflict. Unlike the targets of previous U.S. military interventions, Iran is not isolated and benefits from regional and international support. Without a clear vision of what a post-war Middle East should look like, the U.S. risks prolonged instability and unintended consequences. Importantly, Macgregor also questions whether the U.S. should involve itself in a conflict initiated by Israel, warning of significant strategic costs, including severe economic repercussions and destabilization of the global order. He notes that past U.S. presidents, such as Dwight Eisenhower, avoided unnecessary wars to protect national interests, and invokes the cautionary satire of Dr. Strangelove to illustrate the risks of miscalculations or of launching false-flag operations. He concludes by urging President Trump to exercise restraint and use American power wisely, advocating for deliberate planning and diplomacy over impulsive military action.Fortunately, the Islamic Republic may be following the same logic, having reportedly decided to delay Operation True Promise 3 after Trump’s electoral victory, with some sources suggesting that Iran intends to engage diplomatically with the incoming U.S. administration, leaving the plan shelved but not abandoned. Nonetheless, such diplomatic engagement must occur in the context of escalating tensions, with further claims from the FBI this month that Kash Patel, President-elect Donald Trump's nominee for FBI director, was reportedly targeted in a cyberattack attributed to Iranian hackers, though details about the breach’s success or impact remain unclear—and, of course, few mainstream journalists seem to raise the question of whether U.S. intelligence agencies might use their Vault 7 tool to frame Iran as a geopolitical adversary. Though Patel has been praised by Trump for his “America First” stance, he nonetheless urges Americans to prioritize their support for Israel, arguing that U.S. security depends on it.Still, the escalating tensions between the U.S., Israel, and Iran reflect broader struggles for power, influence, and resistance in West Asia. In this context, the eventual execution of Operation True Promise 3 seems assured, with Major General Mohsen Rezaei, a former IRGC commander, accusing the U.S. and Israel at the start of this month of provoking Takfiri terrorists to invade Aleppo with the aim of expanding conflict from Lebanon and Gaza into Syria as a part of its broader destabilization efforts. (Israel’s occupation of Mount Hermon in the Golan Heights following the collapse of Syria last weekend seems to give his claim some further evidence—or at least demonstrates their efforts to advance the “Greater Israel” project.) Accordingly, Rezaei urged Muslim nations to form a unified army to counter U.S. and Israeli aggression, emphasizing Iran’s support for resistance movements in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. Rezaei also warned of the eventual True Promise 3 retaliation against Israel, asserting Iran’s right to choose the time and place for such action.While Israel’s actions stem from expansionist goals aligned with Zionist ideology and supported by Western imperialist interests, Iran’s role reflects its long-standing defiance of these forces, deeply rooted in its revolutionary history. The prospect of U.S. involvement in a war with Iran, ostensibly in defense of Israel, underscores a recurring theme of American foreign policy: interventions that risk destabilizing regions in the service of imperialist aims to control and profit from foreign nations’ economic output.As Trump’s return to power looms, the path forward is fraught with uncertainty. His administration’s mixed signals—advancing hardline appointments alongside attempts at diplomacy—illustrate the complexities of maneuvering through this volatile situation. Analysts like Johnson view allegations of domestic interference within the U.S. as attempts by the intelligence community to establish a pretext for war, while those like the Dissident note how such would serve Israeli interests, and those like Macgregor emphasize the need for restraint, strategic clarity, and an awareness of the profound risks involved in a conflict with Iran. Without these, the U.S. risks embroiling itself in another protracted and destabilizing war, with consequences that could reshape not just the Middle East but the global order itself.Ultimately, whether this period will mark a shift toward peace or escalate into a broader confrontation depends on the choices made by leaders on all sides. The lessons of history serve as powerful reminders of the dangers of underestimating the complexities of this region and the resilience of its people. Here at Radio Free Pizza, we can only hope that the next administration won’t repeat those mistakes—though, of course, we can’t help but expect otherwise.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

This past week, Zach sat down with Dr. Edgar Avendaño Mejía—whom premium subscribers will recall seeing in the third episode of Better Futures, to which the less fortunate can listen here—to interview him about Mexican politics, focusing on the concept of “Mexican humanism” and its relation to neoliberal policies. In Edgar’s assessment, the new government continues old politics with a new disguise. As an example he offers the policies of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) as Regent of Mexico City, such as selling parts of downtown to Carlos Slim for improvement, which he describes (at ~2:44) as “a classic neoliberal politics […] Sell it to someone who wants to profit from it and yeah, automatically through [competition], it will be better.”The discussion then moves (at ~3:07) to President Claudia Sheinbaum, AMLO’s successor (whose election we covered in June), and her policies. Edgar notes that while she talks often about the importance of ecological sustainability, her main public works as Regent of Mexico City were car-focused—despite only 20% of Mexico City residents using cars. He mentions the collapse of a subway line in 2021, resulting in 26 deaths, which Sheinbaum rather deceitfully blamed on past administrations.Edgar also explains (at ~11:09) AMLO’s social programs during his presidency, including scholarships for students and pensions for the elderly. He notes that these programs contributed significantly to AMLO’s popularity—and presumably to that of his political party, Morena—especially in rural areas. Edgar, as a high school teacher, personally witnesses the positive impact of these scholarships on his students’ lives.Later on (at ~18:41), Zach raises the issue of potential U.S. military intervention against cartels in Mexico, and inquires about the potential that the U.S. and Mexican governments might collaborate on such a venture. Edgar expresses skepticism about this idea, stating that it would be difficult to implement due to the Mexican people’s skepticism towards foreign military presence and the strong nationalist, sovereignty-oriented discourse of both AMLO and Sheinbaum.Notably, Edgar speculates (at ~21:22) that Sheinbaum will continue AMLO’s policies with a more globalist approach. He mentions that Sheinbaum is more pro-environment than AMLO, and that she may be more in line with international sustainability norms.Finally, they discuss (at ~24:06) the possibility of Mexico joining BRICS+ during Sheinbaum’s administration. Though he describes his expertise in political analysis as limited, Edgar it hard to imagine Mexico making such a move given its geographical proximity to the U.S. and the constant pressure on Mexico from the U.S. government.While Sheinbaum’s presidency may tend toward globalism, we here at Radio Free Pizza nonetheless hope that her administration will continue implementing social programs that reduce poverty among the Mexican people, not allowing opportunities for economic advancement to go disproportionately to its urban population—regardless of whether such conflicts with international norms. Of course, we can only hope that this doesn’t mean reverting to a domestic neoliberalism under a friendlier name. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

The day before the 18–19 November 2024 meeting of the “Group of Twenty” (G20) major economies in Brazil, still-President Biden authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied long-range ATACMS missiles to strike deeper into Russian territory, marking a significant shift in U.S. policy. The announcement followed months of Ukrainian appeals for permission from NATO allies to use Western missiles in support of its incursion into Russia’s Kursk region—and it came only twelve days after the victory of Donald Trump in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, with the once-again-President-elect having claimed for almost two years that he could end the conflict within 24 hours.After Biden gave his blessing to Ukraine’s strikes within Russian territory, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned immediately that such attacks would be met with retaliation and risked escalating the conflict deeper into Europe. Nonetheless, the Kiev regime fired U.S. missiles two days after Biden’s announcement at an arms depot in the Bryansk region, about 110 km inside the Russian Federation. Though Russia claimed to have intercepted five of six missiles—and U.S. sources claimed it intercepted two of eight—the strike resulted in secondary explosions from munitions, though without any casualties reported. A day later, Ukraine followed up the U.S. ATACMS missiles with a volley of the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles fired into the Kursk region.In response, Putin approved updates to his country’s nuclear doctrine that lower the threshold for using atomic weapons, allowing for the use of nuclear weapons in response to attacks from non-nuclear states that are backed by nuclear powers, large-scale conventional strikes involving missiles, drones, or aircraft, and threats to Russian sovereignty or allies such as Belarus. Additionally, any aggression by a member of a coalition will be treated as an attack by the entire group. Interestingly, those Russian allies might now include the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (“North Korea”), soldiers from which reportedly joined Russian forces in the Kursk region earlier this month, whom an unnamed Kiev official claimed have already clashed with Ukrainian forces. These reports came only a week after North Korea tested its longest-range intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and, according to South Korean military intelligence, had begun preparing for its seventh test of nuclear weapons.The Kremlin called its country’s updated nuclear doctrine “timely” and reflective of the current geopolitical situation, urging other countries to analyze it thoroughly. While Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov reiterated Russia’s stance against nuclear war, Ukraine has criticized the changes as “nuclear saber-rattling” intended to deter Western support. However, as the Russian counterattack demonstrated, that saber-rattling need not be nuclear: a test of its new hypersonic nuclear-capable intermediate-range ballistic missile, the Oreshnik, struck a military facility in Dnipro, marking a sharp escalation in the war. The missile, reaching speeds of Mach 11 and carrying six conventional warheads with submunitions, reportedly destroyed the subterranean Yuzhmash missile manufacturing plant responsible for assembling weapons using Western components relabeled as “made in Ukraine” to shield NATO suppliers. The attack’s impact was so powerful that buildings kilometers away were damaged, and it destroyed the city’s water supply infrastructure.Still, the successful test of the Oreshnik missile did little to deter Ukraine’s Western allies, with the French Foreign Minister confirming that Ukraine can fire its French Scalp missiles—identical to the UK’s Storm Shadow missiles—into Russian territory according to “the logics of self-defense.”Given all of last week’s developments, we’d certainly forgive you for fearing these will surely lead to nuclear confrontation. But others are more optimistic (if we can call it that): the pseudonymous Rurik Skywalker suggests in The Slavland Chronicles that Russia’s responses are more rhetorical than substantive. Despite fears from U.S. officials that Russia might retaliate, the author believes that Putin’s threats are just bluffs and that NATO has nothing to fear. While political dynamics within the U.S. might push for further escalation, Skywalker sees no real confirmation of these developments: despite Russia’s threats, he still doubles down on his earlier depiction of Putin as unlikely to escalate beyond limited retaliation, given a lack of major military mobilization. In addition, these recent escalations follow rumors of secret talks between Ukraine and Russia, which Skywalker reports have focused on practical issues like prisoner exchanges and energy attacks, and aimed at preserving profits for oligarchs. While Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s power stems entirely Western financial support rather than domestic political backing—making him unlikely to agree to peace talks—Skywalker argues that Russia's goal is not to defeat Zelensky, but to restore power to pro-Russian oligarchs in Ukraine. He therefore questions the sincerity of Russia’s rhetoric, viewing the conflict as driven by elite power struggles, and predicts further escalation between Russia and Ukraine. That said, even after the Oreshnik missile strike, Skywalker seems to see little reason to believe the conflict will broaden into Europe or the West, critiquing American commentators like Jackson Hinkle and the retired Colonel Douglas Macgregor as members of a cult of personality worshipping Putin, whose respective predictions of Zelensky’s imminent death or of a Russian nuclear strike in Europe simply ignore the evidence.Of course, it surely profits many of those involved to keep the conflict going, with the U.S. alone having provided over $56 billion in military aid since 2022 and having just forgiven $4.7 billion in loans. Add in more than $9 billion from the UK and more than $36 billion from the EU (again, just in military aid) and it seems certain the Western military-industrial complex has been profiting handsomely—not to mention corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs.However, Skywalker also offers reason for concern about the potential use of tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) in the Ukraine-Russia conflict following Trump’s resumption of the American presidency, suggesting that the transfer of TNWs to Ukraine by NATO allies is increasingly likely, given the historical pattern of escalating military aid that has already included tanks, artillery, and missiles. The transfer of TNWs would represent a natural development in Western support. A Trump administration, Skywalker predicts, would likely intensify rather than de-escalate the conflict, describing his potential cabinet is described as the most hawkish in U.S. history, with figures like Sebastian Gorka signaling an even more aggressive stance. However, Skywalker warns that the introduction of TNWs could provoke a nuclear response from Russia, leading to catastrophic consequences. NATO’s apparent disregard for “red lines” is interpreted as evidence that all escalation options, including nuclear confrontation, are now on the table.Skywalker also speculates on NATO’s broader strategic intentions, suggesting they may aim to dismember the Russian Federation, incite internal conflicts, or compel Moscow to align against China. TNWs may serve as a possible tool to pressure Russia into submission and achieve larger geopolitical goals. While acknowledging uncertainty about NATO’s exact objectives, Skywalker argues that the conflict’s trajectory under Biden points toward further escalation, viewing Trump as unlikely to alter the course—despite his vague rhetoric about diplomatic negotiations—and instead as someone who might amplify the risk of nuclear engagement, with the future transfer of TNWs to Ukraine representing a potential tipping point.Western commentators seem to agree, acknowledging that despite Biden’s last-minute aid efforts, the U.S. and Europe have been exploring alternative security guarantees. These include stockpiling advanced weaponry for response to future Russian assaults, and—perhaps predictably, though much more alarmingly—supplying nuclear weapons to Ukraine, which commentators describe as “deterrence” as opposed to obvious escalation. Certainly, developments in the Ukraine conflict over just the past week underscore the profound complexities and dangers of this geopolitical crisis, with escalating rhetoric, advanced weaponry, and shifting alliances all heightening the stakes. The authorization of long-range missile use by the Biden administration, the updating of Russia’s nuclear doctrine, and the deployment of weapons like the Oreshnik missile reflect a deepening entrenchment by all parties. But despite warnings of potential nuclear confrontation, there remain reasons to believe the conflict revolves more around calculated posturing rather than a genuine march toward global escalation.At its heart, the war appears driven less by ideological clashes and more by pragmatic power struggles, including oligarchic interests and strategic positioning within broader geopolitical frameworks. As the Western military-industrial complex continues to reap significant profits while Ukraine remains reliant on external financial and military support, the prospect of resolution seems increasingly remote. Instead, the conflict risks dragging on as a protracted proxy war—at least until such time as NATO provides Ukraine with TNWs. While fears of escalation into Europe or nuclear conflict persist even without such a transfer, the current trajectory suggests (for now) a localized increase in intensity rather than outright global confrontation. However, with so many actors pursuing divergent interests, the path forward remains fraught with peril. But in the meantime, keep tuning in to Radio Free Pizza for any excuse to remain optimistic despite all the geopolitical uncertainty that these apparent escalations introduce.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Last month saw the passing of Gustavo Gutiérrez-Merino Díaz—one of the founders of liberation theology—at the age of 96. Rooted in the belief that the teachings of Jesus Christ call for social justice, particularly for the poor and oppressed, liberation theology developed in response to the massive inequality of Latin America in the 1960s and argues that faith should be a force for change, challenging the structures that perpetuate oppression, and that the Catholic Church must take an active role in the struggle for human dignity and justice. Accordingly, liberation theology emphasizes the need to address economic inequalities, political marginalization, and systemic injustice, advocating for the liberation of those living under exploitation and poverty. Not much to argue with there, right? Not for the secular, anyway, though the frequently cited Jay Dyer criticizes it in a clip posted this past summer, arguing (at ~1:57 in the linked clip) that it represents an attempt by the Rockefellers to remove the miraculous and metaphysical elements of Christianity and turn it into a social gospel focused on oppressed groups rising up against their oppressors: a “religion of revolution,” I suppose, like how the analyst described Marxist socialism, as we covered last month. Similarly, the Church has at times viewed liberation theology with suspicion, fearing that it reduces the Gospels to an earthly agenda and adopted Marxist principles like class struggle and the messianic role of the proletariat. For that reason, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued letters in 1984 and 1986 warning against these pitfalls.If you’ve been reading (or listening to, or watching) Radio Free Pizza for very long, you know that around here we’ve also adopted some Marxist principles. But not necessarily all of them: personally, instead of a strict materialism, I’ve always had a penchant for vitalism, the philosophical doctrine positing that living organisms are fundamentally different from inanimate matter due to the presence of a vital force or energy that cannot be explained by physical or chemical processes alone. According to (what I’ll call) classical vitalism, life is governed by this unique, non-material principle, which is responsible for the organization, growth, and functioning of living beings. Of course, the reason I call it “classical” vitalism has nothing to do with its antiquity. I simply add the adjective because the aforementioned “vital force” or life-force stems from Henri Bergson’s Creative Evolution (1907), and it seems fair to me (from my long ago readings) to say that life-force is a poor translation of his élan vital, which to my recollection represents less a “force” and more a “spirit”—whether in a supernatural sense, or (my preference) in the sense of calling someone or something “spirited.” Therefore, I’ll offer my own working definition for “modern” vitalism: living creatures are better and more important than robots, no matter how impressively engineered. The historicity of a living creature traced down through its genetic ancestors renders it inherently more valuable than the product of any factory. Accordingly, a Liberation Vitalism would take this normative argument and extend it into a positive one: into an affirmation of the value of human life and a consequent mandate to address political and economic injustice.The idea of combining the two occurred to me some time after seeing somewhere on Substack an issue of a newsletter that (as I recall) sought to dissuade those on “the dissident right” from advocating for any Christian vitalism because the writer estimated that attempting to reconcile these worldviews would simply drain this dissident right of its energies. I guess I didn’t know then that I’d read the admonition as a challenge, nor that the challenge would ring in my ears, so I didn’t think to save any link to that newsletter. (Though I don’t consider myself as at all belonging to the dissident right, I suppose the fact that I’ve since reacted in said manner suggests that I’m at least a dissident of some stripe.)Potential candidates for that newsletter include the Center for Cultural Leadership’s CultureChange, in which the organization’s president, P. Andrew Sandlin, published his critique last year of the controversial book Bronze Age Mindset (2018) by the pseudonymous “Bronze Age Pervert” (BAP)—likely Costin Vlad Alamariu—and the associated BAM subculture. Naturally, the president of any organization believing “that culture should be Christian […] by spiritual conversion” would find something to critique about a book or subculture that idolizes ancient pagan values. Largely targeting young white males—something, I guess, like intrusive thoughts about the collapse of Ancient Rome—BAM glorifies a pagan revival centered on muscular, elite males who dominate society and reject modern values like equality, democracy, and Christianity. Though heavily influenced by Darwinian survivalism and Nietzschean existentialism, we should note that it seems at least as distinct from classical vitalism as my own proposal above. (Maybe you’d think then that we would’ve been more familiar with BAM, given how often we feature Friedrich Nietzsche around here. Honestly, though, I believe my first introduction to it came from Rainer Shea’s interview with Garland Nixon in March, in which Shea names BAP alongside figures such as Elon Musk and Argentina’s Javier Milei who promote far-right ideologies, including ethnic nationalism and male chauvinism. These figures, he argues [at ~11:44 in the linked clip], are part of a strategy to divert right-wing libertarians from anti-imperialist or socialist ideas by downplaying class struggle in favor of ethnic nationalism and a return to traditional gender roles, while BAP’s alleged contacts with Israeli intelligence assets suggest that his ideology furthers a Zionist agenda by redirecting attention away from U.S. imperialism, creating a “controlled opposition” that aligns with capitalist and imperialist interests.)BAM’s followers, Sandlin tells us, aspire to create a hierarchical ethno-state, viewing modern Western civilization as degenerate, largely due to feminism. They see the “Bronze Age Males” as superior beings focused on physical beauty, strength, and domination over “inferiors.” The movement also rejects Christian teachings, framing Christ and the Bible as myths, and embracing a materialist, pagan worldview. But Sandlin argues that BAM’s influence has seeped into parts of conservative Christianity, inspiring movements like “Christian vitalism” attempting to fuse BAM’s masculine ideals with Christian faith. However, Sandlin warns this is a dangerous syncretism that compromises biblical teachings—similar, I suppose, to the aforementioned criticisms of liberation theology from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith—and advocates (of course) for a return to biblical wisdom, particularly the teachings in Proverbs, while urging young men to seek godliness over physical prowess.John Ehrett pursued his own critique of BAM in American Reformer in the spring of last year, exploring the subculture’s rise as a new vitalist movement within right-wing circles. Though vitalism has been traditionally rooted in philosophical ideas emphasizing the force of life, Ehrett covers the school of thought’s revival as a countercultural movement that rejects both liberalism and religious conservatism, and seeks to recover a primordial, chaotic way of life that values strength, glory, and ancient pagan ideals over modern social norms and promotes a return to a pre-Christian, premodern ethos. Because of its subversive tone and crude language, Ehrett tells us, BAM has gained popularity among alienated young men, reflecting a deep discontent with current political and cultural values. Meanwhile, he suggests that traditional critiques of BAM fall short because they fail to engage with its Nietzschean foundation, arguing that any meaningful response must meet it on the creative and existential terms it presents.In his efforts to supply such a meaningful response, Ehrett draws on examples from 20th- and 21st-century American literature to argue that attempts like that of BAM to embrace a premodern ethos lead to inevitable guilt, stemming from the inability of those in the modern West to fully escape a Judeo-Christian moral framework, despite their desire to live according to ancient Greek values. Those who pursue such desires succumb instead to modern guilt and moral confusion, and ultimately find in them no true escape from the metaphysical terror of mortality.No matter how much contemporary vitalists attempt to reclaim ancient ways of thinking, Ehrett asserts, they cannot escape the conditioning of the Judeo-Christian tradition. This tradition permanently altered human consciousness, and it is impossible to return to a premodern mindset unburdened by the knowledge of guilt and mortality. Thus, attempts to resurrect ancient values or ideals are futile, as they can only ever be understood through the lens of modern historical and religious conditioning.Interestingly, the aforementioned Sandlin specifically cites a response to Ehrett that Christian Winter published in the same outlet a month later. Here, Winter argues that while Ehrett highlights the centrality of Christianity in history, he does not fully address why young men are drawn to vitalism, with its calls to return to nature and human excellence: as Winter explains, vitalists prioritize life and natural flourishing, advocating for a return to ancient ideals of human strength and hierarchy. Nietzsche—a key influence on BAM—is seen as a proponent of life-affirming values that reject modern egalitarianism, which they view as stifling ambition and natural order. BAP and Nietzsche both critique modern civilization, not for its destruction, but for creating an unnatural, stifling environment that denies men the opportunity to achieve greatness.Winter suggests that a Christian response must not dismiss these concerns but offer a superior vision of life, where true flourishing is found in Christianity. He therefore advocates for the “Christian vitalism” over which Sandlin raised such alarm above, wherein Christian men exemplify natural greatness, hierarchy, and leadership, showing young men that Christianity can lead to a more fulfilling life than Nietzschean philosophy. He concludes that Christianity—properly understood—unites both life and truth in the person of Christ, making it the ultimate response to the vitalists’ critique of modern society.He’s not alone here: the mononymous Parker, creator of @ChivalryGuild on Twitter, spoke about his own vision of Christian vitalism on Justin Murphy’s Other Life in January 2022.Parker reveals the inspiration he found in C.S. Lewis’ “The Necessity of Chivalry” (1940)—which defines chivalry as embodying both courtesy and ferocity—and how, feeling surprised to find an absence of modern voices popularizing these ideas, he decided to fill that gap and supply his thoughts on the six essential chivalric virtues he has identified: prowess, courtesy, honor, generosity, loyalty, and faith. The conversation turns (at ~23:38) to how chivalric ideals can counteract negative effects of modern life on masculinity. Parker argues that Christianity does not necessitate being meek or weak—tracing the word rendered in modern translations of the Gospels as “meek” to an Ancient Greek one for the demeanor of warhorses that we here at Radio Free Pizza might prefer to translate as something like “obedient and disciplined”—but rather encourages physical vigor and embodying principles through one’s appearance and actions. He cites examples like the boxer Alexander Usyk as modern paragons of chivalry. Murphy then reflects on how the demands of building a business can lead to what he calls “bug man” tendencies, and appreciates chivalry as an antidote for the negative effects of modern industrialism, consumerism, and corporate culture on masculinity. If we’re working from Parker’s definition, then “Christian vitalism” sounds pretty good to me. But there’s a problem with my thinking above about tracing my first introduction to Christian vitalism to the aforementioned Sandlin: his article doesn’t use the term “dissident right.” Accordingly, I think Untimely Sense is a more likely candidate for the newsletter that first brought Christian vitalism to my attention, with its April review of a debate between Benjamin Braddock and the pseudonymous Kruptos over the compatibility of Christianity and vitalism published in “the Dissident Right magazine” IM1776. The debate predictably centers on whether vitalism—which emphasizes earthly vitality and strength—can align with Christian values, which often focus on humility, subjugation to divine will, and spiritual salvation over physical prowess. Kruptos argues that Christianity inherently rejects vitalism, as the Christian message revolves around transcending the physical world and its desires, rather than indulging in them. Braddock, on the other hand, attempts to reconcile the two, suggesting that parts of the Bible—especially the Old Testament—critique earthly power structures, which might align with contemporary vitalist criticisms of modern civilization.The anonymous writer behind Untimely Sense sees the debate as evidence of a growing tension on the political right between traditional Christian values and vitalist philosophy—which prioritizes physical excellence, health, and the cultivation of human vitality—with the latter viewed as a revival of pre-Christian, Greco-Roman ideals. Ultimately, the writer argues that Christianity and vitalism are fundamentally incompatible due to their differing perspectives on the body and the natural world.Doubtless he’s not alone: in fact, among those standing with him we’d surely find René Noël Théophile Girard, the French-American historian, anthropologist, and literary critic, whose work represents some of the most innovative of modern Christian apologetics, offering a novel lens through which to interpret human behavior and society grounded in biblical narratives. He argued that human desire is imitative, meaning that individuals often desire things simply because others do—a concept he termed “mimetic desire.” This often leads to rivalries that escalate into conflict and violence, a cycle Girard saw interrupted by the example of Jesus Christ, whose teachings and personal sacrifice expose and dismantle the violent patterns of human societies. Girard therefore argues that the Bible uniquely reveals the human propensity for scapegoating and offers a divine antidote through the message of forgiveness, compassion, and non-violence. This perspective has positioned Girard as a bridge between modern social science and Christian theology, offering an intellectual defense of Christian beliefs through the study of human nature.It should surprise no one, therefore, that Girard took careful aim at the same German philosopher who so deeply influenced BAM. For a detailed review of Girard’s criticisms of Nietzsche we can turn (once again) to Keegan Kjeldsen, who covered the Frenchman’s critique on The Nietzsche Podcast last March.Here Kjeldsen analyzes Girard’s essay “Dionysus versus the Crucified” (1984) and its critique of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Kjeldsen begins by explaining Nietzsche’s view of the ancient Greek civilization and its “tragic outlook” on life, which embraced suffering and violence as part of the natural order—with Dionysus (whom Zeus sired in infidelity, and whom the jealous Hera fed to the Titans before his resurrection through Zeus and Athena’s efforts) serving as the philosopher’s champion figure for illustrating that life-affirming outlook. In Nietzsche’s estimation, the morality of European antiquity more fully affirmed life than the Christianity that supplanted it. In fact, the title of Girard’s essay comes from the unfinished manuscript to Nietzsche’s planned The Will to Power, where he puts the tension between these outlooks well:Dionysus versus the “Crucified”: there you have the antithesis. It is not a difference in regard to their martyrdom—it is a difference in the meaning of it. Life itself, its eternal fruitfulness and recurrence, creates torment, destruction, the will to annihilation. In the other case, suffering—the “Crucified as the innocent one”—counts as an objection to this life, as a formula to its condemnation.The Christian worldview, which condemns violence and stands on the side of the innocent victim, therefore becomes for Nietzsche a life-negating perspective for its refusal to accept tragedy as an essential component of life. In contrast, Kjeldsen then introduces (at ~9:48–10:55) Girard’s own response:Girard does not take issue with that framing. He wholly agrees, “Yes, this is the situation. Christianity was a unique religion that arose to defeat the use of violence to sustain culture.” But Girard wholeheartedly throws in his lot with the crucified. His criticism of modernity is not that it is too Christian or still driven by Christian values, rather that modernity has insufficiently carried out the revaluation of values demanded by Christianity: that Christianity wounded vengeance, but was unable to fully destroy it. Fundamentally, the choice is between the human world of culture, which is inherently violent, and the worldview that idealizes the otherworldly and attempts to transcend all violence in the name of it. This is Gerard’s rather unique stance on Nietzsche from a critical perspective: he fully signs on with all of Nietzsche’s descriptive assessments, but comes to a fundamentally opposed conclusion as regards Nietzsche’s prescriptive conclusions.Kjeldsen goes on (at ~18:36) to introduce Girard’s aforementioned concept of mimetic desire, through the lens of which our own desires result from imitating the desires of others. This leads to conflict and violence over limited resources, leading to conflicts which (Girard argues) human societies have historically resolved through the “scapegoating” process, where collective violence is directed towards an innocent victim to restore social cohesion.That scapegoating process, of course, leads to Jesus’ crucifixion in the Gospels. For that reason, Girard sees Christianity as a unique religion that exposes and condemns the scapegoating process, by presenting Jesus as the ultimate innocent victim. This, of course, sets the stage (at ~1:12:58–1:19:45) for Kjeldsen’s exploration of Girard’s defense of Christianity against Nietzsche’s critique, with Girard finding Nietzsche “resentful of [the] resentment” that the philosopher saw resulting from Christian morality’s substitution of internalized resentment for open vengeance. Girard believes Nietzsche’s struggle against modernity and resentment stems from Nietzsche’s unresolved inner conflict with Christian and Dionysian impulses, particularly Christianity’s role in curbing collective violence. Girard, however, sees this internalization as a positive shift, reducing societal violence and ritual victimization. Nietzsche’s critique of modern values, Girard claims, is detached from the reality of societies shaped by violence, a privilege afforded by living in a Christian-influenced era. Although Girard respects Nietzsche’s intellectual commitment, he ultimately rejects the philosopher and the Dionysian ideals he promotes for disregarding Christian ethics, which Girard sees as leading to spiritual desolation.Kjeldsen also details (at ~1:21:25–1:31:49) the curious correspondence between Girard’s own ideas and those expressed in Nietzsche’s famous formulation that “God is dead,” which Girard interprets as referencing a symbolic ritual violence enacted by society. Girard notes that Nietzsche’s madman implies this was a collective act, dismissed by the “people of the marketplace” in Thus Spoke Zarathurstra (1883), who all ignore the significance of this shared guilt. As Kjeldsen explains, Nietzsche’s argument here aligns with Girard’s theories that gods in various cultures are often created through mythologizing the ritual sacrifices of victims, who are later deified as a means of social cohesion. While the Frenchman believes that Nietzsche failed to recognize this pattern as an ancient, recurring element of human psychology and culture (as seen through ritualized scapegoating), he suggests that the philosopher nonetheless recognized society’s tendency to obscure the violent origins of culture by either rejecting or enshrining these disturbing truths, though he failed to fully grasp its implications and remained trapped in the cycle of resentment and justification of violence. In contrast, Girard presents Christianity as the only way to break free from the cycle of violence that has defined human culture throughout history. By embracing the radical innocence of the victim and rejecting the scapegoating process, he argues that Christianity offers a path to transcend the violence that has been perpetuated throughout human history via society and religion by embracing the radical innocence of the victim and rejecting the scapegoating process that has defined human culture throughout history.Throughout the episode, Kjeldsen expresses his appreciation for Girard’s nuanced critique, and offers little if anything in the way of refuting it. But for the sake of our own scholarly rigor, we should note that others from our frequently cited sources offer their own criticisms of the Frenchman’s philosophy: specifically, Darren Allen, who discussed Girard’s mimetic desire this past July. While Allen acknowledges the intuitive accuracy of Girard’s insights on how desire fosters rivalry and social conflict, he argues that Girard’s focus on socially competitive, “fallen” societies neglects the desires of simpler, premodern cultures, wherein sacrificial rituals may not dominate. Further, he suggests that mimetic desire fails to account for deeper, self-directed desires that emerge beyond mere social mimicry or ego-driven acquisition, such as an artist’s personal drive to create or individual pursuits that resist societal pressures. Instead, Allen proposes that true human desire has both selfish and selfless dimensions, with only the former fitting into Girard’s mimetic model. For him, selfless desires arise from unique, personal impulses become transcendent and more genuine expressions of individuality—something that Girard’s theory does not adequately capture.Not unexpectedly, given the religion’s immense historical influence, Allen also has something to say about Christianity, which he offered in two parts at the end of last month. In the first (“I’ve Never Met a Christian”) he claims to have never encountered a true follower of Christ, only people he calls “Paulians” who adhere to the doctrines promoted by Paul and other New Testament writers, such as submission to authority and belief in Christ’s sacrificial death, rather than strictly following Jesus’ teachings. Allen points out that while Jesus preached radical selflessness—like giving up possessions, loving enemies, and embracing childlike humility—most Christians seem more interested in a comfortable, simplified version of faith, much though this softer, more conventional approach falls short of the challenging and transformative path Jesus advocated.In the second (“We Are All Christians”) Allen acknowledges that all people in the West are inherently influenced by Christianity, even if they identify otherwise. He claims that Christianity, as Girard suggests, introduced core concepts to Western thinking—such as individual freedom and sensitivity to innocent victims—that shaped Western culture and values. Despite the ways institutional Christianity has deviated from its origins, Allen sees the tradition as foundational, providing the very tools of self-critique now often used against it. To reject Christianity, he contends, is to reject the roots of Western culture itself, and therefore to risk losing its foundational depth and coherence.Indeed, the apparent contradiction that Allen identifies—of having never met a Christian in a society composed entirely of Christians—may account for some unexpected overlap between even Nietzsche’s thinking and Christianity. For example, an email of Allen’s to his subscribers (received prior to the subscription’s renewal) quoted from the same unpublished Will to Power from which Girard drew the title of his critical essay: “To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering [...] I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not—that one endures.” Compare that to James 1:2–3: “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds [...] the testing of your faith produces perseverance.” Surely you see how both value suffering and trials as the context in which a subject discovers their own capacity to endure and persevere. Of course, though both Nietzsche and James commend this virtuous capacity to abide with tribulations, their respective esteems lay with different values—with adherence to one’s own will, in Nietzsche’s case, and to belief in the divinity of Christ and his teachings in James’s. Certainly their different orientations evidence the increasing incoherence of Western culture that Nietzsche himself sought to address in the 1800s, and which has only intensified in the new millennium.Might this loss of Western cultural coherence account for the crisis of masculinity to which discussions of Christian vitalism so often refer? I imagine so, yes—but I doubt that such a crisis is restricted only to masculinity. Instead, I believe it’s merely one symptom of the broader “metacrisis” that Dr. Iain McGilchrist, Dr. Daniel Schmachtenberger, and Dr. John Vervaeke—whose backgrounds span psychiatry, technology ethics, and spiritual philosophy—gathered to discuss last December. The participants begin with an introduction to their core frameworks on the human condition and psychological factors influencing global issues: McGilchrist outlines the differences between left- and right-brain orientations toward attention, values and worldviews; Vervaeke details the loss of meaning, wisdom traditions, and practices to overcome self-deception; and Schmachtenberger ties these to game theory, technology, and incentives. Together they analyze how power-oriented mindsets have come to dominate modern societies through economic systems, technological developments, and political structures, while the loss of wisdom traditions and practices has exacerbated self-deceptive tendencies, driving the competitive dynamics which have caused global crises for the lack of any connection to the sacred.In particular, McGilchrist identifies (at ~45:45–48:13) the modern decoupling of “purpose,” “value,” and “meaning” as one consequence of the lost connection:And then there are just a couple of other things that I want to pick up […] one is about purpose and its nature and the other is about values and meaning […] It’s very important to make a distinction […] between what I call extrinsic purpose and intrinsic purpose. An example of extrinsic purpose is a photocopier. Its purpose is it was created to copy a sheet of paper and make another image. But [an intrinsic purpose] doesn’t lie outside itself but in itself they are in themselves purposeful. Actually I believe that prayer is of this kind, it’s in itself valuable, not because it produces a result, but also very obviously things like music and dance are not pointless […] No, they have value in themselves. And the last thing I just wanted to raise […] is that very often people, you said that we need meaning and we need to be directed and I believe that values are things that draw us from in front rather than push us from behind, and purpose also beckons to us from in front and draws us forward. And of course all our models are pushed from behind because they’re mechanical but very importantly these things exist (as it were) at the same time as our striving towards them, and actually cause us to strive towards them not by pushing us but by calling to us, evoking a response […] We don’t have to sort of cheer ourselves up by painting pretty pictures on the walls of a hermetically sealed cell […] we are contacting something which is real, and I actually think that those values and purpose are essential to the cosmos. They’re not things we made up.In short, McGilchrist argues that values aren’t simply human constructs to bring meaning to a meaningless universe. Instead, he proposes that these values and purposes are inherent in the cosmos, and that our contemporary crises stem from our civilization’s failure to recognize them as such. Discussing how to redress that failure, McGilchrist and his interlocutors go on to detail the limitations of current institutional structures (excessively oriented toward left-hemisphere specialized knowledge) in popularizing the importance of cultivating wisdom practices and in establishing individual and communal connections to the sacred. Only such a connection, they argue, can renew our civilization’s capacity for flourishing, help it to anchor alternative motivations beyond utility and power, and to steward exponentially growing technological powers like AI and synthetic biology that could cause civilizational catastrophe. For McGilchrist, it seems (at ~2:30:49–2:34:03), meeting the need to do so might even fulfill a kind of divine mandate:Maybe we play a role in the development, the evolution, the furtherment, the fulfillment of whatever is divine. And if that’s the case, then once again, we have an incredibly ennobling obligation, which is to make sure that we do help that good progress in the world. […] Part of what is imaged here is that we, like it or not, are gathered up into something that we have to respond to. And I believe that the reason for there being life at all, and especially human life, is because whatever it is […] the ground of being [the divine] needs response […] And while it can be satisfied by the response of the inanimate world up to a point, what life brings—because I believe all life is sacred, but also the inanimate is sacred as well—the difference is not that one suddenly is involved with consciousness and the other isn’t. I think they’re both manifestations of consciousness. But the thing about life is that it can respond enormously much faster and to a greater extent, so that things can move instead of having to wait for this very slow, slow process. With creatures like us, there can be an acceleration of the evolution of the cosmos and the divine being that grounds that cosmos together. […] And if I’m honest about my thinking, my reading, my experience of life as a person, as a doctor and so on, I do believe that this is the way the cosmos is and how we relate to it. And that is surely something that brings hope, brings dignity to the human condition. And it also takes the burden off us of having to solve certain specific problems. I'm not saying we shouldn’t try to solve those specific problems: we must. But it’s in a sense secondary. It’s like the role of [humanity] is to get on and find ways of, you know, purifying the oceans. This is terribly important, but it mustn’t stop there because, as I say, you could purify the oceans, you could save the rainforest. And the only reason we did that was because of our own economy and for our own flourishing. We would have lost the main reason, which is because these things are powerful, beautiful, rich, complex entities that have their value in themselves. They are intrinsic in their nature, not of extrinsic use to us.While humans may not control specific events, our ability to respond to the “ground of being” gives purpose to life, accelerating cosmic and spiritual evolution. This view brings hope and dignity to human existence, valuing both inanimate material and animate life as sacred—though (of course) with a vitalistic preference for the latter. Practical efforts, like environmental restoration, remain important, but we shouldn’t undertake them just for human benefit; rather, such efforts honor the intrinsic worth of the natural world, which exists meaningfully in itself.In the interest of reestablishing humanity’s connection to the sacred, the trio advocates for transitioning to localized communities that “garden” wisdom practices rooted in unique contexts and intimate relationships beyond impersonal technocratic systems that narrow consciousness. They also explore approaches (such as integrating elements of Eastern philosophies like Zen and Vedanta with Western traditions to develop a “global wisdom grammar”) for organizations like universities, governments, and churches to concretely implement wisdom cultivation through transformed education, policy, and religious practices focused on community, ecology and everyday living.These, then, are the trio’s early notes toward a prescription for addressing the global “metacrisis.” This, we should hasten to add, isn’t the same as the polycrisis that the international ruling class has promoted in recent years, and on which the estimable James Corbett supplied much detail in June: that is to say, rather than referring to a constellation of mutually amplifying global crises that technocratic imperialists use to advance their own agenda, the metacrisis represents the individual and collective psychological framework that drives this polycrisis forward. Of course, only the latter term has so far gained traction through institutions like the World Economic Forum (WEF), suggesting a strategy to exploit widespread anxiety and normalize chaos, which primes the public to accept government interventions such as Universal Basic Income (UBI) and increased surveillance. Corbett argues that these responses, though framed as solutions, act as mechanisms for consolidating control, thus advancing the elites’ goal of centralized power under the guise of crisis management.Accordingly, the Liberation Vitalism we’ve been synthesizing here would aim to address the mass psychological metacrisis while serving as a philosophical framework to emancipate humanity from the mechanisms of technocratic imperialism that the WEF and other institutions of international fascism seek to implement for the sake of resolving their systemically engineered polycrisis. From our exploration today, the principles of a Liberation Vitalism and the virtues it celebrates might run something like the following:* Dignity and Intrinsic Value of Life: Affirming that all human life and nature possess inherent worth, advocating for structures and practices that honor the value of life itself, enabling individual and communal well-being beyond purely utilitarian purposes.* Autonomy and Self-Directed Desire: Embracing personal impulses and authentic desires that transcend societal or material pressures, celebrating individuality, creativity, and unique expressions of the human spirit.* Social Justice and Liberation from Oppression: Upholding a commitment to addressing systemic inequalities, exploitation, and economic oppression, and fostering environments that empower individuals and communities toward liberation and political equality.* Sacredness of Suffering and Strength in Endurance: Recognizing suffering as a meaningful aspect of life’s journey, valuing resilience, personal growth, and moral courage in the face of life’s challenges as pathways to greater strength and authenticity.* Strength through Compassion and Moral Prowess: Defining true strength as disciplined resilience guided by compassion, balancing physical vitality with moral integrity, inspired by values of courtesy, honor, and responsibility.* Community and Wisdom Cultivation: Encouraging cooperative, empathetic communities rooted in local wisdom practices and meaningful connections, moving beyond competition and fostering interdependence and shared purpose.* Spiritual Resistance to Dehumanization: Rejecting modern industrialism and materialism that reduce human life to utility, upholding a life-affirming ethos that celebrates humanity’s sacred and spirited qualities.* Personal and Collective Flourishing Beyond Power and Control: Shifting motivations from dominance and accumulation to ethical interdependence, emphasizing mutual flourishing and the enrichment of collective experiences.* Purposeful Engagement and Spiritual Evolution: Embracing a sense of cosmic purpose that calls for responsive, purposeful action to foster spiritual evolution and contribute to a broader existential framework that respects life’s sacred dimensions.* Pursuit of True Freedom and Authentic Life: Encouraging liberation from economic and societal constraints, advocating for an authentic life in alignment with one’s true self and community autonomy.These tenets would form the bedrock of a Liberation Vitalism that upholds the dignity and flourishing of all people, embracing a vigorous, compassionate engagement with life’s challenges while confronting structures of oppression and dehumanization. Such guiding principles would aid human civilization in addressing both personal and societal challenges while fostering a vision of human life rooted in sacred connection, personal resilience, and authentic individuality.We should note, of course, that our investigation here does nothing to resolve the dilemma that liberation theology poses for Christians. That said, we would hasten then to remind Christians of another passage (2:14–24) from the same Epistle of James cited earlier: What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? […] Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. […] Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds. […] You foolish person, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. […] You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone.Accordingly, we suggest that our Christian brothers and sisters should not too strongly oppose any secular philosophy that aims to encourage relief for those suffering from exploitation and oppression as a result of their nation’s political economy. Instead, we hope that Christians would view it as a bridge across which to meet the unbelievers, and on which to collaborate with them in undertaking the deeds that prove their faith.With the (provisional) principles outlined above, our Liberation Vitalism aims to offer a holistic response to the deep-seated ideological and existential challenges of our time by integrating the compassion-centered justice of liberation theology with a renewed, life-affirming vitalism. Rooted in the intrinsic worth of human life, this philosophy advocates for personal resilience, moral courage, and community enrichment over power and dominance, proposing a path beyond the polarities of nihilism and despair. It calls for a balanced strength, one that honors human dignity and vitality without succumbing to artificial hierarchies or competitive pressures. In doing so, Liberation Vitalism works to bridge the divide between Christian transcendence and Nietzschean engagement with life’s struggles, forging a vision that respects both spiritual depth as well as the responsive vitality of human existence.Against the backdrop of a civilization increasingly defined by a technocratic utilitarianism, Liberation Vitalism resists reductionist forces by emphasizing authentic connection, community wisdom, and respect for nature’s sacred purpose. This approach rejects mere crisis management in favor of a meaningful transformation toward spiritual and societal flourishing. By drawing on a synthesis of Christian, vitalist, and diverse wisdom traditions, Liberation Vitalism invites humanity to pursue a sacred, purposeful engagement with the cosmos and each other, envisioning a civilization grounded in dignity, resilience, and interconnected well-being. In this way, it offers (we hope) a vision for a future that’s both spiritually profound and materially sustainable, and for a world in which justice, vitality, and shared purpose coexist—contrary to, and regardless of, the aims of modern civilization’s ruling class and its fascist globalism, from which (we believe) humanity must be delivered. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Surely you’ve heard by now—and if you somehow missed it, I can’t express my envy—but after a campaign season that saw lawfare against a former president, an assassination attempt against the same, his opponent’s withdrawal due to obvious dementia, the anointing of another rival who scrambled even to assemble her policies, and a second assassination attempt on the challenger, Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris in the most recent U.S. presidential election. I suppose that news is important enough to warrant posting one our informational bulletins on Sunday, instead of the customary Wednesday release.Though many readers will have seen the spectacle that we broadcasted last week about this contest, which covered the civil unrest and international conflict we could expect under either winner, the news is indeed momentous enough to merit a review of its coverage from elsewhere in the independent media. First among them: Dr. Richard Wolff from Democracy at Work, who appeared the day after the election to discuss its results with psychotherapist Dr. Harriet Fraad and fellow economist Dr. Shahram Azhar. Wolff begins by criticizing both Trump’s and Harris’ economic policies as unrealistic or insufficient, arguing that the former’s promises to protect the economy through immigration control and tariffs on China are nonsensical, while judging the latter’s proposals are too minor to address significant economic issues. In his view, the election results reflect a desire for change among Americans, but neither candidate offers meaningful solutions. Delving deeper (at ~2:49) into the victor’s economic policies—particularly immigration and tariffs—Wolff argues that the idea of 10–12 million undocumented immigrants causing significant economic problems for a country of 330 million is ridiculous, while tariffs are essentially taxes paid by American importers and consumers, and not by China as Trump has claimed.Offering further context on expected economic changes, Fraad discusses (at ~17:43) their impact on personal relationships and gender dynamics. She notes that women are increasingly opting out of traditional marriage roles due to economic pressures and changing social norms, with the majority of women in the U.S. now single, and 70% of divorces initiated by women. Azhar provides (at ~26:08) his own perspective as an immigrant living in central Pennsylvania, arguing that Trump’s supporters aren’t driven by by racism but by economic anxiety across various demographics. Accordingly, he criticizes the elitist bias in how Trump voters are portrayed by liberal commentators. The trio’s discussion turns (at ~32:11) to the question of whether significant change is likely in the coming years. Fraad argues that change is inevitable, and that women’s rights and abortion access represent some of the most likely areas in which that change will arise. Meanwhile, Azhar emphasizes the need for community organization and solidarity to effect change. On that note, Wolff proposes (at ~41:10) establishing a new political party that could offer a genuine alternative to the two-party system by addressing issues of class, social justice, and community building. (Who knows whether he’s heard of the American Communist Party founded earlier this year, though his previous comments on the ideology of “MAGA Communism” which preceded that party’s founding suggests to me that he wouldn’t support it.) Both Fraad and Azhar express their support for this idea, emphasizing the need for inclusivity and a focus on service rather than personal gain in politics.Naturally, Wolff wasn’t the only one to step up and offer a next-day analysis: trend forecaster Gerald Celente (featured in our July bulletin following Biden’s withdrawal) spoke about it with Andrew Napolitano to offer their own commentary.Celente begins with a mea culpa: “I got it wrong. I thought Harris would win and obviously she lost […] I thought abortion […] would be a major issue. And it wasn’t.”“We both thought that Harris would win, and we both thought abortion would be a major issue,” Napolitano tells his friend. He continues:The issue was a guy whose name was not on the ballot, Joe Biden, who really is one of the worst presidents in modern times in terms of domestic policy and in terms of foreign policy, and the public profoundly rejected that. On top of that, Trump—notwithstanding his eccentricity, his narcissism, his bravado, his alienation from the truth—seems to have crafted, much like Reagan did in 1980, a new Republican Party consisting of non-college educated white males and Hispanic males and females tending toward a more conservative culture policy.However, that shift in Republican voter demographics doesn’t excite Napolitano quite as much as one might superficially expect from a former Fox News analyst: “Our conservative Republican friends should be careful what they ask for,” he adds (at ~2:40). “They are about to see the most authoritarian occupant of the White House since Abraham Lincoln, and there will be no limit to those after whom he will go using powers that the Congress over the years has given to the presidency and which he will inherit on January 20th.”Their conversation then shifts (at ~3:11) to foreign policy—which, Celente notes, only 4% of voters named as their top concern, surprisingly enough—and, particularly, to the subject of Israel’s genocide in Gaza. Both criticize Trump’s support for the Zionist regime, and the pair discuss a few selections from the long list of reprehensible actions by Israeli president Benjamin Netanyahu, including the recent firing of his defense minister. The discussion also touches (at ~9:15) on Trump’s potential cabinet picks, with Napolitano expressing concern about neoconservative influences. On a more positive note, the former jurist predicts (at ~14:25) that Trump will end the futile U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, which he describes as one of the worst foreign policy disasters in history.Interestingly, the analysts also discuss (at ~16:55) the future of the Democratic Party. For them, Trump’s decisive victory—and the failure of high-profile Democrats like Barack Obama to influence the election—represent a mandate against Biden’s policies. Accordingly, these signal the need for the Democrats to establish a new platform not founded on “hard left woke-ism” and find new leadership, possibly in the mold of JFK. Of course, it wasn’t just Americans who were interested in hearing an analysis of the elections: the next day, Alexander Mercouris and Alex Christoforou interviewed Mel K—author of Americans Anonymous (2024)—about the results on The Duran.Discussing the significance of the U.S. election results, Mercouris emphasizes (at ~2:14) the obvious importance of democracy and of “We the People” in the U.S. Constitution, before K details how this forgotten principle of political representation demonstrates the need for transparency in government operations, citing (at ~6:17) events like the JFK assassination and the creation of intelligence agencies as examples to illustrate that need for transparency and accountability. From there, Mercouris and K go on (at ~14:29) to discuss the impact of intelligence agencies and global organizations on American politics and foreign policy, further emphasizing the need for public oversight and institutional transparency. For K, it seems (at ~18:40–23:41), it can’t come soon enough—either for the U.S. or for the rest of the world:But if the American people continue to sit out their own destiny and […] just picking a fake side, R or D, then nothing’s going to change. What needs to change is the American people need to redefine their relationship individually with their government and their fellow citizens and what their responsibility is. You know, when Ben Franklin said, “You have a constitutional republic, if you can keep it,” he meant literally if you can keep it. And that meant continuing down the path of getting together locally, discussing things. The people should be the oversight for the taxpayer dollars that disappear. The people should be the oversight for who’s getting the local no-bid contracts. The people should be the oversight for the surveillance state that has been installed in every nook and cranny of America and getting rid of it. You know, there’s just a lot that people can do on the local level. […] We need to be the oversight of our own domain, our own land, our own piece of America. We have to take what’s happening here personally and not be distracted by reality TV and fake 24-hour news nonsense […] they work for the public-private partnership that runs America like they’re a parent company and that we the people are just lucky to live here first and foremost […] at this point, if you ask me, I believe that the intelligence blob that came out of the Patriot Act—that would be DHS, [Director of National Intelligence], TSA, all of that was—used to be weaponized not against Donald Trump, but against any opposition to the long game plan of Agenda 21, Agenda 2030—which, of course, Barack Obama, without the consent of the governed or even explaining that it was a post-nation-state plan, signed us on to in 2015—and what I was worried about is a lot of Americans, while we were seeing all the pomp and circumstance of the wag-the-dog Kamala campaign […] what they weren’t seeing was that Barack Obama had signed us on to something that would fundamentally transform the nation out of being the United States of America, and more into being a globalist-controlled (now that they have the technology to actually pull it off) communist-slash-socialist entity run by the .001% of stakeholders that go to Davos and Bilderberg and [Conference of the Parties] conferences, and those guys don't care about the nation-states, they really—just as Kissinger laid out—they care about regional control like at the EU. And I believe that if they were going to go forward, Harris-Biden had put out in September 2023 a renewed commitment to achieving Agenda 2030 by 2030 […] and then delineated 17 goals and about three trillion dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to all of the entities that are part of the octopus of global control […] at the UN and all of its agencies and the people that run it, [and] the banking cartel above them. So I think that all the plans were laid.(We presume, of course, that K means “communist-slash-socialist” in the same sense that Jay Dyer used the term “corporate socialism”—and which we translated as “fascist globalism”—in last month’s dispatch.)However, K tells us, President Trump’s policies from 2016 to 2020 challenged global alliances and agreements, such as withdrawing the U.S. from UNESCO, the WHO, the Paris Climate Accords, and questioning the purpose of NATO. These actions disrupted a “globalist” agenda, which then prompted influential leaders—including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, whose influence in financial sectors and whose ties to the World Economic Forum give him an outsized command in geopolitics—to take a more direct approach, exemplified by the COVID-19 response. That pandemic response accelerated a “public-private partnership” model that shifted traditional government frameworks toward a centralized global governance. The Biden Administration further enabled this infrastructure through various executive orders, setting up digital public infrastructure for greater control and surveillance. For K, such constitutes an international “color revolution” that tried to turn the world against American values, to diminish the role of the U.S. Constitution in the country’s own government, and to stifle public resistance—executing a premeditated plan to restructure governance and limit individual freedoms on a global scale.(If you tuned in to Radio Free Pizza last February, then you already know we absolutely agree that the coronavirus pandemic certainly represented a premeditated plan.)Accordingly, K views Trump’s latest victory as a significant blow to globalist plans and to the network of domestic and international influence efforts undermining American democracy and individual freedoms. These opaque think-tanks and 501c3/c4 tax-exempt organizations serve merely as vehicles for foreign and corporate influence, operating under the guise of philanthropy. K argues (at ~45:29–51:51) that these organizations, often funded by billionaire interests, act globally in ways that do not align with American interests and should face stricter regulations.Still, these influence efforts come with the support of military-grade psychological manipulation and “mind control” techniques originating from WWII-era experiments, which have since evolved into powerful influence tactics bolstered by advanced technology and media control. In addition, figures like Cass Sunstein (of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs under Obama) worked to reshape language and policy to weaken public understanding of rights and constitutional principles. This legal manipulation is tied to efforts to keep the U.S. border open indefinitely, and therefore to undermine American sovereignty. Meanwhile, changes in education represent an intentional effort to create a populace that is less informed about their rights under the U.S. Constitution and less capable of critical thought, resulting in a society that is more easily controlled. Accordingly, K calls for a return to constitutional language and principles, asserting that “globalist billionaires” aligned with intelligence agencies have worked to erode America’s democratic institutions for self-serving ends. K believes that opposition to Trump in the name of “protecting democracy” is more about preserving their own power rather than protecting the public’s interests, and so urges reform shepherded by continued citizen involvement in the political process to address these issues.The same day as Mel K’s appearance above, Parallel Mike, Monica Perez, and Hrvoje Morić—whom you can blame for launching me last year as an (infinitesimally minor) figure in independent media—gathered once again as the Cognitive Dissidents to explore various aspects of the election outcome, its potential implications, and broader geopolitical concerns. As the trio’s only U.S. resident, Perez describes the post-election atmosphere in the country—noting the euphoria among Trump supporters and shock among opponents—and highlights the religious overtones in Republican rhetoric and the economic optimism reflected in the markets. As an American living in Mexico, Morić expressed his relief at a potential reduction of “woke madness” in the U.S., while cautioning against excessive political fervor. They go on discuss (at ~4:09) the smooth transition of power after Kamala Harris conceded defeat, with Morić mentioning various scenarios he had considered—including the possibility of civil unrest—before they touch on global reactions, including comments from figures like Peter Thiel.Their conversation shifts (at ~40:24) to the religious aspects of Trump’s campaign, with a rapid infusion of religious elements following the first assassination attempt. Mike notes the emergence of figures like comedian Russell Brand in supporting Trump, leading the group to debate the authenticity of the former’s recent conversion and the implications of this religious narrative. This, of course, dovetails perfectly with the current war in the Middle East, and so the trio explores Israel’s influence on U.S. foreign policy and the potential for escalating conflicts in the region. On that subject, Perez expresses (at ~1:04:35) her concern about Trump's aggressive stance towards Iran, while Morić raises the possibility of a “divine moment” narrative being used to justify military action. With regard to domestic concerns, Mike points out (at ~1:23:27) the challenges Trump might face inheriting a struggling economy with high inflation and a weak job market, before the trio debates the likelihood of Trump fulfilling campaign promises like tax cuts and debt reduction. Accordingly, they forecast the possibility of a major crisis or war developing for the sake of stimulating the U.S. economy. Towards the end of their conversation, the trio turns (at ~1:34:54) to potential future scenarios, including the likelihood of increased authoritarianism, technocratic control, and the restructuring of global power dynamics. Despite these serious topics, however, all three express personal optimism and contentment in their daily lives, emphasizing the importance of focusing on local and personal matters amidst global uncertainties—complementing, we might say, the political localism for which Mel K advocates above with a personal one.In light of the U.S. presidential election and the insights provided by independent commentators, it’s clear that both the nation and the world stands at a pivotal moment, with strong sentiments on both sides about the future direction of the country. Amid concerns over authoritarianism, foreign influence, and the erosion of constitutional values, a shared theme emerges: the pressing need for genuine, citizen-led reform to restore democratic integrity. Each analyst highlights issues that spark the public’s distrust in institutions—from unchecked lobbying by globalist fronts and psychological influence operations to the role of corporate and intelligence networks in shaping policy. As these voices suggest, a new path forward may lie in re-engaging citizens at the grassroots level, holding both political and corporate elites accountable, and fostering a more informed, critically-thinking populace. Of course, we shouldn’t neglect either the need that Fraad describes above for any new U.S. political party to be psychologically astute and inclusive, focusing on kindness and solidarity in the interest of building a community for like-minded people who see the need for significant political change and which offers a genuine alternative to the two-party system that addresses issues of class and social justice.Whether through community organizing, independent media, or a renewed focus on constitutional principles, we believe Americans should begin their work immediately to reclaim their civic power in shaping policy and governance. With Trump’s victory, many anticipate a shift in how national sovereignty and individual rights are upheld, though domestic challenges to these principles are likely to persist. Additionally, it remains questionable whether the U.S. will end its imperialist adventures in the Middle East (or even those in the devastated Ukraine) under the next administration, despite how much the costs of such adventures impoverish the American people. This election and the ensuing discussions reinforce that sustainable change will require not just new leadership but a reawakening of civic responsibility across all levels of society. While we must take seriously the proposals from Mel K and the warnings from Monica Perez in the clips featured above—for a comprehensive audit of intelligence agencies and their operations, and to monitor the restructuring of the Secret Service following the assassination attempt for signs of its evolution into a more centralized national police force, respectively—nonetheless, we shouldn’t let our focus on geopolitics under fascist globalism distract us from the imperative for citizens to take responsibility for local oversight and participation in government. Should the U.S. avoid neglecting that imperative, then it seems perhaps more likely than ever that the country might become not “the leader of the free world” as which it has long postured, but instead join a free world that it truly helped to liberate. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

On the eve of the 2024 U.S. presidential election and again on the night thereof, Zach (Zacharoni Pizza) and Cameron (Cam Burger) discuss the conflict-ridden domestic and international climates and how the election might affect each. By way of introduction, the former describes himself as a one-time leftist who abandoned the left/right paradigm due to disillusionment with liberals given their demonstrated penchant for changing stances on issues like war and free speech, while the latter explains that he’s a leftist living in Trump country where it’s paradoxically easier to find like-minded leftists due to their scarcity. Cameron observes that conservatives in his area don't need to organize much due to their majority status, and notes a libertarian lean among conservatives and the absence of visible divisions within the right-wing groups.On the subject of U.S. domestic tensions, the pair speculate about potential civil unrest following the election, considering both Trump and Harris victory scenarios. Zach expresses his skepticism about extremist groups, suggesting that both far-right and far-left groups serve the interests of the security state. Meanwhile, Cameron shares his experience with a neo-Nazi organizer in his area and discusses the potential for increased far-right activity if Trump wins the election.With the conversation shifting in its second half to geopolitics—including potential conflicts with Iran and China, signaled in part by a hypersonic missile test by the U.S. military on the night of the election—Zach expresses concern about the possibility of war with Iran under a Trump presidency and discusses the broader implications for global politics. He goes on to present his perspective on the Ukraine conflict, viewing it as a result of Western imperialism against Russia. He suggests that the start of World War III might be traced back to Russia’s exclusion from the SWIFT financial system in March 2022.Though for now the election outcome seems to have been decided peacefully, we here at Radio Free Pizza will naturally keep our eyes on how the aforementioned domestic and international tensions develop—or even find their resolutions, if we might be so lucky—and we look forward to having Cameron back to discuss those developments in another spectacle to come.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

In American politics, an “October surprise” describes a late-breaking event that emerges in the final weeks leading up to the U.S. presidential election in November, boosting one candidate’s chances or damaging the other’s just as many voters are making their final decisions, and dramatically shifting the course of an election and the U.S. political landscape. But what if we apply this concept to a historical event that not only upended the trajectory of a nation, but also reshaped the world order? The Russian Revolution of 1917, which started with the abdication of Czar Nicholas II in the February Revolution and culminated in the Bolsheviks seizing power in October of that year, was one such monumental surprise. Just as an October surprise can alter the outcome of a political campaign, the October Revolution shattered the existing Russian state, leading to the collapse of the centuries-old Romanov dynasty and setting the stage for the rise of Soviet socialism. This revolution was not merely an unexpected twist in Russian history: it was a seismic shift that reverberated across the globe, challenging established powers and ideologies. To speak of it quite reductively, we could also say it arose following electoral victories that started with the 1907 election of 18 candidates from the Bolshevik faction of the Social Democratic Labor Party to the Russian Empire’s Second Duma—the parliament finally established after the Revolution of 1905, which arose following the infamous Bloody Sunday in St. Petersburg, when soldiers fired on peaceful demonstrators petitioning the czar for fairer wages and an eight-hour working day. Those protesters represented early-20th-century Russia’s industrial proletariat, with that economic class having only emerged in the Russian Empire in the barely four decades since the 1861 emancipation of the serfs finally brought feudalism to a close.Despite the Duma’s limited influence, Vladimir Lenin nonetheless saw value in running candidates to use the platform for Marxist agitation and to build alliances with the peasantry, following from the working-class movement’s need for independence from both the liberal bourgeoisie and the reformist tendencies of the rival Mensheviks.Surely Lenin must have read Karl Marx and Frederick Engels’ “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League” (1850) while devising the aforementioned strategy. In it, Marx and Engels criticize both the liberal bourgeoisie for betraying the workers and the democratic petty bourgeoisie for seeking to maintain the existing social order. They urge workers to maintain their independence, resist alliances that would subordinate them, and continue their efforts until the proletariat achieves state power in a “Permanent Revolution” to ultimately establish a new society that abolishes private ownership of production and their consequent class antagonisms. To this end, the theorists advise the Communist League that:Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled.Those readers who recall our September bulletin on the American Communist Party might understand now why I feel some mild regret for expressing my sympathies with those who would only vote in the 2024 U.S. election for “None of the Above”—though it’s not like the ACP has a candidate in any race. Presumably they’ll run some in the next election cycle: after all, it’s one element of a strategy that’s worked before.Of course, the Russian Revolution was hardly bloodless: arising after public dissatisfaction with World War I (and its cost of 1.8 million soldiers and half a million civilians) pushed the empire to collapse, and thereafter solidified in the Russian Civil War, with a death toll of up to 10 million, we shouldn’t present the Bolsheviks’ victory as a merely electoral one.Still, they seem to have positioned themselves well for it: the Social Democratic Labor Party’s 1912 split into the Menshevik Party and Bolshevik Party meant they had to spend less time addressing party divisions, and—following the February Revolution that overthrew the czarist government and established a provisional government under Alexander Kerensky, the Bolsheviks’ efforts to mobilize the working class and peasants around the demands for bread, land, and peace helped them (again, to speak of it quite reductively) to launch a workers’ revolution in October 1917 and establish their workers’ state.But the violence of the October Revolution and the Russian Civil War made a deeper impression on many observers than any political mandate. In his 2015 documentary Everything Is a Rich Man’s Trick, Francis Richard Connolly describes (at ~8:08) how international bankers and industrialists had profited tremendously from WWI, with companies like Remington (remembered mainly for typewriters) making vast fortunes through the supply of weapons, while banks benefited from the enormous loans made to governments to finance the war. The war also created a long-term financial gain, since nations would have to repay these loans with interest for decades. However, Connolly also tells us (at ~9:26–12:14):That war was good for business was not the only lesson the ruling classes learned during this period. The Russian Revolution of 1917 terrified rich people all over the world. Watching Lenin and Trotsky taking over such a vast area of the globe, the kings and queens of Europe’s tiny sovereign states in particular became extremely nervous [that] the communist success in Russia should inspire their own working class to rise in revolt. Many of the crowned heads of Europe, like England’s George V, had been related to Czar Nicholas, and the brutal execution of the czar and his family—particularly the bayoneting of his daughters—sent a shockwave through the upper classes of every nation. Did a similar fate lie in store for the royal families of Holland, Sweden, Spain and England? This question was lying heavily on the thought of the elite when the First World War ended in 1918.The success of the Bolsheviks in overthrowing the Russian monarchy terrified the elites of Europe, and fear of the same fate influenced how they handled postwar Germany. The Dulles brothers, who played a significant role in drafting the Treaty of Versailles, imposed crippling reparations on Germany, which many (such as economist John Maynard Keynes) believed were designed to sabotage the postwar German economy. This led to hyperinflation and mass unemployment, allowing the international elite to buy German industry at low prices. However, Connolly argues (at ~12:47), the goal was not just to profit from disadvantaging their erstwhile adversary, but to strengthen Germany as a bulwark against Soviet socialism. (For those interested in Connolly’s main focus—the 1963 JFK assassination—he identifies [at ~1:52:07] Curtis LaVerne Crafard and Jack Allen Lawrence as the president’s two killers, proposing they fired on him from a storm drain. I’ll leave the forensics to someone else, for now at least.)Longtime readers will remember how Western imperialists also profited handsomely from investing in the subsequent Nazi regime, which indeed acted as an anti-Soviet bulwark. But besides that financial statecraft, the international response to the October Revolution offers other examples of how the ruling class attempted to counteract it. In particular, the British aristocracy seems to have taken some notable measures: in his 1920 editorial “Zionism Versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”, Winston Churchill identifies three main Jewish political ideologies: the “National Jews,” the “International Jews,” and the “Zionist Jews.” He praises the National Jews, who assimilate into their countries while maintaining their Jewish faith, as loyal citizens who contribute positively to society, such as in Britain and Russia. In contrast, Churchill criticizes the International Jews, whom he associates with Bolshevism. He argues that some atheistic Jews, like Leon Trotsky, played an outsized role in the Bolshevik Revolution and other subversive efforts—the “bad Jews” (as he identifies them in a header) whom, Churchill implies, represent some or another Jewish conspiracy to overthrow all sovereign nations.Churchill views Zionism as a positive alternative to Bolshevism, with the conflict between Zionism and Bolshevism represents a pivotal struggle for the future of the Jewish people, with Zionism offering hope and national pride, while Bolshevism threatens to disrupt societal order. He proposes that the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine would offer Jews a sense of national identity that could counter the revolutionary, internationalist tendencies of Bolshevism. Interestingly, Churchill argues that Zionism aligns with British interests, and that Palestine could serve as a refuge for Jews while promoting global stability by depriving Bolshevism of Jewish advocates. Therefore, Churchill calls on “loyal” Jews to reject Bolshevism and support Zionism as a means of self-preservation and a way to benefit civilization at large.That, of course, adds a fresh dimension to the concerns raised in our September bulletin that the establishment media might paint the American Communist Party’s principled anti-Zionism as a deranged antisemitism. But besides that, it adds evidence to Joti Brar’s argument—highlighted in our March dispatch—that the decision to support Zionist colonization in 1917 was influenced by the imperialist drive to dominate Middle Eastern oil resources (which became crucial for global industry and military power in the early 20th century) and to maintain a strategic settler colony in the region to ensure that monopoly powers could deny their rivals access to these resources. Thus, from the perspective of British aristocrats like Churchill, persuading the world’s Jewish population to adopt Zionism and reject the dreaded Soviet socialism would mean killing two birds with one stone.But not everyone was wringing their hands with fear to watch the Russian Revolution, as Brar reminded us last month in another conversation with Garland Nixon.While contrasting (at ~37:04) the decaying imperialist system with the growth and potential of the alternative path that anti-imperialist countries like China and Russia offer, Brar argues (at ~42:07) that the former consistently elevates incompetent and corrupt leaders, which reflects the system’s decline and inability to present a positive or hopeful future. Instead, capitalist republics resorts to fear and control because they lack the capacity to inspire, whereas the resurgence of countries like China and Russia has shown that it’s possible for developing countries to resist imperialism and pursue an independent path is possible. As Brar tells us, these nations regained their confidence and recognized that imperialism (led by the U.S.) seeks domination rather than partnership, and emphasizes that imperialism only serves the interests of a small, wealthy elite that views everyone else is expendable. Yet, by resisting imperialist control, these countries have managed to strengthen their economies and see for themselves that, indeed, another way is possible outside of Western hegemony. But Brar traces that inspiration (at ~43:10–45:04) back more than a century: That pole of attraction that gives people hope, that enthuses people that another way is possible, began with the Soviet Union, began after 1917, and particularly after the completion of the first five-year plan in the Soviet Union. By the mid-1930s, the world could see how extraordinary was the miracle that was taking place in the Soviet Union, how all the intractable problems were being solved, and how all the contradictions of society that we were told are just inherent in human nature somehow were being overcome. There was no exploiting class. There was no exploiting nation. And the people were living in work. There was no gender inequality. All these things were being addressed in a really civilized way, and the life of the people was being lifted up in a way where nobody was left behind. […] This huge economic miracle—of developing this backward peasant country into a modern industrial superpower with modern industry, modern agriculture, high technology, high culture, high education—all this was happening at the time of the Great Depression in the rest of the world. And so it was so clear to people: “Oh my gosh, these socialists, these communists are onto something. They’ve released the potential of their people in this most incredible way.” And we lost so much with the fall of the Soviet Union in terms of that sense of hope, that optimism, that we can do something better than this. But they’re starting to come back again.While Connolly emphasizes the threat that the Bolsheviks represented for the ruling class of Western imperialism—and Churchill unwittingly supplies him with evidence for saying so—in contrast, Brar emphasizes how the Soviet Union’s transformation from a peasant country into a modern industrial superpower, despite the hardships of the Great Depression, inspired global hope, demonstrated that a society without exploitation and inequality was possible. Of course, not everyone remembers the Soviet Union as an inspiration. Certainly not Jack Posobiec, veteran U.S. Navy intelligence officer and former broadcaster with One America News Network, who told Kim Iversen in July about his impression of the Russian Revolution and the Soviet socialism it inaugurated.Here, Posobiec and Iversen share (at ~4:55) their personal experiences and journeys that led them to embrace populist ideologies of the right and left respectively. The former describes how his time in the intelligence community and witnessing the disconnect between government actions and the well-being of regular Americans prompted him to question the mainstream narratives. Meanwhile, Iversen discusses his transition from supporting Democratic politics to adopting a more populist stance after realizing the flaws and deceptions within the establishment.From there, the discussion explores (at ~17:30) the motivations and factors that drive people towards revolutionary ideologies. Posobiec suggests that these ideologies stem from a desire for revenge and a willingness to inflict pain on those who disagree or have more wealth—thinking, I suppose, of the “pan-leftist counter-gangs” we’ve discussed now and then—while Iversen posits that most people adopt these ideologies with good intentions, seeking a more just and equal society, but the implementation often goes awry due to authoritarianism and the influence of self-interested actors.But either way, both acknowledge the role of wealth disparity and economic inequality in fueling societal upheavals and revolutions throughout history. They argue that when the wealth gap becomes too significant, it creates conditions ripe for revolutionary ideologies to take hold, as seen in events like the Russian Revolution. Posobiec, however, seems (at ~18:26) to see such revolutions not just as a natural result of extreme wealth inequality, but as a moral failing of the dispossessed. Discussing the 2019 film Parasite, which tells the story of a poor family’s attempt to defraud a rich one, Posobiec tells us:I remember watching that film, and seeing how it's getting all these awards and all these great reviews, and saying, “Wait a minute, the rich family didn’t do anything improper to the other family” [...] Nobody would comment on that […] They said, “It’s perfectly acceptable for them to do this” […] So I do think that there’s a strong narrative out there […] that people who have more deserve to suffer simply because they have more. Now, okay, does that mean from moral imperative that [the rich family] shouldn’t help? No, not necessarily, but that also doesn’t create a moral justification for [making them suffer].Iversen shares (at 20:42–23:04) her own perspective:I don’t know if […] they’ve created Marxism and socialism as a way to get back at [the rich] necessarily […] I think in their mind [Marxism is] the remedy to even out the playing field because […] so few people have been able to suck up all the resources. So I do think there’s two things going on there […] I don’t think that they’re thinking, in their minds, that Marxism and socialism is a way to get back at the wealthy people like a form of revenge. I really think they believe it’s just a better system. They believe that wealth distribution, that having a more [even] playing field is genuinely better than what we’ve got right now […] They believe that everything should be taken and distributed, but I don’t think that’s done out of hate […] I think that’s separate from their ideology […] I don’t think the ideology is stemming from the hatred […] It is different, and it matters. Like, the motivations matter. You have to know why a person hates you so much. It’s not because they hate you [that] they want to enact Marxism on you, [but rather,] they hate you because you won’t give them Marxism. That’s a whole different thing […] So, I don’t think that Marxism or socialism or communism is a form of revenge. I think the anger stems from the fact that these people don’t feel like they’re getting the just society that they’re seeking. [(emphasis mine)]Still, Posobiec maintains his that some people, instead of seeking reform or self-improvement, prefer to tear down the systems that have brought society to its current state. As an alternative ideal to revolution, he suggests the platforms of figures like Teddy Roosevelt, who introduced reforms such as labor protections and curbing corporate excesses that mitigated social pressures during the Industrial Revolution—which Posobiec sees as key reasons the U.S. avoided the revolutionary upheavals seen in Europe and Asia.Interestingly, however, despite his anti-communism, Posobiec isn’t shy about connecting contemporary U.S. interests in Ukraine to Western imperialism throughout the interview. He and Iversen clearly reject the stated motivations of promoting democracy and suggest that the conflict is driven by imperial ambitions, proxy wars, and access to resources like minerals and farmland. They criticize the lack of transparency and the political establishment’s use of moral justifications to garner public support for wars and interventions.Naturally, we’d cast Posobiec as belonging to (what we’ve taken to calling) the traditionalist-reactionary sphere. Though any cursory glance through the archives of Radio Free Pizza will reveal our kitchen is full of Soviet sympathizers, a more careful search will also show that we’ve similarly cast as traditionalist-reactionary other analysts for whom we’ve nonetheless demonstrated a particular affection, as we did last month to Jay Dyer. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Dyer has also had something to say (in March of last year) about the Soviet Union.Here, Dyer analyzes a document called “the Rakovsky interrogation”—purportedly an interrogation record of former Soviet ambassador Christian Rakovsky during the Stalinist purges in 1938—which suggests that Western banking and industrial elites funded and supported various revolutionary movements, including Bolshevism, as part of a broader strategy to advance their interests through perpetual revolution and destabilization. Reviewing the interrogation, Dyer tells us (at ~43:12) how Rakovsky purportedly asserts that “true” Marxism, as envisioned by figures like Leon Trotsky, is a “religion of revolution” aimed at constant upheaval rather than establishing a utopian communist state, and argues that Stalinism betrayed this vision by consolidating power. Furthermore, he claims that Western banking and industrial elites funded and supported various revolutionary movements, including Bolshevism, as part of a broader strategy to advance their interests through perpetual revolution and destabilization—meaning that Western imperialists have a symbiotic relationship with Trotskyite socialism. But most importantly, Rakovsky asserts that the monetary system itself, based on debt and usury, is inherently destabilizing, and that it can only serve the interests of the financial elite rather than those of the proletariat. Though the interrogator, Gabriel, initially doubts the account, he becomes convinced as Rakovsky provides detailed explanations and historical examples—such as the role of Western financiers in funding the Russo-Japanese War and the rise of figures like Trotsky—to support his claims.Though Dyer expresses reservations about the document’s authenticity, he notes its consistency with works by authors like Carroll Quigley (Dyer’s coverage of whom we referred to last month) and Antony Sutton, who have documented the involvement of Western financial elites in supporting various revolutionary movements. In his analysis, that involvement has broader implications for understanding the dynamics of power and revolution in the 20th century—broad enough that Dyer turned again to the subject last November and added further details to the global elites’ efforts to establish a technocratic world order through conflict and crises. Though Dyer maintains that those elites funded Marx—and presumably he’d say the same about the Communist League mentioned above—he argues that they eventually saw Fabian socialism as more effective than Marxism in manipulating societies. After reviewing (at ~5:51) what he calls Marx and Engels’ “ten planks of the Communist Party” and assessing their implementation status—and finding some like progressive income tax and centralizing communication and transport control largely in place, while others around property abolition were less successful—Dyer describes the subsequent Fabian strategy that elites adopted after the failure of abrupt Marxist revolutions in the 19th century. As the analyst tells us, this strategy of gradual revolution included a seven-point strategy targeting Christianity, patriotism, constitutional rule of law, and other obstacles to global governance.Despite his sure anti-communism, Dyer nonetheless argues that capitalism builds the infrastructure that will be later transitioned into technocracy. He terms this “corporate socialism,” with monopoly firms and centralized control still compatible with a Trotskyite socialism, and he cites Bolshevism as a predecessor of this corporate socialism, describing it again with reference to Sutton as completely funded by Western industrialists. In addition, Dyer speculates that then-coming Middle East wars and economic collapse could be manipulated to blame nationalism and religion, which—perhaps in concert with the gradual erosion of living standards—could precipitate cries for world order and transition societies into the long-standing goal of a worldwide corporate technocracy.But Dyer would cite more than Sutton for information on Western finance backing the Bolsheviks: in the recommended reading at Jay’s Analysis, we find Dr. Richard Spence’s 2017 book Wall Street and the Russian Revolution: 1905–1925, which seems to have carried Sutton’s torch into the 21st century. In September 2023, Spence appeared on The Deep State Consciousness to discuss the involvement of American businessmen and Wall Street in supporting the Bolsheviks, describing how figures like William Boyce Thompson, Raymond Robbins, Charles Crane, and even Henry Ford—interested in profiting from Soviet Russia just as he (and many other American businessmen, including Prescott Bush) did from Nazi Germany—saw opportunities in the Bolshevik regime and were willing to do business with them, despite obvious ideological differences. Notably, however, Spence seems inclined (at ~17:12) to chasten the aforementioned Sutton’s presentation of Western imperialist interest in the Bolshevik Revolution:In […] Sutton’s […] work, the idea is that essentially all of the vast majority of American capitalists are behaving and thinking exactly the same way: they’re an undifferentiated mass. In the same way that we talk about things like the American government, the French government, the British government, is if this is a kind of collective, and it’s an institution, but within that, what you have is factionalism. Human beings are divided into cleats and factions. And therefore the U.S. government, the British government at any given time is never composed simply of one faction […] There are always differences of opinion. At no point in time, it would be extremely difficult to find any government at any point in time where everybody involved in decision-making within that government all agreed on everything […] And this is […] one of those little observations that […] the mysterious Sidney Reilly […] came up with[:] when you’re talking about governments, you’re just talking about a selection of individuals. And if you can sway or eliminate certain individuals, you can change the policy of a government. That is, if you change the balance of power between the individuals and factions that are part of it. And if you think about it in some ways, that’s really a key to sort of modern politics in many ways: you just have to alter the balance of power within this system in order to manipulate it or to control it. So there was a difference of opinion. And I think in [Sutton’s case], it’s an oversimplification of something which was a […] kind of chaotic system.Spence’s critique of Sutton here prefigures another he levels (at ~21:56–25:46) later: that the researcher often accepted claims that fit his narrative without strong evidence, such as the unsubstantiated claim that Trotsky left the U.S. with an American passport authorized by President Wilson, or that Trotsky worked as a film extra in New York. Though intriguing, these stories were based on rumors and lacked factual basis, highlighting how repeated false information can gain acceptance as common knowledge.The historian argues, therefore, that history is often a product of chaos and unintended consequences, with conspiracies rarely unfolding as planned. But with that said, Spence also suggests that the “mysterious figure” he mentioned—Sidney Reilly, an anti-Bolshevik crusader backed by British intelligence—may have in fact been acting in the Bolshevik’s interests, working to guide anti-Soviet plots onto the rocks, given the failure of practically every anti-Soviet conspiracy that involved him. Perhaps Reilly’s British backing means that his operations supported the same agenda according to which, as Spence tells us (at ~41:12–47:12), Trotsky opposed making a separate peace with Germany during World War I while Russia’s allies continued fighting—unlike Lenin, who ultimately pushed for it. Spence discusses further (at ~1:12:03–1:18:27) the role of British intelligence in Trotsky’s travels: specifically Sir William Wiseman, the head of British intelligence operations while working as a banker in New York, who saw Trotsky as potentially useful in keeping Russia in the war. (Though his professional rival in Halifax, Canada apparently disagreed.) Despite his revolutionary background, Trotsky ultimately obtained necessary travel permissions to make his voyage with the cooperation of British intelligence, and later, as People’s Commissar for War in 1918, he was viewed by some British figures as a possible alternative leader to Lenin who would keep Russia at war: indeed, Trotsky refused to support the subsequent Brest-Litovsk Treaty and was more open to cooperating with former allies, even suggesting the possibility of resuming the war with Germany. Interestingly, Spence’s interview also touches (at ~1:30:01–1:39:48) on the potential consequences of alternative historical outcomes to the Polish-Soviet War. In the summer of 1920, Poland—only independent then for two years following the collapse of the Russian Empire—capitalized on the Russian Civil War to expand its territory eastward, even occupying Kiev with the help of Ukrainian nationalists. However, the Soviet Red Army launched a counteroffensive and by August, advanced toward Warsaw. The critical Battle of Warsaw ensued, and despite the Red Army reaching the outskirts of the city, they overextended, which allowed the French-supported Polish forces to regroup and win, likely saving Poland from collapse. Meanwhile, however, some German officers—still bitter over their country’s defeat in World War I and the Treaty of Versailles’ predatory terms—expressed their willingness to collaborate with the Soviets, seeing the potential to reignite a war against Britain and France. The Soviet commander, Tukhachevsky, even boasted of his intention to march westward, aiming to unify with Germany and spread socialism. If the Red Army had reached the German border, it might have sparked a new class-based conflict across Europe, potentially restarting World War I with new alliances, and the French—concerned about the spread of socialism—considered preemptively occupying Germany to stop Soviet advances. Of course, any alliance between Russia and Germany would have represented a phenomenal development in the “Great Game” to which we referred in June. (Not to mention a disruption to any plans for establishing Nazi Germany as a defense against Soviet socialism, as Connolly argues above.) In fact, it seems to us that preventing economic cooperation between these countries motivated Western imperialists to sabotage the Nord Stream pipeline two years ago. I suppose then that, if Trotsky—at that time the People’s Commissar for Military and Naval Affairs—had indeed been an American or British asset, then had Tukhachevsky reached the German border, the Commissar would have found a reason to order the Red Army’s retreat and prevent any collaboration with German officers, regardless of his commitment to international socialism. But many would say I’m being too generous to conspiracy theorists like Sutton, even while entertaining a counterfactual, and I suspect that—despite how little of his love is lost on Trotsky—the frequently cited Caleb Maupin might stand among them. Or anyway, that’s my impression after I found occasion to ask him about Sutton more than a year ago.Here, Maupin refutes (at ~56:54–1:03:43) Sutton’s claim that the Russian Revolution was a Wall Street conspiracy, arguing that American corporations doing business with the Soviet Union does not prove a conspiracy: companies like Ford Motor Company and General Electric did business with the Soviet Union simply for their own profit. Maupin dismisses the idea that Trotsky getting a visa is proof of a conspiracy, and argues that the late-arriving Trotsky had little to do with starting the Russian Revolution. Meanwhile, he claims that Trotsky had also been an asset of German intelligence and went by a false name, undermining Sutton’s argument that Trotsky returned to Russia on behalf of Allied imperialists. (Maupin also debunks theories not discussed here linking wealthy banker Jacob Schiff to funding the Bolsheviks, asserting that the organizations he supported were anti-Bolshevik.) Add all that to Trotsky’s subsequent betrayal of the USSR, and Maupin seems to have good for reason for criticizing the pervasive belief in conspiracy theories, for highlighting instead the importance of understanding divisions within the ruling class—as Spence does above—and for suggesting that these divisions could allow a united working class to challenge the power dynamics of the elite and assert alternative agendas.I doubt it will surprise you to learn that Maupin’s not the only Marxist who has seen fit to refute theories like Sutton’s: among his comrades we can count Don DeBar, who in April appeared on Pasta2Go to talk about them. “Some people say [the Russian Revolution] was organic, some people say it was a revolution bought off by the elites. Somebody who’s an expert on this whole situation is Don DeBar and I want to talk about it,” Craig “Pasta” Jardula says at the start—and so DeBar obliges, analyzing (at ~2:14–31:26) the historical context, socio-economic conditions, and key figures involved—including Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin—leading up to and surrounding the October Revolution in 1917 and its aftermath, including the civil war as foreign powers intervened to suppress the revolution. Covering the socio-economic landscape of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries, DeBar describes the stark contrasts we between the living conditions of the working class, peasants, and the ruling class, how these relate to the remnants of the Russian Empire, the feudal agricultural system, and the emergence of an industrial proletariat, and in turn to the growing discontent and revolutionary sentiment among the working-class masses. Emphasizing that revolutions are not the product of a single individual but rather the culmination of societal forces and the actions of the masses, DeBar accordingly disagrees with those like Sutton who believe that the Russian Revolution had been funded or orchestrated by elites, arguing instead that it was a genuine workers’ uprising driven by the demands for bread, land, and peace. Indeed, DeBar notes (at ~31:27) that the aforementioned Churchill expressed his desire “to strange the Soviet experiment in the cradle”—hardly what one would expect if Western imperialists had uniformly agreed to fund the Bolsheviks.From here, DeBar goes on to discuss how, with Lenin’s health failing, a power struggle ensued between Trotsky—whom DeBar notes (at ~17:46) previously advocated for accommodation with the bourgeoisie in 1903—and Stalin, who proposed consolidating power and rebuilding the industrial base to address the challenges faced by the new Soviet government. Stalin and his faction prevailed, and they embarked on industrializing and consolidating the Soviet Union, despite facing opposition from foreign powers. That opposition would doubtless account for what DeBar describes (at ~41:20) for the propagandistic depiction in Hollywood and Western media of communism as a repressive police state replete with surveillance and shortages.In contrast, DeBar touches (at ~43:24) on the influence of the Bolshevik Revolution on subsequent events like the Chinese Revolution, with China having suffered throughout World War II the destruction of its industry—just as Russia had in World War I—and thereafter facing the need to organize a socialist state to govern a vast, multi-ethnic territory. (He also draws analogy [at ~46:03] between the New Soviet Man, which we discussed last March, and Chinese efforts to “make a new person by designing them” on the belief they could “re-engineer people’s thinking and that would result in a new world.”) Of course, these efforts speak in part to the need for revolutionary change to address pressing challenges such as poverty, hunger, and the threat of war. Accordingly, DeBar critiques the tendency to romanticize or oversimplify historical events and stress the importance of understanding the complex dynamics and motivations behind revolutions.Certainly that falls in line with Spence, as discussed above. But I must admit, these admonishments and refutations don’t quite address the grander claim that Dyer inherits from Sutton and Quigley: specifically, that globalist interests supported both the fascists of Nazi Germany and the communists of Soviet Russia with the aim of synthesizing a technocratic “Third Way.” On that subject, then, it’s worth mentioning the analysis of Paul Temple, a communist contemporary to both. In Temple’s “Technocracy: A Totalitarian Fantasy” from March and April of 1944, he critiques the rise and ideology of the technocracy movement. In the first half of his essay, Temple describes how technocracy originated during the Great Depression and gained public attention with grandiose promises and scientific jargon but faded when the New Deal took center stage. In 1942, Howard Scott revived the movement as “Technocracy, Inc.” with a more organized and flashy presence, emphasizing an extensive social program and exuding a fascist undertone.Temple argues that technocracy’s claims of contributing valuable insights into modern society and incorporating socialist ideas are myths. Though technocracy traces its roots to 1919 with Thorstein Veblen’s work and the formation of the Technical Alliance, Temple decries Scott’s ideas as a crude vulgarization of Veblen’s more sophisticated theories. By the 1930s, technocracy attempted to statistically analyze the impact of technological advances on the economy, but their exaggerated claims and unscientific methods undermined their credibility.Technocracy’s assertions, such as the notion that technology has rendered human labor non-essential, are dismissed as fantasies. Scott’s declarations about labor’s obsolescence are contrasted with the reality of mass-production industries where human workers then remained indispensable. The movement’s belief that technological improvements will automatically lead to the collapse of the current economic system is critiqued for its mechanical fatalism. This perspective reduces complex social dynamics to simplistic physical laws, ignoring the distinct nature of social and economic phenomena. Temple views the technocrats’ reliance on the physical sciences to explain society as a misapplication of scientific principles, leading to an unrealistic and ultimately totalitarian vision.Temple continues his critique by focusing on technocratic theory’s oversimplified and mechanistic view of history and society. In his analysis, Scott’s interpretation of historical progress attributes meaningful social change solely to technological advancements—particularly the invention of the steam engine in the 18th century—dismissing earlier millennia as static and ignoring the socio-economic transformations that paved the way for technological developments.Temple notes that Scott and his followers reject traditional economic concepts such as value, price, and money, viewing them as nonsensical from a scientific standpoint, and that they ridicule the use of variable standards like money for measurement. Accordingly, Temple argues that terms like “value” and “price” are meaningless to modern technologists—despite their importance of these concepts in understanding and managing a capitalist economy—and that Scott’s superficial understanding of economics conflates value with desire and dismisses the labor theory of value, which links a commodity’s worth to the amount of labor required for its production. Furthermore, Temple asserts that Scott’s reliance on physical measures such as energy costs to replace monetary value is impractical and fails to address the complexities of economic systems. Technocrats proposed replacing monetary systems with “energy certificates”—a form of currency based on the energy expended in producing goods—which Temple criticizes as impractical and disconnected from the realities of economic planning, arguing that such a system would still be a form of rationing and fails to consider the nuances of supply, demand, and production capacity. While technocrats use the term “price system” to broadly criticize all forms of economic exchange—not just capitalism—Temple points out that this vague and all-encompassing definition renders their critique ineffective, obscuring the unique characteristics and challenges of capitalist economies, such as industrial crises.Despite all of technocracy’s claims of scientific precision and objectivity, Temple finds that it offers an unrealistic and simplistic approach to societal organization. He likens technocratic theory to fascism, suggesting that it seeks to implement a controlled and undemocratic system under the guise of rational planning. Technocracy’s disdain for traditional economics and its authoritarian tendencies make it, in Temple’s view, a dangerous and totalitarian fantasy.The second half of Temple’s essay delves into technocracy’s political ideology and organizational structure. Despite claiming to be apolitical, technocrats vehemently oppose democratic principles, viewing current democratic practices as too democratic: for example, Scott disparages democracy, likening collective human opinion to “mob hysteria” and dismissing workers’ demands for fair wages as “unscientific opinions.” Temple compares Scott’s technocracy to a dictatorship, with a hierarchical structure wherein leadership ascends based on “scientific” principles, but which merely mimics corporate management models like that of Bell Telephone, where appointments come from above without democratic input. Technocracy’s governance involves directors with lifetime tenures, accountable only to a top council, reflecting a rigid, autocratic regime.Temple tells us further how Technocracy, Inc. envisions an autarchic North America, and promotes a chauvinistic nationalism extending to South America, over which Scott advocates exerting forceful dominance. Temple also notes how Technocracy, Inc. had adopted fascist-like uniformity and rituals, appealing to American prejudices by excluding “aliens and Asiatics” while placing Black members in segregated roles. Though technocracy had been isolationist with pro-German sentiments, opposing American involvement in foreign wars, its tune had shifted abruptly after Pearl Harbor to one supporting the war effort, aligning with government directives and proposing “total conscription” of men, industry, and wealth. This proposal, however, stops short of nationalizing industries, instead advocating for continued capitalist ownership and operation under government coordination, essentially preserving capitalist interests.As one might therefore expect, the technocrats’ agenda harshly targets labor, demanding compulsory national service and surrendering certain liberties for the war’s duration. Temple’s critique thus underscores technocracy’s totalitarian and anti-democratic nature, presenting a dystopian vision of a regimented, scientifically managed society devoid of individual freedoms and democratic processes.On the whole, Temple’s critique of technocracy highlights the dangers of reducing societal progress to technological or financial terms, likening technocratic ideals to totalitarianism. Of course, the fact that technocracy gained its profile as a potential response to the Great Depression suggests that it finds greater kinship with fascism as a political response to capitalism’s economic crises (as we’ve previously discussed with reference to R. Palme Dutt), despite the associations provoked in Dyer’s term “corporate socialism.” Furthermore, as Brar reminds us above, Stalin’s Five-Year Plans didn’t at all resemble the austerity long associated with fascism. Instead, the Soviet Union enacted policies that raised the standard of living for the masses, even while the rest of the world suffered through the Great Depression. We doubt, therefore, that the USSR could have survived World War II if it hadn’t thus earned the people’s support. While we still take note of aspects to Soviet life that might not match our ideals—such as a penchant for Taylorism, as a Radio Free Pizza reader mentioned in comments on a May bulletin—still, we must applaud the material gains that Soviet socialism delivered to the masses.Those improvements to the working class’s quality of life, we should also note, seem to have arrived primarily under Stalin, who triumphed over his rival Trotsky as Lenin’s successor. With that in mind, it’s interesting to observe that Trotsky’s view of revolution as a path to international class liberation—as opposed to Stalin’s “socialism in one country”—might ironically serve the interests of a “religion of revolution” aimed at perpetual upheaval to advance the goals and interests of international finance, as Dyer describes the assertion of the supposed Rakovsky interrogation. Trotskyism, then, is a fair candidate for one of the radical ideologies to which Posobiec refers in his interview with Iversen: one motivated by the recognition of unjust economic disparities, but (supposedly, according to Rakovsky) engineered to advance the interests of financial elites empowered through the debt that revolutions engender, with no real intention of raising living standards or introducing democratic representation for the proletariat.Naturally, then, it will surely behoove us to examine the Five-Year Plans under Stalin and other aspects of his “socialism in one country” for ideas to incorporate into the pitch for a socialism with American characteristics that we’ve been (cheekily) calling Libertarian Communism. Maybe another viewer of the aforementioned Maupin was thinking along the same lines when he commented in a livestream chat, “I was impressed reading what Stalin intended from his own writings because it’s a lot different than how he’s depicted, he was sort of a libertarian communist.”(I doubt they were, of course, but still, it’s fun to think about it.)Though theories linking Western finance to the Bolshevik Revolution have gained attention in recent decades, opportunistic business dealings between Western businesses and Soviet Russia don’t necessarily indicate orchestrated conspiracies. Spence, along with Marxists like Maupin and DeBar, stresses the role of larger societal forces in driving revolutions rather than elite manipulation. Meanwhile, Marxists of the period like Temple would wholly refute any analogy to be drawn between Soviet socialism and the technocracy proposed at the time, therefore casting into doubt any connection between it and the modern-day fascist globalism currently manifesting the latter. Their insights remind us that conspiratorial interpretations sometimes obscure the true complexity of historical events. Instead, they promote a nuanced understanding of the past, acknowledging the interplay of ideology, economics, and historical contingencies without resorting to deterministic narratives.Indeed, it seems to us that any conspiracy at all must take advantage of an opportunity only present because of underlying factors, such as perceived injustices, economic disparities, and a mass desire for societal change. These arise under any regime as soon as the working class can no longer ignore the establishment’s failure to prioritize the well-being of ordinary people. Feudal regimes and capitalist republics alike may appeal to abstract ideologies as their excuses for not implementing the reforms that would prevent class conflict from escalating, and while the church under the former and media corporations under the latter may work to distract public discourse from the inequalities inherent in their modes of economic production, divisions within the ruling class inevitably present opportunities for the exploited class to assert an alternative agenda—unless their inability to seize those opportunities means that class tensions erupt into civil war. Revisiting the Russian Revolution reveals that the events of 1917 were more than a localized upheaval—they were a global “October surprise” that reshaped world politics and economics, dramatically altering the course of events in ways few could have predicted. The Bolsheviks’ ability to mobilize workers and peasants, combined with the geopolitical tensions of the time, sparked a revolution whose effects echoed across decades, influencing international relations, ideological conflicts, and contemporary global struggles. This history underscores the fragility of political and social orders and how revolutionary moments, like modern political surprises, can ignite forces of change that reshape the future for generations. The October Revolution thus challenges not only power structures, but also the narratives that societies (and civilization-states) hold about themselves and their futures—precisely, that is, those narratives that we’re so interested here in (re-)articulating. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Geopolitics junkies, come get your fix! The 2024 BRICS+ summit now in progress in Kazan, Russia marks a critical juncture for the trading bloc and its growing list of members as they consider expanding their influence beyond talk and into a full-fledged economic powerhouse. For that reason, the summit might indeed mark a turning point in global finance and the international capital order: after all, attendees include not only President Vladimir Putin of the host country, President Xi Jinping of China, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, but also President Masoud Pezeshkian of Iran (which joined the bloc last year) and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Turkey (the NATO member that applied to join BRICS+ in September), to name just a few of the thirty-odd international delegations now gathered in Kazan. President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil canceled his trip earlier this week after suffering an injury from a fall. We wish him a speedy recovery. Also absent is Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of Saudi Arabia, whose country—contrary to our dispatch from February—has been invited to join BRICS+ but has not yet formally accepted membership. We regret the error.In the run-up to the summit, rumors swirled about the potential launch of a new BRICS+ currency—possibly called “the UNIT”—which could challenge the U.S. dollar’s dominance as the global reserve currency. Blake Lovewell’s “BRICS Coin – The Unit vs The Dollar” offered further details on BRICS+’s potential introduction of a new currency system. This proposed UNIT is designed to counter the dominance of the U.S. dollar, foster economic independence, and promote a multipolar global order. As the digital currency’s May 2023 whitepaper tells us, the UNIT represents a decentralized, “apolitical” global currency system that avoids relying on national currencies by using a reserve basket of assets, with 40% gold and 60% member-nation currencies. Unlike cryptocurrencies or stablecoins, UNIT tokens are backed by these assets but their value fluctuates based on supply and demand, while the system re-balances the reserve basket when new tokens are minted, maintaining a stable composition of gold and non-gold assets to minimize costs related to gold movement and reserve balancing.The UNIT’s decentralized system, with nodes in various jurisdictions issuing UNIT tokens, under the governance of a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), ensure financial sovereignty while facilitating efficient cross-border trade. Overall, the UNIT system aims to provide a stable, decentralized alternative to national currencies for international trade.Though Radio Free Pizza readers surely know that the petrodollar system established in the 1970s has long maintained American economic hegemony, efforts to reduce reliance on the dollar have accelerated: though China’s introduction of the petroyuan six years ago and its rising use in global trade began eroding that dominance (though still accounting for only 5.3% of global trade compared to the dollar’s 84%), the geopolitical climate in recent years has increased pressure on the dollar’s status as global reserve currency following Western sanctions on Russia for its military operations in Ukraine and erupting tensions in the Middle East—has increased pressure on the dollar. More recently, dramatic increases in gold holdings among central banks worldwide have fueled speculations about a coming shift towards a gold-backed currency. The UNIT would certainly represent a significant shift in global finance. Of course, any shared currency at all would serve the bloc well, acting as the mortar maintaining the structural integrity of the barricade defending its member-nations’ economies against Western imperialism, in addition to enhancing its own internal cohesion and stability: just as mortar fills the gaps between frogged bricks to strengthen a wall, a shared currency binds the economies of member-nations, promoting frictionless trade between them while avoiding any inefficiencies and inconsistencies that might destabilize the bloc. However, the aforementioned Lovewell emphasizes caution, suggesting that while BRICS+ will continue to grow, the formal launch of the new currency might be delayed as the bloc carefully navigates geopolitical dynamics and the declining influence of U.S. hegemony.Has the BRICS+ summit begun charting a new course for worldwide monetary systems? Let’s dive into what’s at stake as BRICS+ looks to challenge the dominance of the U.S. dollar and redefine the world economy.Alexander Gabuev and Oliver Stuenkel covered the summit for Foreign Affairs at the end of September, discussing the rise of BRICS+ and how its future could shape global order. The bloc now represents 35.6% of global GDP and 45% of the world’s population. Despite internal differences, BRICS+ provides an alternative to the Western-led global system with which Russia and China aim to undermine U.S. dominance in international finance, weakening the dollar’s influence and creating alternatives to Western-controlled institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Meanwhile, Russia’s involvement in BRICS+ has grown in importance after sanctions due to its invasion of Ukraine, and China has led the push for the bloc’s expansion, with both countries sharing the goal of promoting a multipolar world in which the U.S. does not simply dictate a “rules-based international order” du jour. Yet pro-Western sympathies of Brazil and India create tensions in the bloc—though one may interpret the pact India announced with China just two days ago to resolve their border conflict as a commitment to solidarity with its BRICS+ colleagues. Gabuev and Stuenkel therefore urged the West to take BRICS+ seriously, addressing the grievances of its member-nations and improving global governance (“Boo!”) to prevent the bloc from turning into a fully anti-Western force. They also note how the original BRICS established the New Development Bank (NDB) in 2014 to complement existing global financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF, and to provide a financial safety net for its members. However, U.S. sanctions on Russia since the 2014 annexation of Crimea and the 2022 invasion of Ukraine have disrupted even Russia’s access to NDB funding, highlighting the need for BRICS+ to evolve further to reduce vulnerability to Western financial control. Still, Gabuev and Stuenkel make no mention of any BRICS+ currency: but, as I suspect happens often, reporters for financial news seem to have sniffed it out sooner than those for international politics, with Kitco News covering the summit three days before that article from Foreign Affairs.(In fact, Michelle Makori’s interview here with Jon Forrest Little suddenly brought the summit back to my attention—I must have been too distracted writing our recent dispatch and bulletin on political philosophy to give current events much concern.)Little and Makori first provide (at ~4:53) the historical context that global monetary resets have occurred every 150-200 years as economic powers shift. The U.S. dollar has been the leading reserve currency for only around 80 years since the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. Previous monetary systems, from ancient Athens to Rome and the Byzantine Empire, saw the purity of their currencies decline over time due to excessive spending, wars, and mismanagement, leading to their eventual replacement. Though the U.S. dollar has managed to remain the global reserve currency even after losing its gold backing with the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement, its status as the global reserve currency is now being challenged as countries move away from it, Little tells us (at ~12:02), by formalizing trade agreements using their own currencies instead of dollars. Simultaneously, central banks have been reducing their share of dollar reserves, which has fallen to just over 58% according to the IMF, the lowest level in 25 years. At the same time, central banks have been accumulating gold reserves at record levels, while China, Russia, and other countries have been selling U.S. Treasury securities and diversifying away from dollar-denominated assets—all of which signal international preparations for a potential monetary reset. Naturally, Little discusses (at ~19:40) various formulas and estimates for potential gold prices under a new monetary system backed by gold. Jim Rickards’ formula suggests gold could reach $27,000 per ounce if 40% of the money supply is backed by gold, or over $53,000 if fully backed. Other estimates mentioned include $3,200 for gold and $36/oz for silver in the near term (by Q1 2025). These prices would depend on the backing ratio and the amount of gold held by central banks.Notably, Little refers not just to the UNIT but also (at ~35:44) to Project mBridge—the cross-border blockchain-based inter-CBDC project led facilitated by the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) that we covered in our mid-year dispatch—which would facilitate UNIT-denominated transactions between BRICS+’s growing number of member-nations. However, Little cautions that as the bloc expands, it may become harder to reach agreements on a common currency and values among diverse countries with (potentially) competing interests. Meanwhile, Little expects the U.S. to resist de-dollarization efforts, with former President Trump suggesting (in a clip provided at ~45:31) tariffs on countries abandoning the dollar. Nonetheless, he notes (at ~50:44) that seeing more U.S. states recognizing gold as legal tender alongside efforts to normalize gold ownership may constitute a sign that the U.S. could eventually be forced to adopt a gold-backed currency system to remain competitive in international trade. He forecasts the first cracks in the current monetary system to begin appearing around Q1 2025, with potential commercial real estate failures and bank bailouts—though, of course, the transition to a multipolar world order could take longer as the process unfolds.While we’ll of course need to wait to see the accuracy of Little’s forecast, we didn’t need to wait long to learn more about BRICS+’s digital payments infrastructure. As Global Times reported on 17 October, with CCN.com adding further details the next day, the BRICS Business Forum in Moscow has officially launched BRICS Pay, a global payment system designed to streamline financial transactions among member-nations, ahead of the 2024 BRICS+ summit. The system, which can utilize digital currencies—such as the hypothesized UNIT or stablecoins representing national currencies—aims to reduce reliance on Western financial institutions and promote financial sovereignty. Using blockchain technology and smart contracts, BRICS Pay facilitates cross-border transactions by minimizing intermediaries and reducing transaction costs and ensures interoperability between different national payment systems while complying with each country’s regulations. The BRICS Pay Consortium, operating as a DAO, oversees the project’s implementation. At the forum, attendees tested the system using demo cards preloaded with 500 rubles to make purchases, marking a significant step towards the BRICS+ nations’ goal of de-dollarization and financial independence.Taken all together, the BRICS Pay system leverages advanced technologies to enable faster, cheaper, and more secure cross-border transactions, free from external interference. Experts highlight its role in de-dollarization, a growing trend driven by U.S. financial sanctions, and in promoting economic collaboration among BRICS+ nations. The initiative is part of broader efforts to create an alternative to Western-dominated financial institutions, such as the IMF and SWIFT. As BRICS+ continues expanding, the payment system represents a key step in building a more inclusive and balanced global financial structure better aligned with projects like China’s Belt and Road Initiative, further enhancing trade and investment opportunities among developing countries.Of course, the geopolitical importance of changes to the global monetary system didn’t escape the attention of everyone who reports on international relations: earlier this month, Einar Tangen and John Pang discussed it on Neutrality Studies with host Pascal Lottaz.Naturally, their discussion revolves around the potential role of BRICS+ as a counterweight to the U.S.-dominated global financial system and a platform for developing countries to gain more economic autonomy while reducing their vulnerability to Federal Reserve policies that have caused economic instability and disadvantaged them. Interestingly for us, their conversation also explores how BRICS+ could serve as a forum for coordinating policies related to pricing strategic resources like oil, gas, and commodities, allowing member countries to capture more value from their exports. Such practices could help mitigate boom-and-bust cycles in commodity markets by leveraging technology and data sharing among members. This could stabilize prices, prevent capital dislocation, and provide more predictability for businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. Even more importantly, however, such efforts could support efforts to de-financialize the global economy and refocus on real production, with finance playing a supportive role—in stark contrast to the Western financial system’s excessive leverage and speculation. Recalling our August dispatch’s critical treatment of the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sector, that sounds like a welcome change.On subjects besides economics, the trio celebrates the inclusion of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries like Malaysia in BRICS+ as a positive step towards consolidating regional blocs and reducing the narrative of BRICS+ being dominated by China. But other commentators seem less concerned with reducing it: among them, Alexander Dugin, who appeared with journalist Pepe Escobar on New Rules Geopolitics just a few days ago to discuss the BRICS+ summit with host Dmitri Simes Jr. Here, Dugin makes it clear (at ~2:16) that he sees Russia and China leading BRICS+ and the world toward a multipolar world order as a genuine alternative to Western hegemony. For him, BRICS+ goes beyond economics and represents a civilizational challenge to Western modernity, capitalism, and liberalism.Escobar, however, doesn’t let us forget economics for too long, discussing (at ~7:42) the efforts towards de-dollarization and the creation of alternative financial systems that operate independently of Western institutions like the IMF and the BIS. While he acknowledges the complexity of building a monetary system and the challenges in convincing governments, companies, and the public to adopt new economic models, Escobar notes recent progress in BRICS+ countries trading in their own currencies and the potential for a new reserve currency, along with its importance to a reformed NDB, which is currently constrained by its reliance on the U.S. dollar.All of that said, their conversation doesn’t stray too far from geopolitics. In the Middle East, with Israel’s ongoing genocide in Palestine, which both Dugin and Escobar describe (at ~28:04) as a clash between the Western unipolar vision, represented by Israel and the U.S., and the multipolar vision of BRICS+. For Escobar, the inability of the United Nations Security Council to condemn the genocide in Gaza illustrates the imbalance and inequality that the post-World War II international system produces. Countries will need to choose a side, it seems: however, he tells us that India remains undecided about its role in this new order, torn between aligning with Western powers or embracing Eurasian integration, while Saudi Arabia’s young ruler hopes to balance Western projects like the IMEC Connectivity Corridor against public opinion at home, with Saudi leadership now hesitant to proceed without resolving the Palestinian issue.Focusing (at ~37:12) on Turkey’s decision to apply for BRICS+ membership—a significant move as the first NATO country to do so—Escobar and Dugin analyze Erdoğan’s motivations, including his desire to expand Turkey’s influence in Eurasia and the Turkic world, as well as his disillusionment with the West and NATO. They see Turkey’s pivot as a symbolic victory for multipolarity and respect for civilizational diversity, and a potential catalyst for further erosion of Western hegemony.The guests also highlight (at ~44:55) the growing interest from African countries in joining or cooperating with BRICS+ as a manifestation of Africa’s desire for decolonization. They discuss the potential for Africa to become a significant pole in the multipolar world order, in which countries like Nigeria and Angola could play a crucial role.The 2024 BRICS+ summit in Kazan stands as a pivotal moment in the evolution of global finance and geopolitics. As BRICS+ members explore the potential of a shared currency like the proposed UNIT, they aim to create an economic framework that challenges U.S. dollar dominance and promotes financial sovereignty. The discussions on de-dollarization and the implementation of BRICS Pay signal a decisive push towards a multipolar world where Western financial hegemony may no longer dictate the global order.Eagle-eyed readers with unimpeachable memories will have surely noted that the proposed UNIT bears a striking resemblance to a digital currency issued by the Digital Currency Monetary Authority (DCMA) called the “Unicoin” (UMU) mentioned in one of our May bulletins. Surely the similarities between the UNIT and the Unicoin’s semi-decentralized digital currency network—developed by DCMA’s subsidiary Universal Monetary Unit and designed for regulated entities like governments, banks, and licensed fintech companies—won’t have been lost on Martin Armstrong, the paleoconservative economic forecaster we cited in that bulletin, in another from the following month, and in our August dispatch. In the latter of those two bulletins, we note Armstrong forecasting an imminent World War III. The economist recently spoke again about it last month in an interview with Financial Sense, arguing that governments often use the excuse of war to default on debts and implement new systems of control. Here. he tells us (at ~50:43): Because of the BRICS, the IMF has already created their digital currency. This may not be widely known, but what the scheme is, with the whole thing of war, they know that you cannot cover those debts. So, they will use the war as the excuse: “We will form a new government, default on those debts, etc.” […] All right, so you’re looking at [what] the IMF is proposing. They can step in and become the peacemaker. And because they become the peacemaker, that elevates the United Nations to this one-world government […] and then the IMF comes out with its digital currency. Everybody clears through this, not the dollar anymore. The dollar is no longer the reserve currency. And then they bring back the BRICS and the SWIFT system all together with the IMF. This is what they plan.(We could add too that maybe discussing such a plan is on the agenda for President Putin’s meeting with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres scheduled for the summit’s final day.)Armstrong naturally criticizes such an endeavor, drawing a parallel between this plan and the creation of the European Union, which was intended to prevent war through centralization, but argues that such efforts fail because centralized governments tend to spark civil wars. Citing Ancient Rome’s success in maintaining stability by allowing provinces to preserve their own cultures and customs, he contrasts that strategy against modern efforts to impose uniform policies across diverse regions (such as in the U.S. or Europe) lead to conflict. Accordingly, Armstrong suggests that respecting local differences, whether cultural or political, is key to preventing societal collapse, warning that centralization and forced uniformity increase the risk of civil unrest and societal failure.In that case, BRICS+ indeed seems to offer an alternative to the hypothesized one-world government, though the authenticity of that offer—whether, that is, the bloc can deliver on its promise—will depend on how the world’s nations restructure the global monetary system in the aftermath of WWIII.Before that, though, internal differences—particularly between pro-Western and anti-Western members—may complicate the path forward for the BRICS+ bloc, even as it continues to expand and grow in influence. Nevertheless, the summit underscores the bloc’s ambitions to reshape the international monetary system, reduce dependence on Western institutions, and foster greater economic autonomy for its member nations: as Watcher.Guru reports just today, representatives from 40 countries including those from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, South America, and the Middle East, will attend an outreach session tomorrow at the summit to discuss alternatives to the U.S. dollar, new trade policies, and the use of local currencies—particularly in loans from the NDB. As the global balance of power continues to shift, the developments in Kazan could mark the beginning of a new era in international finance, with BRICS+ playing a crucial role in shaping the future. Surely the journey will be complex and gradual, but the potential implications for the global economy are immense, particularly as the bloc gains momentum and further consolidates its economic, political, and technological initiatives. While we may not see an immediate transformation, the groundwork is being laid for a future where BRICS+ stands as a formidable force in the world order.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Believe it or not, Friedrich Nietzsche was born a hundred and eighty years ago yesterday. (I know: it really snuck up on all of us!) As soon as we realized it, we here at Radio Free Pizza considered it appropriate to briefly review how some of Nietzsche’s philosophy factored in to a couple of our past deliveries, and—much more importantly—to fill in whatever other details we can. Returning customers may remember our coverage as having mainly referred to Nietzsche’s thought in the context of political philosophy—since, around here, politics is our beloved [sport-]ball: the circus of misdirection performed in the media, which serve as a de facto branch of government for the surface state. They might even recall our March dispatch first mentioning Nietzsche’s political philosophy, at least as Keegan Kjeldsen presents it on The Nietzsche Podcast. There we described the philosopher as critical of capitalism and socialism, and as quite likely to be so of fascism too: each for different reasons, but primarily due to their shared focus on utilitarianism and their impact on human individuality, culture, and social hierarchy. For Nietzsche, capitalism didn’t reward genuine merit, and its focus on satisfying human desires weakened cultural values and society overall, creating a flawed hierarchy with undeserving leadership. Socialism, meanwhile, erased individuality and turned society into a production line, wherein the state became the sole outlet for individual ambition—which one only achieved at the cost of one’s personal identity. Fascism, in turn, the philosopher would have surely criticized for diminishing culture with its authoritarian idolatry of the state, and for substituting in place of that stifled culture only a shallow unity based on national identity. So, the 19th-century philosopher criticized (or would have criticized) all three of the 20th century’s major political ideologies for their utilitarian foundations, their suppression of individuality, and their negative impact on culture and human potential. I doubt it comes as any surprise, then, that he also criticized the political philosophies that predated him by millennia, as we covered last month: Nietzsche’s critique of Plato, we learned, centers on a rejection of Plato’s political and moral philosophy. While the ideal society of The Republic echoes some authoritarian themes—with its philosopher-kings, hierarchical structure, and control over art and education—which therefore lead some modern thinkers to view Plato as a proto-fascist, Nietzsche would simply reject Plato’s abstract ideals and emphasis on rationality over sensory experience, seeing the elevation of the “realm of forms” as a denial of life’s richness, and a precursor to the Christian morality that Nietzsche also opposed for its devaluation of the sensory world and of individual vitality. That idealism places too much weight on moral prejudices, such as the notion of justice being tied to social harmony and the philosopher-king model, and Nietzsche therefore critiques it as an unrealistic attempt to impose rigid structures on a fluid, dynamic reality. While Plato’s focus on education and censorship for the sake of morality might seem important, Nietzsche would argue it fosters conformity, suppressing individual creativity and the personal will to power. Seems like nothing was ever good enough for Nietzsche.But what more do we know about Nietzsche’s political philosophy? Surely you won’t be surprised to learn that the aforementioned Kjeldsen has already offered us a further analysis. At the start of last year, the host turned his attention again to the topic, beginning with his reading of Aphorism #463 from Human, All Too Human (1878).That aphorism offers Kjeldsen an entry-point to a discussion of Nietzsche’s political philosophy during his middle period, running from Human, All Too Human to the first four books of The Gay Science (1882). This period represents a shift away from Wagnerian romanticism and metaphysics towards critique of morality and Christianity before culminating in the philosopher asserting the “death of God,” leading to Nietzsche’s later affirmative philosophy. Still, Kjeldsen tells us (at ~26:34), his political opinions during his middle period don’t differ tremendously from later works, but here they’re more conciliatory towards modernity: he seems invested in contemporary questions, given his critiques of democracy. In Nietzsche’s view, democracy incentivizes political parties to simplify and distort their principles to appeal to the “lowest common denominator,” leading to the elevation of mediocre and narrow-minded values. Kjeldsen draws parallels between Nietzsche’s critique and modern phenomena like the media’s selective coverage and the oversimplification of political discourse.Nonetheless, while Nietzsche experiments with modern ideas, Kjeldsen tells us (at ~29:03–29:27) that the philosopher primarily concerns himself with “timeless values that transcend the age, [owing to] his cyclical view of history [and to] his desire to bring our actual lives to the forefront of value, [motivating him] to wage a cultural war rather than a political one” to remove detrimental values and false assumptions from the culture before creating new values. In addition, Kjeldsen also examines (at ~44:35) Aphorism #439, containing his proposal for a caste system with a “working caste” and an “idle caste” dedicated to culture and leisure. (One might wonder then why Nietzsche didn’t take more of a liking to Plato the ancient eugenicist!) The philosopher argues that this system would allow for the production of higher culture and facilitate the emergence of genius among the idle caste, though Kjeldsen tells us how this apparently contradicts his arguments elsewhere that the state is inherently hostile to cultural development and that true culture often emerges during times of political weakness. (Maybe the state would only facilitate cultural genius in peacetime?) That said, the host sees a valid comparison to be drawn between Nietzsche’s ideas here and modern ideologies of meritocracy and technocracy for how the latter funnels the professionally credentialed into a present-day idle caste, broadly preserving hierarchy while still allowing for a degree of social mobility—though he of course acknowledges the potential flaws in their various implementations. These ideas, it seems, might represent some offhand effort from Nietzsche to reconcile his aristocratic leanings with the emerging forces of modernity.Though Nietzsche surely critiques the liberal and leftist ideologies of democracy and egalitarianism, Kjeldsen also discusses Nietzsche’s thoughts on nationalism—particularly his concept of the “good European,” which envisions a pan-European identity transcending national boundaries that he believes will, among other achievements, put an end to antisemitism. As the host tells us, Nietzsche sees the dissolution of nations as inevitable due to factors like increased mobility, cultural exchange, and the weakening of national dynasties, all of which the philosopher views as producing the opportunity for a unified European civilization.Kjeldsen concludes the episode with a discussion (at ~1:28:19) of Nietzsche’s critique in Aphorism #480 of both left-wing (socialist) and right-wing (nationalist) political ideologies, with the philosopher arguing that both sides appeal to different forms of laziness and envy, catering to the desires of the masses rather than promoting higher culture. The host connects this critique to the importance Nietzsche sees in cultivating a true nobility dedicated to the production of culture.While some might read the philosopher’s politics here as conservative, his critique of right-wing nationalism appeared again on The Nietzsche Podcast later last year, in which that critique of nationalism—along with those of left-wing liberal democracy and of egalitarian socialism—all receive further details.Here, Kjeldsen discusses the different interpretations of Nietzsche’s politics, ranging from those who embrace his “aristocratic radicalism” to those who dismiss it entirely. The host argues, however, that Nietzsche’s perspectivism and his concept of the will to power are interconnected, with the latter giving rise to the former and leading to a view of the world as a battleground of competing forces, each with its own equally justified perspective. At the same time, Nietzsche asserts the will to power as a fundamental truth, creating a paradox within his philosophy: after all, if it’s that fundamental, why should he then call for revaluation of values?In pursuit of that answer, and of its link to Nietzsche’s political philosophy, Kjeldsen first presents (at ~4:25) the philosopher’s rejection of both traditional morality and universal truths, seeing the former as human projections onto the world and the latter as contingent and perspectival—a temporary victor on the battlefield of competing forces. (Kjeldsen dutifully notes [at ~7:40] that, for his consequent rejection of implementing idealistic measures to alter or improve mankind, Nietzsche’s political ideas are counter-revolutionary.) Out of the war of all against all, the state emerges as a power-structure enabling the weak to constrain the strong. For Nietzsche, laws aim merely to preserve society, rather than to engender its further progress, while leaders in various eras use ideas like virtue, glory and justice to disguise the will to power. Accordingly, the philosopher rejects idealistic notions of rights and sovereignty. Instead of grounding his thoughts in these fundamentals of political theory, Kjeldsen tells us (at ~9:31–10:13), Nietzsche’s own politics in fact reflect his commitment to an unexpected value:What Nietzsche expresses in his politics is a sentiment common to much of Nietzsche’s writing. And perhaps oddly enough, given the aristocratic radicalism of Nietzsche’s political views, that sentiment is freedom. What we mean by freedom here is not “freedom” as we usually conceive of it in the political sense: it’s “free-spiritedness,” as Nietzsche coins it, which involves the ability to come to conclusions without the external pressures of society and culture, to escape from those pressures, and thus to arrive at the unity of one’s actions and their desires, where one’s will and one’s character are aligned.Therefore, such a free-spiritedness would be the core of any new values that Nietzsche would advocate for creating, and which he’d support any state cultivating among its citizenry. Certainly these values aren’t the concern of those whom Kjeldsen cites (at ~18:56–19:27) as evidence of how “we’re always living out the same drama […] There are always those obsessed with their national character, or absorbed with an identity as a class revolutionary, the mass person: the social order is always delegitimizing itself, and the traditional ideas are always losing their luster.” Accordingly, we can feel confident that Nietzsche wouldn’t share either right-wing concerns for keeping the national character free of foreign influence, nor left-wing interests in liberating the masses. Meanwhile, the kind of freedom for which the philosopher advocates would presumably exceed that which we find under liberal democracy—within the context of which, Kjeldsen reminds us (at ~21:10), “oligarchy returns even now,” lending some further weight to Nietzsche’s cyclical view of history. Beneath that oligarchy, Kjeldsen adds later (at ~45:24), our society has entered a “well-managed analytical utilitarian era [with] a renewed faith in the idealism of democracy, [of] socialism, and [of] universal human value: a new moralism based on these ‘Last Man ideals,’ in many respects”—ideals, that is, which contradict or otherwise fail to recognize the will to power, from which the new values of our free-spirited state would surely originate, and to which all its cultural achievements would surely trace their inspiration. Perhaps in the interest of discovering these, Kjeldsen invites the audience (at ~55:29–1:08:59) to engage with Nietzsche’s challenging ideas—emphasizing his call for self-determination and for accepting one’s own nature, without being coerced by the voice of the collective or moral fictions—and to so discover what new truths they “have a right to possess,” and in the process become who they truly are. As we mentioned above, Kjeldsen would surely hasten to clarify that he considers Nieztsche’s political ideas to be counter-revolutionary. So, why do you suppose we subtitled this “[the] revolutionary Nietzscheanism bulletin”?No, not just because I’m looking for another subculture like MAGA Communism that attempts to synthesize the contradictory. I’ve also done it to showcase a pair of Nietzschean personalities with commentaries that spend considerable time unpacking the philosopher’s politics. These personalities, however, unpack it in the interest either of uniting it with socialism, of bridging the divide between them, of critiquing their narrow overlap, or, otherwise, of articulating their inherent antagonism—and yet, despite (or because of) that apparent contradiction, Kjeldsen has interviewed both.First, Devin Gouré appeared as a guest to describe how he interprets Nietzsche’s philosophy from a left-wing perspective. He and Kjeldsen discuss how to interpret Nietzsche from a leftist view, given the philosopher’s skepticism of political ideologies. However, key areas of overlap include critiquing capitalism as a source of alienation. Gouré cites the work of both Gilles Deleuze and Antonio Negri as two avenues through which to reconcile Nietzschean thought with that of Marx. In contrast, he critiques a reactionary right-wing trend of appropriating Nietzsche for how its racism, social Darwinism, and patriarchal perspective depart from the philosopher’s substance and style, and similarly repudiates those conservative commentators like Jordan Peterson who gravitate towards Nietzsche as cynical ‘Last Man’ attempts to revive traditional values, which the philosopher would surely reject.For those interested in how Gouré might further articulate his Left Nietzscheanism, we can turn to his summer 2023 appearance on Acid Horizon.Here, Gouré and the mononymous Justin present their readings of Nietzsche as leftists, discussing: the lessons that the philosopher’s critiques of revenge and of reactive resentment can teach social justice movements; if “Left Nietzscheans” should support democracy given Nietzsche’s skepticism of its leveling tendencies for promoting mediocrity; if democracy might simply be incompatible with his hierarchical thinking; and if the tensions that limit efforts to align Nietzsche with contemporary leftist ideals might make them ultimately incompatible.As if attempting to answer all those questions at once, Gouré tells us (at ~58:15–59:34): I think that the Left should have commitments to democracy as an institution, and also particularly should have a commitment to not running it together with liberalism into the combination of “liberal democracy” […] and this is somewhere where Nietzsche has proven very important for democratic theory over the past several decades […] providing us with a model of unruly disruptive creative freedom that creates productive adversarial encounters in democracy, and the target is kind of a […] deliberative democracy where we all sit down and legitimize power by talking about our principles and what ought to be done […] The Nietzschean model comes in to provide an idea of democracy [that] is grounded in […] disruption of what constitutes the idea of the good life, or [of] “the morally right” that at any given time might be ideologically governing the decisions of a particular state. Gouré offered yet further details on his Left Nietzscheanism last autumn on 1Dime Radio, which we featured in our July bulletin on MAGA Communism.Gouré first describes his academic journey—starting with an interest in political theory and French poststructuralism, and later exploring Marxist thought and the Frankfurt School’s engagement with Nietzsche—before he and the host turn to the relevance and implications of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy for the left, particularly focusing on concepts such as the will to power, slave morality, and the role of tragedy and affirmation in emancipatory politics. Arguing that Nietzsche’s ideas have already influenced the left through thinkers like the aforementioned Deleuze, Michel Foucault, and the postmodern tradition, Gouré suggests that—while Nietzsche is often associated with aristocratic and reactionary tendencies—his critique of modernity and instrumental reason can offer valuable insights for leftists, particularly in terms of addressing issues of gender, race, and sexuality that may be overlooked by a strictly class-centric approach.Importantly, Gouré argues that Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals exposes the dangers of a morality founded on resentment and the negation of life, and that leftists must confront this challenge to move beyond a purely negative approach, to embrace affirmation as a way to sustain hope and emancipatory possibilities, and to avoid falling into paralysis. Moreover, he maintains that Nietzsche’s will to power—situated here as a fundamental principle of organic life and the affirmation of existence—should not be understood as a crude desire for power accumulation, but rather as a recognition of the excess and creative possibilities inherent in life itself, with which leftists can more powerfully affirming human potential. Nonetheless, Gouré warns that the philosopher’s critique of slave morality and his recognition of power relations as ubiquitous shouldn’t be seen as an endorsement of fixed hierarchies, but rather as a call to negotiate and transform these asymmetries into more productive orders, paradoxically suggesting that progressives embrace a form of “moral perfectionism” that affirms cultural greatness and human potentialities as a condition for realizing an egalitarian society.The second of the aforementioned Nietzschean personalities examining the philosopher’s politics through a socialist lens—Daniel Tutt—appeared on The Nietzsche Podcast this past spring.Here, Tutt tells Kjeldsen about his journey into philosophy through Nietzsche, the fusion of Marx and Nietzsche in his work, Nietzsche’s critique of socialism and the left, the philosopher’s influence on various political movements, and his role in contemporary Marxist thought. Tutt explains (at ~3:43) how he sees Nietzsche as emerging at the endpoint of a certain form of romantic thought, before their conversation turns (at ~14:30) to the influence of Nietzsche on various political movements, such as the May 1968 movement in France, the socialist libertarianism uprising in Italy in 1977, the American Civil Rights Movement, and the Chinese Cultural Revolution under Mao’s wife, Jiang Qing. Still, Tutt maintains (at ~22:10) that in Nietzsche, “what we find here is a romantic anti-capitalism […] diametrically opposed to Marxism.” Accordingly, he describes (at ~25:00) a concern that fusing Nietzsche’s concepts with Marxist class analysis could lead to retaining a minimal form of slavery, given the philosopher’s belief in the necessity of rank order, Concerns of this type characterize Tutt’s further discussion (at ~1:22:10) of the future of Marxism in relation to Nietzsche’s ideas. Though he argues for a Marxism that puts the question of working-class emancipation back on the table and addresses the persistence of wage labor and immiseration in capitalist society—and who doesn’t?—he nonetheless sees Nietzsche as a parasite on the political left, and he therefore works in his own book to invite a pugilistic relationship with the philosopher while still acknowledging his profound insights.Tutt offered further details to his perspective on Nietzsche two years ago to Doug Lain of Sublation Media, which we also featured in our aforementioned bulletin on MAGA Communism.Tutt discusses (at ~4:01) Lukács’s analysis of Nietzscheanism as a bourgeois ideology that emerged in the late 19th century to justify the decadence of the imperialist age. He argues that Nietzsche’s philosophy sought to create a comprehensive worldview that relegated the working class to an appendage of cultural production, maintaining a commitment to high art and conceptual production for a select few. Therefore, Nietzscheanism has deep connections to the ideological project of the bourgeois class—owing, Tutt explains (at ~38:53), to the philosopher’s lack of class consciousness and understanding of the working-class worldview. To present a real-world case—one that might have enlightened Nietzsche—showing how a proletarian cultural movement can develop an ideological power from below, Tutt offers (at ~40:05) the case study of the “We Are the Poors” movement in South Africa, as discussed by Jan Raymond.Importantly, Lain argues here for the ability of everyday people to develop intellectually and contribute to theorizing their own liberation. That, in Tutt’s view, is a capacity that Marxists often neglect—so much so that we can easily imagine their inability to theorize about the lived experiences of the contemporary proletariat lends itself to charges of elitism that paradoxically excludes working-class intellectuals. On the whole, their analysis of the impact of Nietzscheanism on the Marxist Left emphasizes the potential pitfalls of individualism and anti-humanism.Believe it or not, Tutt also appeared last December on the same 1Dime Radio mentioned above.Here, Tutt throws cold water on any designs I might have had to lump him in with “the revolutionary Nietzscheans”: while affirming the philosopher’s profound cultural effects, Tutt finds that, despite his critiques of modernity and of capitalism, Nietzsche’s philosophy aligns with the interests of the ruling class and reinforces existing hierarchies, and—owing not least to the philosopher’s critique of the egalitarian tradition—his thinking represents a reactionary agenda that often serves to undermine solidarity and class consciousness among the oppressed. Nonetheless, some of his ideas—like slave morality, resentment, and the will to power—have potential implications for leftist politics and revolutionary movements. The host 1Dime makes (at ~31:42) some of these connections himself: “you could say the powerless [proletarian] majority are innocent and that they’re inherently good because of their position […] and rich people are inherently morally bad,” he says, illustrating the slave morality at work in some strains of leftist thought.For that and other reasons, Tutt argues that Nietzsche’s philosophy ultimately shuts down the possibility of political revolution and the rationalist kernel of Marxism. Therefore, he advocates for supplementing Nietzsche’s insights with Marxist dialectics and a commitment to working-class emancipation, rejecting the abandonment of political revolution in favor of mere cultural subversion. Overall, he presents a nuanced critique of “Left Nietzscheanism,” calling for a more grounded and materialist approach to revolutionary politics while nonetheless recognizing the value of Nietzsche’s psychological and philosophical contributions when appropriated judiciously—though Tutt warns us still that an over-reliance on Nietzschean vitalism and a rejection of Enlightenment rationality can generate an impotent revolutionary praxis that reinforces existing hierarchies in the service of bourgeois interests. (If that last part makes you think of “pan-leftist counter-gangs,” then we’re on the same page.)So, that’s gotta be about all we can say about “Revolutionary Nietzscheanism,” right?Well, not quite yet, no, because—wouldn’t you know it—The Nietzsche Podcast’s Kjeldsen appeared on the aforementioned 1Dime Radio just last month.1Dime interviews Kjeldsen about the political philosophies of Nietzsche, Machiavelli, Marx, and other thinkers—among them Ibn Khaldun, to whose thought Kjeldsen provides (at ~19:53–22:29) a nice introduction that helpfully illustrates Nietzsche’s political approach:Libertarians or anarchistic-type political thinkers […] always reduce everything down to the individual, right? […] But what Khaldun points to is that [cooperation] isn’t something rationally deliberated. It’s an immediate material reality: “We will all cooperate or we will die in the desert” […] Then when I read a couple of Nietzsche’s early unpublished essays, like the Greek state, he talks about the state as this “objectivation of instinct” […] You could say an objectification or a reification of instinct. He calls it the iron clamp that basically directs or focuses all of the instincts of the individual. And Nietzsche treats that as […] an actual power that you have to reckon with […] I think if you read Ibn Khaldun […] it’s the willingness to view yourself as having value for a power that is greater or beyond yourself—that is worth preserving beyond who you are—and that’s not something you necessarily rationally deliberate. It's the kind of thing that you come to. There’s a great passage […] where Nietzsche is sort of experimenting with more explicit political statements in the time of Human, All Too Human, where he says, “Well, if you want a republic to survive, you can only let people who have children make the political decisions because only they will have the stake in the future, right?” That’s very funny: he kind of sounds like J .D. Vance there […] But again, that’s not necessarily something Nietzsche supports. He’s approaching it from that same angle of trying to say, “Okay, how do you get people who view the society, the collective project that you’re engaged in, as something that they self-identify with?”Evidently 1Dime appreciates the comparison, telling us (at ~25:55) that Kjeldsen’s mention of Human, All Too Human has reminded him “about one of the aphorisms in there […] where he says that there’s a gift and a curse to having a society with strong cohesion, because a society with strong religious cohesion tends […] to have more durability […] but they also obstruct free thinking,” with the result of diminishing a society’s capacity for innovation and adaptation. That thought in turn reminds Kjeldsen (at ~27:53) to mention a useful connection here to Plato’s Republic: There’s another passage where he’s saying, “If you want to have a tutelary government […] a state that exists for the purposes of educating the populace to virtue. The masses aren’t adequate to rule, but the nobility will sort of bring them up and teach them […] if you want to maintain this, the leader has to actually promote religion in the society, because there are some ways that religion can comfort the heart that the leader can’t […] it would actually be really bad […] to not have some sort of metaphysical framework” […] He directly references Machiavelli, who in the Discourses on Livy says it often behooves the leaders of society to, what would you say, promote piety in those old sort of traditional religious virtues.Of course, two intellectuals discussing Nietzsche couldn’t leave us with the impression that the philosopher approves of Christianity as the religious framework maintaining social cohesion. But their discussion of Nietzsche’s critique of Christianity and slave morality proves particularly useful for our purposes: Kjeldsen explains (at ~36:07) how Nietzsche view Christianity as a “cult of revenge” that instilled a sense of guilt and resentment in European values, justifying suffering and providing a sense of meaning while also becoming a source of weakness and self-denial. That said, 1Dime raises (at ~43:09) the question of whether Nietzsche believed Christianity empowered or disempowered the poor and working-class movements:Nietzsche thinks that this Christian narrative that encourages people to set the good life aside and to have a guilty conscience and to believe in the afterlife, etc. He thinks that this empowers socialism […] he thinks it empowers the poor. And it gives them also a whole moral system where they can say […] “The weak shall inherit the earth […] we are good because we’re weak, the powerful are bad because they’re powerful,” etc. He thinks this empowers the poor. Whereas I think the opposite […] working-class movements can say, “We’ll turn the other cheek: we can’t be authoritarian. We can’t be like the bad guys.” And really movements that have failed, I think, have this sort of thinking, whether it be protest movements that are saying, “Let’s obey all the laws. We’re good because we have the right cause. It’s the powerful people who do the bad things like violence” […] Allende, I think is a good, interesting, failed socialist movement, because he wanted to play by the rules […] He was trying to say, “We’re not like our opposition,” and then got destroyed. So I don’t know what you think about this reading, because I think this is something Nietzsche was wrong about. Nietzsche thought that this sort of slave morality, which he thinks is present in Christianity, empowers the poor. That might explain why Fidel Castro’s daughter reports that the Cuban communist leader had rediscovered his Christian faith before the end of his life. Their interview doesn’t cover Castro, of course, but it might surprise you that Stalin and Mao come up (at ~1:05:19), with 1Dime contrasting the tyrannical purges of the former against the Cultural Revolution of the latter. “Mao genuinely believed that if you gave power to the people, they would build a communist [society].” But unfortunately, “it really was people bullying each other. It was fundamentally very ugly […] when you just give people the authority […] they might just use it as a way to legitimize their feeling of power, their enjoyment of power, and that drive for power can be even greater among powerless people.” On that thought, Kjeldsen elaborates on Nietzsche’s idea that weakness corrupts, not power. He explains that Nietzsche’s conception of power, emphasizing that true power comes from abundance and fullness, not from competition or struggle: a powerful person is not obsessed with their enemies or competition, but rather operates from a place of excess, unconcerned with proving themselves. This contrasts with weakness, which Nietzsche links to a reactive mindset—constantly seeking revenge, recompense, or validation from others. His critique of resentment highlights that people trapped in reactive mindsets, where they cannot act on feelings of frustration or slight, are ultimately consumed by those festering grievances. This contrasts with the active, healthy individual, who would act from a place of strength and autonomy and would be indifferent to slights or competition—like someone so wealthy they don’t think about money. This indifference is what allows for the creation of great art and leisure, and a truly powerful individual focuses on creation and self-expression rather than being trapped in reactive cycles. Accordingly, the simple attainment of power doesn’t mean someone embodies Nietzsche’s ideal of strength or vitality: instead, power corrupted by weakness, as seen in historical figures like Hitler or Pol Pot, is often a self-destructive force.Of course, 1Dime acknowledges the point, but still offers (at ~1:19:25) the interesting corollary that “ultimately you cannot really test your own virtues, your own principles, without power.”In reflecting on Nietzsche’s always complex, often contrarian, and sometimes contradictory views, we’re left with a philosophy that defies traditional political categorization. His critiques of capitalism, socialism, and fascism arise from his concern for individuality, culture, and human potential, placing him at odds with both conservative and progressive ideologies. Nietzsche’s aristocratic radicalism, his rejection of utilitarianism, and his skepticism toward egalitarianism all challenge leftist movements, while his focus on hierarchy and power dynamics raises concerns about reinforcing elitist structures. Yet, his ideas have inspired both radical leftists and reactionary conservatives, making him a figure of enduring debate among political thinkers.At the core of Nietzsche’s political thought lies a commitment to freedom—not the liberal democratic kind, but the “free-spiritedness” to break from societal constraints and create new values. This freedom, rooted in individual will and creativity, is not about dominance or competition, but self-mastery and cultural flourishing. His rejection of slave morality and his concept of the will to power offer valuable tools for revolutionary thought, but only if adapted carefully to avoid reproducing the very hierarchies that leftists aim to dismantle.Ultimately, Nietzsche’s legacy in revolutionary discourse remains ambivalent: a thinker whose ideas can both challenge and complement revolutionary aims, while demanding a critical and cautious approach. Those seeking a Nietzschean revolution must move beyond simply wielding a hammer, let alone a hammer and a sickle: they must transform the very values and tools inherited from the past, discovering in Nietzsche not just a new politics, but a deeper understanding of freedom beyond the confines of ideology. You can be sure that, here at Radio Free Pizza, we’ll be keeping a close eye on their progress at it.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Though political landscapes are ever-changing, the human species (or Western civilization, anyway) nonetheless keeps revisiting the political philosophy of one of history’s most influential thinkers: Aristocles of Athens—AKA, “Plato”—the ancient Greek philosopher whose ideas on politics continue to influence modern thought. Known for his profound insights into the nature of justice, governance, and the human soul, Plato’s ideas have shaped Western thought for millennia. But what can his theories teach us in our modern society? In our efforts to understand how ancient wisdom might still illuminate the path forward in our complex world, it would surely do us well to explore his vision of the ideal state, the role of the philosopher-king, the nature of justice, and the relevance of each in today’s political climate. Can Plato’s theories offer us guidance in an era of liberal democracy, global challenges, and social change? As you’ll probably guess if you read last month’s dispatch, we don’t take these questions lightly. After examining the connections between the politics and economics of Ancient Rome and today’s issues in modern capitalist republics—particularly in the U.S.—we argued that the proto-liberalism rooted in Rome’s oligarchic republican system led to economic practices focused on private property rights and imperialist expansion, leading to the immiseration of the plebian class, while divergent interests among ruling elites ultimately contributed to the Republic’s collapse and the rise of the Empire. Accordingly we discussed the need for modern economic reforms inspired by Ancient Rome, such as debt-relief measures to ensure economic stability, as potential solutions to modern challenges. By critiquing modern financial practices and comparing them to Ancient Rome’s debt markets, we advocated for systemic reforms to prevent economic collapse, using the lessons of Ancient Rome to provide valuable insights into modern governance and the pursuit of a more equitable society.But despite acknowledging the profound influence of the Roman Republic on modern governance through its concepts of checks and balances, separation of powers, and civic duty, which have become to greater or lesser extents foundational in contemporary democracies—in ideology, if nothing else—that dispatch offered less investigation into political philosophies than it did into economic policies as potential remedies for today’s social instability. Therefore, in the interest of offering a menu with the most wholesome diet we can scrape together, it will behoove us to take another look at political philosophy in the ancient world as embodied in Plato’s The Republic.Because maybe—just maybe—ancient wisdom might still illuminate the path forward in our complex world. You think so? Let’s find out!Of course, we’re not the first to investigate how we’d estimate Plato’s politics in the modern day, or his political alignment. In May, Michael Millerman—whom we noted in June as one of our principal sources on Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory—offered “Was Plato a Communist or Fascist?” to explore various comparisons between Plato’s political philosophy and modern ideologies.Millerman begins by introducing the contrasting modern interpretations of Plato’s works, particularly The Republic, as being either proto-communist or proto-fascist. As the basis for these interpretations, he highlights (at ~0:56) the ideas of women and property being held in common, of no private family, and of the extension of equality as proto-communist, before presenting (at ~1:24) the idea of a philosopher-king, a hierarchical political community, the denigration of individual rights and liberties, and Plato’s emphasis on virtue and excellence over equality as proto-fascist.That said, Millerman emphasizes (at ~2:34) the need to understand Plato’s true intentions beyond the ideological lenses of communism, fascism, or liberalism. Instead, he suggests that Plato’s ideas, such as the community of wives and children, are meant to explore the tension between the common good and individual interests, as well as the limits of justice in a political community. Millerman goes on to discuss (at ~6:00) further perspectives on the philosopher-king, and describes how some see it as advocating a form of technocracy, or rule by experts. Still, he contrasts the more holistic virtues of the philosopher-king against modern technocrats, who claim expertise in limited domains but seek to rule over all aspects of society.While he acknowledges the cause that some readers have for viewing Plato as a proto-communist, a proto-fascist, or a proto-technocrat, Millerman exhorts us again to abandon our natural inclinations to interpret Plato’s works through the lens of modern ideologies, and instead focus on understanding his true intentions. Instead we ought to study Plato’s works to gain insights into political life, human nature, the limits of a political community, the tension between the common good and individual interests, the pursuit of justice and virtue, and the limitations of specific domains of knowledge when they seek to universalize themselves.Millerman seems understanding about why some among us might trace the ancestry of multiple modern ideologies back to Plato, much as he hastens to caution us against staging any of them as The Republic’s truest heir. Indeed, the relationship between our contemporary ideologies and that ancient masterpiece of Western philosophy are hardly direct—but I’ll tell you one thing: Peter Coffin sure don’t think Plato was no communist.In his Plato Is a B***h (2024), Coffin offers a scathing critique that mixes humor and biting commentary. After beginning his documentary with reference to Plato’s famous allegory of the cave—in which prisoners take shadows on a cave wall for reality until a philosopher-king escapes outside into the intelligible realm, illustrating how people are trapped in limited perceptions and remain unaware of a broader reality—Coffin’s analysis quickly shifts to a more critical tone, labeling Plato as an elitist who advocated for a society where only those who belong to the select class of the philosopher-kings should rule, based on their supposed wisdom and understanding of higher realities, with the masses deemed too ignorant to participate in governance. Coffin accordingly argues that Plato’s vision is not only out-of-touch but also dangerously elitist, promoting a rigid hierarchy where power and wisdom are reserved for a select few. Drawing parallels between Plato’s ideas and modern society, he suggests that, with their efforts to control information and decision-making while the masses remain in the dark, the current ruling elites resemble Plato’s philosopher-kings—at least in their own minds, and in the prevailing ideologies promoted to justify the status quo. He also criticizes (at ~24:05) Plato’s support for eugenics and population control as methods to maintain social order, and connects (at ~25:08) these ideas to darker aspects of history, such as Nazism. Interestingly, Coffin’s reference here to Plato’s support for eugenics builds on criticisms that the documentarian previously aired in Less Sucks: Overpopulation, Eugenics, and Degrowth (2022), wherein he traces (at ~6:39–9:50 in that work) Thomas Malthus’ 18th-century concerns about overpopulation back to Plato’s own views on population control and governance, even when Earth’s population was much smaller, and to his belief that unchecked growth would lead to resource scarcity and war. Coffin mocks these beliefs as unrealistic and self-serving, with the philosopher-kings—supposedly the only ones who know what’s truly good—ruling and imposing strict population controls to maintain societal balance while being themselves exempt from such restrictions. In the same work, Coffin returns (at ~58:58–1:06:33) again to Plato, criticizing Plato’s proposal in The Republic for philosopher-kings to regulate reproduction as an ancestor to the ideas of Francis Galton and modern eugenics. These ideas influenced oppressive policies in the U.S. during the early 20th century, where forced sterilization targeted those deemed inferior, and these practices in turn inspired Nazi Germany’s genocidal policies. Therefore, Plato’s self-aggrandizing idea of the philosopher-king launched a historic cycle of elitism and oppression wherein the ruling classes justify their dominance—which those ruling classes must protect against the threat of growing “inferior” populations, leading to dangerous ideologies that devalue human life and culminating in practices like eugenics and genocide.Throughout his 2024 film, too, Coffin similarly dismisses Plato’s philosophy for its self-serving theorizing with which a ruling class justifies its political power, while highlighting further its disconnection from real-world struggles. For that reason, he therefore contrasts it against Marxism, which he views as more grounded in material reality and social change.Having outlined the tension and opposition between Plato’s political philosophy and communism, Coffin’s documentary turns then to an exploration of how debates around artificial intelligence, creativity, and plagiarism relate to capitalist property relations, class divides, the consolidation of power, and justification ideologies that focus blame on individuals rather than systemic factors. Importantly for our purposes here, Coffin connects (at ~31:43) Plato’s concept of justice from The Republic—which involves everyone fulfilling their role without interfering in anyone else’s business, thereby forming a harmonious whole—to modern issues of originality in creative work. Though many independent digital content creators view those who copy original ideas as disrupting the natural order of creativity, threatening authenticity and the meaningful expression of original thought, Coffin argues instead that calls from modern creators to respect these supposed boundaries of originality only echo Plato’s advocacy for everyone to “know their place” and stay in their own lane. The corresponding notion of “real” creators versus “imposters” represents for him an ideology that reinforces this undemocratic dynamic. Accordingly, he challenges the idea of absolute originality, suggesting that, because it involves remixing and building upon existing ideas and works, all creativity is inherently derivative. From here, Coffin goes on to argue that intellectual property laws in capitalist republics constrain creative work to protect the interests of the owning class rather than to safeguard creativity, thereby funneling value created by labor to those owning the final (intellectual) property, and suggests that the legal system is designed to maintain existing power structures and perpetuate the concentration of wealth and control over creative works in the hands of large corporations and platform owners. Contrasting AI’s remixing of finite data sets versus the open-ended experiential stream informing human creativity over time, he argues that AI is simply a tool which can aid production, but which can’t replicate the contextual shaping involved in human creative choices. In Coffin’s appraisal, AI has the potential to democratize the creative process, and its detractors among established creators only criticize it because they view it as a threat to their authenticity and originality: in other words, a threat to their status as the would-be philosopher-kings of digital content, and to the traditional notions of creativity and ownership on which they stake their claims to said status. Accordingly, the contemporary debate around AI plagiarism obscures examination of power, class interests, and how property relations function as a determining factor in the directional transfer of economic value, distracting those who participate in it away from meaningful change.That, in Coffin’s view, amounts to a modern variation of the many arguments (and absurd implications thereof) found in The Republic to justify rule by supposed meritocratic elites, while the contemporary predilection to focus on the ethical debate of an individual’s actions only perpetuates status quo power structures. As an alternative, he champions a more collective and democratic approach to creativity, under which the focus shifts from individual ownership and gatekeeping to recognizing creativity as a shared human legacy. In this manner, Coffin calls for a critical examination of the control-mechanisms that restrict creative freedom, and for a reevaluation of the ethical and economic frameworks surrounding intellectual property. Creativity has always been collective, he argues persuasively, but capitalist frameworks have constrained it: therefore, rather than engaging in reactionary debates over “real” creators, Coffin advocates for structural changes in intellectual property law (and the cultural traditions surrounding it) in order to liberate human creative potentials from the yoke of its contemporary mode of economic production.If Coffin is any indication, then it looks like the communists would push back against allegations of Plato having been their predecessor. Indeed, they seem much more likely to identify him as a proto-fascist.So, with that in mind, what do you suppose fascists might think about Plato?Hard for me to say really: I don’t follow any self-identified fascists. Regarding what they might think of Plato or The Republic, I can only at this moment assemble vague ideas like researching what ______ thought about it. (Current leading candidates for filling that blank include Julius Evola and Georges Sorel, both of whom I estimate as predecessors to the discourse now circling in the traditionalist-reactionary sphere.)But here at Radio Free Pizza, we’re not so much in the market right now for further schools of thought to incorporate into our trademark synthesis. Especially not when we can turn to some we’ve covered before, having already discussed earlier this year the association in popular culture between fascism and Friedrich Nietzsche. On the whole, we found that despite common misconceptions linking his philosophy to fascist ideologies, Nietzsche rejects key aspects of fascism—such as nationalism, antisemitism, racism, and the idolization of the state—and criticizes the authoritarianism and political oppression inherent in fascism, with the state’s expansion of power stifling individual and cultural development, while merging of state and corporate power limits human potential. Nonetheless, the misinterpretation and appropriation of Nietzsche’s ideas by fascists make the popular association a difficult one to shake. But if Plato was indeed a proto-fascist, then Nietzsche’s feelings about Plato would likely diminish his association in popular culture with that ideological descendant. Or anyway, that’s my understanding from Keegan Kjeldsen of The Nietzsche Podcast. In his own overview of The Republic from 2022, he examines the key themes of the text—including, of course, the aforementioned concept of justice (which Plato staged as a virtue that manifests in one’s character and actions, akin to morality), along with the vision of an ideal state governed by philosopher-kings ruling over a hierarchical caste system. For that reason, Kjeldsen emphasizes that The Republic is not just a political text but is primarily framed as a moral text—one exploring the nature of justice and whether a just person is happier than an unjust one—that we must understand in terms of its own political context, since, in it, Plato implicitly assesses the cycles of revolution and the failures of various forms of government throughout Ancient Greece.Kjeldsen of course describes early on how Plato presents his mentor Socrates as defining “justice” not just as giving people their due, but as putting things in their proper place: as focusing attention on proper tasks based on social function. In contrast, then, “injustice” for Socrates means that the distinct parts of an individual or society have trespassed into each other’s roles. That stands in stark contrast to the view of Thrasymachus, whom Plato presents as challenging Socrates by arguing that the unjust person is happier and that justice serves the interests of the powerful. In this way, Thrasymachus represents a cynical view of politics as the exercise of power for self-interest. As Kjeldsen tells us, Socrates responds by proposing an analogy of the ideal city as a way to understand justice on a larger scale—as well as why it’s the most rewarding—to set the stage for The Republic’s central arguments. With this analogy, Socrates introduces the tripartite model of the soul with intellect, spirit and base urges. Kjeldsen explains how this model corresponds to the three classes of society in Plato’s ideal state: the philosopher-kings (reason), the auxiliaries or soldiers (spirit), and the productive class (desires). From this, it follows for Socrates that the just society is one in which each class fulfills its proper function, with reason governing the whole—and (for some reason) one in which there is no private property, with tight control of art and education to instill proper habits and principles.Kjeldsen goes on to discuss how Plato’s emphasis on education and the censorship of art and poetry to shape the minds of the ruling class and ensuring the preservation of the ideal state. Examining Plato’s arguments for allowing only certain forms of art that promote virtue and reason, while censoring works that incite harmful emotions or challenge the state’s principles, Kjeldsen introduces (at ~1:22:59) the concept of the “noble lie”—perhaps better translated as “magnificent myth”—as a way to foster social unity through myth and shared beliefs. Although it involves rulers consciously fostering falsehoods, Plato suggests (through Socrates) that such myths are necessary to create social unity and give citizens a shared identity. This concept, though contentious, reflects a compromise between the demand for reason and the recognition that society often relies on shared beliefs, even if they are not literally true. Drawing on ancient religious themes to illustrate this, The Republic suggests that people must believe they are born of the earth and are therefore obligated to protect their land and fellow citizens—underscoring the importance of equitable distribution of landholdings, as we discussed last month in the context of Ancient Rome.Here, we learn also that (Plato’s staging of) Socrates’ critique of art in a political context is central to his philosophy, seeing art's emotional and irrational nature as detrimental to the ideal society. Meanwhile, Kjeldsen notes that Nietzsche (misappropriated here as our stand-in fascist) recognized this hostility as a key aspect of Socrates’ character, while identifying the apparent paradox in Socrates’ suggestion that only a philosopher-king who is properly educated from a young age could rule justly—though such a philosopher-king could only be raised within a system already governed by philosopher-kings, naturally making the concept impractical.In this way, Kjeldsen describes how Plato’s political theory emphasizes the importance of education in shaping the minds of those who would rule, believing that the character of rulers is more crucial than specific policies. Accordingly, Plato advocates for molding individuals to fit into the societal roles necessary for the unity of society, even if it requires manipulation of intellectual development—a notion that may seem problematic to modern sensibilities, despite the acknowledged importance of instilling values in younger generations.That leads the host to discuss (at ~1:30:47) Plato’s aforementioned allegory of the cave, demonstrating how only reason and not the senses can apprehend truth and gain knowledge of enduring patterns or eternal “forms.” We learn how this allegory serves as a metaphor for Plato’s epistemology and his belief in the superiority of reason over the senses, with the philosopher-king—represented by the prisoner who escapes the cave—being the only one capable of perceiving the true, intelligible realm of forms, including the “Form of the Good.” The allegory thus highlights Plato’s elevation of abstract reason as both the highest virtue and the path to true knowledge.The same, however, provides the philosopher slandered here as a fascist with the grounds for his critique of Plato. While acknowledging how Nietzsche would celebrate Plato’s recognition of the connection between the state and the cultivation of genius, Kjeldsen explains how the former finds the latter’s work steeped in moral prejudices—particularly his elevation of the ideal over the real and his condemnation of the sensory world in favor of the abstract realm of forms, which Nietzsche viewed as distorting reality to serve Plato’s own aims—and diagnoses his entire project as a symptom of Ancient Greece’s declining cultural vitality, and, in the final analysis, as a rejection of life itself. Accordingly, Nietzsche sees Plato as a precursor to the Christianity he so often criticized, and as a contributor to the devaluation of life in favor of abstract ideals, devaluing and slandering actual life while proffering an unrealizable vision that Nietzsche finds both impractical and—in light of his own concept of “the will to power”—ultimately undesirable.So far we’ve seen that Marxists like Coffin critique the supposedly proto-communist Plato for how his concept of philosopher-kings—elite rulers deemed uniquely wise—promotes a rigid, hierarchical society in which power and wisdom are reserved for a select few and the masses are excluded from governance. That idea, and the associated governance policies which The Republic proposes those philosopher-kings should adopt, connect to the origins of eugenics and the oppressive policies that followed (including those in Nazi Germany) suggesting that Plato’s vision laid the groundwork for dangerous ideologies that devalue human life: not such a good thing for a guy who would stage himself as one of the only guys who knows what’s good!But meanwhile, even those like Nietzsche, whose own ideas are (wrongly) cited as inspirations for Nazi ideology, critique Plato’s elevation of abstract ideals over sensory experience as a distortion of reality that devalues the living world. Those metaphysics undergird a hierarchical caste system that prioritizes reason and intellectual development over individual freedoms, and from the top of which philosopher-kings deploy one or another “noble lie” that, in deceit, persuades each class to simply fulfill its designated role in the interest of maintaining social unity. That in mind, it seems like our stand-in fascist might agree that, yes, Plato was a proto-fascist. (Thus demonstrating, I suppose, how much we’ve mischaracterized him here.) But knowing how often people superficially trace the ancestry of Nazism to Nietzsche, we can’t just take his assessment as confirmation: after all, maybe he’s the real fascist! Besides, we still need to ask whether it might be most accurate to call Plato a proto-technocrat. If you think it is, then I’d say that you and Jay Dyer are on the same page.Dyer—whom we previously featured in our February dispatch on the coronavirus pandemic—first introduces the topic of technocracy, its history, and how it relates to transhumanism, before tracing (at ~3:04) its origins back to Plato’s Republic and its proposal for a society structured like a pyramid, with philosopher-kings at the top controlling and engineering the lower classes through myths. As Dyer tells us (at ~6:00), Plato’s ideas generated the ideologies and visions for a technocratic society of 20th century British elites like Bertrand Russell, H.G. Wells, Aldous and Julian Huxley, and Lord Birkenhead, who together planned global technocratic dictatorships based on eugenics and social engineering with a genetically modified and tightly controlled population. Importantly for our discussion here, Dyer indicates (at ~9:22–15:18) his assessment of Plato as a proto-communist, with the philosopher inspiring the aforementioned elite of the British Empire in their efforts to control society through centralized, rational governance. In his analysis, socialism and communism shares with The Republic a utopian idea of eliminating private property to eradicate greed, which Dyer dismisses as naive because it ignores human nature. Instead, he argues that these ideologies are test tubes for elites to experiment with social engineering and central control, ultimately leading to a global technocratic dictatorship. (In fact, Dyer notes [at ~12:58] how Julian Huxley coined the term “transhumanism,” which the analyst considers the guiding philosophy of the globalist elite throughout the 20th century.) This agenda, according to Dyer, is masked by rebranding strategies (such as renaming eugenics as “family planning”) and receives the support of Western elites who favor a synthesis of imperialist monopoly capitalism and authoritarian “socialism” to maintain power—though around here, we just call that fascism.Interestingly, he points (at ~7:57 and again at ~15:22) to the Vietnam War as an early R&D test-bed for modern technocratic surveillance and control techniques that were later expanded globally. (Specific examples of such techniques include studying and manipulating populations through ethnography, perfecting drone warfare, experimenting with chemical spraying like Agent Orange, integrated tracking systems, and relocating populations into strategic hamlets.) For Dyer, this provides another example of how elites use war as a tool for social engineering and advancing technocratic agendas. He describes (at ~10:56) how, throughout World War I and World War II, these British elites focused on “figuring out ways to bring America back under the aegis of that British Malthusian attitude”—referring to the same Thomas Malthus whom the aforementioned Coffin linked to Plato in his Less Sucks (2022), as discussed above—which “explains why the Western elite have always supported both the fascists and the Marxists [slash] communists across the world: even though there was a kind of a Cold War play going on of opposition between east and west […] at the top, the people who are running things, they’re looking toward that synthesis which they call ‘the Third Way’”—or so Carroll Quigley called it, anyway, as a name for the same ideology guiding the aims of central bankers, as we covered in May.Usefully for us, Dyer also offers his full lecture series on Plato’s Republic for further investigation, much of which the analyst offers for free. In the first of those (free) lectures, he unpacks (at ~19:25) The Republic’s Book 1 dialogue between Socrates and the sophist Thrasymachus, who represents the relativistic and nihilistic view that justice is merely the interest of the stronger party. Socrates refutes this position, arguing that true rulers must act in the interest of their subjects and that justice is a virtue rooted in wisdom. An understanding of this, Dyer informs us (at ~11:34), is what differentiates the philosopher-king: the ability of whom to perceive the true forms or essences of reality beneath its has appearances has endowed the philosopher-king with wisdom and virtue, making him the best suited to govern the ideal society—which Dyer contrasts against the flaws of democracy, which Plato sees as catering to the baser desires of the masses. In his (free) lecture on Book 4, Dyer delves (at ~4:15) into the concept of eugenics, its origins in Greek thought, and its evolution through thinkers like the aforementioned Thomas Malthus and Francis Galton in the British Empire, before discussing the potential for abuse by the state in controlling breeding and population, and drawing parallels to dystopian fiction like Brave New World and Logan’s Run. His (free) lecture on Book 5 details some harms that result from such state controls, discussing (at ~1:12) the abolition of private property and family for the auxiliary guardian class for which Plato advocates, and (at ~10:06) the philosopher’s proposed system of selective breeding and population control overseen by the rulers. The best men and women would be paired together to produce superior offspring—with the philosopher-kings using festivals and lotteries to arrange marriages secretly, even as the betrothed believe they’ve naturally fallen in love—while inferior offspring would be discarded or hidden away.Dyer’s (free) lecture on Book 4 discusses the qualities of philosophers that Plato identifies as those suitable for rulers, as they alone possess the “true knowledge” that renders them supremely virtuous and wise, and which makes them the best candidates to govern, especially in times of crisis—so long, of course, as these true philosophers have been properly nurtured and trained. But among these philosopher-kings surely don’t number any of the sophists against whom we learn (at ~5:48) The Republic contrasts Socrates as more concerned with popularity and money than ascertaining eternal, objective truths. The relativism of the sophists, and their implied interest in base pleasures and material possessions, underscores for Plato the importance of a good upbringing and education for nurturing philosophical natures. His (free) lecture on Book 7 further details (at ~25:11) the rigorous philosophical training provided to the philosopher-kings across various disciplines such as mathematics, military service, rhetoric, and dialectics, and finally culminating in the study of practical political philosophy.In Dyer’s (free) lecture on Book 8, we learn (at ~3:52) about Socrates’ description of the four types of government and individuals, which represent the stages of degeneration from the ideal state of the philosopher-kings: the timocracy, ruled by the spirited class and likened to the Homeric tradition of warrior heroes; such declines into oligarchy, ruled by the wealthy class and driven by the pursuit of money; this devolves next to democracy, characterized by the rule of passions and the pandering to the masses; and finally it degenerates into tyranny and anarchy, as the lack of reason and order allows the most persuasive demagogue to seize power. Intriguingly, Dyer draws (at ~6:33) his own parallels between Plato’s critique of democracy and Nietzsche’s ideas in his On the Genealogy of Morality (1887), as if seeking to complement the analysis from Kjeldsen that we covered above. Dyer suggests here that Nietzsche’s distinction between the elite class and the common people aligns with Plato’s view of the timocracy, and argues that both philosophers saw democracy as a system that caters to the passions and desires of the masses, rather than one guided by reason and virtue. (After touching on Nietzsche’s idea of the origin of morality stemming from the distinction between the elite and the common, Dyer leaves us here at Radio Free Pizza feeling suspicious that any philosopher-kings would be quite so virtuous as Plato would have us believe—at least by anyone else’s standards.)Dyer concludes his (free) lecture series with a recapitulation of his analysis culminating (at ~5:18) in a detailed reading of Book 10’s Myth of Er, which discusses the afterlife, reincarnation, and the cosmic order. He draws parallels here between this myth and other religious and philosophical traditions, such as the Biblical creation account. Considered alongside the views presented in The Republic on the role of poetry and mythology in society—particularly the belief that the poets should be censored due to their potential to manipulate emotions and incite revolution—these parallels lead us to important considerations about Plato’s position as the master of both logos and mythos, combining philosophy and mythology in his works. These in mind, we might therefore ask: are the instincts to justify one’s own rule with appeals to cosmic order, and the prescription of persuasive myths to explain that order, fundamental features of the technocrats?Reviewing the potential influence of The Republic on the modern political ideologies of communism, fascism, and technocracy, we’ve seen how Marxists like Coffin criticize Plato’s concept of philosopher-kings, arguing that it promotes a hierarchical society where power is reserved for an elite few, which connects to the origins of eugenics and oppressive policies like those in Nazi Germany. Meanwhile, though he’s often wrongly associated with Nazism, we’ve seen too how Nietzsche critiques Plato’s emphasis on abstract ideals over sensory experience, arguing in essence that this diminishes the quality of human life.Dyer, on the other hand, argues that Plato’s ideas, particularly the hierarchical structure of society in The Republic, laid the groundwork for technocracy: a system where a technocratic elite controls society through centralized governance and social engineering. He locates its influence in 20th-century British elites who envisioned global technocratic dictatorships based on eugenics and social control—while linking these ideas to transhumanism and modern technocratic agendas—and suggests that, because of its emphasis on control of the population through myths and social engineering, Plato’s vision aligns well with these ideologies, for which Dyer argues that both communism and fascism served as intermediary stages of development.Eagle-eyed readers will have surely noted the slightly dismissive treatment we afforded the connection that Dyer draws (in the embedded video above) between Plato’s ideal state and communism. With due respect to the much admired analyst, it seems to us that he’s employing the dialect of the traditionalist-reactionary sphere. That said, it’s interesting therefore to note that another proposal from The Republic offers a generous treatment on feminism, an ideological issue so important to the professional-managerial sphere. Dyer notes in his (free) lecture on Book 5 how Plato advocates for women to receive the same education as men and to serve as guardians alongside men. For more on this topic, it seems appropriate to turn instead to the late Dr. Michael Sugrue—the distinguished academic known for his expertise in history, philosophy, and the humanities—who is often celebrated for his engaging lectures, focused on making complex philosophical ideas accessible to students and the general public, many of which thankfully still remain available for our analysis. Today we’ll look at his “Plato, Socrates and the Dialogues” lectures from The Great Minds of the Western Intellectual Tradition.Through these three lectures, Sugrue discusses in depth the major themes, characters, and arguments presented in this seminal book. In the first, he analyses the symbolism of Socrates “going down” to the Piraeus, the democratic centre of Athens, and how this foreshadows the theme of the philosopher descending among the people. This discussion eventually brings Sugrue (at ~27:00) to Thrasymachus’ challenge in Book 1 for Socrates to define justice, claiming himself that justice is the interest of the stronger—a cynical view of political power untethered from ethics. Socrates proceeds to dismantle this argument through examples of other arts or techniques, showing that each seeks the good of its object or domain, not the personal interest of the practitioner. But while Socrates has reduced Thrasymachus to silence, Sugrue points out that his argument has not been fully refuted, as Socrates intends to provoke a deeper discussion with Glaucon and Adeimantus.In his second lecture, Sugrue starts off explaining how Glaucon and Adeimantus delivered that deeper discussion in Book 2, challenging Socrates to prove that justice is intrinsically good, rather than just beneficial for its consequences. Glaucon presents the myth of the Ring of Gyges, which grants invisibility, to argue that no one would choose to be just if they could get away with injustice. He therefore demands that Socrates show justice is desirable in itself, even if the just person suffers while the unjust person prospers.To address Glaucon’s challenge, Sugrue tells us (at ~13:39), Socrates proposes constructing a “city in speech” as a model to examine justice on a larger scale. They begin by envisioning a minimal “city of necessity” based on the division of labor, with each person performing a single craft. However, Glaucon objects that this is too austere, leading to the conception of a “feverish city” with luxuries, which necessitates the introduction of a guardian class to maintain order. As Sugrue tells it (at ~19:24–20:28), the attributes of that guardian class express Plato’s antagonism toward change and difference:Plato, throughout this book, is going to be fighting a running battle against history. He says, “Stop the world. Stop historical development. I want this to be frozen in time.” Once Plato gets a good city, a good political order, well, then any change is deterioration. So that means that once you get it right, if we manage to find out what the ideal good city is, then we have to completely arrest all changes. One of the most important mechanisms for the arresting of change is to create a warrior elite that is antagonistic to all innovation. Remember that in the ancient world, to call someone an innovator is generally speaking a put-down: it’s an accusation […] So what Plato wants to do is eliminate all innovation. He’s going to get the job right the first time, figure out what the good society is—and that’s capital-T ‘The Good Society’—and then once we do that, freeze all change. From here we learn (at ~20:45) how Socrates outlines the education required for that guardian class, consisting of music (arts and literature) to cultivate the soul, and gymnastics to train the body. He advocates censoring poets like Homer whose works promote immoral behavior, and instead promoting new poets who uphold virtuous ideals. The guardians will be inculcated with the “noble lie” that they are born with different metals (gold, silver, bronze) in their souls, which determine their place in the tripartite class system that prevents social mobility. Sugrue tells us (at ~36:11) how Socrates maps these three classes of the ideal city (golden philosophers, silver guardians, bronze workers) onto the three parts of the human soul (reason, spirit, appetite). Justice is defined as the harmonious interaction of the corresponding virtues—wisdom (philosophers), courage (guardians), moderation (workers)—to become itself the overarching fourth virtue governing the proper relationship between the three classes of the city as well as the three parts of the soul.Finally, Sugrue proceeds (at ~39:02) to discuss Socrates’ three radical proposals, which he identifies as follows: * Feminism: women should receive the same education and perform the same societal roles as men, except for physically demanding tasks. * Communism: the abolition of the family and private property for the guardian class, to be replaced by a system of eugenics and communal living. * The Philosopher-King: the idea that only philosophers who have attained knowledge of the Form of the Good should rule the ideal city.In other words, Socrates introduces what we called above “an ideological issue so important to the professional-managerial sphere” (feminism) alongside not only the principal ideological target of the traditionalist-reactionary sphere (communism), but the clearest analogy in The Republic to modern-day technocracy (the philosopher-king).Sugrue’s third lecture covers Books 6–10, providing an in-depth analysis of Plato’s analogy of the divided line—from which the philosopher derives reality’s division into four levels: images (shadows, reflections, and art), objects of sense perception, mathematical objects, and the forms—with the philosopher-king privileged as the ideal ruler who has attained knowledge of the forms (particularly the Form of the Good) through dialectic. These ontological and epistemological doctrines, then, provide the foundation for Plato’s philosophy. However, as we learn from Sugrue’s discussion (at ~23:51) of the allegory of the cave, the philosopher who discovers the true reality of the forms outside the cave are met with skepticism and resistance upon their return inside.Hearing of Plato’s staging here of those trapped in the realm of images as, it seems to me, simply too unenlightened to accept the cosmically justified authority of the all-perceiving philosopher-king, I see the potential now for further complications arising in The Republic’s presentation of how the ideal state degenerates, as Dyer’s (free) lecture on Book 8 discussed above, and which Sugrue discusses (at ~31:09) here. Specifically, if Socrates’ five types of regimes—the ideal city (philosopher-king), timocracy (honor-loving), oligarchy (wealth-loving), democracy (pleasure-loving), and tyranny (desire-driven)—demonstrate for him the importance of education and censorship of poetry for maintaining a just society, wouldn’t that prohibition itself prevent the returned philosopher-king from communicating with those base workers who know reality only through images? Not, it seems, if the philosopher-king takes command of the mythos: after all, Sugrue tells us (at ~41:11) while discussing the philosopher as educator, Socrates presents the Myth of Er as a poetic device, thereby illustrating how such can convey philosophical arguments to those who can’t grasp them directly—though without permitting those base workers who populate the “city of necessity” to contribute their own perspectives to this controlled dialectic. But perhaps we should measure their virtue according to their willingness to pursue truth outside of it.Those, of course, are only my spare thoughts and half-conceived objections to the rationale that Plato presents through Socrates. Naturally, Sugrue’s lectures offer a deeper analysis of The Republic’s themes beyond those of justice, the role of the guardian class, and the education required for them that we’ve emphasized here. Certainly we could say more about his treatment on feminism and the abolition of family and private property, especially in connection to Plato’s dubious fortune of providing modern eugenics with its classical ancestry. Still, what seems to deserve our more immediate attention would be the epistemological and ontological doctrines according to which Plato arrives at his understanding of the forms—particularly the Form of the Good, upon which the philosopher-king would supposedly base his regime.But maybe it’s worth asking if that ambition even has any merit. If, as Dyer proposes above, The Republic laid the foundation for a society in which a technocratic elite controls society through centralized governance, social engineering, and eugenics—according to the vision of 20th-century British elites expressed as an ideology from which descends that known today as transhumanism—then we here at Radio Free Pizza might land in the same territory as Nietzsche, finding sensory experience so much more valuable than Plato’s abstract ideals, or (otherwise) grounded in the same concrete reality in which Marx discovered his political economy.I imagine it does have merit: after all, as we noted at the start, one could hardly point to a philosopher more influential than Plato or to a text more impactful than The Republic. That said, our rejection of their emphasis on controlling myths and education raises questions about how our own ideal (civilization-) state would overcome the challenge of communicating the “Form of the Good” or any other. On this subject, Coffin’s analysis of Plato covered earlier offers us some useful considerations. Though the philosopher would surely have it that AI-generated art represents an amalgamation of the content belonging to (as Sugrue indicates in his third lecture above) reality’s lowest realm—that of images—the critique we’re innovating here would aim to empower our “base workers” to engage in the dialectic through which one eventually discovers the Form of the Good. With that aim in mind, it seems to us that we ought to reconsider the “justice” of intellectual property law, and attempt reforming it to prevent the concentration of control over creative works—the power to dictate censorship, in other words—within the hands of our contemporary capitalist republic’s oligarchic ruling class. Indeed, it seems to us that any systemic critique of controls that restrict creative freedom (rather than engaging in reactionary debates about individual authenticity or originality that serve merely to reward the existing reward structures that prioritize ownership over labor) will do quite a lot more to help uplift humanity—both in terms of the art we enjoy, and in terms of the virtue we realize—than those who demand the control and curation of AI systems instead of simply recognizing creativity as a shared human legacy held in common.In doing so, we could even hope to do something to address the symptom of contemporary decline that we’ve been calling “cultural austerity”—or even (one would hope) to eliminate any hint or trace of the kakistocracy that we discussed in July. Regardless, however, it seems to us that “the ideal state’s” emphasis ought to land not on censorship for the sake of shaping the minds of its ruling class, but for enlightening that of its base. The injunction that all persons should realize as best they can their individual potential to arrive at a magnificent truth seems to us a more unifying doctrine than any “noble lie”—and it seems likely to do our species well, with new poets who uphold virtuous ideals surely appearing if society enjoins its members to seek such truths.That’s at least a good start toward counteracting the authoritarian and hierarchical systems that might trace their lineage through Plato. While we here might bristle when an analyst like Dyer refers to “communism” as understood in the traditionalist-reactionary sphere—since we prefer to call the contemporary political tendencies under imperialist monopoly capitalism something more like “international corporatism” or “fascist globalism”—still, that shouldn’t dissuade us from studying The Laws of Plato, as Dyer suggests (at ~22:10) in the final installment of his (free) lecture series that we’ve covered today. In revisiting Plato’s The Republic, we uncover timeless insights that resonate with today’s political challenges. While his vision of an ideal state, governed by philosopher-kings, may seem distant from our modern liberal democracies, the underlying principles of justice, the role of wisdom in leadership, and the importance of a well-ordered society continue to offer valuable guidance. As we navigate global crises and social change, Plato’s theories remind us of the enduring need for thoughtful governance and the pursuit of a just society—though they do so without withholding the avenues through which we might most insightfully interrogate them. In exploring these ancient ideas, we find not just historical curiosity but potential blueprints for addressing the complexities of our present and future: in other words, just what we’re looking for.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Last Sunday some turkey (“a stupid, foolish, or inept person”) named Ryan Wesley Routh was arrested in West Palm Beach, Florida, after an alleged assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump on the links of his golf club—the second such attempt on Trump this year. Secret Service agents fired (first, this time) on the alleged attempted assassin after Trump had finished the course’s fifth hole—a par three, at which neither of them got a shot. Routh has a long criminal history (including a 2002 charge for possessing a “weapon of mass destruction”: a machine gun) and more recent political interests: once a supporter of Trump, he became a vocal critic following the 6 January 2021 entrapment at the U.S. Capitol, thereafter donating to Democratic causes and promoting support for Ukraine after Russia’s 2022 invasion. The Dissident published a profile of Routh the next day—or some might call it a review of his Ukraine’s Unwinnable War (2023), which has since been removed from Amazon. (Unless that link is working again.) As one would expect from the author of a book with a title like that, Routh had a strong ideological connection to the Ukraine-Russia war. After volunteering to fight in Ukraine and being rejected by the army for his age and inexperience—maybe that’s why he decided to try taking a shot at Trump: “I’ll show them!”—he remained in the country to recruit for Ukraine’s foreign volunteer Georgian Legion. Meanwhile, his book reveals his obsession with the war, his disdain for Russia, and his frustration with Ukraine’s lack of enthusiasm for foreign fighters like himself. He advocates for compulsory military drafts in Ukraine and other extreme measures to defeat Russia, including advocating for nuclear strikes. In The Dissident’s analysis, Routh’s extreme views on the war and dissatisfaction with Western inaction seemingly motivated the assassination attempt, as he feared Trump might end U.S. support for Ukraine. At the time of that analysis’ publication, the media had mostly ignored Routh’s pro-war motivations and his previous involvement in Ukraine.A few hours later, The Duran released its own coverage of this latest assassination attempt from a geopolitical perspective.Here, Alex Christoforou and Alexander Mercouris first express (at ~1:18) their concern over the lack of significant attention from the political class, media, and Western world regarding the two assassination attempts on a potential future U.S. president within a short span of time during an election cycle. They argue that this should be ringing alarm bells but does not seem to be treated as a dominant or major story.Speculating on the potential motives behind the second attempt, the hosts hypothesize (at ~4:33) a link with the prevalent rhetoric and narrative surrounding Ukraine’s conflict with Russia, portraying it as an existential battle for the future of Ukraine, the West, democracy, and human civilization. The hosts opine that this rhetoric has attracted and potentially radicalized some individuals, leading them to view any Trump’s peace proposals as a betrayal of Ukraine—and, apparently, to deem him worthy of assassination for them. They also suggest (at ~19:29) that this incident, given Routh’s obsession with supporting Ukraine, may further alienate Trump’s supporters against continued U.S. involvement in the Ukraine conflict, viewing it as a threat to domestic political stability and the electoral process.But others seem to think more than just a desire to see the war in Ukraine continue motivated Routh to attempt Trump’s assassination: among them Ian Carroll—featured in our mid-year dispatch—who has been parsing as much of Routh’s social media presence as the internet has been able to archive before the FBI asked Big Tech to take it down. Carroll notes that Routh’s Twitter activity appears to be highly automated, and that he only followed 60 people on the platform, with one of the last people he followed being a former CIA employee, whom Carroll speculates could have been Routh’s “handler” or contact, with the relationship between their social media accounts potentially indicating his ties to intelligence agencies. From here, the researcher then delves into Routh’s background, noting that he has connections to institutions like Johns Hopkins University, which has ties to the CIA and military-industrial complex, as well as the Rand Corporation and LMI Org—“military-industrial complex think tanks.” After mentioning Routh’s criminal record, including his aforementioned charge in 2002 for possessing a weapon of mass destruction, Carroll goes on to discuss his alleged recruitment activities in Ukraine, where he was reportedly posting on his Facebook page about recruiting hundreds of civilians to fight for Ukraine. Certainly that’s unusual for a “random citizen from Hawaii,” fueling further speculation about the attempted assassin’s potential ties to intelligence agencies or military operations. In the end, Carroll concludes, “the war machine desperately needs the wars to escalate, and they’re not down with the MAGA folks shutting down the wars, and they are ready to kill people […] in order to perpetuate those wars.”Such an analysis accords well with that of Niko House—whom we’ve featured in bulletins from both July and August—who believes that Routh’s criminal history must guarantee that he’d been on the radar of the federal government (especially given the treatment most felons have come to expect in the U.S., raising questions about how he was able to evade close observation by law enforcement—especially given his recent attempts to recruit mercenaries to fight for a foreign government in the U.S.’s proxy war. Given that Trump wants nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine and does not like NATO, House points out (at ~2:34) the strategic policies implemented to “Trump-proof” aid from the U.S. to Ukraine, implying that there may be a connection between these factors and the assassination attempt to avoid the consequences of a potential second Trump presidency.Similar to The Duran’s coverage above, House also expresses concerns (at ~3:17) about the mainstream media’s lack of coverage on this incident, despite the seemingly suspicious circumstances surrounding it. Of course, in the two days since House released his coverage, more about Routh has trickled in through the mainstream establishment: for example, while working with the International Volunteer Center to recruit foreign fighters, Routh faced skepticism from both Ukrainian authorities and his own allies, which apparently generated the frustration that The Dissident mentioned above. His dedication led him to try lobbying in Washington, hoping to push U.S. leadership to pressure Ukraine into using the soldiers he recruited. With Routh remembered as well-meaning but increasingly obsessive, his ideas were dismissed as delusional, and his attempted assassination of Trump has forced Ukrainian officials, however, to publicly deny any connection, emphasizing that Routh has no ties to the country’s military or government.Certainly the geopolitical context of Routh’s personal history makes his story tricky to cover or comment on, both for the establishment media and for Western vassals—for imperialist proxies in general, I suppose. After all, in the same dispatch from last October to which we linked above while describing the events of 6 January 2021 as “entrapment,” we quoted the white-supremacist antisemite Christopher Pohlhaus saying at a neo-Nazi rally (also in Florida), “I think Biden’s better than Trump because he sends rockets to Ukraine.”Maybe it sounds strange to some that both Pohlhaus the neo-Nazi and Routh the Ukraine supporter should express (in their own ways) a disinclination toward Trump—or, at least, that only Routh would so far act on it. But keep in mind too that our aforementioned dispatch also discussed then the National Endowment for Democracy (NED)—initially created by the CIA to promote U.S. interests during the Cold War, and which has continued since then to advance the neoconservative agendas—and its role in Ukraine before the Maidan uprising of 2014, including pressuring the country’s then-President Yanukovych to accept trade agreements with the EU before NED-supported projects cultivated the protests that led to his ousting. Those protests involved far-right paramilitary groups like the Azov Regiment—which (wouldn’t you know it?) showed Routh in one of its promotional videos from May 2022.(As an aside, Matthew Thomas Crooks—the first attempted Trump assassin—appeared in a BlackRock commercial as a high school student, and Routh was initially misreported as appearing in another commercial from the same company. Wouldn’t that have been something?! Especially since BlackRock has been consulting Ukraine since November 2022, and two of its former executives designed the economic policies of Trump’s opponent.)For that reason, it seems to us that the recent assassination attempt provides some potential evidence for the arguments of Rainer Shea and Jesse Wingert mentioned in our last bulletin: first, that leftist groups focused on armed radicalism are unwittingly serving the interests of (if not manipulated outright by) intelligence agencies, and only hinder true revolutionary progress; and, second, that these obstructive pan-leftist counter-gangs pose a greater threat to an anti-imperialist mass movement than their reactionary counterparts. Of course, we couldn’t go so far as to cast Trump himself as an anti-imperialist or as the leader of such a movement: however, he’s the candidate who has pledged to cut funding for Ukraine and claims to have plans to end the war even before taking office, while his opponent—who has given only as of yesterday the same number of interviews as her rival has survived assassination attempts—promises that she “will stand strong with Ukraine and our NATO allies.”Presumably both she and Routh would have also stood by the UK’s Boris Johnson in April 2022 when he flew to Kiev and persuaded Zelensky not to sign the peace deal that Ukraine and Russia had reached in Turkey.This latest attempt on Trump’s life highlights the increasingly complex intersection of U.S. foreign policy, intelligence operations, and domestic politics. Routh’s radicalized support for Ukraine demonstrates how geopolitical narratives can drive individuals to extreme actions. The incident also raises questions about media and governmental responses, particularly regarding how political motivations are presented or ignored—not to mention how the establishment media’s presentation of the Russia-Ukraine war might incite acts of extremism. As Trump remains a polarizing figure, his stance against U.S. involvement in Ukraine has become a focal point for both support and opposition, further complicating the national conversation on foreign intervention and domestic stability. While that conversation continues, we here at Radio Free Pizza will keep doing our best to amplify those voices who understand that imperialism abroad only produces instability at home—where (as best we can tell) some want to kill presidential candidates for not being pro-war enough. With any luck, their voices can help relax the domestic political tension: anyway, that sounds like a good start. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Happy U.S. Labor Day to all you Radio Free Pizza fanatics! On Monday we in the imperial core fired up our grills and enjoyed a well-deserved break for one of our comparatively few days off, and it therefore seems appropriate to reflect on the struggles and victories of the workers who fought for the rights we enjoy today: such as, for example, those workers whom the U.S. government needed to appease after federal troops killed striking workers during the Pullman Strike of 1894, but whom they also needed to prevent from organizing with the socialists on May Day. By creating Labor Day, the U.S. federal government sought to promote a less politically charged celebration of workers’ contributions.This special Labor Day edition of our irregularly posted bulletins takes advantage of the occasion to turn not for the first, nor for the second, but for the third time to the quixotic “MAGA Communism” and its ongoing development as a contemporary political phenomenon. So, to celebrate the spirit of solidarity that continues to shape our lives and communities, let’s dig into the latest progress in the American working class’s fight for political representation and economic justice. On that subject, this summer has seen some notable developments: specifically, the founding of the (newest) American Communist Party (ACP), to which we briefly gestured at the end of July. As the new party’s executive chairman, Haz al-Din—whom we featured in May as the originator of the “MAGA Communism” brand that produced the ACP—released the following video to commemorate the occasion, which @PeoplesPartyUS published to Instagram on the same 23 July.Al-Din expresses his gratitude for the enthusiasm and interest shown by the American public and by those in the international communist movement who have congratulated them on the party’s successful launch. These reactions, he says, “only vindicate something my comrades and I have known for a very long time: that, in the midst of the unprecedented crisis facing this nation, this country is wanting of a real communist party—a party that recognizes the common challenges facing the American working class.”The “Declaration of the American Communist Party” goes into greater detail on its motives in reconstituting of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA) as the ACP, arguing that the CPUSA has become ineffective, corrupt, and disconnected from the needs of the American proletariat, having failed to address the pressing historical challenges facing the nation. The current leadership is accused of undermining democratic processes, suppressing dissent, and aligning too closely with liberal ideologies. Due to these failures, the declaration asserts that the CPUSA has lost its legitimacy, necessitating the formation of a new party that genuinely reflects Marxist-Leninist principles and is capable of advancing the interests of the working class in the U.S.Given such an urgent need, Al-Din names the organizational integrity of their unifying party as its first accomplishment. Nonetheless, “we still recognize that our greatest challenges lie still yet ahead, and [we are] actually doing the real-world, on-the-ground-work to make impacts on the forgotten and abandoned communities of this country. Toward that end, our rank-and-file are even beginning to steadily make progress.”The ACP, he tells us, acknowledges that it must prove itself to the American public through actions, not just words, and stands ready to meet that challenge regardless of opposition. The party’s Twitter account offers some evidence for that: its Colorado chapter removed hazardous materials polluting the South Platte River and Cherry Creek trail; its California chapter distributed clothing to a hundred vulnerable persons on Los Angeles’ Skid Row and cleaned up sidewalks in the Bay Area; its New York chapter removed trash from Brooklyn’s Coney Island Park; its Texas chapter cleaned up Dallas’ Brownwood Park; its Pennsylvania chapter did the same for Philadelphia’s Fisher Park and distributed squash seeds to children in Clearfield County; its Illinois chapter cleaned a mile and a half of Lake Michigan shoreline; and its Washington chapter removed waste from Ravenna and Discovery Parks in Seattle.As it seems from News2Share’s 26 July interview with ACP supporters Jonathan Foster and Max Reed, these efforts to make a real-world impact on local communities reflect the typical interests of the average party member. Foster rejects the label of “MAGA Communism” as “a meme, a slogan, a means to an end,” but expresses an interest in building a bridge with the MAGA working class. Reed sees their party as continuing the American revolutionary tradition of the 1930s and ’40s, when the CPUSA organized strikes and sent the Lincoln Brigade to fight against fascism in Spain, and looks forward to ACP running candidates for local positions to help address issues like homelessness, drugs, crime, and the decay of the country’s urban centers. You’ll notice, of course, that none of the ACP’s efforts so far have included advocating for childhood victims of gender dysphoria, or spend much time on any other mainstay of “woke” identity politics that speakers of the traditionalist-reactionary dialect might call “communist.” Perhaps for similar reasons, Rainer Shea argued at the start of August that anti-imperialists are making significant progress in gaining mass support in their opposition to Washington’s imperialism. Here, Shea criticizes certain U.S. leftist groups for focusing on armed struggle and radicalism instead of building mass support, which he attributes to the ideological influence of intelligence agencies and which he contrasts against the ACP and the Center for Political Innovation (CPI) in their efforts to reconnect with the working class and focus on class struggle. While Shea suggests that recent global conflicts and the economic crisis have created an opportunity for a new, anti-imperialist coalition, he warns also that left-wing counter-gangs like Antifa and organizations like the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) may be used by the imperialist state to undermine true revolutionary movements. Nonetheless, Shea concludes that the ACP, by following mass-based strategies, is better positioned to lead a successful revolutionary movement than these other groups.But what exactly is the ACP selling to the U.S. public? As if predicting we’d ask the question, Carlos Garrido—one of the signatories to the ACP as its secretary of education, whom we featured at the end of July for his analysis of Venezuela’s presidential elections—appeared on The Kim Iversen Show just two weeks ago to further articulate the party’s position.Garrido first takes time to explain (at ~1:49) the difference between socialism and communism, stating that socialists often reject the tradition of 20th-century communism, while he identifies as a communist because he supports the projects of 20th-century socialist states like the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and Vietnam. Citing Marx, he describes socialism as a transitionary period towards a communist society, where the working class controls the state, institutions, and economy. This, Garrido argues (at ~9:18) is a logical extension of American ideals, aligning with the principles of government “of, by, and for the people.” He believes that only socialism can truly achieve these ideals by serving society’s interests rather than those of corporations and the wealthy elite, while this parasitic class controls the current system, which prioritizes capital accumulation over the well-being of the nation and its people.Addressing (at ~16:14) the misconception that socialism means poverty, Garrido points to counterexamples in the rapid economic growth and development achieved by socialist countries like the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. He argues that the three fastest periods of development in human history have occurred under socialist or communist regimes, and refutes the notion that communism aims to abolish private property, stating that it is specifically against systems that prioritize the mere accumulation of capital. As Garrido explains (at ~27:28), lending and investment would still exist in a socialist or communist system, but with the condition that it must be used for productive purposes that benefit society—such as developing the economy, infrastructure, and industry. He condemns the current practice of finance capital “making money from money” (which Garrido links to religiously prohibited usury) as opposing the interests of the nation and working-class people.For that reason, and perhaps unexpectedly to some, Garrido names (at ~27:41) promoting and supporting the development of small businesses as one of the ACP’s main economic policies—presumably under a state-run banking system that prioritizes productive investments in the economy, infrastructure, and industry, rather than those facilitate capital accumulation in the finance sector. “In the sort of society that we would like to create,” Garrido tells us (at ~28:09), “the average American is going to have more property, they’re going to be wealthier, they're going to have more abundance so that they can live the sorts of lives that allow them to flourish […] not slavishly working at a job for eight-to-ten hours to pay bills to people who fundamentally do nothing [emphasis mine] and make a whole lot of money from doing that nothing.”If that’s the platform the ACP is selling, then I imagine quite a few Americans would respond, “Say no more! How soon can I take delivery?!”—even more so in the ACP advocates for the same policies discussed in our first bulletin on MAGA Communism, such as cooperative ownership models (like Huawei’s employee ownership system) as a solution to wealth inequality, which we saw in March has significant appeal for the working-class base of the MAGA movement. Engaging with this base and with the lower levels of petit bourgeois capitalists who oppose the establishment, these patriotic socialists argue, presents a pathway to a genuine socialist movement in the U.S.—one which resonates with the American spirit, drawing on the legacy of abolitionists and suffragists—to organize a rationally planned economy that doesn’t concentrate wealth as private profits in the finance sector while it immiserates the masses. The result would mean a transformation of the U.S. political and economic system, along with a shift in its international posture as these patriotic socialists educate the domestic population on their shared struggle with foreign anti-imperialists against the American military-industrial complex.That, of course, means fostering grassroots support and organizing communities to participate in the political process, with the aforementioned Al-Din apparently already having begun planning the ACP before its launch this summer, given the local chapters and potential for fielding candidates that he discussed in April. Indeed, this might be a fine way of achieving socialism through democratic means, and more importantly, of avoiding giving the ruling class any pretext for imposing authoritarian measures or responding with violent repression—like, for example, that which resulted in the U.S. Labor Day. Notably, the ACP could overcome some of the limits we discussed in July that come part-and-parcel with the “MAGA Communism” branding. The idea of uniting Trump supporters, who are largely capitalists, with communists, appears inherently contradictory, appealing only to a small, contrarian audience rather than effectively reaching out to conservatives or fostering a broad working-class movement. The niche brand’s potential to alienate seems evident in its critics’ observations that MAGA Communists have mobilized primarily around cultural issues rather than genuine Marxist concerns, which limits its effectiveness in addressing the broader challenges faced by the working class. Accordingly, the ACP may well represent an effort toward building a mass movement centered on workers’ rights and common economic struggles, free from the burden of associating with a contentious political movement like MAGA: in addition, that is, to one as contentious as “communism.”But other concerns we discussed don’t come out in the wash so easily. In particular, the former MAGA Communism’s susceptibility to co-opting—with Dr. Richard Wolff noting the obvious example of the Nazi Party’s use of the term “socialism” to shepherd a disaffected working class into a fascist ideology—or to external sabotage, with U.S. intelligence agencies using the brand as a vector through which to introduce divisions into domestic socialist movements.The aforementioned Shea described analogous concerns at the end of August about the upcoming Rage Against the War Machine (RAWM) rally scheduled for 28 September 2024, emphasizing its role in the current anti-imperialist movement. Shea explains that since the original RAWM event, the coalition has gained influence, while its primary threat has shifted from the established left to far-right groups like the “groyper” Nazis. Notably, he accuses such groups of having previously attempted to infiltrate the original RAWM rally—and, though I can’t point here to a particular source, I do recall hearing at that time about some stranger leaving brochures at a contemporaneous CPI event for a “traditionalist worker party,” or something along those lines.These groups, Shea argues, seek to co-opt anti-establishment sentiments with fascist and anti-Semitic narratives, and he therefore warns that the ruling class benefits from these far-right elements propagandizing their disillusioned audiences, which would otherwise support genuine anti-imperialist efforts. Meanwhile, Radio Free Pizza devotees will recall how Western intelligence agencies instrumentalize far-right and neo-Nazi groups to justify their security state, as we covered last October. Those interested in that possibility may compare that to Jesse Wingert’s analysis from the end of August suggesting “the Financial Bourgeoisie” might install Kamala Harris against the voters’ will, in which Wingert argues that the “groypers” and the rest of the reactionary right pose a limited threat on their own: though the ruling class could use them strategically to divert attention from or cause disruption to anti-imperialist efforts, Wingert finds these neo-Nazis unlikely to replace pan-leftist counter-gangs as the ruling class’s main proxy force. In any case, given the counterrevolutionary function of the far-right, Shea calls for a united front among true anti-imperialist forces, including communists and other groups opposed to monopoly capitalism, to counter both the sectarian left and the far-right. For him, the upcoming rally represents a critical moment in the struggle against imperialism—especially in the face of increasing state repression following Harris’ nomination—and the domestic anti-imperialist coalition would do well to prevent those groypers from co-opting the movement and redirecting its popular support into antisemitism:The wing of the bourgeoisie that’s behind Harris is increasingly in conflict with capital’s lower levels, which seek an end to big capital’s degrowth schemes and are looking for allies in this fight. The dissident right psyop seeks to convince these rogue capitalist elements that [the Jewish Question], with its lie about how monopoly capital comes from a global Jewish conspiracy, is what they must invest themselves in to defeat the monopolists. Within this narrative, Marxism is another part of the conspiracy, with the driving force behind monopoly power being “Judeo-Bolshevism” […] Marxists must expose the lies of those who scapegoat the Jews, while illustrating how Marxism is what can build an alternative system to monopoly capital.Given the apparently growing popular sentiment of anti-Zionism in the U.S. after eleven months of Israel’s genocide in Palestine, it seems doubly important that all anti-imperialists—and particularly any erstwhile MAGA Communists—ought to take a firm stand against the presentation of monopoly capital as representing Judaism. (If they need something to draw on here, I understand both Marx and Lenin had something to say about this “Jewish Question.”) Therefore, we ask with interest: can the ACP avoid falling prey to that ideological trap presented through the dissident right, and can it instead manage to develop popular support through working-class solidarity and thereby establish a revolutionary political platform?The significance of this ideological trap for the ACP in particular has another dimension, as the treatment Indie offered two weeks ago about the U.S.’s Green Party may help illuminate. Here, the reporter at Indie Media Today and host with the Indie News Network expressed his skepticism about the effectiveness of voting, particularly in the 2024 presidential election. While he acknowledges the positive energy around Jill Stein’s campaign as the Green Party candidate, she stands little chance of winning due to the overwhelming power of the corporate media and political system. Highlighting the challenges Stein faces—including media neglect, ballot access issues, and the difficulties of running outside the two-party system—Indie concludes that no candidate, including Stein, can overcome the control that the “Corporate Military Intelligence Apparatus” exercises over the establishment media narrative: even if Stein were to gain traction, she would be smeared and marginalized. Furthermore, and notably for our purposes here, Indie questions even the value of those gains as small change in comparison to that which establishment political lobbies deploy: “5% [of the popular vote] only gets $20m of federal funding - how much did AIPAC alone pledge to spend to defeat 8 House Democrats? Even $20M is a drop in the bucket.”I’m not entirely sure just how much the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) spent on that, but it sounds like it put up $14.5 million to successfully support Jamaal Bowman’s primary challenger in New York this year, and $8.4 million to unseat Cori Bush in Missouri: so it’s already more spending more than the potential federal funding just on those two. That’s out of more than $100 million already spent on the 2024 elections by the end of August. For such significant spending on political campaigns to originate from a lobbying group formerly known as the American Zionist Council underscores the importance of Shea’s prescription to the anti-imperialist coalition to refute associations between Judaism and monopoly capitalism—especially given the bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives earlier this year (and its senatorial analog referred to committee) to equate criticism of Zionism’s product, the State of Israel, with antisemitism. Because the system itself is the main problem, not the candidates, Indie aligns with “None of the Above,” expressing a lack of faith in the electoral system and a belief that real change won't come through voting. Though he amusingly advises the Green Party to abandon their efforts to court disaffected Democrats, whose support will likely dissipate following the 2024 election, and instead to “focus on workers and organizing the rank and file against management & corporate-friendly political creatures like Teamsters’ & UAW leadership”—the targets, more or less, of the erstwhile MAGA Communists—Indie nonetheless doubts that voting for Stein or any third-party candidate will make a significant difference, and encourages readers instead to consider what comes after Election Day.As we wrap up this special Labor Day edition, it's clear that the ACP is attempting to carve out a new path in the U.S. political landscape. By focusing on local community work and addressing the tangible concerns of the working class, the party has begun positioning itself as a serious interlocutor in American political discourse: a force, that is, which can refocus debates away from cultural issues and toward political representation and economic justice. This stands in stark contrast to more established left-wing movements, which have been criticized for neglecting class struggle.The ACP’s emphasis on practical, grassroots organizing and its apparently unconscious efforts to distance itself from the more contentious aspects of MAGA Communism branding may allow it to build broader support among disaffected workers and small business owners. But it faces significant challenges it faces are significant, including the risk of being co-opted by far-right elements—or of being falsely accused of such, given how often the party speaks out against Zionists. In fact, threats incurred for the sake of that position have already appeared, with ACP Politburo member Prof. Danny Shaw—who already lost his job at CUNY’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice earlier this year (most likely) due to his pro-Palestinian activism—having been detained in late August by agents from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) at a Chicago airport, during which Shaw was forced to provide agents with passwords to his personal devices. Notably, the ACP’s statement on Shaw’s detainment draws analogy between the anti-communist persecution of the McCarthy Era and today’s persecution of anti-Zionist activists. In our view, the validity of that comparison underscores the importance for the ACP and like-minded groups to prevent the corporate media and U.S. political establishment from framing anti-Zionism as antisemitism. While the ACP’s use of blockchain technology to transparently register and verify its chapters, and to cryptographically authenticate its official communications, may help it for a time to fend off any false accusations (through doctored screenshots or the like), we nonetheless expect to see further such attempts from the state and media to marginalize the ACP or harass its members. Of course, all that’s before mentioning the challenges the ACP would face if one of its candidates ever won an election: the overwhelming influence of corporate and imperialist interests in the U.S. political machinery. Indeed, perhaps Indie has a point, and that, even if an ACP candidate appeared on the ballot, it would be wiser for any true revolutionary to vote “None of the Above.”As the ACP continues to develop, its success will surely depend on its ability to navigate these challenges while staying true to its core mission of advocating for the working class. Whether it can do so without falling into the ideological traps that have hampered other movements remains to be seen. But if it can maintain its focus on class solidarity and economic justice, then in a few years’ time the ACP might just provide a viable choice for Americans seeking real change in a system that seems increasingly stacked against them.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Historians remember Ancient Rome (753 BC – 476 AD) as a cornerstone in the historical development of political philosophy and governance models throughout Western civilization. The city’s historic periods of monarchy, republic, and imperial rule provided a diverse array of political systems that have profoundly influenced modern governance. The Roman Republic, in particular, introduced concepts of checks and balances, separation of powers, and civic duty, which have become foundational principles in contemporary democratic societies, while the rich political discourse of Roman philosophers and statesmen continues to inform and inspire political thought and practice today.Accordingly, Ancient Rome piques the interest of a station like Radio Free Pizza, where we purport ourselves to excavate “deep trends” in politics and other fields—combing their hidden layers to get a better sense of where we’re headed next. To that end, we could hardly ask for a better vein to mine: the history of this ancient civilization, with a narrative rich in ambition, intrigue, and dramatic shifts in governance, still echoes in the corridors of power today.Of course, some would say we’re a year late, given 2023’s social media trend of TikTok videos showing men describing their fascination with the grandeur of the Roman Empire, its engineering marvels, and its influential political system. At the time, some historians suggest this interest is partly due to the overemphasis on Ancient Rome’s masculine-associated aspects, like military and political history, in Western culture. Other commentators doubled down on that thesis, describing a “masculinity polycrisis”—the compounded crises facing men today, who are struggling with a sense of lost status—leading men to gravitate toward figures like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson, to increasingly adopt the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations, and to seek solace in the structured legacy of Ancient Rome. They argue that the Roman era, with its clear patriarchy and status hierarchies, offers a nostalgic contrast to contemporary uncertainties, and that men’s preoccupation with the Roman Empire reflects a deeper search for personal purpose and civic stability amid contemporary economic and social upheaval.That last part sounds a little closer to the truth, I think, than any crisis of masculinity. After all, some six years ago, 40% of Americans agreed either, “When it comes to our political and social institutions, I cannot help thinking, ‘Just let them all burn,’” or, “We cannot fix the problems in our social institutions, we need to tear them down and start over”—and, speaking as a current U.S. resident, I can only imagine that proportion has since risen.Maybe some of those Americans (the men among them fixated on Ancient Rome, anyway) would even say that their country is headed for a turning point as pivotal as Gaius Julius Caesar’s decision in 49 BC to defy the orders of the Roman Senate and cross the Rubicon River with his army, effectively declaring war on the Roman Republic and leading after his assassination to the rise of the Roman Empire. Here at Radio Free Pizza, Caesar’s assassination on 15 March 44 BC has some particular interest for us as a testament to the monumental impact of a historical conspiracy. Longtime readers will surely recall that we delve now and then into the field of conspiracy theories, and you could hardly ask for one with more significant consequences than that coordinated to eliminate Ancient Rome’s dictator perpetuo. The conspirators, numbering between 60 and 80 (included many of Caesar’s closest allies and former enemies he had pardoned) meticulously planned their attack to occur during a Senate session, where Caesar would be most vulnerable. As Caesar took his seat, the conspirators surrounded him under the guise of presenting a petition before Publius Servilius Casca struck the first blow, followed by a flurry of stabbings from the others. This pivotal moment not only altered the course of Roman history but also serves as a powerful reminder that conspiracies are not merely the stuff of fiction or modern speculation: they have, in fact, played crucial roles in shaping the world as we know it, and Caesar’s fate continues to inform our modern understanding of power and conspiracy.Just ask Martin Armstrong. The economic forecaster writes of Caesar reverently, describing how the Roman aligned early in his career with the Populares Party, opposing the senatorial nobility, prefiguring the significant reforms he would implement decades later as dictator. Despite efforts to portray him as a tyrant, Armstrong argues that Caesar aimed to reform the corrupt Senate and to improve Roman society—in addition to addressing the debt crisis (following the fire of 50 BC, an earthquake in 49 BC, and a resulting housing shortage, during which debt pervaded all social classes) that Armstrong cites as the fuse for the civil war. As he tells us, Caesar’s response was unprecedented: he forgave all interest and required prior interest payments to be applied towards the principal loan, and appointed assessors to revalue properties to their original loan values, preventing lenders from demanding repayment based on inflated current values after asset prices fell. Armstrong’s “Anatomy of a Debt Crisis” (2012) provides further details, highlighting Caesar’s comprehension of and his effective steps to address Ancient Rome’s debt crisis through innovative solutions. Here, Armstrong explains that the Caesar’s political opponents, the Optimates, obstructed political reforms and contributed to the Republic’s decline into oligarchy, which they incited a civil war to maintain. In contrast, Armstrong emphasizes Caesar’s genuine efforts for the people and, as a senator, his rejection of debt cancellation for the elite despite the potential for personal gain. As a dictator, his swift and extensive domestic reforms—such as the introduction of the Julian calendar, labor laws, educational and medical initiatives, and welfare system overhaul—demonstrate his commitment to genuine reform. Discussing Caesar’s response to a significant debt crisis and real estate collapse in Ancient Rome, the forecaster describes how Caesar didn’t cancel debts or redistribute wealth, but instead revalued property to pre-crisis levels and credited interest payments towards the principal (as described above), leading creditors to lose about a fourth of their loans. This balanced approach, Armstrong argues, helped preserve economic stability.For those interested in learning how Armstrong compares the debt crisis of the Roman Republic to the financial conditions of 2024—including the currency monetary system and debt levels, given the potential for governments to default, as well as Central Bank Digital Currencies that would lead to tyranny and loss of freedom—you can turn to his appearance last month on Ben Mumme’s Living Your Greatness.Here, Armstrong argues (at ~20:36–21:59) that Ancient Rome’s success and stability stemmed from its policy of allowing conquered peoples to maintain their own religions and customs, and credits its economic policies—enabling trade across its territories without taxes on imports—for contributing to a long period of peace and prosperity. Accordingly, Ancient Rome demonstrates for Armstrong that, “When we all get together, we all benefit.”On the other hand, of course, Ancient Rome seems to represent Armstrong’s premier example for arguing (at ~34:43–35:17) that,Republics are the most corrupt form of government. Unfortunately, the fake news back in ancient times was Cicero. A lot of the Founding Fathers of America, they read, “Caesar was this dictator,” etc. […] When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he didn’t fight his way to Rome. All the cities cheered. They opened their gates. Why? Because there was a debt crisis back then as well. And the Senate fled to Asia. There was no battle. […] Why did they flee? Because the people hated them. They were corrupt as hell. To illustrate the level of corruption, it [took] Julius Caesar to revise the calendar […] Why? Because Rome used basically the calendar on the moon, but […] they had to insert some days like leap year to adjust it to the sun. Who was in charge of it? The high priest on a discretionary basis. So they would just simply go to the high priest and say, “Look, you know, here’s a couple million bucks or whatever. Insert a few couple months so that we don’t have to go to lecture right now.” […] So when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, it was January 10th. It should have been winter, but it was summer. So when he got in, he cleaned up the corruption […] Eventually, that’s why they assassinated him, just like they just tried on Trump. They don’t want change. […] [Caesar] pardoned everybody who was against them. Is that a dictator? He was very magnanimous, and they came back and killed him because it was all about power […] Then you end up with the imperial period, with Augustus becoming the first emperor. Why? Because the Senate was so corrupt, and nobody wanted to give them power again. It was better to be in the hands of one guy than it was in the Senate. So, I mean, we have to look at these things. I mean, every representative we have in a parliament or Congress, they’re up for sale: “Vote my way, what do you want?”Interestingly, Armstrong’s reference here to the recent assassination attempt on former President Trump finds an echo in Constantin von Hoffmeister’s staging of Trump as the resurrection of Caesar in the wake of the former president’s assassination attempt to promote his book Esoteric Trumpism. That work presumably expands on the ideas Hoffmeister introduced last month on the U.S.’s Independence Day in his “Trump: The New Caesar of the West” published in Eurosiberia: here, Hoffmeister interprets Trump’s potential return to the presidency through Oswald Spengler’s theory of historical cycles, arguing that the former president’s policies on immigration, judicial reform, and economic nationalism reflect a Spenglerian shift from democratic institutions to charismatic rule in response to societal fragmentation, the perceived threat to the U.S.’s cultural essence and sovereignty, and civilizational decline.To me, it seems likely that Armstrong would agree with Hoffmeister’s reading of Trump as a social and cultural reaction to national decline, knowing how his own economic models have long been tracking the same. But I suspect it would surprise the paleoconservative economist to learn that his generous assessment of Caesar as a reformer rather than a dictator is one that some Marxists hold in common: among them, Michael Parenti, whose The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People’s History of Ancient Rome (2003) received a deep analysis from Keegan Kjeldsen (previously featured here in March) on The Nietzsche Podcast last year.In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Parenti presents the counter-narrative to the traditional portrayal of Caesar as a tyrant, arguing instead that Caesar was a reformer who aimed to address the inequality and exploitation prevalent in the Roman Republic, challenging the entrenched power of the patrician oligarchy. As Kjeldsen tells us, Parenti provides historical context on the disintegrative phase—as Peter Turchin would put it— of the late Roman Republic, which we learn (at ~17:46–19:12) was characterized by oligarchic wealth accumulation, land grabbing, and the marginalization of the plebeian class. Kjeldsen returns later (at ~42:34–43:56) to the topic of landholding concentrations among the patrician class, and offers further details:What played out over the decades in this roughly century-and-a-half period known as the Late Republic was this continuing process of upward transfer of wealth, of regressive taxation, and deficit spending. Perhaps the main source of conflict is the ager publicus: the lands set aside for public farming. The tenants paid a ground rent to the city if they wanted the use of the land, and this allowed a possible class of plebeian smallholders who were self-sufficient enough to farm their own lands, and this class would eventually form the agricultural and military backbone of the Roman society as they made up the majority of the legions [and] produced the majority of the food. The landless proletarians were mostly not even qualified to serve in the legions, since one had to afford a certain amount of equipment in order to fight it all. The plebeian smallholder therefore represented historically something like a middle class. But as always happens when a disintegrative cycle begins to pick up steam […] the upper class squeezes the middle and makes their position precarious and begins to hollow out the center. And what we see in the figures who arise to challenge the trends that are dominating the social order […] is that land is always their main sticking point.Kjeldsen goes on to tell us (at ~44:06–1:07:11) about various reformers, including the Gracchi brothers and Gaius Marius (of the aforementioned Populares), who attempted to address these issues, but were met with violent opposition from the nobility. But through military achievements and political maneuvering, Caesar was able to seize power and implement reforms, including land redistribution, debt relief, and the expansion of citizenship. However, his reforms threatened the interests of the ruling elite, leading to his eventual assassination by a group of conspirators from the aristocracy, who saw his reforms aimed to address the injustices and exploitation perpetrated by the oligarchy as a threat to their power and way of life. Whether due to visionary reforms or the treachery of his assassination, Caesar became an epoch-making figure who irrevocably transformed the Roman social order and broke the power of the oligarchy, paving the way for a new political order after his death.For those interested in a further analysis of Parenti’s The Assassination of Julius Caesar, we recommend turning to Eddie Liger of Midwestern Marx, who covered the book himself two years ago. Here, Liger highlights (at ~8:02–24:35) Parenti’s critique of writers like Cicero—who were slave owners and portrayed slavery in a positive light—and draws parallels between slavery in Ancient Rome and the American South, noting the use of racism, torture, and exploitation in both systems. He also compares the role of wage-labor in these societies, with capitalists hiring wage-laborers for riskier jobs to avoid risking their slaves, who were considered property. (For extra credit, compare and contrast Liger’s analysis here with Kjeldsen’s discussion [at ~39:46–41:27 in the episode discussed above] of slave rebellions in Ancient Rome. Note however that such comparisons aren’t guaranteed to be fruitful, which is why I don’t pursue them here.)Of course, Parenti isn’t the only Marxist to explore the economy of Ancient Rome. Michael Hudson’s “Property and Debt in Ancient Rome”—published earlier this year through the same Midwestern Marx Institute to which the aforementioned Liger belongs—explores how Roman law and property concepts enabled significant land concentration and socio-economic inequality. Unlike traditional societies that safeguarded family land from being sold off, Roman law emphasized private property’s marketability, facilitating inevitable foreclosures. This creditor-oriented approach favored the wealthy and aggressive families, leading to predatory practices. After Ancient Rome’s foreign conquests, the ager publicus often ended up with the wealthy instead of war veterans or the needy. Early redistribution attempts, like Consul Spurius Cassius’s proposal in 486 BC, faced fierce patrician resistance and resulted in his execution. Large estates (latifundia), cultivated by slaves after Carthage’s defeat in 204 BC, displaced free farmers, creating an indebted, landless peasantry. Hudson refers also to the attempts of the aforementioned Gracchi brothers to address land inequality, describing their reforms led to their deaths and highlighted rising tensions over land and debt, contributing to prolonged civil unrest. The dispossession of free farmers changed the Roman army’s loyalty from the state to their generals, exploited by leaders like Sulla and Caesar for political power. Wealth concentration intensified under the Empire, with heavy tax burdens on the poor pushing many to seek protection from wealthy patrons. As Hudson tells us, this would set the stage for the class dynamics of Middle Ages Europe, during which the Church—gaining land through donations—critiqued personal wealth while supporting the status quo, focusing on charity over systemic economic reforms.On the whole, Hudson’s analysis here underscores how Roman property laws and practices contributed to social stratification and economic disparities, setting a precedent for later European landholding and debt systems. But in fact, Hudson would surely trace that precedent even further than Ancient Rome, as the economist explains in an interview with logician Robinson Erhardt last March.First, Hudson underscores (at ~2:58–13:25) the inseparable relationship between economics and agriculture with an account of his introduction to the concept of the “autumnal drain”: the need for banks to provide credit to wholesale buyers of crops after the harvest. This led Hudson to realize the cyclical nature of debt crises, with debt burdens growing until the system crashes and debts are wiped out through bankruptcy. Accordingly, he traces the historical rhythm of debt and economic crashes to ancient Mesopotamia, where debts were settled on the threshing floor after the harvest.In Hudson’s account of economic history (at ~15:15–31:24), debt began with early civilizations like those in the ancient Near East, where rulers recognized the need for periodic debt cancellations due to natural disasters and economic collapses. For example, Hammurabi’s laws included provisions for debt forgiveness during droughts or floods. Ancient practices such as interest charges, weights and measures, and account-keeping originated in this region, yet modern histories often overlook this, focusing instead on Greece and Rome. Regular debt cancellations were a norm, as new kings would erase personal agrarian debts, ensuring economic stability. This practice persisted from Sumer around 2500 BC through various empires until about 1200 BC. Later, in Ancient Greece, debt and land crises led to significant social upheavals and reforms, such as Solon’s debt relief in Athens—though, unlike in earlier practices, he didn’t redistribute land, causing further discontent. This may account for the fact that, as Hudson notes, wealth addiction and the need for special rulers free from such vices were central themes in ancient Greek philosophy, highlighting the dangers of unchecked creditor power and economic inequality.The rest of Hudson’s interview offers a wealth of information for anyone who would like to learn more about the role of the Catholic Church in promoting debt and interest (at ~45:10–55:57), as well as the parasitic nature of the finance, insurance, and real estate (FIRE) sector (at ~56:49–1:07:10), the influence of the donor class on policymaking in the United States (at ~1:07:39–1:09:44), and the advocacy of classical economists like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill for taxing economic rent and limiting the power of rentier classes like landlords and bankers (at ~1:21:53–1:25:40). But to stay on the subject of what connections to present-day economic relationships that contemporary Marxists trace to Ancient Rome, we can turn instead to our trusted Caleb Maupin of the Center for Political Innovation, who offered a useful analysis this past May.Here, Maupin discusses (at ~39:57–49:25) the historical origins and implications of liberalism, which he locates in Ancient Rome. In his analysis, Western imperialism—emerging from the British thalassocracy, or “empire of the sea”—developed its characteristic philosophy of economic liberalism from Ancient Rome, where its republican system, with an elected national assembly and a hereditary Senate, emphasized individual property rights in the interest of motivating its citizens to participate in expanding its imperial holdings and dividing the spoils. Touching as well on the emergence of populist figures like the Gracchi brothers and the later Caesar, he describes how the internal contradictions of Ancient Rome led to the collapse of the Republic and the establishment of an imperial system with a single emperor, under whom that economic proto-liberalism continued—leading ultimately to the fragmentation of Roman society when the lack of a unified vision made it increasingly difficult to hold the empire together, until such time as the Empire became in its final years unable to even raise an army to defend itself against barbarian invasions.Tracing liberalism’s ancestry to Ancient Rome gives Maupin the opportunity to draw parallels between the empire’s collapse and the current state of Western capitalist countries like Great Britain and the U.S., which he observes deteriorating from within due to the divergent visions and interests of the ruling billionaire elites, with no central guiding vision for the countries or their populations. In this sense, we might say that Hudson’s analysis of Ancient Rome above emphasizes the material immiseration that its imperial economic system—and descendants thereof—impose upon the working class, while Maupin emphasizes here the ideological poverty that such have cultivated among the same.So! Those men we talked about at the top, whom the ongoing collapse of the U.S. empire and the collective West has driven to think obsessively about Ancient Rome: what should they learn from all this?In our own analysis, it seems that Caesar’s assassination and Ancient Rome’s subsequent transition from the Republic to the Empire represented a pivotal turning point in its history as a civilization-state, fundamentally altering its political, social, and economic structures. The Republic’s system of oligarchy with the trappings of senatorial governance gradually gave way to the centralized autocracy of the Empire, marked by the consolidation of power in the hands of a single ruler and ushering in a new era of political stability and territorial conquests, extending Rome’s influence and solidified its status as a dominant power in the ancient world. Thus, the transformation from Republic to Empire not only marked a significant reorganization of Roman governance but also set the stage for its enduring legacy and the complexities that would define its history.But as we mentioned at the top, our analysis here matches the contemporary American zeitgeist. As if to demonstrate that thinking about the Roman Empire is more than just a trend of yesteryear, Jeremy Ryan Slate appeared on The Kim Iversen Show earlier this month to discuss comparisons between Ancient Rome and the modern USA.Here, Slate provides an overview of the three eras of Ancient Rome (the Kingdom, the Republic, and the Empire), and tells us (at ~8:42) how the Republic was influenced by struggles between the rich and poor classes, leading to the creation of written laws, the Twelve Tables, in the 400s BC, before the Punic Wars in the 200s BC led to increased militarization, which changed Roman society. Their discussion then turns (at ~14:01) to the Republic’s transition into the Empire, where Slate draws parallels between this period and the current state of the United States, suggesting that the U.S. may be heading towards an oligarchy or empire-like system—in contrast to those above, for whom the Republic already represented an oligarchy. (Slate would also seemingly disagree in particular with Hoffmeister’s comparison between Trump and Caesar, saying [at ~15:41], “No matter what you want to say, Caesar never relinquished power, whereas Trump may have claimed he won for a bit, but he was he was out of office for the last three years.”)After noting similarities and differences between the U.S. and the Roman Republic, Slate argues (at ~16:07) that the U.S. has already moved away from a true republic through changes like the 17th Amendment—which changed the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof”—the income tax, and the Federal Reserve Act, suggesting to him that the U.S. functions more like a democracy headed towards an oligarchy. (As advocates for nationalizing the Federal Reserve, we here would definitely agree that private central banking is symptomatic of oligarchies.)Of course, those of us thinking along the same lines as Slate, who find ourselves expecting (either unconsciously or with full awareness) such a transition in the U.S. today, would do well to ensure that what emerges afterward—what we’ve been calling “the United People’s Commonwealths of America”—operates more benevolently. With that in mind, it looks like Caesar’s efforts to address the material immiseration of the masses through debt relief should provide some useful inspiration for those interested in how to rebound from the current collapse. Similarly, since we can’t advocate that the next phase of the American civilization-state should go conquer any more territory, it would do us well to consider potential plans for countering the concentration of land and housing in the portfolios of the ruling class.Fortunately for us, some have already put in much of the work to sketch those plans out. In fact, one comrade of Radio Free Pizza offered some thoughts in January during an interview that we also featured in March: appearing on Deep Dives with Monica Perez, the estimable Daniel Natal expands on those Mesopotamian debt cancellations, which Hudson noted above, while deploying (at ~1:16:26–1:18:39) Frederick Soddy’s Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (1929) and Kristen Ragusin’s The End of Scarcity: The Dawn of the New Abundant World (2022) to connect our modern fiat currencies to the introduction of debt markets to Ancient Rome:[Soddy] was talking about what a pseudoscience economics was […] because wealth is perishable is subject to laws of entropy, but debt is not. And he was like, […] “You can’t have this mismatch system where debt can accrue forever, you know, past like the moons of Saturn, and wealth […] rots, that goes away, you know, the silo of wheat rots.” So initially in the Middle East, they would have jubilees where the debt would time out as well, right? Otherwise, the system would collapse […] Basically, Semitic peoples came into the [Roman] Empire, and they brought the concept of selling debt, and it was new to the Romans […] so [the Romans] took one half for their system. But they didn’t take the debt jubilee that would have made it actually workable […] [Today,] we don’t have money, we have anti-money, and [Ragusin] was like saying, “Okay, every one of the dollars that you’re holding up is a unit of debt […] if your dollars come into existence when someone takes a loan, or when the treasury prints up bonds, then it's actually a unit of debt, it's anti-money.” And she said that the system collapsed in 2008 because […] if it runs out of people to take new debt, then there's a deflationary crisis […] if we paid off all our debt, there'd be no money in circulation” […] [That] continuous streams of debt […] is why we have things like mass migration. Because if your populace is tapped out and broke, you suddenly need a billion new people: the system requires it. Because the Romans didn’t incorporate into its debt markets the jubilee that the Torah mandates in the Book of Leviticus—under which all debts were forgiven and all (Israelite) slaves freed every fifty years—their economy contained no mechanism to reset social and economic inequalities. Accordingly, wealth and power remained concentrated within the Roman oligarchy. Natal’s implied solution here would be to reintroduce a monetary system with a currency backed by something other than debt. (“Like labor *cough* I mean gold?”) Given how those in the U.S. can observe the same phenomenon today—those same Americans who have in 2024 become the most indebted they’ve ever been—it’s clear that examining the parallels between Ancient Rome and modern societies can help us reveal the cyclical nature of economic history, particularly in terms of wealth inequality, debt crises, and the struggle for political reform. Naturally, Natal’s point here dovetails nicely with what Hudson emphasizes in his interview with Erhardt above about the importance of understanding financial history and the cyclical nature of debt crises to address contemporary economic issues. Given the history of debt cancellations in ancient societies, it may therefore serve us well today to prioritize debt relief, economic stability, and the well-being of the broader population over the interests of creditor classes and rentier elites—perhaps by taxing economic rent and limiting the powers of landlords and bankers, as Hudson tells us classical economists like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill proposed. As advocates of a socialism with American characteristics, we’re also quite enthusiastic here about Hudson’s idea of treating land, banking, and housing as public utilities, rather than sources of private profit and rent extraction.On a similar note, Armstrong’s “Anatomy of a Debt Crisis” (2012) discusses the historical context and implications of debt crises throughout history, emphasizing the recurring nature of economic mistakes and the ignorance of leaders who fail to learn from the past. Here he criticizes the then-current practice of bailing out banks, suggesting that this contributed to economic instability and inequality, and proposes capping interest rates, reducing debt burdens, and implementing indirect taxation. Armstrong returned to Caesar three years later, writing in 2015 about how Caesar’s approach acknowledged the fluctuating value of money throughout history, challenging misconceptions about currency stability. He adds here that Emperor Tiberius employed a similar strategy during the 33 AD debt crisis—suspending interest payments and increasing the money supply to combat deflation—but notes sadly that, despite these historical precedents, modern responses to financial crises often overlook these solutions, repeating mistakes and ignoring lessons from history.For Armstrong, Caesar’s economic reforms reveal his vision for a more just and prosperous society, prioritizing the state’s welfare over personal power, in contrast to oligarchic opponents who resisted change to maintain their dominance. Drawing parallels to modern economic policies, he advocates for reforms similar to Caesar’s approach, and suggests parallels between the corruption of the Roman Republic and contemporary societal challenges. As one might expect of a paleoconservative economist, however, Armstrong offers his own proposal contrasting Natal’s implied solution of introducing the jubilee into Western debt markets, as he pitched (at ~38:07–39:20) to The Duran earlier this month:I have a solution, I’ve argued it, but the problem is [the political elite] lose power so they don’t want to take it. And if I was to straighten it out, I would deal with the same way I have had to deal […] with multinational companies: you do a debt-to-equity swap […] So what you do is you take the debt that’s there. You basically say, “Okay, fine. We’ll give you a coupon. [If] you’ve got a 30-year bond. You go back, you get a coupon for it […] and then you can buy corporate bonds, or corporate shares or whatever” […] Alright: you’re monetizing the debt. Yes, alright. But [make a rule that this] money can only be used domestically, and it would create jobs, and it’s the only way out. But instead what these people are doing is they want to default, wipe out all the pension funds and everything else [and] go to war. Still, one can easily imagine that the jubilee discussed above could go hand-in-hand with Armstrong’s debt-to-equity swap. Pretty simply, in fact: private citizens have their debts cancelled, while those holding public debt receive the swap. Easy enough! (Add from Slate the implied abolition of the income tax and of the Federal Reserve, and it looks like Libertarian Communism might just have itself the foundations for an economic policy platform!)But I suppose it might be a stretch to assume that Armstrong would agree too much if Parenti, Liger, Hudson, or Maupin cast Caesar as in any way carrying on the legacy of reformers like the Gracchi brothers, who sought the outright redistribution of land. (He might find himself nodding along with Slate about how the 17th Amendment and federal income tax promote oligarchic tendencies, though I question whether he’d also point to the Federal Reserve Act—after all, he defends the central bankers because “their self-interest is against that of the politicians.”) Indeed, one can imagine easily that he’d disagree with Maupin in depicting the economic ideology of Ancient Rome as a progenitor of liberalism—let alone with the idea that the self-serving oligarchs who opposed Caesar were merely operating according to the same economic proto-liberalism that Maupin finds responsible for ultimately fragmenting Roman society—and, therefore (it’s clear to us), for Ancient Rome’s failure to endure as a civilization-state. Nonetheless, we can much more easily imagine Armstrong agreeing with Maupin about the divergent interests of today’s ruling elites and the lack of a unifying vision is causing the economic collapse of the capitalist republics of the collective West. (Not quite as easily as we can imagine Hudson agreeing—but it’s start!) Moreover, it’s hard to imagine any of the aforementioned commentators would disagree with Caesar’s lasting legacy and impact—despite his assassins’ opposition (as ancient forebears of Hudson’s rentier class) to his reforms as a threat to their power and way of life—in breaking the power of Ancient Rome’s oligarchy and paving the way for a new political order.Surely Maupin and Hudson would agree with each other in acknowledging the necessity of critically examining the role of the financial sector in shaping economic policies to favor activities that do not contribute to real production. We imagine, too, that the countries of today can meet this necessity while also satisfying the requirement that Armstrong identifies for fair and balanced debt management, and for the need for systemic reforms to stabilize the economy and promote growth. These, of course, are just some ideas to address the disintegrative trends of wealth accumulation among the ruling class and the immiseration of the working class.As we navigate our own era’s challenges, the lessons from Ancient Rome serve as both a warning and a guide: they remind us of the potential for both monumental achievements and catastrophic failures when power dynamics and economic interests are at play. It makes sense, then, that this historic civilization should fascinate anyone today—but particularly as a lens through which we examine contemporary social and political dynamics. The rich tapestry of Rome’s political history—from the Republic’s ideals of checks and balances to the Empire’s centralized power—provides a fertile ground for understanding modern governance and societal issues. Accordingly, the recent social media trend highlighting Ancient Rome’s influence underscores a deeper societal search for stability and purpose amidst current uncertainties. However, by examining figures like Julius Caesar through the lenses of different ideologies, from conservative economic analysis to Marxist critiques, we gain a richer understanding of the multifaceted impact of Ancient Rome’s political and economic systems. From that understanding, we can develop a plan for ferrying the U.S. across its forecasted Rubicon, to ensure that the next stage of America’s progress as a civilization-state reverses the trend of imperialist economic strategy and popular immiseration, instead of descending into base autocracy and capital-E Empire. As it stands, the Libertarian Communist prescription derived from that understanding would include cancelling household debts, enacting an equity swap on sovereign debts—maybe exchanging them for second-class shares in “AmericaNOC”? Ones that have no voting rights and earn no dividends? If it’s possible to issue shares in a state-owned oil company, that is—and nationalizing the U.S. central banking system.Ultimately, the legacy of Ancient Rome, with its blend of ambition, innovation, and dramatic political shifts, continues to shape our world. Examining that legacy offers valuable insights into the enduring themes of governance, societal structure, and human aspiration. As we at Radio Free Pizza continue to explore these deep trends, we invite our audience to reflect on the echoes of Ancient Rome in today’s political and economic landscape, and to consider how history’s lessons might inform our designs for a better future.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

No matter how much we might complain, apparently they’re just determined to stage the 2024 American presidential election, so let’s take another look at what’s happening in the latest episode of today’s most-watched reality-show. This week, the drama changed scenes to Chicago for the still ongoing 2024 Democratic National Convention and the public coronation of Vice President Kamala Harris as the party’s nominee, following President Biden’s decision to withdraw from the race due to health and cognitive concerns. While Biden endorsed Harris, some commentators suggested then that his withdrawal and endorsement may have been forced—as the current president has since (more or less) confirmed—and speculated about Harris being positioned by the Democratic establishment.Of course, despite her prior unpopularity and lack of primary victories during her 2020 campaign (with such a poor showing that she quit in 2019), the Democratic Party went on to hold a “virtual roll-call” that named her the nominee on 6 August, so the convention is little more than a formality.Some might say that Harris treats her policies the same way: little more than a week ago, the 2020 presidential candidate and current Vice President was “cautiously” rolling out her policy platform, attempting to navigate the legacy of her past positions while addressing vulnerabilities from her 2020 campaign. Eventually adopting some ideas from her rival, Donald Trump, such as ending federal taxation on tipped earnings, Harris reportedly began shifting away from her more liberal stances, focusing on pragmatic, centrist policies aimed at building consensus. Harris went on to articulate more of her policies last Friday in North Carolina, with proposals including measures to combat grocery price gouging, to increase housing affordability, and to lower prescription drug costs. Alongside plans to provide significant down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, to expand tax credits for families and low-income workers, and to maintain tax cuts for households earning under $400,000, Harris emphasized her commitment to promoting economic opportunity while maintaining the Federal Reserve’s independence (“Boo!”), and indicated plans to reveal more policies soon—a reflection of her campaign’s “strategic vagueness” designed to attract broader support while avoiding criticism of the details.Of course, it’s fair to question whether she genuinely believes in anything or if she is merely an opportunist without core principles, calling for her to clarify her current stance on key issues. Obviously, Harris’ policies (or those of any candidate) ought to stand front and center, but some see her campaign as staging her identity as a substitute. On that subject, Niko House (whose analysis we featured when Biden first withdrew from the campaign) offered useful insights on identity politics last Tuesday when responding to a listener’s write-in question: “Just as with Obama in 2008, there’s pressure to vote for the first Democratic black woman for president. What’s the best argument against voting for her based solely on identity?”In his response, House argues against voting solely on identity, stating that a candidate’s policies and qualifications should be the primary consideration. He criticizes Obama for betraying the Black American community and contributing to the resurgence of slavery in Africa through his actions in Libya. Similarly, House critiques Harris for her lack of a clear platform and accuses her of betraying the Black community by increasing funding for police despite concerns over police brutality. These betrayals provide evidence for House’s argument (at ~1:18) that identity should not be considered a qualification for a job or position: instead, a candidate’s policies, experience, and understanding of issues should be the primary factors in evaluating their merit. He also suggests (at ~2:48) that minority candidates who gain prominence in American politics often do so by appeasing elite interests and being willing to “sell the community down the river”—and cites Harris’ willingness to work with Joe Biden, a former segregationist (whom she lambasted as such during the 2020 Democratic primary debates) as evidence.Of course, House notes (at ~4:42) the importance of not dismissing candidates solely due to their identity, and advocates for giving everyone a fair opportunity and consideration regardless of their identity. He seems to leave unsaid, however, the potential danger of a candidate’s identity overshadowing criticism of their time in various offices and of their previously stated policies. But he might only do so because Briahna Joy Gray (featured last June in our mid-year dispatch) pointed it out so capably when writing about Harris in 2017 while discussing how identity politics have been weaponized in progressive circles to suppress valid criticisms. While Gray acknowledges that identity politics can help highlight systemic inequalities, she also points out that it can reduce individuals to their demographic characteristics, silencing dissenting voices within those groups, before specifically noting how criticisms of Harris’ political record—particularly her actions as California’s Attorney General—have often been dismissed as racially or gender-motivated rather than engaging with the substance of the critiques. Gray then compared that treatment to the 2016 election, where critiques of Hillary Clinton were often dismissed as sexist, ignoring legitimate concerns about her policies. Gray contends that this misuse of identity politics not only stifles healthy debate but also erases the voices of progressive people of color who do not align with centrist views. Instead, she stresses that identity should not shield politicians from scrutiny and that legitimate critiques should be evaluated based on their substance, not dismissed based on the critic’s identity or the identity of the candidate in question. But criticisms of Harris’ political campaigns aren’t limited to how much the candidate leans on identity politics. Soon after his time in Venezuela observing Maduro’s re-election, Ajamu Baraka turned his focus back to the U.S. political system to criticize Harris’ replacement of Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee—which Baraka characterizes here as a “coup” orchestrated by the capitalist oligarchy controlling the party. Accordingly, he argues that this move reveals the lack of real democracy in the Democratic Party, dominated by neoliberal forces aligned with Silicon Valley, before also highlighting how Biden’s political career has embodied the neoliberal turn in U.S. politics, which has abandoned the reformist liberalism of the past in favor of policies that serve corporate interests and perpetuate wars abroad. That, Baraka suggests, should give us pause while considering his replacement, whom he doubts would represent any meaningful departure from Biden’s policies, predicting a continuation of neoliberalism and U.S. imperialism. Instead, he proposes that the oppressed of the country must recognize the existential threat posed by the U.S./EU/NATO axis and continue to struggle for genuine societal transformation through revolutionary means. Accordingly, Baraka calls for the rejection of America’s two-party system and for the building of alternative popular power structures.These analyses from House, Gray, and Baraka will surely come as no surprise to longtime readers of Radio Free Pizza, who may recall our dispatch from July of last year arguing that “wokeness” and identity politics are being used by powerful elites—both in politics and business—to distract from and suppress movements that seek wealth redistribution and empowerment of the working class. This socially-engineered zeitgeist protects the interests of the wealthy and powerful by redirecting public energy away from class issues and toward social or cultural issues. This, in turn, prevents challenges to the economic and political systems that favor the elite.The next month we discussed the consequent development among progressive American liberals of what we called “the professional-managerial dialect” as both a product of and a tool for maintaining the status quo. This linguistic phenomenon, influenced by financial interests and technocratic forces, not only deepens ideological rifts but also threatens to make communication across those divides increasingly difficult—to the point that language becomes a barrier to public discourse rather than a bridge. Of course, the engineers of American society can’t just let the professional-managerial dialect go without an antithesis. For that reason we next unpacked what we called “the traditionalist-reactionary dialect,” which collapses complex, opposing ideologies (like communism and fascist corporatism) into a single, negative category, simplifying and misrepresenting these ideologies to reinforce a reactionary stance against perceived threats to traditional economic structures. While the professional-managerial dialect often expands the meaning of terms to include a broader range of identities and experiences, the traditionalist-reactionary dialect reduces complex concepts to a single negative idea that fuels a reactionary political agenda, leading to a distorted understanding of political and economic issues.Accordingly, the pseudo-conservative wing of the U.S. political establishment (which caters to the “traditionalist-reactionary sphere” of the American public) started calling Harris a communist—or, as The New York Post would put it, a “Kamunist.” The tabloid reported that Harris’ $1.7 trillion economic plan attracted immediate criticism from economists and Trump supporters, who labeled the plan fiscally reckless and warned that such government spending could exacerbate inflation and increase the national debt. Meanwhile, Trump himself apparently saw no reason for The New York Post to coin a neologism, posting the image below the day after Harris’ speech: Obviously, that’s a huge stretch from the traditionalist-reactionary sphere. If price controls are communist, then (as Newsweek reminds us) so was Nixon, whose Executive Order 11615 mandated a 90-day freeze on wages and prices to counter inflation—the first time the U.S. government imposed wage and price controls since World War II. In addition, Harris’ aforementioned commitment to maintaining the independence of the Federal Reserve is one of the least communist policies that anyone could propose.Furthermore, it’s hard to imagine that Harris’ economic advisors would design a communist platform, now that we know she has chosen Brian Deese and Mike Pyle, both formerly of BlackRock, as Sabrina “Sabby Sabs” Salvati of Revolutionary Blackout Network reported last week.Salvati naturally expresses her concerns that this connection to BlackRock may influence Harris’ policies to favor corporate interests over the needs of the working class and marginalized communities. Knowing that the Democratic Party has for decades neglected the working poor, Salvati suggests (at ~8:43) that Harris’ policies may continue this trend, while criticizing the party more broadly for prioritizing the interests of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. After touching (at ~13:45) on Black celebrities and media personalities insulting the intelligence of Black men who do not want to vote for Harris—trying to shame Black men for thinking for themselves and forming their own opinions rather than blindly supporting her based on her identity—Salvati goes on to feature (at ~19:26) Dr. Umar Johnson, who questions Harris’ commitment to uplifting the Black community economically and argues that political candidates often engage in superficial gestures, such as hosting cookouts or featuring entertainers, rather than addressing the substantive economic issues facing Black communities.So, yes, it’s hard to imagine that former BlackRock executives would supply Harris with any communist economic policies. But what do communists think about Harris? (Since they surely wouldn’t acknowledge Nixon as one of their own.) For insight on that, we can turn once again to Caleb Maupin, who appeared earlier this month on George Galloway’s Mother of All Talk Shows to discuss his book Kamala Harris & the Future of America (2020), and the controversy surrounding its removal and subsequent reinstatement on Amazon. Maupin and Galloway’s discussion begins by connecting the book’s removal to a broader pattern of censorship and manipulation by tech giants like Amazon, Google, and Twitter. As their conversation continues, Maupin delves (at ~6:32) into Harris’ background—later mentioning (at ~11:19) her Marxist father, who denounced her 2020 campaign—along with her niece’s involvement with George Soros’ NGOs in India, and her ties to the U.S.’s “color revolution apparatus” for foreign regime change, alleging her to have been groomed by the same forces responsible for internationally destabilizing actions undertaken during the Obama administration’s first term. He also discusses (at ~9:43) Harris’ prosecutorial record, accusing her of mass incarceration, covering up scandals, and prioritizing cheap prison labor over justice: all quite contrary, of course, to her latter-day support for organizations like the Minnesota Freedom Fund, after doing so had become politically convenient. (Speaking of Minnesota, I suppose it’s worth mentioning that at the start of this month Harris selected Governor Tim Walz as her running-mate, who presided over the destruction of my hometown in 2020. Maybe now he’ll preside over a nationwide collapse, probably in the name of [private] equity.)Opening up further insights into how the professional-managerial sphere represents a co-opting of progressive liberals’ instincts, Galloway raises the claim (at ~12:23) by Dr. Phyllis Bennis that Harris would be tougher on Netanyahu and more sympathetic to Palestinians than Biden or Trump. Of course, Maupin dismisses this, pointing out that Harris has consistently sided with Israel and ignored Palestinian activists, and suggests that the Democrats are trying to appeal to Muslim voters by portraying Harris as more sympathetic to their causes, but he believes this is a façade—much (it seems to me) like her supposed defense of 2020’s anti-racist protesters.Overall, Maupin argues that a Harris presidency would be dangerous for the world due to her ties the aforementioned regime change apparatus of the American deep state. Given Harris’ chameleon tendencies—that is to say, given her career-long failure to genuinely represent the interests of minority communities as a prosecutor before pivoting to identity politics during her 2020 campaign—alongside attempts from the liberal wing of mainstream legacy media to drum up support for her through identity politics (for whom criticism of Harris represents “misogynoir”: misogyny against Black women in particular), a Harris presidency would likely be dangerous domestically too, generating further civil unrest between the professional-managerial and traditionalist-reactionary spheres of American public discourse.In the ongoing spectacle of American politics, the 2024 presidential election is shaping up to be yet another chapter in the nation's complex dance between identity politics, economic policy, and the ever-persistent influence of elite interests. The discourse surrounding Harris’ candidacy underscores the deepening divides in American society, where identity and policy are frequently wielded as tools of manipulation by both the political establishment and its critics.Meanwhile, commentators like House, Gray, Baraka, Salvati, and others remind us of the dangers of allowing identity to overshadow substance. As Harris’ campaign unfolds, it will be crucial for voters to critically assess not what she represents symbolically, but rather the concrete actions she proposes and the broader implications of her leadership for both the U.S. and the world. As we move closer to the 2024 election, we here at Radio Free Pizza predict that the discourse surrounding the Harris campaign will reveal a great deal about the current state and future direction of American democracy. Accordingly, keep tuning in to stay abreast of its trajectory and to remain ahead of the curve.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Citizens of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela beat their boots to the ballot-boxes last Sunday, where they made their choice between the incumbent President Nicolás Maduro of the United Socialist Party and his many opponents—but particularly the former diplomat Edmundo González—and between them decided who will sit in their country’s executive chair for the next six years, starting 10 January 2025.Obviously, Maduro won, with the National Electoral Council (CNE) reporting that he took 51.2% of the vote. That came paired with predictable claims from domestic opposition and international rivals of election fraud, which The Dissident regards as a new attempt from U.S. imperialists to arrange regime change in the Bolivarian Republic to gain control of its oil resources, as they attempted with a failed coup against Hugo Chávez in 2002, their recognition of the unelected Juan Guaidó as acting president in 2019, and the harsh sanctions imposed in the interim. Given the presence of international election observers who found the elections to be fair, The Dissident dismisses claims of fraud as baseless. Those observers included a delegation from the National Lawyers Guild International Committee, which reported a fair and transparent process. They noted high levels of voter confidence and accessibility, with no significant issues at the polls. Despite these findings, however, the U.S.-backed opposition and Western media have refused to accept the results. The NLG condemned these challenges to the election’s legitimacy, attributing them to attempts by the U.S. and other entities to undermine Venezuelan democracy and national sovereignty. Craig “Pasta” Jardula (of Pasta 2 Go) offered further details on Tuesday about the Venezuelan electoral process, reporting that its design—including extensive checks, audits, and public oversight—makes widespread cheating nearly impossible: doing so would have required predicting which 55% of the voting machines would be audited by the CNE and precisely which 5.5 million votes would be cross-verified with the machine. Moreover, Jardula argues that if fraud had occurred at the scale suggested, it would have been easily detected through real-time monitoring that would have resulted in demands from the opposition to audit specific machines. Therefore, he concludes that the election was fair, and that Maduro has been legitimately re-elected.Nonetheless, the González campaign still claimed victory in the disputed presidential election, asserting that it had tally-sheets proving he received more than double Maduro’s votes—which they had somehow come into possession of despite the National Electoral Council being stacked with Maduro loyalists. Maybe they do have them, and maybe they came into possession those tally-sheets through foreign interventions targeting the country’s electoral process, with Gloria Guillo reporting for Covert Action that the Venezuelan government has accused the now-defunct Lima Group and right-wing politicians from several countries of attempting to distort its elections. Their efforts might well have included hacking the Bolivarian Republic’s voting system, as Maduro himself claimed, while CNE president Elvis Amoroso has called for an investigation into alleged attacks on the electoral transmission system, including reports of attacks on local polling stations.But the opinions of election observers and potential foreign interference didn’t mean much to Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Panama, Peru, the Dominican Republic, and Uruguay, the governments of which questioned the election results and from which the Bolivarian Republic therefore withdrew its diplomatic staff the next day.Two days following the election, protesters supporting the Venezuelan opposition remain galvanized, reportedly burning pharmacies and hospitals—driven in no small part by misinformation and media manipulation designed to discredit Venezuela’s electoral system and the legitimacy of its government. Alan MacLeod of Mint Press News calls it an attempted coup, and details false claims including a video misrepresenting stolen air-conditioning units as mishandled ballot boxes, an outdated clip showing the 2017 toppling of a Chávez statue (unsurprisingly retweeted by Elon Musk, whom we already know advocates for coups in Latin America), a widely circulated image falsely indicating a vote count exceeding 100% that was actually a data entry error, and—to top it off—a supposed protester photographed as though dead in the street who then departs on a scooter.So, let me ask you: given the obvious media manipulation—and I think that last one in particular is pretty damning—do you think that I say it was obvious Maduro would win because of political corruption in Venezuela, or because of his comparable popularity there?If you’re not sure why the majority of Venezuelans might prefer Maduro, it might help to learn more about his opposition. On that subject, Max Blumenthal of The Grayzone interviewed Anya Parampil—author of the book Corporate Coup: Venezuela and the End of U.S. Empire (2024)—a few days before the election for her insights into the opposition candidates and their ties to U.S. interests. Blumenthal introduces González as a proxy candidate for Maria Corina Machado, whom Parampil describes (at ~2:13–8:25) as an extremist anti-Chavista figure who has been in the pocket of the U.S. government since Chávez’s election in 1998—and previously involved in the 2002 coup attempt against Chávez—who has received funding from the U.S. State Department and the (deservedly maligned) National Endowment for Democracy. Meanwhile, she portrays González as an elderly figure who previously served as a diplomat in the pre-revolution Venezuelan foreign ministry and was likely involved in U.S. operations in Central America during the 1980s. After the failure of the attempted coup to install Guaidó, most of the credible opposition fled the country, and so, she says (at ~7:54) that the elections “will be an opportunity for the Chavista camp there to demonstrate that they are stronger than ever […] in many ways, the Guaidó coup attempt made Chavismo and Maduro stronger than they would have been […] they were able to consolidate a lot of support.”Parampil goes on to provide details (at ~14:31–18:42) on what she calls “the corporate coup” orchestrated by the U.S. to seize Venezuela’s public assets—particularly the state oil company CITGO—and on the successful plot undertaken by Jose Ignacio Hernandez, the so-called special prosecutor of the aforementioned Guaidó’s shadow regime, to facilitate the sale of CITGO’s assets to U.S. oil companies like Exxon Mobil against the interests of their fellow Venezuelans. She accuses the judges overseeing the CITGO case of corruption as they prepare to award the country’s assets to private American oil companies, ignoring the plight of both the CITGO workers and the Venezuelan children affected by the sanctions.She also explains (at ~19:53–23:41) how the U.S. sanctions initially crippled Venezuela’s economy and caused mass migration—despite false claims that it was an unintended consequence—but highlights Maduro’s success in resisting U.S. interference, overcoming these economic challenges and aligning Venezuela with the emerging multipolar world order, including its potential admission to BRICS+. Accordingly, she portrays Maduro as a figure who has defied expectations and consolidated support by exposing the opposition’s extremism and willingness to promote war in Venezuela. Additionally, Parampil makes a point to detail (at ~26:49–28:02) how changes in U.S. policy under the Biden Administration—like this one offering work permits to Venezuelans seeking asylum—further encouraged out-migration north.(Evidently, collapsing the Bolivarian Republic was a good enough reason to incur an immigration crisis.)Highlighting the devastating impact of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela’s economy, Parampil cites (at ~37:20–39:42) a study by Francisco Rodriguez, a Maduro critic, demonstrating that sanctions directly caused a decline in Venezuela’s oil production, and thus argues that the sanctions were intentionally designed to cause suffering and economic collapse in Venezuela.Before the results were announced, Carlos Garrido of The Midwestern Marx Institute—and apparently a signatory to declarations from some newfangled American Communist Party—appeared on Telesur to offer his own analysis of these pivotal elections.Here, Garrido highlights the geopolitical implications of the elections, with Venezuela’s recent application to BRICS+ representing a shift towards a multipolar world order and away from American imperialism. As he sees it, a victory for Maduro would solidify Venezuela’s integration into the emerging multipolar world led by Russia, China, and Iran, bringing economic prosperity and rejecting Western hegemony. Accordingly, Garrido views the opposition as U.S. puppets trying for their last chance to sell out Venezuela’s resources to private American interests.For that reason, Garrido criticizes (at ~2:37) the U.S. for interfering in Venezuela’s internal affairs and engaging in a propaganda campaign against the elections. He dismisses claims of electoral fraud as unfounded and highlights a tweet by Kamala Harris as an example of ambiguous statements from U.S. officials intended to leave the door open for future interventions, and accuses the U.S. of backing the opposition’s violent and terroristic tendencies.To counteract this imperialist interference, Garrido emphasizes (at ~8:06) the importance of international solidarity and activism in supporting Venezuela’s struggle against American imperialism, arguing that the interests of the American working class are intertwined with those of the Bolivarian Revolution, as they face the same capitalist forces. He therefore calls for support for the Chavista government not out of morality, but out of a concrete realization of shared interests, warning (at ~11:50) that a defeat of the Bolivarian Revolution would mean the end of Venezuela as a free and sovereign entity, returning it to the status of a U.S. neo-colony, in which the opposition’s proposed model would benefit only a small clique while the majority of Venezuelans continue struggling. Accordingly, Garrido reemphasizes (at ~14:35) the importance of international support for Venezuela in the face of U.S. sanctions and hybrid warfare, with the country’s upcoming acceptance into BRICS+ for enabling it to weather the economic storm and defend itself from U.S. attacks with alliances based on principles of multipolarity and mutually beneficial bilateral relations.The day after the election, Ajamu Baraka of The Black Agenda Report appeared on The Kim Iversen Show to offer his own perspective as an on-the-ground election observer, echoing and expanding on the aforementioned report of the delegation from the National Lawyers Guild International Committee, while also commenting on U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken’s criticism of the results.Baraka argues (at ~1:34) that the Venezuelan electoral system is transparent and secure, describing various measures in place to ensure the integrity of the vote, such as biometric voter verification, paper ballot backups, and audits. He suggests that the U.S. government’s claimed irregularities lack evidence and represent a broader effort to undermine Venezuela’s socialist experiment. Discussing the polarization between supporters of the Venezuelan government and the opposition, Baraka notes (at ~6:54) that while the opposition is vocal in rejecting the election results, many government supporters understand the choice as one between maintaining their independence or becoming a U.S. puppet. He also touches (at ~7:21) on the potential for violence from the opposition like that it committed in the past.Baraka also describes (at ~10:16) the impact of U.S. sanctions on Venezuela, which he reminds us are illegal under international law. He argues that the sanctions aim to undermine Venezuela’s socialist development and create economic hardship for the people, potentially driving them to reject the government. Baraka naturally links the crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border to these sanctions. But regardless of the domestic consequences, Baraka tells us (at ~22:27), “Both [Democrats and Republicans] represent two sectors of the ruling class, of the elite. They are united, though, in their commitment to maintaining U.S. hegemony. So no, there will be no fundamental change in policies.” Therefore, under the current American duopoly, imperialist hostility toward Venezuela and other countries in the region looks likely to continue.If coup attempts plus illegal sanctions and consequent declines in national oil production (with the combination causing oil revenue to sink from $50 billion in 2012 to $743 million in 2020) represent the kind of treatment that everyday Venezuelans receive from Maduro’s geopolitical rivals for the sake of their president—plus, as the aforementioned Guillo reports, the seizure of Citgo assets worth $32–40 billion, of sovereign funds held by the New York Federal Reserve Bank estimated at $3–5 billion, and of $1 billion in Venezuelan gold in the UK—then to me it seems most likely for the best that those rivals have so far seen their hopes dashed. Meanwhile, Guillo also tells us how Maduro introduced the Economic Recovery Program in August 2018 to address Venezuela’s economic issues. Key measures included stimulating and diversifying national production, leading to 60,000 new brands, and achieving 96% food sovereignty, reducing the need for food imports. It also increased tax collection by 105% to support social investments, encouraged non-traditional exports, and provided support for one million Venezuelan entrepreneurs. By the first quarter of 2024, the economy had grown by 7%, marking 12 consecutive quarters of growth, while the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) projected Venezuela's GDP growth at 4%, leading the region. The country also recorded its lowest inflation rate in 39 years, at 1% for June 2024, compared to 96.7% in June 2018, and its currency (the bolívar, of course) maintained the most stable dollar price in 13 years, thanks to a new exchange market. This stability has strengthened the population’s income and consumption capacity.We therefore extend our hearty congratulations to President Maduro and the brave people of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela in their struggle against U.S. imperialism on behalf of the worldwide working class, and encourage them in their resistance against the attempted coup from the American regime change apparatus.Of course, some may accuse us of bias, since we certainly have our ideological commitments. As many of you know by now, the success of Bolivarian socialism, or Bolivarianism—and, by extension, of Maduro against his U.S.-backed opponents—is a cause that we at Radio Free Pizza hold dear. Back in March, we suggested that the late Chávez’s Bolivarianism—with its emphasis on direct citizen engagement through popular votes and referendums, on economic independence and self-sufficiency, and on national sovereignty—could provide inspiration for the 21st-century socialism with American characteristics (“Libertarian Communism”) that we daydream about around here. Accordingly, we proposed that our historically inevitable Leisure Party regime should focus on rebuilding the U.S.’s domestic manufacturing industry with worker-owned companies and on establishing a joint-stock state-owned enterprise (“AmericaNOC”) to extract, refine, and market the country’s plentiful endowment of petroleum before returning its gains to the citizens of the United People’s Commonwealths of America.Given the aforementioned ideological commitments, it will come as no surprise to longtime devotees that Caleb Maupin—one of the primary influences thus far on our project to articulate this “Libertarian Communism”—spent some time not two weeks ago discussing the prospects for U.S. relations with Venezuela under a potential second Trump Administration, and the legacy of Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, highlighting the late president’s efforts to improve the lives of Venezuelans through social programs, infrastructure development, and the use of oil revenues. Commenting on the then-recent assassination attempt of former U.S. President Donald Trump and on Maduro’s response—in which he wished Trump good health—Maupin suggests (along the same lines as The Dissident, covered above) that both have become targets of the same regime change apparatus that acts in the service of the ultra-rich haute bourgeoisie who support globalism. He discusses (at ~36:37) the obstacles faced by Venezuela under the Maduro administration due to economic sanctions and the drop in oil prices, as well as U.S. attempts to overthrow the Venezuelan government—either by attempting to assassinate Maduro via drone in 2018 or by attempting to install Guaidó afterward. Despite these challenges, or because of them, he celebrates the triumphant legacy of Chávez’s Bolivarian Revolution and Maduro’s ongoing resistance to U.S. imperialism.Despite the controversies and challenges posed by imperialism via U.S. interference and economic sanctions, the recent election in Venezuela underscores the resilience and continued support for Bolivarian socialism under Maduro. Supported by U.S. interests, the opposition failed to gain significant traction, due in part to their perceived extremism and the harmful impacts of the sanctions imposed by their U.S. backers on everyday Venezuelans. This outcome reflects the strength of the Bolivarian Revolution’s ideals of national sovereignty, economic independence, and direct citizen engagement. For us here at Radio Free Pizza, these events reaffirm our belief in the potential of a similar model—one we envision as “Libertarian Communism” for the U.S., emphasizing local governance, worker-owned enterprises, and national self-sufficiency. The Venezuelan experience, as complicated and challenging as it is, provides us with valuable lessons for those committed to building a more just and equitable society, free from the overreach of external powers and of the exploitative interference of the globalist faction of the American ruling class. Accordingly, we hope that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela will continue withstanding its attempts to impose regime change through its latest attempted coup.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

The Pizzagate conspiracy theory of 2016 alleged that high-ranking members of the Democratic Party, including former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign manager John Podesta, were involved in a child-sex-trafficking ring operating out of a Washington, D.C. pizzeria called Comet Ping Pong. Proponents of the theory claimed that coded messages about illegal activities were hidden in emails leaked by WikiLeaks, which fact-checkers debunked—and, I have to add, I couldn’t find any results there either when I searched for the term “pizza arrangement”; however, one to Podesta from a late trustee of the Sandler Foundation about his lost handkerchief with “a map that seems pizza-related” apparently exists—while linking these claims to further conspiracy theories surrounding the 10 July 2016 murder of Democratic National Committee (DNC) staffer Seth Rich.Because, believe it or not, there’s more than one conspiracy theorized here.Hear That Long Whistle BlowFor those now unaware, Rich’s murder garnered significant attention at the time. Walking home in the early hours on 10 July 2016 in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, D.C., Rich was killed in what appeared to be a botched robbery attempt during which he was shot in the back (twice) and after which his assailants took nothing. Despite being taken to the hospital, Rich succumbed to his injuries about an hour-and-a-half later.In the aftermath of his murder, observers posited that Rich was the source of the DNC emails provided to WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential election campaign, and that he was assassinated for leaking sensitive information revealing that the DNC conspired to prevent primary candidate Bernie Sanders from gaining the party’s nomination, leading to the resignation of then-chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shulz two weeks after Rich’s murder. The assassination hypothesis, it seems to me, hinges on two pieces of evidence: * WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich’s murder on 9 August 2016, the same day that Julian Assange (recently freed from British custody) said in an interview that “our whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often [take] very significant risks” while referencing that same murder.* Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) delivered a memo to then-President Trump on 24 July 2017 arguing that forensic evidence suggests the data was copied onto an external storage device at a speed not possible via remote hacking—therefore leaked by someone with physical access to the DNC computer, not hacked remotely by Russians—while questioning the credibility of the intelligence assessment attributing the hack to Russia, suggesting it was agenda-driven and lacking in substantive evidence. Among the members of VIPS who questioned the intelligent assessment stand Bill Binney and Larry Johnson, who together expanded on their memo in an article (reprinted by the LaRouche PAC) in February 2019. Suggesting that the NSA would have been able to trace a foreign hack if it had occurred, the pair criticize the investigators’ reliance on findings from private firms like CrowdStrike—the same one that distributed a software patch nine days ago which crashed an estimated 8.5 million devices—and air their suspicions the timing and actions of the DNC and cybersecurity companies following the alleged hack. They call for further scrutiny of the evidence and raise doubts about the validity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of Russian military personnel.Interestingly, the aforementioned VIPS memo notes that CIA cyber tools like Vault 7 can be used for false-flag operations (as we’ve wagered might happen this year) to hint that “Guccifer 2.0”—the online persona that emerged in 2016 to communicate with journalists and provided documents purportedly obtained from hacking the DNC servers—may have been a front used by U.S. intelligence, since analysis of metadata from documents published by Guccifer 2.0 indicates that they were tampered with to falsely suggest Russian involvement.Certainly that narrative runs counter to that endorsed by the D.C. establishment and mainstream media. As Yahoo News reported in July 2019, conspiracy theories alleging that Rich was murdered by a hit squad working for Hillary Clinton originated from the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), which circulated the narrative just days after Rich’s death. The SVR’s 2016 report, says Yahoo, appeared on a website known for spreading Russian propaganda, and thereafter sparked a conspiracy theory that gained traction among conservative activists and in the White House while Russian state media and online agents amplified their psy-op over the first two-and-half years of the Trump Administration. The Hill added that now-former Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines (also remembered for declining to prosecute 67% of D.C. arrests) reported having obtained SVR intelligence reports on the case and briefed Mueller’s prosecutors on their contents before retiring in 2018. Since I haven’t managed yet to track down the propaganda outlets where those reports appeared, or any archived versions thereof, I still wonder if Sines had the same kind of “evidence” that Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) “had” in 2017 for demonstrating collusion between the Russian Federation and the 2016 Trump campaign—the kind, I mean, that didn’t make it into the Mueller Report (which determined no coordination occurred), and about which Rep. Schiff was censured in June 2023 for having lied. But maybe I’m paranoid.For his part, Mueller set the U.S. establishment narrative in stone with his March 2019 report on Russian interference in the 2016 election—though neither the first nor second volume makes any mention of Sines’s alleged SVR propaganda, nor does the 2018 indictment of eleven Russian nationals alleged to have hacked the DNC and to have operated the Guccifer 2.0 persona. In response, VIPS’s April 2019 memo asserted that Mueller presumed that Russia hacked DNC and Podesta emails without independent verification, while again criticizing his reliance on the firm CrowdStrike with its questionable credibility. They highlight discrepancies in the Mueller Report’s findings and offer again their own forensic investigation results. Noting that the narrative of Russian interference strained U.S.-Russia relations, the VIPS memo urges the President to challenge the flawed evidence and hints that renewed discussions between the Department of Justice (DoJ) and WikiLeaks’ Assange may present a potential opportunity to obtain exculpatory evidence. Their response concludes with a call for the President to address the issue head-on, despite expected resistance.Of course, no independent verification was ever performed to demonstrate that the hacked DNC emails never appeared on Seth Rich’s personal or work laptops. Instead, U.S. law enforcement authorities treated Rich’s murder as a homicide, and pursued leads related to robbery and other potential motives, therefore finding no evidence to link his death to the DNC email leak. Rich’s parents settled a lawsuit with Fox News over claims linking his death to the Democratic Party, and to date the case remains unsolved, with no arrests made.However, late last year a Texas judge ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to disclose information related to Rich’s murder that, in response to a 2017 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The FBI initially claimed no relevant files were found, but later admitted to possessing over 20,000 pages, including some related to Rich, and requested an additional 66 years to release the information. The court ordered the FBI to provide a timeline for disclosing information related to Rich’s laptops within 14 days and denied a motion for clarification was denied. Nonetheless, attorney Ty Clevenger reported in January 2024 that the FBI has continued defying that court order, leading some to renew calls to hold the bureau accountable.Since it couldn’t locate its own files a year after Rich’s murder, we’re probably free to wonder how deeply they investigated it. But in the meantime, we’ve received the assurances of the aforementioned Mueller Report that Russian intelligence hacked the DNC and provided the results to WikiLeaks as Guccifer 2.0, regardless of the fact that the FBI has thus far prevented anyone from independently verifying that Rich’s laptops were uninvolved.…So! All’s well that ends well, right? “In that case,” I can hear you asking, “why are we still talking about this?”(Hopefully not just because Elon Musk brought it up five times in the week before the aforementioned judge issued the disclosure order.)Remember That Tune?The story’s just been on my mind: I’d heard of Pizzagate before, but not until this year did I learn that, in fact, pedophiles use “pizza” as a codeword when discussing child-sexual-abuse materials (CSAM) together online. Take a look at my username and the title of this newsletter, and then take a guess at why this concerned me so. Accordingly, in last season’s “The Hot & Fresh Pizza-Man: Year One”, I took a little time to disavow child trafficking (a big ask, I know, but somehow I managed it: thanks for your applause) and to distance myself from the association that my username has rendered inevitable. Still, I guess now I’m putting even more time into it. For whatever reason, the story had staying power—after all, the first link in this dispatch’s first paragraph leads to a tweet from February of this year—and (at least for a fringe of the population) it had the potential to capture the imagination: including, of course, that of Edgar Maddison Welch, the gunman who plead guilty to a shooting incident at the aforementioned pizzeria in December 2016. If you’d like more detail as to what all the fuss was about, I can point you to Titus Frost’s “#PizzaGate: The Completely Open Source Updated Investigation”, which the video’s description dates to 2016 and which I chanced upon via Twitter in February. In it, Frost discusses what evidence he and others find available for the existence of an elite pedophile ring involving high-level politicians and influential people, with previous examples of the same cited in the 1980s Franklin Community Federal Credit Union child-trafficking scandal (now remembered as a hoax, though some call that a faulty memory), in the UK’s 2012 Operation Yewtree investigation into Jimmy Savile (the late personal friend of now-King Charles) and other British media personalities, and, of course, in the infamous career of billionaire financier and child-sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein. (Radio Free Pizza devotees may recall that last month’s dispatch discussed both the Franklin scandal and Jeffrey Epstein as context for allegations of sexual assaults against Sean “Diddy” Combs. Investigative journalist Nick Bryant, known for exposing such networks, suggests that Combs’s situation might reflect a broader, systemic issue within elite circles, where sexual misconduct is used for blackmail and control, mirroring the cases of Epstein and others.)With regard to Pizzagate in particular, Frost examines the connections between Comet Ping Pong’s owner James Alefantis, the aforementioned Podesta and his brother Tony, and Clinton herself. The alleged evidence that Frost presents includes suspicious artwork belonging to Tony Podesta, codewords related to pedophilia in the Podesta brothers’ emails about the pizzeria, and Alefantis’ disturbing Instagram posts containing further pedophilia references. Frost argues that the purported connections of Alefantis and his partner David Brock (founder of Media Matters) to figures like Barack Obama and George Soros—as demonstrated (at ~23:19–24:02) in tax returns from American Bridge 21st Century (the super PAC founded by Brock in 2010 and to which George Soros was the largest donor in 2016) showing $11,000 paid to Comet Ping Pong in 2014—make him highly suspect. Furthermore, he suggests that tunnels may connect Comet Ping Pong to nearby locations like buildings housing an OTO Masonic Lodge and a Supreme Council of Freemasons.Naturally, Frost calls for law enforcement and public investigations, and advocates for continued research, information sharing, business reviews, and “truth bombing” to force authorities to act. Given that Frost continues sharing this information nigh eight years after his documentary’s online debut, we might say that those “truth bombs” continue resounding—or otherwise, that they didn’t explode loudly enough. Tough to say which, but I presume that either the perceived quiet surrounding allegations of politicians involved with pedophilia, or the perceived deafness of the population to those allegations, must somehow factor in to the ongoing interest of Frost and others. In contrast however, WNYC Studios’ On the Media suggested in 2016 that the debunked theory persisted due to a mix of confirmation bias and distrust of established institutions, and links it to to historical moral panics like the Satanic Panic daycare hysteria of the 1980s (as Richard Beck proposes at ~7:38). In addition, the hosts and guests blame our modern habits of media consumption, with like-minded communities furnishing echo chambers for alternative viewpoints, with the contemporary American climate of distrust and animosity down partisan lines encourages the use of conspiracy theories to smear opponents. Understanding these psychological and sociological factors, they tell us, is crucial for addressing the spread of conspiracy theories and promoting critical thinking and media literacy. Pizzagate, therefore, serves as a stark reminder of how, in the digital age, the swift proliferation of unverified information can have real-world consequences. (For another example, we might even cite include the injuries that befell Jack Burkman, a D.C. lobbyist known for publicity-seeking antics who launched a campaign to investigate Rich’s murder that involved filming a reenactment of the shooting, which culminated in Burkman being shot himself.)…In that case, would you say I’m a public menace for writing about it now?Sirens on the ThoroughfareOf course, no victims or family thereof have ever leveled an accusation, no investigation has ever been conducted, and no charges have ever been filed—at least as far as I can tell. With that in mind, it looks like the most grievous harm of Pizzagate arose not from any child-sex-trafficking, but from stubborn attempts of the delusional to uncover it. So, maybe people on the internet should exercise a little more discretion with their paranoid apophenia! That’s how rumors get started. (Like similar ones from earlier this year about the illegal Chabad-Lubavitch tunnel in Brooklyn’s Crown Heights, where video seemed to show a stained mattress and photos seemed to show a baby rocker.) Here, I speak from a position of some experience: on a much smaller scale, of course, but nonetheless, discovering the flier in the photo below posted last autumn at a bus stop only a block from my apartment caused me considerable dismay.“In 2021, A_______ _______ _______ sold me to John and his son Zach,” the flier begins, and trust me, gets worse from there. I’ve censored all the identifying information to prevent anyone from styling themselves vigilantes over these unproven allegations of the aforementioned John having raped and murdered a child on the property next door to that where A_______ lived, with one of these neighboring residents (who wears a cap of a color curiously redacted before I saw the flier myself) helping John to dispose of the child’s body. Residents of that next-door house “prey on immigrants, runaways, unhoused peoples, [and] addicts” in careers that seem to include multiple murders, rapes, and instances of child-trafficking spanning “all ages and genders”; in particular, C________ “pretends to be an ally and Catholic to gain undocumented immigrants trust then exploits them” while making sure to “‘keep them in line’ by threatening the immigrants with ICE,” such the maid whom the Zach named in this flier reportedly raped. (Another offense of John’s was also redacted before I got to it, though it doesn’t save his reputation.)Fortunately, it’s easy enough to prove that I’m not the same “Zach” named above: “John” isn’t my father’s name. Nonetheless, I’ve done my best to prevent anyone reading this from pursuing vigilante justice, and I hope the police follow through on investigating my report to them about it—and the same, for that matter, in regard to the municipal advisory council mentioned, which has also been informed. While I hesitate to pass my own judgment, and I would prefer that none except a court of a law try to do so, I see other causes for concern besides clearing my own name. Among those concerns, I find particular alarm (“particular” for the purposes of this dispatch) with the predatory exploitation of illegal immigrants described in the flier: that aligns too well, you see, with what I’ve learned recently from Amber Yang of WantToKnow.info about the U.S. border crisis and its relationship to missing and abused children—as well as to controversial tracking technologies and instability in Central American countries.Here, Yang (who appeared on our Better Futures miniseries in its final episode last season) discusses issues around the influx of migrants, and the lack of transparency and accountability. While she acknowledges the U.S. immigration crisis as a polarizing issue—with millions of migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border yearly based on Customs data (including recent reports of 300,000 migrants flown into the U.S. secretly), increasing budget pressures on cities and amplifying questions around use of taxpayer funds—Yang maintains that solutions lie in open-minded discussion across differences and investigating issues around children’s safety, human rights, privacy, and support for local governments. Highlighting the 150,000+ unaccompanied children who arrived in 2022, the thousands who disappear yearly with no clear accountability, and the whistleblowers like Tara Lea Rodas and Aaron Stevenson, who exposed how the children of migrants being delivered to criminal sponsors involved in trafficking, Yang also notes how controversial technologies like facial recognition and experimental AI are being used to track migrants as they pass through ICE facilities that whistleblowers accuse of trafficking children to criminal sponsors, and which have faced sexual abuse allegations, and child housing facilities, which currently face abuse lawsuits. She appropriately traces the root causes of the immigration crisis to U.S. foreign interventions backing extremists, destabilization efforts, civil wars, resulting in the economic devastation in Central American countries from which migrants are now fleeing. Accordingly, Yang calls for constructive discussion and action on providing real government oversight for child safety, for addressing root causes of migration—i.e., the destabilizing effects of U.S. foreign policy—and for developing a compassionate humanitarian approach to border security.(“…Hold on now: what are these whistleblowers talking about?”)Variations on a ThemeDespite what mainstream coverage of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory might imply, concerns regarding the involvement of state intelligence services in child trafficking are neither novel nor baseless. Not just since 2016, but throughout the modern era, there have been persistent allegations and documented cases suggesting collusion between intelligence agencies and human-trafficking networks, stemming from various instances where state actors have been implicated in facilitating or turning a blind eye to child-trafficking. For example, James Corbett (admired for a long time around here) touched on it early in his career with 2008’s “Who Is Jeff Gannon?” covering the mysterious case of Jeff Gannon, a conservative reporter who received White House press credentials despite his background as “James Guckert” on gay escort websites. Beyond that—and more useful for our purposes here—the episode discusses (at ~30:31–34:22) the missing child Johnny Gosch, whose mother reported that he’d returned home to reveal that he’d been kidnapped and trafficked, implying (of course) that Gannon might be Gosch’s adult identity. That doesn’t seem quite so far-fetched—as Gosch’s own mother might agree; anyway, she calls it (at ~35:54–36:04) “not impossible”—after you learn (at ~45:36–46:31) of past White House scandals in 1989 involving Craig Spence and Lawrence King using underage callboys. Even more interestingly (at least for our purposes here), Corbett provides further details (at ~49:54–51:59) about how, at the time the Callboy Ring Affair arose, the scandal over the same Franklin Community Federal Credit Union child sex case of 1988 described above was then coming to a head in Omaha:A black Republican who had been a leader in organizing minority support for the president’s 1988 campaign […] was at the center of a sex and money scandal that […] originated with the collapse of the minority-oriented Franklin Community Credit Union in Omaha, directed by Lawrence E. King, Jr. […] In November 1988, King’s offices were raided by the FBI, and $40 million was discovered missing. Within weeks, the Nebraska State, which initially opened the inquiry to find out where the money had gone, instead found [itself] questioning young adults and teenagers who said that they had been child prostitutes. Social workers and state child care administrators accused King of running a child prostitution ring […] The Weekly stated that Roy Stevens, a private investigator who has worked on the case and heads the Missing Youth Foundation, says there is reason to believe that the CIA is directly implicated, and that the FBI refuses to help in the investigation and has sabotaged any efforts to get to the bottom of the story. Stevens says that Paul Bonacci directly accused President Bush […] when he testified before the Franklin Committee. Bonacci, who had been one of the child prostitutes, is identified by leading child abuse experts as a well-informed, credible witness. That same Bonacci reported having been a victim in the Franklin Community Federal Credit Union scandal, and (in the unaired 1993 Discovery Channel documentary The Conspiracy of Silence, clipped at ~54:45–59:36) to having helped his abusers recruit further victims—who he said, Corbett tells us (at ~1:00:10–1:00:54), had included the kidnapped Gosch. (As an aside, it’s interesting to note that Stevens’ suspicions about CIA involvement in the scandal in light of the findings of journalist Derrick Broze of The Conscious Resistance Network—to whose work we’ll return again below—in his 2019 documentary Who Will Find What the Finders Hide? investigating a 1987 incident involving two members of the Finders cult arrested in Florida with six malnourished children whom they claimed to be taking to a school in Mexico, leading to allegations of satanic rituals and child trafficking. As Broze reports [at ~14:13–19:32], U.S. Customs Agent Raymond J. Martinez found his own inquiries stymied, eventually being told that “‘the investigation into the activity of the Finders had become a CIA internal matter.’”)Though, like I said above, the Franklin scandal—also known as the Boys Town scandal for the troubled-youth-charity’s involvement—is remembered today as having been debunked, those interested in learning more about the allegations involved can turn to Corbett’s 2015 “Political Pedophilia” (at ~34:27–39:42) analyzing why pedophilia seems prevalent among political elites, and how their kakistocracy (“rule by the worst”) maintains itself via systemic child abuse. Further details include:Paul Bonacci, one of the victims, claims that he and others were flown to Bohemian Grove to participate in orgies and other acts of child abuse. In July 1990, then-Chief Investigator Gary Caradori and his son were killed in a mysterious plane crash, and in 1999, John DeCamp represented Bonacci in a lawsuit filed against Lawrence E. King. Bonacci won a million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages to be paid by King, who has only served jail time for bank fraud. And this goes into a lot of other stories, including The Washington Times’s “Homosexual prostitution inquiry ensnares VIPs with Reagan, Bush” and other such headlines that come sometimes and go very quickly—perhaps obviously and predictably so. …Wait a minute: if the Franklin scandal was debunked, then shouldn’t Bonacci have been paying damages to King? What a country!Other subjects cover in this later episode include the same examples provided in the Pizzagate documentary described above: namely, Jimmy Savile and Jeffrey Epstein. Of the former, Corbett recounts (at ~3:15–8:51) how justice and polite society turned a blind eye to “the BBC fixture who for decades presented top of the pops as well as the popular children’s program Jim’ll Fix It […] who for half a century serially abused, raped, sexually preyed upon children”, and describes the insights gained from research into such a distasteful topic: The Jimmy Savile case is particularly instructive […] because it really does encapsulate this phenomenon in a nutshell. Here we have this man who, as we now know, was widely known amongst media and political circles to be a pedophile, to be a sexual predator, a rapist, a serial abuser of children, and yet that open secret was kept from the public […] and suddenly, when he died, the floodgates were opened. This is interesting because it provides an insight into […] how this phenomenon is perpetuated, how it operates, how political connections and media influence can keep the lid on a scandal as massive as this one.To that end, Corbett details Savile’s extensive network of connections and highlights how his relationships with wealthy and powerful individuals in the entertainment industry, his employers at the BBC, and political figures and even members of the British royal family—including then-Prince Charles—while his horrific abuses were still ongoing. These relationships, we presume, account for the failure of those in power to hold him accountable. However, Corbett offers a complementary and expanded explanation while elucidating the concept of a kakistocracy, citing (at ~41:04–44:24) a comment from Dr. Tjeerd Andringa (also a guest on Corbett’s program), he explains that the elite may use child abuse to maintain control by creating a cycle of abuse that produces obedient and servile individuals who lack autonomy. This perpetuates a system in which psychopaths are recruited and groomed for positions of power through stages of initiation that reveal their ruthlessness and loyalty (say, by recruiting their fellow victims, as Bonacci claimed to have done), while giving their psychopathic abusers the opportunity to collect material for later blackmail to ensure their compliance within this corrupt system.In retrospect, collecting such compromising materials sounds a lot like Jeffrey Epstein’s operation. Reporting in 2015, Corbett describes (at ~20:20–28:41) the connections between the former financier and convicted sex offender and various high-profile individuals, including Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, among the many others in politics and entertainment named in a stolen black book containing contact details of individuals associated with Epstein. The then-ongoing scandal surrounded Epstein’s involvement in child-sex-trafficking, as well as the legal proceedings related to his plea deal and allegations against prominent figures like Prince Andrew. The aforementioned Derrick Broze offered his own treatment of the Epstein scandal in his 2018 documentary Bringing Down Jeffrey Epstein, detailing the billionaire’s lenient plea deal after his conviction for soliciting an underage girl for prostitution. Though over forty women accused Epstein of molesting them as minors during massages at his Palm Beach home, with some victims saying they were rented to politicians and businessmen—perhaps including known associates like American presidents Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, with one victim (as Broze details at ~18:07–18:39) accusing the latter by name before abruptly withdrawing her lawsuit—a controversial non-prosecution agreement negotiated with federal prosecutor Alexander Acosta (the Trump Administration’s Labor Secretary, at the time of Broze’s report), under which Epstein plead guilty to a lesser charge and served thirteen months in jail with work release, avoiding more serious charges or a tougher sentence.Of course, Broze questions whether Epstein’s wealth and connections enabled him to evade harsher punishment for his alleged crimes. In addition he speculates (at ~24:22–24:28) that “if the allegations are true—that Epstein secretly recorded these sex parties—he may have plenty of dirt on many of the world’s most powerful people.”I’d say that’s putting it mildly! (Though I don’t know yet how I’d put it with appropriate gravitas.) Certainly, it would have concerned those people a great deal what federal authorities could have uncovered after arresting Epstein again on sex-trafficking charges in 2019, one year after the release of Broze’s documentary, leading to the resignation of the aforementioned Secretary Acosta. Surely too those parties would have breathed sighs of relief later that year, after Epstein was “found dead” in his cell of an apparent hanging, with surveillance footage recording his cell door on the night of his death deleted in a “clerical error”—because, of course: everyone knows, that happens all the time.But with the benefit of not just one more year, but six, I think it’s possible Broze might now conclude that collecting dirt on the world’s most powerful people had been Epstein’s true purpose. If you’re not sure yet why I’d say so, we can turn back to The Corbett Report, on which the aforementioned veteran host interviewed Whitney Webb—herself much admired around here, along with her outlet Unlimited Hangout—in 2022 about her two-volume triumph, One Nation Under Blackmail, which investigates Jeffrey Epstein’s connections to intelligence agencies, organized crime, sexual blackmail operations, and networks of power elites, and in the process demonstrates that his crimes go far beyond child- or sex-trafficking. Tracing the historical origins of Epstein’s powerful network—which intertwined figures like Leslie Wexner, Robert Maxwell, Nathan Myhrvold, and Adnan Khashoggi (who, Webb tells us [at ~9:37–9:46], had “a group of women […] used as sexual bait […] for the purpose of sex blackmail”), as well as prominent families like the Rockefellers and Kennedys, in addition to major institutions like Harvard University, Microsoft, Israeli intelligence, and the Clinton White House—Webb identifies its roots in a symbiosis between intelligence agencies and organized crime, employing sexual blackmail to compromise leaders in politics and business. This, she tells us (at ~53:53–55:26), represents a demonstrable continuity, dating at least to the 1940s, in how intelligence agencies and organized crime work together, using sexual blackmail and illicit financing to control governments.Interestingly, for its potential parallels with the model of kakistocracy described above, Webb describes (at ~3048–32:59) two tiers of sex trafficking by Epstein, one exploiting vulnerable girls, and another cultivating elite wives/girlfriends to compromise powerful figures across business, politics and academia:[To explain] the damning aspects of the Trump-Epstein relationship […] I’d have to explain what I think was going on with the sex-trafficking stuff with Epstein […] there were probably two parallel operations that were going on: one is […] exploited girls and the massages […] but there’s another tier of girls who are lured in the same way […] but they actually receive that help and then are cultivated […] and they become the wives and girlfriends of the elite in this social circle. And when it comes to Trump, one of the women that Epstein was cultivating […] was a Norwegian heiress named Selena Middlefart who actually accompanied Epstein on one of his visits to the Clinton White House […] and she became Donald Trump’s girlfriend in this period […] then the subsequent girlfriend Trump had after Middlefart is his current wife, Melania, who allegedly was introduced to Trump also by Maxwell and Epstein […] There’s other cases besides Trump of these women, including many of the women that accompanied Epstein to the Clinton White House of sort of getting involved with people in Epstein’s social circle that were very wealthy […] He’s accompanied by attractive young women and a lot of those women after time end up becoming girlfriends or wives of people much older and wealthier and powerful than than they are [with] telling connections to Epstein’s network.Taken all together, Webb’s investigation into Epstein’s network reveals a disturbing pattern of sexual blackmail used to control leaders in politics and business. Clearly, exploring cases like Epstein’s means charting the deep-seated connections between power, corruption, and exploitation, underscoring the insidious nature of such crimes and the urgent need for systemic change. Likewise for Savile’s case, and even (some of might say) for the Franklin scandal, on which mainstream coverage touched again in 2022 through a review of the unaired Conspiracy of Silence documentary. While other outlets remember the scandal as debunked, as noted above, let’s not forget that the associated Callboy Ring Affair (a story broken by The Washington Times in 1989) received serious enough attention for “intelligence experts” of the time to hypothesize in The Australian Financial Review that it might have been a KGB operation.That brings us back to Seth Rich. His murder in 2016 and the suspicious circumstances of his death saw some theorize (justifiably, given Julian Assange’s comments at the time) that Rich had leaked proof of corruption in the Democratic National Committee. Throughout subsequent months and years, the intelligence and criminal justice apparatuses of the U.S. establishment would spin a counter-narrative alleging Russian espionage in the interest of interfering with the 2016 presidential election—rather ironically, since the leaked documents indicate the DNC’s interference with the will of its own voters. In contrast, veteran intelligence professionals including Bill Binney and Larry Johnson critiqued the establishment story and the corroborating documentation, noting that it bore evidence of tampering in its metadata that could have been accomplished with programs that U.S. intelligence is now known to have possessed (once again, ironically) due to revelations from WikiLeaks.I suppose then that someone could easily theorize that Russian agents killed Rich in an effort to pin the murder on Hillary Clinton—or, for that matter, that Western intelligence services could have cultivated the Pizzagate conspiracy theory themselves in an effort to discredit the entirety of the DNC leaks. That, at least, might help to explain how so little as a single email from John Podesta referring to “pizza” could lead to a gunman visiting a pizzeria: especially when one compares it to historic examples (documented, admittedly, to varying degrees) linking child-sex-trafficking and other activities of organized crime to political operatives and intelligence agencies, as outlined above. Of course, the recent court order compelling the FBI to disclose information related to Rich’s murder complicates the case further, raising questions about transparency, accountability, and the role of law enforcement agencies in addressing unresolved mysteries with potential political implications. One would imagine, however, that the FBI wouldn’t have resisted the courts so obstinately, if they indeed maintain that Rich didn’t leak the DNC emails. Meanwhile, as inquiries into Rich’s murder continue, it remains to be seen whether clarity and closure will ever be achieved in this deeply contentious and enigmatic case.Certainly conspiracy theories arise and persist due in part or whole to a learned distrust of establishment institutions, sometimes provoked in certain fringe circles to delusion through the social proof supplied in online echo chambers of like-minded outsiders: the kind of people you might say I take for my subjects as an “outsider analyst,” or otherwise, those whom you might say I represent. In the case of Pizzagate, its theorists seized on the appearance of what some have used as a codeword in a political campaign manager’s correspondence, interpreted its appearance there to indicate his involvement in a scandal reminiscent of those from years past, and—through ongoing rounds of weighing bare and typically unverifiable evidence against their confirmation bias, and likely (so long as state intelligence remained uninvolved) nothing more nor less—decided that child-sex-trafficking and/or ritual sexual abuse must occur in the basement of D.C.’s Comet Ping Pong. But I think it’s a shame to consider that such a conspiracy theory should compete in the popular imagination with any narrative linking Rich’s death to the DNC email leaks, given the flaws in the evidence for the official explanation outlined in the VIPS memos, as described above. Certainly the persistence of some conspiracy theories underscores the need for critical thinking and media literacy to combat the spread of unverified information and to prevent real-world consequences from arising—and perhaps we should regard as least trustworthy those that surround recent news, erring on the side of caution and, if we just can’t help but indulge a paranoid tendency, assuming that these theories represent only the ongoing operations of information warfare, at least until they’re supported with independent, evidence-based inquiry. Lacking that, taking any kind of action based on those theories we might encounter—as James Corbett reminds us in “Political Pedophilia” (at ~55:00–1:05:56), featured above, highlighting cases like bizarre claims of a McDonald’s in Hampstead, England serving butchered children to customers—will most likely amount to nothing more than conducting a witch hunt.The same concerns informed my cautious censoring of the alarming flier posted last year at a bus stop in my neighborhood. Analysts (such as myself) who wish to present and account for the events of our shared world must, I believe, meet the prerequisite responsibility of entertaining—without such bias that their conclusions always arise prejudiced—the merits of whatever evidence they might find raised to support a claim. That applies even to claims as outlandish as those that comprise the Pizzagate conspiracy theory. Still, much as it piques my interest to note, for example, that the flier claims one of those named used the pretense of Catholic faith while victimizing immigrants, and that the Boys Town charity implicated in the Franklin scandal (as the aforementioned Corbett notes in “Who Is Jeff Gannon?” at ~55:30–59:53) has been implicated in numerous other child-sex-abuse scandals over the years, I believe that if I blindly believed the unverified contents of that flier, then I might have easily become a cautionary tale myself, with potentially serious consequences for individuals and communities alike.I hope that goes some way toward demonstrating how the complexities of modern information landscapes demand that media consumers recognize the importance of rigorous investigation, independent verification, and critical thinking to distinguish between fact and fiction. However, I believe that whatever blade we use to divide the two must also cut both ways: stories shouldn’t be forgotten if they implicate our institutions, and that crimes shouldn’t be excused when the rich and powerful are committing them—and our society’s news outlets shouldn’t obfuscate them (or assist state intelligence in doing so) to accomplish either such task.Though the proliferation of rumors and conspiracy theories on the internet underscores the need for critical thinking and discernment to ensure that unfounded claims do not overshadow genuine issues or obscure the truth, allegations that may often be met with skepticism or dismissed as conspiracy theories, but which nonetheless come with numerous whistleblower testimonies, investigative reports, and historical evidence, shouldn’t be discounted just because they (for example) sound like something from Pizzagate. (Of course, even the morning of this dispatch’s release, I’m still checking WikiLeaks: searching the exact phrase “pizza” returns 160 entries from the Clinton, Podesta, and DNC email archives. Nothing much here, as far as I can tell—besides a 2008 email to Podesta with the subject-line “Comet on Pizza” with an address that also suggests it might be from the aforementioned Alefantis, but which says nothing in it about child-trafficking.)Avoiding that dismissive impulse, I believe, will assist us to better navigate the discourse surrounding contentious issues with far-reaching consequences. Maybe, in fact, that would even help inspire broad recognition of the need for vigilant oversight and accountability mechanisms within intelligence agencies to prevent them from concealing (let alone supervising) abuses like those from which Epstein profited.In the face of these challenges, it’s imperative for individuals and communities to remain vigilant, question narratives, and advocate for accountability and justice. Only through collective efforts to address root causes and hold perpetrators accountable can we hope to create a more just and equitable society for all. Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

“Great news!” you might have responded earlier this week upon learning that President Biden’s social media account had announced (on National Ice Cream Day) that he has decided not to run in the 2024 U.S. presidential election: those of you, at least, who would rather prevent elder abuse. About half an hour later, he endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to replace him as the Democratic nominee. While initially unexplained, Biden’s decision surely stems from the obvious decline of his health and cognitive abilities—which somehow only became evident to the mainstream press during his disastrous 27 June debate with Donald Trump. That evening, Biden performed so poorly that calls began the very next day for Harris to invoke the 25th Amendment to declare him unfit to serve as Commander-in-Chief, which Congressman Clay Higgins (R-LA) and Congressman Chip Roy (R-TX) formalized in a resolution the following week.The American people “must revere our elders and shelter them from unnecessary struggle and anguish,” said Higgins. “It’s the right thing to do.”Certainly the news should come as some relief, given that the 2024 presidential race has already marked by escalating tensions—beyond those that come with political campaigns, I mean. Trump’s recent conviction on 34 felony charges spurred debates about political motivations and the integrity of the U.S. justice system. Soon after that, Biden’s son was convicted on three felony charges, and ongoing investigations into his foreign business dealings continue to cloud Biden’s administration. The attempted assassination of Trump at a campaign rally further intensified the political atmosphere, drawing sympathy for Trump and sparking conspiracy theories about deep state involvement. Given these escalating tensions, we can assume that the relief of decreasing them was eagerly awaited: or, anyway, The Duran covered it within hours.The pair discuss (at ~1:34) the role of donors in Biden’s decision, suggesting that they withheld funds from his campaign following his catastrophic performance, leaving him without financial resources—as well as the influence of former President Barack Obama, who is portrayed as the one who “made” Biden and now has “broken” him, implying that Obama undermined Biden and played a decisive role in his withdrawal.The hosts go on (at ~2:40) to criticize Biden’s contradictory statements—in which he claims to have achieved great things as president while simultaneously announcing his withdrawal—while also noting Biden’s lack of explanation for his decision and his aforementioned failure to endorse Harris initially, suggesting that perhaps he was forced to back her against his will. Overall, they highlight the challenges the Democratic Party will face in justifying both their support for Biden and their necessary pivot to Harris.The pair also speculate (at ~7:45) on the future of the Democratic Party, which they view as a collection of factions and clans fighting for power and patronage. Observing that the party has abandoned its traditional working-class base, which is now shifting towards the Republican Party, they question the prospects of a Harris candidacy, given her unpopularity and lack of primary victories.Exploring (at ~10:38–12:21) the geopolitical implications of Biden’s withdrawal, they suggest that other nations will be concerned about the power vacuum in Washington and the potential for the outgoing administration to take drastic action and employ a scorched-earth policy. They also speculate that most of the world—with the exception of Europe, which has wedded itself to the Biden Administration and may therefore present a challenge—will hope for a Donald Trump presidency, as they seek stability and a leader who can provide coherent policies. Though they seem to remain hopeful about the prospects of a Donald Trump presidency and his potential policies on issues such as Ukraine, the Middle East, East Asia, Taiwan, and the global economy, Mercouris in particular expresses his alarm (at ~24:04) that the outgoing Biden Administration may take drastic actions in Ukraine or other conflicts to secure his legacy before leaving office. That evening, Christoforou covered the story again on his own to add more thoughts (at ~1:22) about how the Democratic Party is lining up behind Harris while portraying Biden’s decision as putting the country ahead of himself out of integrity, using his withdrawal to drum up support and fundraising for Harris’ campaign.Noting at the start of the video that Biden plans to speak to the nation this week, Christoforou goes on to question (at ~3:11) how Biden can remain president for the next few months if he is admitting that he is unable to campaign due to health or cognitive reasons. Accordingly, he suggests that the only way forward may be for Biden to step down and for Harris to become the incumbent president running in 2024. Christoforou returned to the story the next day to discuss in further detail the circumstances of Biden’s withdrawal. Here, he questions (at ~0:35) the authenticity of the letter—noting that some commentators have observed that this letter’s signature doesn’t match previous examples, and that the letter doesn’t seem to have been written on official White House stationary—and the subsequent endorsement of Harris, analyzing the situation as a potential “coup” orchestrated by the Democratic establishment to remove Biden from power. He goes on to speculate (at ~7:45) about the motives and strategies of various Democratic factions, including the Clintons, Obama, and Pelosi, in maneuvering to support or undermine Harris’ candidacy, and suggests that—despite appearances to the contrary—Obama may be playing a behind-the-scenes role in orchestrating these events, withholding his support to seem uninvolved while the Clintons have already offered their endorsement. After emphasizing once more the dangerous uncertainty (both domestic and international) characterizing this period of American politics, Christoforou advises the Democrats (at ~13:27) to encourage Harris to select a running mate who could become the party’s candidate in 2028, helping the party minimize losses in the 2024 election and potentially retain control of Congress while still nominally supporting Harris in her goal of becoming president.A few hours after posting that Monday analysis, Christoforou reconvened with Mercouris on The Duran proper to give some more attention to the aforementioned Democratic factions. Analyzing the support Harris has received from different factions within the party, including the Clinton and Obama camps, the pair first express obvious concerns about her electability against Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Their conversation then turns (at ~7:21) to the power dynamics and factional battles within the Democratic Party—particularly between the Clinton and Obama factions—and discuss how these factions are maneuvering to influence Harris’ campaign, potentially according to personal interests and rivalries. The duo goes on to explore (at ~16:37–21:34) potential strategies for the Democratic Party to navigate the upcoming election and position itself for the future. Notably, Mercouris strongly advises (at ~18:06) that Biden should step down from the presidency immediately to avoid further institutional anomalies and loss of authority. Failing that, however, the pair emphasize the importance of finding a strong vice-presidential candidate and the need for the party to project an image of unity beyond the 2024 election—which Mercouris estimates that the Democratic Party has “all but lost.”They return (at ~25:49) to analyzing the potential geopolitical implications of the political turmoil in the U.S., discussing the reactions and concerns of countries like Germany, Russia, China, and others regarding the uncertainty surrounding the U.S. leadership and its ability to maintain stability and continuity in foreign policy and international relations.But not everyone is as certain as Mercouris that the Harris campaign will be a sure loser—at least not the pollsters covered on The Kim Iversen Show later that evening.Iversen expresses surprise and skepticism that Kamala Harris is being positioned as the potential Democratic nominee, citing her perceived unpopularity among both the general public and Democratic voters. Iversen claims that even loyal Democrats who would never vote for Donald Trump are messaging her with concerns about Harris’ chances of winning against Trump, noting that Harris is a disliked candidate—despite what headlines like “Trump faces a tighter race with Kamala Harris set to replace Biden, experts say” might imply. Accordingly, Iversen sees the Democratic establishment as trying to “gaslight” the public into believing she is a formidable challenger to Trump.The host goes on to criticize (at ~5:14) the potential nomination process for Harris as undemocratic, claiming that the Democratic establishment is attempting to force her nomination without a proper primary or convention vote, currently pushing for a virtual roll call to nominate Harris and thereby denying voters and delegates the opportunity to have a say in the process. Iversen therefore alleges that the establishment is trying to avoid “chaos” at the convention from delegates who may not support Harris because, as she describes it (at ~9:29), the Democratic establishment wants Harris as the nominee because she is a malleable “puppet” candidate that they can control. Citing the vice president’s tendency to provide vague, non-committal answers during her 2020 campaign and her history of flip-flopping on positions as evidence that she can be easily influenced by her handlers, Iversen implies that the establishment wants a candidate they can manipulate, rather than one with a strong, independent vision.But even if Harris’ vision were demonstrably independent, Iversen would likely still see her as problematic: she goes on to highlight (at ~12:44) several instances from Harris’ past that the author sees as problematic, including her record as a prosecutor in California and her performance during the 2020 Democratic primary debates, citing Tulsi Gabbard’s criticism of her prosecutorial record as a pivotal moment that significantly contributed to the decline of Harris’ 2020 campaign.Iversen went on the next day to discuss reports that the vice president has succeeded in securing has secured enough delegates to become the Democratic nominee for president, despite her perceived unpopularity. Reiterating her skepticism about Harris’ ability to defeat Donald Trump, Iversen also analyzes a further poll suggesting that the candidate leads Trump by a slim margin, but questions the validity of these polls due to oversampling of Democrats: 426 of them, she reports, compared to 376 Republicans and 341 independents. Of course, Iversen wasn’t the only one to doubt whether polls showing Harris with a lead over Trump truly reflected the popular sentiment, with Niko House doing the same in his analysis of coverage from MSNBC.House cites how MSNBC’s polling averages show Biden has trailed Trump by 2% since the end of last summer—a concerning trend, given Biden’s consistent polling lead over Trump in 2020—which Biden’s poor debate performance in June didn’t dramatically. In House’s analysis, data showing Harris’ slightly better performance doesn’t suggest that Harris would be a significantly stronger candidate than Biden.He expresses skepticism (at ~6:16) about recent efforts to portray Harris as a popular and viable candidate, dismissing the idea that Harris could galvanize support for the Democrats despite being portrayed as more popular than Biden, particularly among Black voters. However, he also touches (at ~14:37–16:51) on concerns about potential electoral manipulation, suggesting that while efforts may be made to “rig” the election in Harris’ favor, her lack of genuine popularity and support could make such efforts ineffective. Instead, he argues that Trump’s widespread popularity and the potential for collaborative efforts to challenge the results could undermine any attempts to manipulate the outcome, and suggest that Harris’ lack of a strong political network and influence could make it difficult for her to effectively contest the results if needed.Of course, not everyone sees Harris as such a dead-end candidate. Gerald Celente of The Trends Journal suggests that Harris is likely to defeat Trump in the 2024 presidential election, barring any unforeseen events. He criticizes Trump’s choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate, noting that Vance, from Ohio—a state Trump won easily in 2020—does not strategically bolster his chances. He predicts that Harris will gain strong support from women and Black voters, especially in key swing states, partly due to the Republican Party’s anti-abortion stance, though he emphasizes that economic issues and voter concerns about inflation will play a crucial role in the election outcome.Celente offered further details on his electoral forecast in a video yesterday evening.In Celente’s analysis, the Trump-Biden debates were scheduled early in the election season—in summer, rather than the traditional autumn schedule—to showcase Biden’s ineffectiveness in order to pave the way for Harris. While Celente lambasts Harris (at ~4:09) for the obvious hypocrisy of supporting vaccine mandates while advocating for abortion rights, he also criticizes Trump’s weak rhetoric on abortion—“state’s rights,” etc.—and predicts the Republican Party’s intransigence on the issue will cost it the election.As the 2024 U.S. presidential election approaches, the political landscape only becomes more turbulent and uncertain. President Biden’s recent withdrawal from the race and endorsement of Vice President Harris as the Democratic nominee have sparked a flurry of speculation and analysis. While some attempt to portray Harris as a capable successor, her perceived unpopularity and the Democratic Party’s internal divisions pose significant challenges—and it remains to be seen how the Democrats’ intra-party factions will influence the selection of Harris’ vice-presidential candidate.Of course, Trump faces his own obstacles, including legal battles, assassination attempts, and the controversial and potentially ill-advised choice of J.D. Vance as his running mate. Meanwhile, Big Tech might help Harris through social engineering techniques, their use of which Dr. Robert Epstein has long documented. While the election’s outcome will likely hinge on economic concerns, we shouldn’t discount the possibility, mentioned above on The Duran, that the Biden Administration may take advantage of the situation to escalate its military conflict with Russia or other geopolitical adversaries before November. Regardless of who emerges victorious, the coming election has already delivered on its promise to be a critical and contentious period in American politics, and we can surely expect far-reaching implications for both domestic and international affairs. Honestly, I’m already pretty tired of covering it, but I don’t think they’re gonna call it off, so stay tuned to Radio Free Pizza for further forensic analysis of this ongoing dumpster fire.Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

I’d hazard to guess you’ve heard how, on 13 July 2024, former U.S. President and Republican presumptive nominee Donald Trump was shot in the upper right ear at a campaign rally in Butler, PA, in an attempted assassination that killed one attendee and critically injured two others. Trump was promptly surrounded and assisted by Secret Service agents, then transported to a hospital where he was treated and released in stable condition. The assailant, Thomas Matthew Crooks, fired eight rounds from a nearby building before being killed by a Secret Service sniper. This incident marked the first time a former or sitting U.S. president was injured in an assassination attempt since 1981, and has heightened concerns about political polarization in the U.S., with calls on social media to increase security for major candidates and expressions of sympathy for Trump. Security was indeed strengthened at Trump Tower and at the Republican National Convention that began on Monday in Milwaukee, WI. Following the incident, Trump’s campaign organized a fundraising campaign for the victims, raising over $2 million. As one would expect, various conspiracy theories about the event proliferated in the aftermath, appearing across the political spectrum: The Washington Post and BBC News reported how many left-wing social media accounts falsely suggested that the shooting was staged—including notable figures like LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman—while NBC News reported that “conspiracy theorists” such as Alex Jones suggested, in posts and videos that have received millions of views, that the assassination attempt represented a deep state plot. (In addition, Georgian prime minister Irakli Kobakhidze blamed what he calls “the Global War Party”: a secretive international entity that exerts significant influence on the U.S. and the EU, and which allegedly manipulates global affairs to prolong conflicts, assassinate leaders, orchestrate revolutions, and undermine national sovereignty, posing a significant threat that necessitates a strenuous defensive effort.)Of course, the aforementioned BBC News could surely be named as a source for similar claims, having aired a live interview with a rally attendee immediately after the shooting. The witness described how he and others were standing outside the event venue near a greenhouse when they noticed a person crawling on the roof of a nearby building with a rifle. They alerted the police and Secret Service, but the person remained on the roof for several minutes before the Secret Service shot and killed him. The witness also expressed his surprise that the Secret Service was not more vigilant in securing the surrounding buildings, given the potential security risks, and questioned why the Secret Service was not stationed in every building in the area, given the relatively small size of the venue.That interview became one focus (at ~1:34) of the event’s coverage on The Jimmy Dore Show the next day. That same episode also featured (at ~0:14) the analysis of Candace Owens, a conservative commentator who expressed her disbelief that the Secret Service could have missed the gunman approaching Trump—given their extensive security protocols and her personal experiences with their vigilance—recounting an incident where her husband was nearly shot by Secret Service agents for approaching unexpectedly. After citing (at ~6:11) an Associated Press release describing how rally attendees noticed a man climbing onto a nearby rooftop and alerted law enforcement to no avail, Dore naturally questions whether the official narrative provided by news outlets and authorities is accurate, or if there has been a cover-up of intentional involvement by possible third-parties.Of course, he wasn’t the only one: Brian Berletic of The New Atlas aired his own analysis the same day, with all the useful insights that a former U.S. Marine officer could offer.Berletic highlights (at ~1:33) several security lapses by the U.S. Secret Service during the event, such as the presence of a large American flag that could aid a potential assassin in determining wind speed and direction, and the lack of security measures to prevent access to potential sniper positions identified by Secret Service snipers, and expresses a disbelief similar to Owens’ at the level of incompetence displayed by the Secret Service, especially given the presence of an actual would-be assassin. Accordingly he speculates (at ~5:43) that the security lapses could have been intentional, drawing parallels to past incidents where the FBI allegedly facilitated or orchestrated terrorist plots: for example, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the Christmas tree bomber in Portland, Oregon, where the FBI allegedly trained and provided weapons to individuals before foiling their own operations. Questioning (at ~12:50) the motivations behind the assassination attempt, Berletic also suggests that it may be a ploy to divert public attention from more pressing issues such as corporate misconduct, healthcare concerns, and the threat of war, noting that neither Trump nor Biden significantly changed the trajectory of U.S. foreign or domestic policy during their respective terms—since, after all, the real power lies with corporations that the public supports through their consumer choices. Certainly the attempted assassination of a former president and current candidate would provide a considerable diversion. Others, however, seem to interpret the attempt less as an effort to conceal the threat of war, and more as an effort to realize it: that same Sunday, Arktos Journal published an article from Alexander Dugin—whom we featured prominently last month in our mid-year dispatch—arguing that the assassination attempt on Trump transpired with deep state support, and marks an escalation in the globalists’ efforts to retain power against a shift towards a multipolar world order. (This came on the heels of Dugin’s 21 June staging of the 2024 U.S. presidential election as critical for the future of humanity, predicting either a Trump victory or catastrophic consequences—continued global conflicts and potentially a nuclear war while those globalists aiming to create a liberal technocratic world order—whereas Trump’s preference for national sovereignty over globalism would bolster a multipolar world order, challenging the dominance of globalist elites. Here, Dugin warns that globalists might employ extreme measures, including assassination or inciting a civil war, to prevent Trump from winning, ultimately leading him to frame the outcome of November’s elections as determining the survival of humanity.)Asserting that the globalists aim to eliminate Trump as a significant threat to their dominance—especially since he is likely to win the upcoming election—Dugin draws parallels between this incident and other alleged globalist-led assassination attempts against anti-globalist leaders, like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Slovakian Prime Minister Robert Fico. He claims that the globalists—represented by figures such as Obama, Blinken, Hillary Clinton, and Biden—are willing to suspend democracy and resort to violence to maintain control. The assassination attempt, according to Dugin, reveals the true face of globalism, which seeks absolute planetary power at the expense of sovereign nations. He calls for resistance against this agenda, warning that failing to act will lead to further destruction by what he describes as a criminal gang of liberals and globalists: Kobakhidze’s “Global War Party,” I suppose.The following day, Rainer Shea offered a contrasting analysis with a domestic focus, as opposed to an international one. As Shea sees it, indications point to factions within the ruling class—potentially including elements of the deep state—as bearing responsibility for the assassination attempt, suggesting that the Republican Party’s neoconservative wing may have wanted to eliminate Trump to install Nikki Haley as the nominee during this week’s elections. But regardless of who orchestrated the attack, Shea sees significant implications for intra-ruling-class conflict: while the predominant faction of the ruling class sought to downplay the event, it sparked widespread discourse, putting many Americans in opposition to the deep state. Accordingly, Shea argues that communists need to find revolution-compatible elements among those rejecting liberal narratives to unite with them against U.S. imperialism, leveraging the ruling-class fissures that resulted in last weekend’s assassination attempt to expand the anti-monopoly united front throughout the American masses. Maybe people aren’t too far off the mark in suggesting that the assassination attempt had support from the deep state: after all, the alleged negligence of the Secret Service may represent an escalation of the prior trend of prejudicial treatment toward political opponents explored in last month’s bulletin on Trump’s recent conviction. Since that conviction, moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court formalized presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken during the presidency within the president’s exclusive constitutional authority. Now, after the assassination attempt, a federal judge has dismissed charges against Trump for mishandling classified documents, ruling that the U.S. Attorney General acted outside his authority in appointing Special Counsel. So, if indeed a conspiracy to assassinate Trump—whether due to the willful neglect of the Secret Service or to the activation of a mind-controlled assassin from the latest generation of MKUltra subjects—was simply unsuccessful, maybe the globalists or the predominant faction of the American ruling class (or both) finally realized that weaponizing the U.S. legal system just couldn’t take them as far as they needed to go.If the agents or police present allowed an attempted assassination on the candidate, that would set a dangerous precedent that not only threatens individual lives but which also—given the political polarization discussed above—risks deepening societal divisions, potentially leading to greater unrest and loss of faith in democratic institutions. Indeed, last weekend’s assassination attempt may even foreshadow further civil discord in the U.S. to fulfill our start-of-year forecast. This latest violent act against a prominent political figure could serve as a catalyst for escalating tensions, reminiscent of the predictions from commentators James Corbett and James Evan Pilato. Going forward, Americans would do well to watch for militant conservative reactions—or, indeed, radical liberal ones, if this does propel Trump to victory in November—from potential agent provocateurs, along with a broader eruption of domestic conflict.Unless, of course, the imperialist ruling class has some better assassins. (But if it’s already come to this, why would you save the best for last?)Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe

Happy Independence Day to all those Radio Free Pizza fanatics living in the USA! (Or to everyone else, my sincere apologies for the policies of the U.S. ruling class, though U.S. citizens deserve an apology from them too.) The eve of America’s birthday seems like the perfect time to reflect on the past, present, and future of our nation’s political landscape. Just as our May Day bulletin explored MAGA Communism to honor the triumphs of the labor movement, today’s edition of our irregular Wednesday bulletins explores the ongoing reception of MAGA Communism and its treatment in mainstream and independent media to honor the premier national holiday of the country it seeks to make great. So, let’s dive into the latest developments and the continuing saga of this intriguing and contentious ideological trend.At the start of last month, Big Mad Crab and Snow Himbo of the Indie News Network took on the topic. After first discussing The Guardian’s negative treatment of the online ideology promoted by Jackson Hinkle and Haz al-Din of Infrared, which aims to unite supporters of Donald Trump’s MAGA movement with Marxists and communists, they analyze this ideology’s contradiction and estimate its feasibility. Though the pair express surprise at the mainstream media’s attention to this fringe movement, Himbo nonetheless notes (at ~1:08), “Look at the numbers anywhere: this s**t is gaining traction.” But with that said, they naturally question how Trump supporters, who are largely capitalists, can be united with communists—especially when Trump himself has expressed anti-communist sentiments—and accordingly question the viability of MAGA Communism. Crab and Himbo go on to present (at ~15:03) Dr. Richard Wolff’s analysis of MAGA Communism, in which he explains how political movements have historically co-opted terms like socialism and communism for their own purposes—even when their ideologies are fundamentally opposed to those concepts—before citing examples of how political movements have co-opted terms like socialism for their own purposes, such as Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party (Nazi Party). Wolff emphasizes that the MAGA movement is inherently hostile to the principles of socialism and communism, and finds the term “MAGA Communism” to be merely a clever marketing ploy to attract attention. (Though I think Wolff would do well to note Walter Masterson’s encounter with a MAGA supporter who expressed his affinity for Wolff’s beloved employee-owned enterprises.)The hosts air (at ~38:11) Jackson Hinkle’s defense of MAGA Communism in his interview with Craig “Pasta” Jardula (sourced from a 2022 episode of The Jimmy Dore Show), in which he argues that it is starting important conversations and uniting people across ideological lines—though, of course, Crab and Himbo note how others criticize the label as divisive and suggest focusing on uniting the working class without specific labels or ideological associations. Accordingly, the pair proposes (at ~50:05) alternative approaches to uniting the working class, such as focusing on common economic struggles and material concerns rather than specific ideological labels, and suggest that a movement centered on workers’ rights and improving living standards could resonate across the political spectrum.Indeed, as Himbo observed above, MAGA Communism is getting traction—or getting attention, anyway, with Raw Story covering it on the same day as The Guardian did above. Radio Free Pizza devotees will recall our May Day bulletin covering the investigation of Jerry’s Take on China into the ideology as an Australian living in China. Among those featured was the estimable commentator Caleb Maupin, whom the titular Jerry Grey interviewed again in May. His second time around, Maupin delves (at ~10:16) into (among other things) the role of the Communist Party USA during the Great Depression and its efforts in organizing the unemployed and leading mass movements demanding economic relief, leading to concessions from the Roosevelt administration like the Works Progress Administration and the Wagner Act. Emphasizing a pragmatic focus on economic development and anti-imperialism, Maupin outlines (at ~1:12:32) a four-point plan for transitioning the U.S. towards a socialist economy, including mass hiring of the unemployed, public control of natural resources, debt cancellation and the creation of a national bank—I suppose something like we discussed in our May dispatch on “Libertarian Communism”—and an economic bill of rights. On the whole, Maupin seems to greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss a socialism with American characteristics without talking about MAGA Communism. Still, there hasn’t been a shortage of people interested in talking to him about it: Doug Lain of Sublation Media interviewed Caleb Maupin and Peter Coffin two weeks ago, in part to discuss the same ideological subculture. I’m sure both Maupin and Coffin appreciate that their conversation covers quite a bit more than MAGA Communism—including, importantly, the historical influence of intelligence agencies and other state actors on shaping leftist ideologies and movements—and that it lasts an hour before it finally turns (at ~1:00:25–1:14:59) to the subject. Here, Maupin argues (at ~1:11:25) that the disaffected working-class supporters of the MAGA movement could be a fertile ground for recruiting to a genuine socialist movement:I have not denounced MAGA Communism because I believe […] that the kind of people in the United States who are angry at the government, who are angry at the big corporations, who don’t trust the FBI, who oppose the wars, and are from impoverished areas, Appalachia and the South, and are from impoverished backgrounds […] turning to Trumpism, to QAnon, to these anti-establishment ideas, because they're mad at the government: that is who communists should be recruiting right now. If there's ever going to be a socialist revolution in the United States, those people are going to be the beginning of it. And if people don’t come to terms with that and recognize that, they are deluding themselves […] Trump is becoming the symbol of anti-establishment sentiments by people whose living standards are going down, people who are at odds with the imperial state, people at odds with the big corporations, etc. And it’s the very, very, very primitive beginnings of class consciousness. And those are the people we need to be talking to […] I have found it’s harder, but it’s far more productive to go and talk to people that are against the state and against the system who are drifting toward MAGA than it is to try and talk to somebody who nominally thinks socialism is a good idea, but, you know, has bought the establishment line on every issue, hook-line-and-sinker, and [who] wants to defend the establishment from evil Trump’s insurgency, you know what I’m saying?From here, their conversation turns the importance of building a mass movement and the challenges of promoting Marxist ideas in the current political climate. Notably, though MAGA Communism represents an attempt to bridge the obvious gap between left- and right-wing populist movements, the trio take time to discuss the communication failures of progressive activists and the challenges in communist organizing among the same: of those people mentioned by Maupin who are nominally interested in socialism but who effectively support the U.S. establishment, Coffin observes (at ~1:23:02) that such progressives regard their political ideology as if “it’s a brand to, it’s a unique selling point. It’s a means to separate yourself as a different thing, to sell yourself in certain ways, but also to feel special in certain ways.” That, of course, diminishes the potential for a socialist revolution in the U.S., as progressive activists so often behave in a manner matching the caricature of Marxist ideas in American society. Accordingly the rest of the trio’s discussion emphasizes the importance of building a mass movement rooted in working-class communities and organizations, rather than relying solely on intellectual discourse or online platforms. Their conversation concludes with a fruitful dialogue on the potential for cooperation between American, Chinese, and Russian workers, and on the importance of avoiding ideological traps that could lead to conflict between these groups.Of course, readers with excellent memories may recall that we’ve featured Coffin’s critique of MAGA Communism before. (Though it may surprise you to learn that his “What Is Inflation?” from Monday inspired this very bulletin: his argument that the libertarians’ beloved gold-backed currency serves as sound money because of the labor required to mine it—and therefore demonstrates the labor theory of value—is one I wish I had included in my May dispatch attempting to synthesize a socialism with American characteristics.) As you might expect from an apparently more open critic—or, maybe, just from criticism more optimized for algorithms—Coffin seems to entertain fewer invitations to explain the curious ideology, and more of them to critique it, such as his appearance on 1Dime Radio just last week.Obviously MAGA Communism is the main topic. At the start, Coffin offers (at ~0:15) another nuance of his critique (apparently clipped from their conversation’s second hour available to 1Dime’s Patreon subscribers), observing of MAGA Communists that “the primary thing that they care about is cultural arguments. They don't mobilize over Marxist stuff, they mobilize over cultural issues. That’s what animates them, that's what they care about”—not, in other words, counteracting the immiseration of the American working class.As we’ve heard him argue before, Coffin describes here (at ~9:53–12:50) how he finds this approach counterproductive for creating a niche audience by combining two polarizing brands that alienate most people: But in terms of MAGA communism, my, my feelings on it are I understand the impulse: I get the idea of attempting to reach out to people that the left doesn’t normally, you know, view as worthwhile to reach out to […] I have conservative family members. I've lived in a lot of conservative areas and I'm a communist […] I get that impulse. I like that impulse even […] But […] These things are brands. MAGA and communism are brands in the public sphere. And with MAGA and communism, it’s essentially creating a tiny segment of people who are both comfortable with MAGA and comfortable with communism […] There’s so few MAGA people who don’t think, like, “Communism is here to kill us.” Like, “Joe Biden’s a communist and that’s why communism is bad” […] to make such a small, hostile and contrarian niche […] it doesn’t do what they’re advertising it to do: it is not an effective means to reach out to conservatives and attempt to tell them about class struggle […] They know that it’s them versus the boss. They just don’t look at it in the way that I might look at it. So, points for recognizing the gap to bridge, and maybe for creativity, but nonetheless, MAGA Communism doesn’t seem fit for purpose. Coffin concludes by saying (at ~12:51–13:27), “I find it to be a contrarian brand and I don’t think it is a productive thing. I don't think it’s fascism. I don't see those people as fascists: I see them as fandom communists who don’t like the left aesthetic […] It’s contrarianism. It’s people who are doing lifestyle stuff […] It’s cosplay in a lot of ways, but it’s very contrarian cosplay.”Interestingly, their discussion shifts (at ~16:17) to the concept of “wokeness,” which the speakers view as an ideology that redirects legitimate concerns about representation and inequality towards progressive aesthetics and justifications for segregation and essentialism. Both agree that wokeness often perpetuates the same issues it claims to address—such as racial segregation on college campuses under the guise of creating “safe spaces”—while also observing how certain individuals or groups claim to represent entire communities, leading to promoting of fringe or extreme views as the norm.(What a weird AI-generated image to result from that prompt! Though it does seem to suggest something about segregation—since many believe [falsely?] that slaves built the Egyptian pyramids, and that the U.S. imposed racial segregation on the descendants of slaves—and about fringe beliefs becoming the norm: anyway, fringe beliefs would sure explain that scene.)Their conversation also touches (at ~43:00) on the representation and advocacy of LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly transgender people. They express concerns about the promotion of extreme or irresponsible views within the LGBTQ+ community— such as advocating for the abolition of parental consent for gender transitions in minors—and argue that while supporting LGBTQ+ rights is important, some fringe elements within the community may alienate the general public and undermine the broader movement, though they find these issues difficult to navigate while avoiding transphobia or bigotry.The pair also discuss (at ~1:03:09) anarchism and localism, arguing that such arrangements often lead to conflicts and hierarchies between different groups, citing historical examples of indigenous communities that were egalitarian internally but engaged in warfare with other groups. Accordingly, they suggest that these schools of thought ignore the realities of human nature and the need for centralized planning and coordination.Overall, I find their discussion on these topics notable for its treatment of the cultural issues around which they have observed MAGA Communists mobilizing alongside conservatives. In addition, the pair seem to find themselves at odds with differing perspectives from leftist discourse for what we might call “cultural issues” of a different kind, perhaps related to fundamentals of human nature or realistic potential. All together, their analysis highlights the complexities of modern American culture and of the fault-lines in its contemporary political divisions.So! What’s the takeaway?As Crab and Himbo suggest, perhaps Hinkle and Al-Din should consider dropping the “MAGA” label and instead focus on uniting the working class across political lines without invoking specific ideological associations. That would surely mean emphasizing common economic struggles and material concerns rather than divisive ideological labels: would mean, in other words, developing a plan for building a mass movement (presumably around policies like those Maupin outlines to Grey above) rooted in working-class organizations and communities, with a focus on practical organizing and addressing the immediate needs of workers. Toward that aim, it would be wise to develop alternative strategies for effectively communicating Marxist ideas to disaffected working-class communities in a way that resonates with their lived experiences and material concerns, but without suffering the disadvantages of affiliating oneself with a conservative political movement under constant contention. Of course, that would likely mean engaging in further discussions and outreach to understand the perspectives of different political groups and find common ground on issues affecting the working class, which surely includes the MAGA movement. After all, if you’re promoting a platform of workers’ rights, improved living standards, and addressing the shared challenges faced by the working class, it can’t hurt to have a big tent.But with that in mind, I think it’s worth recalling from Lain’s conversation with Maupin and Coffin that U.S. intelligence agencies have historically conducted clandestine operations to undermine socialist movements domestically and internationally. I suppose it’s a tall order—developing strategies for countering the activities of intelligence agencies while promoting genuine working-class solidarity—but surely the success of any revolutionary platform depends on its broad appeal, and accordingly, those intelligence agencies must not have any opportunity to introduce divisive elements of ideology, such as the segregation and essentialism that Coffin observes resulting from wokeness—or, for that matter, like the inflammatory bombast of the MAGA movement itself.That’s all I’ve got: happy Independence Day!Radio Free Pizza is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Radio Free Pizza at www.radiofreepizza.com/subscribe