Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The oppression of women has been at the core of the CIA’s propaganda attacks against Iran since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. All the media outlets, think tanks, NGOs, parties, and personalities that make up the CIA’s extensive payroll accuse Iran of oppressing women. This campaign of demagoguery reached alarming levels when the U.S. government decided to attempt a coup through a failed color revolution and now bombards the Persian nation incessantly.

Daily events, however, invariably demolish this demagoguery and cruelly expose its hypocrisy.

This artificial feminist movement is even authorized by its sponsors to denounce Trump’s sexism or Netanyahu’s violence when such denunciations have no power to affect the general policy of imperialism and represent no serious confrontation with those governments. Or when Democrats and liberals want to undermine the power of the far right solely to reap electoral benefits. In any case, this phenomenon amounts to nothing more than an imperialist pawn.

The dominant slogans about the oppression of women follow to the letter the script of the great bankers and capitalists, especially the European and American ones. The same applies to the demagoguery surrounding the oppression of Black people, homosexuals, Indigenous peoples, immigrants, and the various “minorities.”

It is enough to see that this monstrous propaganda apparatus, which made such a spectacle against Trump’s sexism, fully supports the imperialist aggressions led by the president of the United States. Or did anyone see CNN, BBC, DW, and Rede Globo denouncing the kidnapping of the Venezuelan first lady and deputy Cilia Flores along with Nicolás Maduro? Is it possible to find a greater oppression against women than the massacre of at least 150 girls at the school in Minab, in southern Iran, carried out by a U.S. bombing launched from a base in the United Arab Emirates? And among the more than 1,300 people killed in U.S. and Israeli attacks against Iran, how many hundreds were women?

The imperialist aggression against Iran is being fully supported by the feminist demagoguery industry made in the USA. Part of it even criticized Israel’s genocide in Gaza, but only so as not to lose the little credibility it still manages to maintain, thanks to the blindness of the majority of the petty bourgeoisie. Yet from the moment the regime responsible for the extermination of around 15,000 Palestinian women—the terrorist regime of Israel—launched aggression together with the United States against Iran, Jeffrey Epstein’s colleagues suddenly turned into liberators of Iranian women.

Of course, all these immaculate fighters against fake news will not say that Iran is one of the most progressive countries in the Middle East, where women have achieved rights that they do not have in most neighboring countries, where they enjoy broad access to higher education, the labor market, leisure, and freedom to dress in ways found in no other country of the Gulf. Rights won by the Revolution of 1979.

What the imperialists have never accepted is precisely the fact that Iran carried out a revolution that freed it from the slavery imposed on the overwhelming majority of the world’s peoples by the very same forces that present themselves as liberators of women. And in the face of the constant aggressions of those slave masters, that revolution has only grown stronger—to the point that, at this moment, it is paying back with interest all the provocations, threats, and attacks it has suffered over decades.

The actions of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have no precedent in modern history. By destroying or severely damaging U.S. and NATO military bases, embassies, and other facilities—and by bombing the largest of them (the land stolen from Palestine called “Israel”)—Iran is striking a monumental blow against the imperialist presence in the Middle East.

“We have no choice but to put an end to the American presence in the Gulf,” said the Persian deputy foreign minister, Sayed Khatibzadeh. These words express Iran’s conviction that its war is not merely a war of definitive independence against aggressive powers—though that alone would already justify fighting it. It is an even more sacred war: a war to free the entire region from the colonial domination of the United States and other imperialist powers, which are there only to plunder its oil and natural wealth and to control one of the arteries of the global capitalist system.

Since the late nineteenth century, in order to guarantee the plunder of those peoples, the imperialist powers imposed puppet dictatorships that would control the populations with weapons, training, technology, and full political, diplomatic, and economic support from the United States and European imperialist nations. They even artificially created many of those countries.

The regimes of the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, the Palestinian Authority, and of course Israel remain in power only because of the strong military presence of the United States and NATO. Without it, they would never exist. The governments of most of these countries are monarchies or military dictatorships where political rights and democratic freedoms do not exist and where, obviously, women live in the deepest darkness. At this stage, of course, “progressive” demagoguery will not utter a word, but it is difficult to believe that Iranian women are more oppressed than Saudi women.

By attacking imperialist installations in those countries, Iran is undermining the foundations of colonial domination over their peoples. It not only weakens the U.S. military presence but also, consequently, the very puppet regimes created to more conveniently exploit their wealth. These artificial and oppressive regimes become increasingly fragile as Iran expels imperialism. The weakening of these regimes means the weakening of exploitation over their peoples. Iran’s expulsion of imperialism opens the path for the fall of this entire system of oppression, especially the regimes themselves.

It will not be long before the peoples of the entire Middle East hail the Islamic Republic of Iran. And women will be freer than ever, following the example of Iranian women.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In recent months, Brazil has been abuzz with an issue that is relevant to the whole world: the possibility of paralytics with complete spinal cord injury (and only them) fully recovering their movements if they receive a certain injection into the spinal cord within 3 days of the accident and undergo physiotherapy.

Brazil began paying attention to the issue when, in September 2025, the press published the incredible story of Bruno Drummond: in 2018 he broke his neck in a car accident, became quadriplegic, and agreed to be a guinea pig in a pilot study. In less than 24 hours, he received the spinal cord injection and today he can walk. He went directly from classification A (no movement) to D (strength and sensitivity for almost all movements), an unprecedented fact in medical literature. This pilot test had six patients. The remaining five patients jumped from A to C (with some strength and mobility). The research was being developed by researchers at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), led by Prof. Tatiana Sampaio, in partnership with the Brazilian laboratory Cristália.

Brazil was thrilled, and internet users repeatedly said she deserved the Nobel Prize. Faced with the news, the patients’ families, desperate, began to go to court to request the compassionate use of the drug being tested. And then another very important story emerged: a certain Diogo Brollo was working installing windows in a building when he fell, suffered a total spinal cord injury, and his sister obtained a court order for him to receive treatment under compassionate use. In just fifteen days, he was able to move his foot and leg. By February 22, there were 55 court requests, of which 30 were accepted.

Patients who take the drug under compassionate use do not count as clinical cases. Thus, the question remains: if the legal battle continues, and the treatment continues to have favorable results, how will the research procedures proceed?

And then we have the controversy that set Brazilian Twitter ablaze. A neoliberal economist who writes for the country’s most traditional right-wing liberal newspaper tweeted a 28-second clip from Professor Tatiana Sampaio’s interview on Roda Viva in which she said: “Let’s suppose a hypothesis: that these 30 people who received it for compassionate use, all walk again. Would you have the courage to conduct a controlled clinical trial?”, to which an interviewer replies, impassively, that it is necessary to follow all the procedures and go through all the phases. Along with the video, the economist posted the ironic comment “Now the Nobel Prize is coming”. Immediately afterwards, the same actors who defended the wonders of Pfizer’s “vaccine” began to treat Professor Tatiana Sampaio as a charlatan or a simpleton who does not know science.

In the same interview, however, Tatiana Sampaio explained the problems of conducting clinical trials in this particular case, as well as in general. Let’s start with the specifics: every time a patient wins the right in court to undergo the test, the Cristália laboratory has to send a neurosurgeon to the location to perform the invasive procedure of injecting polylaminin into the spinal cord. In the double-blind test, whose purpose is to eliminate the placebo effect, the medication is given to one group of test subjects and a placebo to another, in order to compare the results. Now, it is unethical to subject a patient to an invasive procedure to inject a liquid that is, at best, innocuous into their spinal cord. Furthermore, even if it were a simple procedure and easy to replace with a placebo, time is important for the effectiveness of the treatment, so the one who received the placebo would be doomed to a wheelchair. (To this we add: if the paralytic can obtain the medication through legal means, why would they agree to be a test subject in a double-blind trial?)

Given the fact that it is difficult to follow existing procedures ethically, Professor Tatiana Sampaio says that it is necessary to think about new models. And this is not the only bureaucratic issue that calls for reflection.

The issue of patents and the cost of clinical trials

Another piece of news that caught attention is that the scientist had to pay for the patent out of her own pocket. UFRJ has had serious administrative problems for a long time that no authority wants to solve. I will limit myself to observing that it has one billion dollar’s budget but, even so, allowed the National Museum to catch fire due to the precariousness of the electrical grid – and the rector even blamed the firefighters. The Egyptian mummies of the emperor turned to dust; fossil collections were lost. At least the Bendegó Meteorite could not be destroyed. Thus, UFRJ was not going to pay for the renewal of the Brazilian, American and European patents, and asked the professor if she herself did not want to pay so as not to lose them. She only paid for the Brazilian one and the others were lost. Then she found Cristália.

In the interview on Roda Viva, she explained that this was a blessing in disguise, because if the United States patent were still valid, it would probably have been bought by a first-world laboratory, which would have dismissed the Brazilian researchers, conducted a battery of tests very quickly, and sold the product for a fortune. With the Brazilian patent in hand, she and the laboratory Cristália hope that in the future the drug will be sold to the SUS (the Brazilian NHS). We are invited to consider, then, how many countries around the world do not fund national scientists so that a large company can buy the patent for their research in its initial stages, finish developing it, and set an absurd price to be paid by these same countries when they go to buy the drug. The damage that Reagan did by allowing public research funds to become private patents has been globalized.

Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the cost and reasonableness of clinical trials, which is precisely what led the Pfizer puppets to attack the scientist after her interview on the Roda Viva program. I conclude by quoting Professor Tatiana Sampaio: “A patent is very important when you are going to sell something. Imagine that you have a proposal for a new drug and then you want to do a clinical study to test if it really works. To do this clinical study, you need a very large budget, because clinical studies are very expensive. And then you need someone to be interested in doing that clinical study. And that someone, as a rule, will be interested in doing this study if they have the prospect of a very large profit from the commercial exploitation of it. That is why they need the patent to ensure that only they can make money from it. All this dynamic is how the wheel turns. But I have to tell you that I don’t think it’s an ideal situation, in my opinion. I think this ends up creating a large market reserve for large corporations.”

The interviewer asks if the ideal solution would be for the state to fund it, to which she replies: “I don’t know, the ideal is something new that we have to do. We don’t need to be afraid of that. We have to build something new, because this paradigm of: you get the patent, and then you sell the patent to someone who has a lot of money and who will invest a lot of money, and who will… We have to ask ourselves this: in the eagerness to protect people from being used as guinea pigs, aren’t we also creating a market reserve for an entity that has a very high expectation of profit?”

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The imprisonment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for his associations with the Epstein scandal is replete with peculiar aspects, both in a symbolic sense and in a historical sense. The arrest was carried out on the day of Andrew’s 66th birthday, February 19, 2026, 666 days after that strange event in London, on April 24, 2024, in which a bloodied white horse broke free and rode through the city streets. Coincidence? Who knows?

The accusation, specifically, involves numerous reports and evidence, deduced from Epstein’s emails and witness testimonies, that Andrew allegedly participated in, accompanied, and collaborated in the sexual abuse of women of various ages, including potentially prepubescent girls, and in the torture, also, of children and adolescents — torture with a sexual connotation or overtones. Definitely atrocious and repulsive behavior.

Andrew, who is no longer a prince, duke, earl, or baron, having lost all his titles and the rights associated with them, nevertheless remains the brother of King Charles III, the current sovereign of the United Kingdom.

If we are referring to controversies involving the British royal family, however, the figure of Charles III quickly brings us to the strange death of Princess Diana, who was once the wife of the British king when he was still the Prince of Wales.

Diana was Princess of Wales and wife of the current King Charles from 1981 until 1996, when she divorced him. We will never know the real reasons for the divorce, beyond the publicly given explanations, which include, for example, the prince’s infidelities, as well as constant pressure from the royal family on her. But then there are those who insist that part of Diana’s tensions with the royal family involved much deeper secrets that the princess allegedly became aware of, including the involvement of royal family members with pedophilia and sexual abuse.

We cannot be certain about anything of that sort, but Jimmy Savile’s friendship with members of the British royal family is certainly disconcerting. Jimmy Savile, who died in 2011, was a British DJ and media personality who worked for the state-owned BBC. But he is better known as an aberrant pervert who allegedly sexually abused hundreds of children over decades. Very conveniently, the British media waited for Savile’s death to expose his “dirty secrets.” Almost as if everyone already knew everything…

Savile allegedly met King Charles personally, when he was still a prince, in the 1970s, at charity events. But he quickly became surprisingly intimate with the royal family, acting as an advisor on numerous topics. According to Diana, Charles at the time saw Savile almost as a guru, a mentor. Savile even said, however, that he had known the British royal family for even longer, since the 1960s; having been introduced to the royal family’s affairs by Lord Louis Mountbatten, former Governor of Burma… and a notorious pedophile with a predilection for little boys.

Savile, however, was not just a “consumer,” he was also a “supplier.” At least, that’s what his nephew, Guy Marsden, says, claiming that Savile organized orgiastic parties where the unique feature was the “offer” of children — boys and girls — to members of the British elite. Savile’s nephew says he believes most of the children came from orphanages and shelters. This places Savile in a role similar to — albeit perhaps on a smaller scale — Jeffrey Epstein. Savile, apparently, was not as close to Andrew as he was to the Prince of Wales, but Andrew himself, in an infamous 2019 interview, stated that he spent much more time with Savile than with Epstein.

Returning to Louis Mountbatten, the great-uncle of King Charles III, besides being a friend of Jimmy Savile, recent leaks of files have brought to public knowledge the fact that he allegedly abused dozens, or even hundreds, of boys. Some of the abuse allegedly occurred in Northern Ireland, at the Kincora boys’ home in Belfast — a location where the orphanage apparently served as a “buffer” of children for members of the British political and military elite, all operated by MI5. The orphanage was closed in 1980, one year after Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA.

There aren’t many other scandals involving pedophilia in connection with the British royal family, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other serious sexual scandals.

If we go even further back in time, to the end of the 19th century, we arrive at the era of the famous Whitechapel murders. Canonically, five women were murdered, with the same modus operandi, by a man who became notorious in macabre folklore as “Jack the Ripper.” No one was ever arrested, no culprit was discovered, and theories abound.

One of the most notorious is the theory connecting the murders to the figure of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. Albert, whose reputation was historically affected by the revelation that he frequented a male brothel on Cleveland Street, London, came to be considered, over time, the prime suspect for being the notorious serial killer. His knowledge of hunting would have been sufficient to account for the technical aspect of the deaths. Furthermore, it has recently been proven that he suffered from syphilis and/or gonorrhea, sexually transmitted diseases which, if untreated, lead to insanity.

Theories based on this hypothesis then diverge. There are some who claim that the killer himself was the prince, afflicted with bouts of insanity that led him to retaliate against prostitutes, seen perhaps, as a class, as responsible for his suffering. Others claim that the murders were actually committed at the behest of the royal family in order to cover up sexual scandals in which Prince Albert had been involved, including a possible secret marriage to a commoner, held in a tavern and witnessed by prostitutes.

Unlike more recent cases, the truth about Jack the Ripper and his possible connections to the British royal family is unlikely to come to light, especially given all the time that has passed.

Even so, there is certainly something rotten flowing in the depths of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Last month, I dealt with the problem that modern science has suffered from since its birth: its fragmentary nature, since there are a thousand autonomous disciplines, with a thousand and one specialties, but there is no corpus of knowledge. Physics doesn’t know if glass is solid or liquid, chemistry is sure it is solid. There is no one definition of man that is valid across all disciplines, and suddenly we had to accept (by force of law) that women have penises. This fragmentary character, I believe, comes from the influence that Renaissance magic had on the constitution of modern science: when the unified edifice of scholastic philosophy was destroyed by the Copernican Revolution, Renaissance men entered the scene, who made eclectic attempts to construct knowledge without worrying about coherence, caring rather about apparent usefulness. Furthermore, the immense influence of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance caused men of science to put at the forefront the goal of dominating nature to create “magic”, as Francis Bacon intended. With the spirit of the Renaissance, science abandons the universalist claim to describe the whole and starts looking for useful tricks.

I then argued that the world needs to restore the original ideal of the university, which aimed to constitute knowledge of the whole (universum) that created a coherent body, instead of continuing with disciplines that are not accountable to each other. Even before the advent of postmodernism, the current state of affairs is that of relativism, since each discipline is entitled to its own truth.

This month, we have seen the possibility that New Atheism is a propaganda device promoted by people who, in fact, want to privatize phenomena that cannot be explained by natural sciences. The common people have to be atheists and be guided by a secular clergy of scientific popularizers, while a few enlightened people have a mysterious temple on a private island, where the most horrifying things are done. Thus, we must ask: what is the attitude that knowledge-producing humanity should have when faced with phenomena that are not explainable by natural sciences?

The current attitude I believe is exactly that promoted by David Hume (1711 – 1776) in the Inquiry into Human Understanding. There he argues that no report of miracles should be believed, because the testimony of any human authority should be superior to the testimony that attests to the regularity of natural laws. If all historians said that Queen Elizabeth died and was resurrected a few days later, today’s man would have to consider that historians were playing a trick, because experience teaches that no one is resurrected, and we should believe experience more than the words of others. Furthermore, miracles do not happen in the Royal Society in front of scientists, but among poor and ignorant people. They happen in remote places (like Judea), not in Rome in plain sight. If experience says that nature never violates her regularity, it also says that men like to believe in reports that arouse passions – and this explains not miracles, but the belief in them. We can say that scientific common sense is this: the laws of nature are never suspended, so every report of miracles (or, by extension, of extraordinary demonic phenomena) is the result of lies or ignorance.

A few centuries after Hume’s death, methods for documenting and analyzing miraculous occurrences greatly improved. If NASA analyzed Guadalupe’s mantle and couldn’t find any natural explanation for how it was made, or why it didn’t decompose, the issue is no longer about mere reports that could be untrue. Furthermore, canonization processes – which are not few since the advancement of science – analyze potential saints’ claims of miracles. The famous Carlo Acutis, for example, was credited with curing a Brazilian boy who had a deformity in his pancreas – a healing that could not be explained by modern medicine. And so we are left with this: scientific common sense is that there are no miracles, but scientists routinely analyze claims of miracles for the Vatican.

Again, there is no universal scientific authority that determines that miracles exist or not. Everything is subjective: if you are an atheist, then fou you miracles certainly do not exist; if you are not an atheist, then for you maybe miracles exist. But if you say that the earth is 5 thousand years old and that the evolution of species does not exist, then you are wrong, because science has already given its verdict on the matter. Now, perhaps it is worth asking whether science, as a body of universal knowledge, should not have a position on the subject. The current state of affairs is one of relativism, which opens the possibility for the adoption of simply wrong dogmas by the majority of scientists.

A funny experiment was done by William Friedkin in his 2017 documentary. William Friedkin (1935 – 2023) is famous for his 1973 film The Exorcist. More than 40 years later, he learned that the exorcist of the diocese of Rome, Father Amorth, wrote a memoir in which he reveals that The Exorcist is his favorite movie. He praised it, noting however that the special effects are exaggerated. Friedkin then contacted Father Amorth, met him in Italy and asked to film an exorcism for the first time in his life. Father Amorth asked for time to reflect and shortly after obtained authorization – an unprecedented event. The agreement was that Friedkin would film alone (that is, without a crew), with a small camera, the ninth exorcism session of an architect in Italy.

And so it was done. The exorcist, not at all lugubrious, is a good-humoured old man who likes to be funny; the architect’s family is all together, plus her boyfriend and a bunch of priests. During the ritual, she struggles and writhes, needing to be held by men, and roars with a voice that is not normal (it is guttural and sometimes sounds like it belongs to several people). Responding to the exorcist’s questions, she says her name is Satan and she is a legion of 89 demons.

Next, Friedkin takes the recording to Science to investigate – in fact, to three neurosurgeon professors and a psychiatry department. He asks everyone what the architect has, and whether their respective specialties could solve her problem. Two neurosurgeons, both from UCLA, don’t know what she has and deny that they can solve her problem. The first, which is the most normal guy, points out that he has never seen anything like that, and that such voice is not from this world. He argues that she is conscious and interacts with the people in the room, which rules out a certain tumor that causes delusions. The film then moves on to an interview with a neurosurgeon professor from Tel-Aviv, who thinks it might be a tumor and that she might be delusional. He doesn’t mention the voice, which is what draws the most attention. The Israeli has in common with the second neurosurgeon at UCLA (who seems to be an atheist) the belief that the architect is only in that situation because of religion. This kind of thing can happen to religious people: a priest, a rabbi; in short, with those who believe. To which Friedkin asks the Israeli what he believes, and he becomes uncomfortable. Although he is not religious, he believes that God exists in what cannot be understood. Is he an ambiguous Spinozan like Sagan and Sam Harris? So far, even though one believes in God, we have two neurosurgeons who act according to Humean precepts. The second neurosurgeon at UCLA thinks that perhaps it is a natural phenomenon that will one day be discovered (like radioactivity once was), and thinks that the architect should continue with the exorcism due to the placebo effect. Just as a person can feel better just by having an appointment with a psychiatrist who does not prescribe medication, a religious person can feel better with a priest, and this would explain the eventual effectiveness of exorcism.

The funniest moment, however, is the meeting with the Columbia psychiatry department. There we learn that she has Dissociative Trance Disorder, and they show a paper that links this diagnosis to people who report demonic possession and undergo exorcisms. At this meeting, Friedkin learns that the DSM respects cultural diversity, and because reports of demonic possession occur in many cultures, “demonic possession” is in the DSM. As we have seen in greater detail before (using the work of psychiatrist Guido Palomba), the DSM does not have causality: it lists a series of symptoms and gives a name to a syndrome which has a protocol of treatment.

Naming is easy. What about treatment? A young doctor spoke up. Reporting demonic possession is something that occurs among religious people, and he has a Protestant patient very similar to the one in the recording. She even has that strange voice – the young doctor and the normal surgeon are the only ones to highlight the thing that catches the most attention in the recording. Well, the patient has been undergoing therapy and taking medication and is getting better. One gets the impression that, if a psychiatrist has a patient turning her head 360º like in the movie, she will undergo therapy and take medication. In the end, the psychiatrists say that the architect has a solution (therapy and pills), while the neurosurgeons said no.

On the other hand, in the documentary you see that all this started because of the university. William Peter Blatty (1928 – 2017), author of the book The Exorcist on which the film is based, took theology classes with a Jesuit at Georgetown University, in Washington, and heard the story of the demonic possession of a teenager that occurred in 1949, in Maryland, in a Lutheran family. The 14-year-old boy claimed to be possessed, the family sought doctors and psychiatrists, but ended up using the services of the Catholic Church, which sent a priest from Washington to perform the exorcism. Blatty went after the story and the priest, but was unable to reach the boy’s family, who wanted to keep the story as confidential as possible. The fact that a Lutheran family turned to the Catholic Church suggests that scientists were wrong in believing that efficacy, explained as placebo, depends on cultural affinity.

Well, that clearly shows the state of affairs at the university. A discipline – a much despised discipline, and whose content varies depending on the institution – says that miracles and demonic actions can be real. The others say nothing, but have a tacit common sense, endorsed by the media, according to which they do not exist under any circumstances. Everyone believes what they want.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Among other countries, there is no shortage of disinformation about China on the internet. The disinformation takes many forms and ranges from the past to the present, from the myth of the “Tiananmen Square Massacre” to the myth of the origin of Covid-19 in Wuhan, also involving the narrative that China is a “dictatorship,” that there is no freedom to protest or express oneself in the country, and so on. Any more in-depth investigation, however, will soon reveal that a large part of these narratives were planted in the liberal-democratic countries of the Americas and Europe through a small handful of media operations, one of the main ones being the newspaper Epoch Times, whose CFO Weidong Guan was arrested in 2024 on charges of money laundering involving 67 million dollars.

Epoch Times is a newspaper and the core of a broader media group created by a John Tang and which, throughout its history, has to a large extent received funding from funds and associations of neoconservative or neo-Pentecostal orientation, or linked to the U.S. government, such as through the initiatives of Mark Palmer, founder of the National Endowment for Democracy and vice president of the think tank Freedom House. The name of Palmer’s initiative is Friends of Falun Gong.

After all, it will be no news to almost anyone that Epoch Times is nothing more than the informational initiative of the Falun Gong sect, banned in China and Russia and, according to Western or Atlanticist-aligned media, unjustly “persecuted.”

Now, if we rely on these sources of information, Falun Gong is simply an organization dedicated to the cultivation of the “traditional wisdom” of Chinese civilization. But from a traditionalist perspective this is far from the truth.

Falun Gong was created by a Chinese citizen named Li Hongzhi, absolutely devoid of any legitimate spiritual affiliation within a traditional initiatory chain among the schools, philosophies, and doctrines common in China. The impression is that he fused, in an artificial and amateurish way, elements of Buddhism, Taoism, and traditional Chinese medicine, resulting in a pseudo-spiritual “Frankenstein” devoid of metaphysics and whose true center is the cult of the personality of the founder himself, Li Hongzhi, regarded as the exclusive bearer of all truth.

It should be noted that this contrasts both with the Buddhist reading and with the Taoist reading of the master–disciple relationship, which naturally involves discipline and hierarchy, but is entirely devoid of any “cult of personality.” On the contrary, eventual detachment from the master and even from the Buddha are elements present in the Buddhist tradition.

There also seems to be a great concern with the supposed acquisition of “supernatural powers,” even if it is superficially said that this is not the aim of Falun Gong practices. The great Western traditionalist metaphysician René Guénon has already presented, however, in a very complete manner, the incompatibility between this concern with “supernatural powers” and all authentic metaphysics, which can only despise or distrust these phenomena linked to “psychicism” and “spiritism” (even when these are, in fact, real—which is by no means proven in the case of Falun Gong).

But the fact that Falun Gong cannot be considered part of the traditional spiritualities of Asia is only the beginning.

The organization operates like typical cults, including those notorious for tragedies of great magnitude, such as Jim Jones’s Peoples Temple or Reverend Moon’s Unification Church. For example, it is typical of Falun Gong, especially on its properties that operate as “colonies,” that there be pressure for members to break ties with their families. In these spaces, moreover, it is common for members not to have access to social networks and media, as well as for marriages to be arranged.

Furthermore, as has been common in Brazil, the founder and self-proclaimed “Messiah” Li Hongzhi promised miraculous cures through his supernatural powers—upon payment, of course. This brings Falun Gong closer to those post-modern neo-religiosities that have nothing to do with traditional religions and that belong to the world of spiritual subversion and counter-initiation.

As with most of these types of cults, there are also countless reports indicating that Falun Gong undertakes the mental reprogramming of its members, using techniques reminiscent of programs such as the U.S. MK-Ultra and others like it.

The spectacle Shen Yun operates as a respectable façade for this sect, with performances of traditional dances mixed with attempts to transmit the heterodox beliefs of Falun Gong. But even this spectacle has its dark side, with numerous accusations of mistreatment of participants, as well as psychological manipulation.

Even in a place as far away as Brazil all these apparatuses are present: the sect, under the name Falun Dafa, has numerous operational bases; Epoch Times produces its propaganda in Portuguese as well; moreover, the staging of Shen Yun performances is also promoted on Brazilian territory.

In Brazil, Falun Gong tries to present itself as a mere spiritual organization like many others, dedicated to meditation. But Epoch Times is directly engaged in ideological propaganda, and Shen Yun presentations are used to manipulate public opinion regarding China.

There is no knowledge of crimes committed by this constellation of structures in Brazil, but it may be only a matter of time—or of an investigation into Falun Gong members and whether they are victims of abuse.

What is clear, however, is that Falun Gong represents a hybrid, full-spectrum threat to Brazil, involving operations at the spiritual, psychological, political, cultural, and economic-financial levels that can harm the country and its external relations with its BRICS partners.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The Epstein Files revealed the commitment of neo-atheist icons to the cannibalistic pedophile. Since neo-atheism is committed to Zionism, the relationship between the observant Jew Jeffrey Epstein and neo-atheism cannot be limited to utilitarian support aimed solely at scientific discoveries. Let’s review the icons of neo-atheism.

Neo-atheism, whether as an organized movement or an internet phenomenon, emerged in the 2000s. The target audience was young people interested in science, and in fact, it is impossible to find a science communicator who isn’t at least agnostic. This category, as we know it today – the media-savvy science communicator – probably had its first specimen in Carl Sagan (1934–1996), a mediocre UFO-hunting scientist who had privileged access to the media and presented himself as a kind of embodiment of rationality, which includes being a scientistic atheist who explains religion as a simple consequence of human ignorance and fears. Nevertheless, this high priest of rationality became enthusiastic about NASA’s project to teach English to dolphins under the influence of LSD, and even founded the “Order of the Dolphin”, a secret society composed of scientists interested in ETs. Instead of being an aggressive atheist (it’s worth remembering that he was from the USA and the USA has prejudice against atheists), Sagan adopted a Spinozan philosophy and quoted Einstein. He was, therefore, just another Jewish atheist.

The main characters

The historical milestones of neo-atheism are editorial. In 2004, the young Californian journalist Sam Harris (b. 1967) published The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, a diatribe against “organized religion” as the cause of all kinds of evil. The book was a bestseller – an impressive deed, considering that it was in the United States; explainable, however, by the recent trauma of the attack on the Twin Towers. According to the pioneer’s argument, simply being religious is enough to commit terrorist attacks. Regarding his religious background, Sam Harris is the son of a Quaker father and a Jewish mother, making him Jewish according to Halacha. It is worth noting that Sam Harris is not an atheist compatible with the rationalism typical of science communicators, since he is an adherent of esotericism, opened himself to “spirituality” with drugs, and even went to Tibet to study meditation with the pedophile Dalai Lama. Perhaps Harris’s problem lies solely with “organized religion”—that is, religion with solid institutions and doctrine, rather than disorganized religions that worship esoteric gurus. In 2009, after achieving fame, his pursuit of scientific morality earned him a PhD in neuroscience (not philosophy: neuroscience!), but he did not pursue an academic career.

The second important name in the chronology is the Englishman Richard Dawkins (b. 1949), an Oxford professor with a life of his own, independent of atheist activism. Dawkins best embodies the ideal of the neo-atheist: he is a true scientist with a recognized work, he presents Darwinism as proof that science contradicts religion (which tacitly considered a synonym for creationism), he has been an atheist since adolescence, and he treats all religious people as imbecile lunatics. After the publishing success of Sam Harris, the publisher accepted his old proposal to write a book against religion. In 2006, The God Delusion was published, a radical book according to which anyone who believes in God is literally delusional. As for his origins, Dawkins was born in British Kenya, the son of Anglican parents. He was the one who started the trend of calling oneself “culturally Christian,” or “culturally Anglican” (Pinker calls himself “culturally Jewish”) – and then we wonder how a super-scientific scientist can be culturally delusional.

The American philosopher Daniel Dennett (1942–2024) is the most interesting figure in terms of background. His father had a PhD in Islamic studies, and he spent his childhood in Lebanon because his father was there working for the OSS (a precursor to the CIA). Daniel Dennett’s full name was Daniel Clement Dennett III, and his father was Daniel Clement Dennett Jr. He wrote three important books relevant to our topic: Consciousness Explained (1991), where he offers a materialistic explanation of the mind or soul (all consciousness and thought would coincide with brain activity); Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (1995), which bases morality on Darwinism (aligned with Harris’s thesis); and, during the neo-atheism phenomenon, he published Breaking the Spell (2006), in which he aims to seek evolutionary explanations for the existence of religion. In this book, instead of calling himself an atheist, he declares himself a “bright,” and encourages a movement called The Brights, of “philosophical naturalists.” This would include both radical atheists like Dawkins and nuanced personalities like Einstein.

Finally, there is the English journalist Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011). He had a liberal leftist trajectory for most of his life, with a stint in Labour and Trotskyism. He was a friend of the important anti-Zionists Edward Said, Israel Shahak, and Noam Chomsky. However, his trajectory changes in 2001, when he supports the invasion of Iraq, encouraged by the attack on the Twin Towers. In 2007, in the heat of neo-atheism, he publishes God is Not Great, denying the Arabic phrase “Allahu Akbar.” As for his origins, he was raised as a Christian and only at the age of 38 did he found out that his mother had Jewish origins on her mother’s side, and then he began to self-identify as Jewish. According to the obituary published by the Jewish identitarian magazine Tablet Mag, Hitchens saw atheism as a Jewish remedy to avoid totalitarianism. In the same article, we learn that his mother was a New Age lunatic who committed suicide along with her lover, a former pastor who led her to the sect of an Indian guru. Far from rejecting madness like a good rationalist atheist, Hitchens saw his mother’s adherence to such a fad as a dialectical characteristic of Judaism.

Considerations

Something that has always struck me about neo-atheism is the implausibility of its main claim: that all religious people are stupid, so only atheists are scientific and intelligent. Atheism was very rare before the last century, and the only great scientist who was unequivocally atheist that we know of is Darwin. The fact that this idea spread in Isaac Newton’s country is even more absurd, since this scientific genius, besides being an obstinate biblical exegete prone to mysticism, was also a kind of proto-creationist, believing in a Creator versed in mathematics and inspiring the Boyle Lectures. It wouldn’t be risky to say that neo-atheism aimed to combat the ghost of Newton in order to divorce Christianity from science, making people believe that if you are Christian, you are stupid. If you are Jewish, however, there is a lot of scientific evidence that IQ is linked to race – evidence, incidentally, provided by James Watson, Nobel laureate and the umpteenth scientist to appear in the Epstein Files.

Well, looking at these brief biographical sketches, I see that only one of the “four horsemen” corresponds to the image of the unequivocally atheistic atheist who despises everything that is not a mirror. The initiator of the trend, Sam Harris, is an esotericist who believes that science can act as a substitute for religion, providing scientifically correct moral guidance. He could finely be a Spinozist, a type who believes that God is the same thing as nature. Hitchens believed that atheism was a Jewish virtue, so his atheism is linked to that racial religion. The one who comes closest to the radicalism of the gentile Dawkins is the also gentile Dennett. Both have in common a Darwinian aggressiveness that does not seem open to a divinization of nature, which Darwin describes as a true dog-eat-dog world. However, Dennett follows the less publicized facet of Darwin, who sees social solidarity as an evolutionary mechanism of the species: while Dawkins fragments the individuals to speak of a selfish gene, Dennett prefers to pay attention to the selection of altruistic collectivities. Furthermore, instead of simply positioning himself as an atheist, he preferred to join a movement of self-proclaimed bright “naturalists.” Except for Dawkins, they all point to an ambiguous zone between atheism and deism, opening space for any New Age quackery in which you can put numbers and say it is science. Nothing very different from Sagan being amazed by dolphins under the influence of LSD.

Now, the divinization of nature would also explain the reverence of a religious Jew like Epstein towards mechanisms of natural selection. It is common to point to the relationship between Calvinism and Darwinism because of the notion of predestination. However, a Spinozan and materialist deism would lead to a divinization of the very mechanism of natural selection.

One issue that is an elephant in the room is Zionism. Under any rational light, Zionism should be rejected by atheists who hate “organized religion,” since Israel is a religious state based on a promise made by God to Abraham. Nevertheless, the standard conduct of three neo-atheists is to focus on Islam: it is as if Israel were a secular state and the conflict only existed because Muslims are fanatics, and not because their property (as well as that of Christians) was stolen. Dennett does not seem to have commented on the subject, but he was not very media-savvy. Hitchens, although he called himself anti-Zionist and argued on the basis of liberalism, in practice supported the State of Israel because he enthusiastically supported the invasion of Iraq. Jews are represented as rational and enlightened beings (even though Jewish religious fanaticism is not lacking in Israel); only Palestinians are obscurantist religious people full of hatred.

And as Epstein brought us to this point, it’s worth remembering once again that two of those mentioned were on Epstein’s Lolita Express (Dawkins and Dennett), and that Sam Harris received funding from Epstein for his NGO of atheists who think they’re geniuses (Edge Foundation, or Edge.Org).

We also discussed Epstein’s beliefs in the previous article, and here that psychic materialism reappears, which makes the soul a material thing that is in the brain, even if we cannot see it. Dennett provides the philosophical foundation for this conviction. As for the correspondences with the Renaissance, the Darwinian idea of ​​a morality inherent in nature has precedent in De rerum natura, since it is not only biological bodies that are composed according to an order, but also sociopolitical bodies, which are spontaneously constituted and disintegrate when they suffer from some internal disorder.

Another intriguing topic that we haven’t yet addressed (because I’m still getting up to speed) is the attempt, during the Renaissance, to overcome the division of Western Christianity through a new religion founded on the revelations of Hermes Trismegistus. The Hermeticists believed that Moses, Pythagoras, and Plato traveled to Egypt to learn all their wisdom from this guy Hermes. Thus, Christianity could return to its true roots along with Judaism, since Hermes was Moses’ teacher. Hence come Hermeticism, Christian Kabbalah, and the beginning of the occult movement.

Finally, the question remains: if occultism doesn’t publicly profess everything it believes in, is it possible that militant atheism is the exoteric layer of a Hermetic religion? Could it be that, with the rise of scientism, the supernatural (or preternatural) has been privatized for small initiated circles that frequent strange parties with temples on private islands, while all institutions say that nothing supernatural exists?

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Amid the avalanche of noteworthy things relating to Jeffrey Epstein, I wanted to draw attention to a very atypical combination: rigorous religiosity and militant atheism.

The religiosity appears in its most extravagant form with Epstein’s idea of ​​funding the development of a cloven-hoofed pig – a genetically modified kosher pig – so that he could eat bacon. The attempt to circumvent divine prohibitions is far from exceptional in Talmudic Judaism (the most prosaic example is the use of wigs to cover women’s hair). It causes some amazement, that a terrible criminal could be a very religious person, since we are faced with the possibility that his religion is more concerned with dietary restrictions than with moral restrictions. But this is also old news. Since virtually no one knows the Talmud without being a religious Jew capable of reading Hebrew, I recommend reading the indispensable Jewish History, Jewish Religion, by Israel Shahak, which exposes the immorality and racial supremacism intrinsic to the Talmud. It does not follow from this that every religious Jew is a bad person, but rather that, if he is a good person, it is by natural inclination and influence of the culture in which he is embedded, not by the Talmud (of which Epstein displayed dozens of volumes on his bookshelf).

As for militant atheism, a photo was released showing Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Steven Pinker together in the Lolita Express. That is, two of the “four horsemen of neo-atheism” (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens, who died in 2011), plus the Harvard atheist Jew Steven Pinker, who weaves scientific praises to the moral progress of our times. Furthermore, information was released that a club of atheists who consider themselves genius scientists (of which Sam Harris is a member) relied on Epstein’s philanthropy. The club is called Edge.org. A religious person funding atheists who are certain that people who believe in God are stupid? How strange!

It is possible to think of a utilitarian connection between Epstein and the club of scientistic atheists. In a long article for Unlimited Hangout about the pedophile’s adherence to the utopian ideas of Silicon Valley, journalist Max Jones highlights what the club had to offer: “Among these scientists [of the club] was Craig Venter, a grizzly-bearded geneticist […] who remains a significant figure in the annals of the Human Genome Project. Notably, Venter and Church — the aforementioned Harvard PGP [Personal Genome Project] director — once led an ‘Edge master class’ together, lecturing to a who’s who of Big Tech oligarchs and media figures, including Google founder Larry Page and Elon Musk […]. Their lecture focused on a utopian future, one in which man is merged with machines via computer readings of genetic sequences ‘where the code can be replicated exactly, manipulated freely, and translated back into living organisms by writing the other way’ — or more simply, gene editing.”

It is already well known that Epstein held his own DNA in the highest esteem, and that he wanted to freeze his own brain and penis, so it makes sense that, for utilitarian reasons, he subsidizes an atheist club that includes scientists with crazy ideas similar to his own. However, we must once again ask ourselves what kind of religion this is, so compatible with materialistic beliefs.

Christians believe in the resurrection of the flesh. Jews, according to Chabad, do not believe in the resurrection of bodies, and believe that all souls go through a painful purgation before they can enjoy spiritual pleasure. Roughly speaking, it is as if everyone goes to hell before going to heaven. Thus, if a Jew believes in this but loves bodily life very much, he will need to solve the problem here in this world, preventing death. And if Epstein is a Jew who believes in the supernatural, it is very plausible that he seeks the help of one of the various demons in whose existence Jews believe. This would give us an explanation for the existence of a mysterious temple on their island – after all, normal Jews have a synagogue, not a temple.

The temple had been emptied when it was photographed from the inside. Little more than an empty bookcase and a painting on the ceiling representing the sky with the signs of the zodiac remained. Now, astrology was part of occultism, as was Kabbalah, and this cultural mix gained traction in the West during the Renaissance. As we have seen in recent articles, this occult movement was also usually connected with a proto-Christian Zionism: at least since the Christian Kabbalist William Postel (1510 – 1581), the belief has circulated in Europe that the Jews have a secular messiah distinct from the Christian messiah (Jesus), so that they await a monarch who will overthrow Constantinople and return the Holy Land to them. From there, the monarch will rule the world, and there will be a single religion. We have also seen that in the 16th century this idea was disseminated by people connected to the Portuguese rabbi Menasseh Ben Israel. Both Christina of Sweden and Vieira believed in such a prophecy. What varied was the monarch: for Christina, it was probably at some point Prince Condé, as this was the version disseminated by La Peyrère; for Antônio Vieira, it was John IV of Portugal, the first king of the Braganza dynasty. Now, Epstein claimed to represent the Rothschilds (the Jewish family that made the State of Israel possible) and had close ties with important figures in the Zionist entity.

A look at the 17th century also helps to understand Epstein himself. In the unpublished interview given to Steve Bannon, which was recently leaked, Epstein spoke of his conceptions of the soul. He was certain that the soul existed, but it was composed of an unobservable matter: it was the “dark matter” of the brain, which certainly exists, is in the brain, but cannot be seen or defined. It is striking, then, that instead of simply concluding that the soul is not material, Epstein concludes that it is unobservable matter. From this, we must conclude that he was a dogmatic materialist. This is all the more intriguing because he expresses himself in very dualistic terms; thus, instead of dividing the world between extension and spirit (body and soul), he divides it between visible matter and invisible matter. (In fact, it cannot even be said that this is an original vice of Epstein, since the concept of dark matter is taken from physics. There is a text by the Benedictine cosmologist and historian of science Stanley Jaki against an Epstein client named Stephen Hawking in which the dogmatic presupposition of unobservable matter is criticized. The title is “Evicting the Creator” and it is in the collection Christ and Science. I thank the reader of Strategic Culture who sent the recommendation of this author to the editorial staff.)

The idea that the soul is a material thing, even composed of atoms, is not Epstein’s invention. It is, in fact, older than Christ: it appears in De rerum natura, the book that Christina of Sweden considered to best represent the religion of the philosophers, which she followed. The work was written by the Roman Epicurean Titus Lucretius Carus, who lived in the 1st century BC. According to his explanation, the entire world is composed of atoms in chaotic motion. The visible order in the world does not originate from a creator, but rather from this eternal movement: atoms combine and, as it were, test forms. Those that are well-ordered subsist, those that are not well-ordered perish. It is, strictly speaking, natural selection long before Darwin. And since everything is material, our soul also dissolves when the order of our body is definitively broken, leading us to death and putrefaction. The gods exist, but they delight among themselves and do not care about mortals. People’s religiosity is explained by their ignorance of the causes (which are all natural). In short, De rerum natura is a book very much aligned with scientism’s beliefs.

The book spent a good part of Western history unknown. It was rediscovered in the Renaissance (the golden age of occultism in Western Europe) and there is a propaganda book celebrating the fact: The Swerve, by Stephen Greenblatt, yet another Jewish atheist professor from Harvard. He won a Pulitzer Prize for the propaganda piece in which he teaches that Rome is a factory of lies.

Given the overall picture, which includes Jeffrey Epstein, we see that there is no essential contradiction between materialism and the most superstitious religiosity. It is most likely that there is a Western school of thought that is anti-Roman, anti-Turkish, and philo-Zionist, which emerges in the Renaissance with occultism (which includes both the schools of Antiquity discarded by scholasticism, such as Epicureanism, and the various Kabbalahs), develops itself with empiricism in the early modern period, transforms itself into the Enlightenment, and then leads to the scientism that reaches our days. Among the best-known figures who are important in this history are the British Francis Bacon (who considered science a form of magic), Spinoza (a Portuguese Jew from Holland whose rationalist philosophical system draws from Epicureanism, and whose pantheism is so intertwined with atheism that it resulted in his excommunication), the British David Hume (who has an essay against the immortality of the soul in which he revives the Epicurean idea of ​​a soul composed of atoms), and the British Charles Darwin (who best knew how to take advantage of the Epicurean premise of the intrinsic order of matter).

Just as scholasticism was an institutionalized body of knowledge based on religious dogmas, the entire current scientific establishment probably rests on cohesive dogmas of a metaphysical nature. The problem is that we are not informed of this, nor do we discern its connection in history.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

After Epstein, nothing can continue as before: Neither the post war ‘never again’ values – reflecting sentiment at the end of bloody wars – and the widespread yearning for a ‘fairer’ society; nor the bipolar economics of extreme disparities in wealth; nor trust – after the exposed venality, rotted institutions and perversions that the Epstein files have shown to be endemic amongst certain of the western élites.

How to speak of ‘values’ against this background?

At Davos, Mark Carney made clear that the ‘rules order’ was but a tawdry Potemkin façade that was thoroughly known as false, yet the façade was maintained. Why? Simply because the deceit was useful. The ‘exigency’ was the need to hide the system’s collapse into radical, anti-values nihilism. To hide the reality that the élite circles – around Epstein – operated beyond moral, legal or human limitations, to decide between peace and war, on the basis of their base appetites.

The élites understood that once the complete amorality of the rulers was known by the hoi polloi, the West would lose the architecture of moral stories that precisely anchor an ordered life. If the Establishment is known to eschew morality, why should anyone else behave differently? The cynicism would cascade down. What then would hold a nation together?

Well, only totalitarianism, most likely.

The post-modern ‘fall’ into nihilism has crashed finally into its inevitable ‘dead end’ (as predicted by Nietzsche in 1888). The ‘Enlightenment’ paradigm has finally metamorphosed into its opposite: A world without values, meaning or purpose (beyond avaricious self-enrichment). This implies the end too, of the very concept of Truth that used to be at the heart of western civilisation, since Plato.

The collapse underlines, too, the failings of western mechanical Reason: “This kind of a priori, closed-circle reasoning has had a much greater effect on western culture than we might imagine … It led to the imposition of rules that are believed to be irrefutable, not because they are revealed, but because they have been scientifically proved, and there is thus no appeal against them”, Aurelien notes.

This mechanical way of thinking has played a large part in the third tier to the ‘Davos Rupture’ (after the intellectual demise and the collapse of trust in the leadership). Mechanical thinking based in a deterministic pseudo-scientific world view led to economic contradictions which prevented western economists from seeing what was under their nose: a hyper-financialised economic system placed entirely at the service of the oligarchs and insiders.

No failure of our economic modelling, however great, “has weakened the vice-like grip of the mathematical economists on the policies of governments. The problem has been that Science, in that binary cause-and-effect mode, could not cope with either the chaos or the complexity of life” (Aurelien). Other theories – other than Newtonian physics – such as quantum or chaos theories largely have been excluded from our mode of thinking.

The meaning to ‘Davos’ – followed by the Epstein revelations – is that the Humpty-Dumpty of Trust has fallen from the wall and cannot be put together again.

What is also apparent is that the Epstein circles were not just about twisted individuals; “What has been exposed points to systematic, organized, ritualized practices”. And that changes everything, as commentator Lucas Leiroz observes:

“Networks of this kind only exist when they are backed by deep institutional protection. There is no ritual paedophilia, no human trafficking on a transnational scale, no systematic production of extreme material – without political, police, judicial, and media cover. This is the logic of power”.

Epstein emerges from the myriad emails as a paedophile and utterly immoral certainly, but also as highly intelligent and a serious geo-political player, whose political insights were prized by high-level figures around the globe. He was a master-player behind geo-politics, as Michael Wolff described (as far back as 2018, as well as in recently released email correspondence) in the war between Jewish power and the Gentiles, too.

This suggests that Epstein was less a tool of Intelligence Services, but more their ‘peer’. No wonder leaders sought his company (and for grossly immoral reasons too, we cannot not ignore). And clearly the Deep (uniparty) State manoeuvred through him. And in the end, Epstein knew too much.

David Rothkopf, himself a former political affairs adviser in the U.S. Democratic camp, speculates on what Epstein means for America:

“[Young Americans] realise that their institutions are failing them, and they’re going to have to [save themselves] … you’ve got tens of thousand of people in Minneapolis, saying this is not any more about Constitutional issues, or the rule of law or democracy – which may sound good – but which is at a remove from the average person at the average kitchen table”.

“People are saying the Supreme Court is not going to protect us; Congress is not going to protect us; the President is the enemy; he is deploying his own army in our cities. The only people who can protect us – are: We ourselves”.

“It is ‘the billionaires stupid’” [a reference to the old amorphism: ‘It’s the economy, stupid’] Rothkopf explains:

“The point I’m trying to make is that – if you don’t realise that equality and élite impunity are central issues to everybody, that people think the system is rigged and is not working for them … don’t believe the American dream is real any more – and that the control of the country has been stolen by a handful of the super-rich people, who don’t get taxed and get wealthier and wealthier – whilst the rest of us fall further and further behind – [then you can’t understand today’s despair amongst the under 35s]”.

Rothkopf is saying that the Davos/Epstein episode marks the rupture between the people and the ruling strata.

“Western societies now face a dilemma that cannot be resolved through elections, parliamentary commissions, or speeches. How can one continue to accept the authority of institutions that shielded this level of horror? How can respect be maintained for laws applied selectively by people who live above them?”, Leiroz says.

Loss of respect however, does not go to the core of the impasse. No conventional political party has an answer to the failure of ‘kitchen-table’ economics – the lack of reasonably well-paid jobs, access to medical services, costly education and housing.

No mainstream party can provide a credible answer to these existential issues because, for decades, the economy has exactly been ‘rigged’ — structurally re-oriented towards a debt-based financialised economy, at the expense of the real economy.

It would require the present Anglo liberal market structure to be wholly up-rooted and replaced by another. That would require a decade of reforms – and the oligarchs would fight that outright.

Ideally, new political parties might emerge. In Europe, however, the ‘bridges’ that potentially could take us out from our deep structural contradictions have been deliberately destroyed in the name of the cordon sanitaire designed to prevent any non ‘centrist’ policy thinking from emerging.

If protest has no effect in changing the status quo, and elections remain between the Tweedle Dee and Dum parties of the existing order, the young will conclude that ‘no one will come to save us’ – and they may conclude in their despair that the future can only be decided on the streets.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Amid the horror show of the recently released Epstein files, one particular revelation stands out for its deeper ideological and religious implications: the disclosure that Epstein planned to finance a bioengineering project aimed at creating “kosher pork.” The case, perhaps unintentionally, exposes some common analytical errors in how the distinction between Zionism and Judaism is usually framed.

It is correct to say that Zionism is not Judaism. This distinction is necessary, legitimate, and defended by countless religious Jews, Orthodox rabbis, and traditional communities around the world. However, turning this distinction into an absolute separation – as if the two had nothing whatsoever to do with each other – is intellectually dishonest. Zionism did not simply fall from the sky in the nineteenth century as a purely secular nationalist ideology. It emerged from an already strained religious terrain, marked by heterodox currents and heretical sects that have always existed on the margins of traditional Judaism.

Every traditional religion has deviant sects. The problem begins when these sects cease to be marginal and start operating as political engines. One of the clearest signs of this type of deviation is the trivialization – or even the mockery – of what is sacred. This is where the details surrounding Epstein acquire symbolic relevance.

According to publicly released documents, Epstein financed bioengineering research with the aim of creating “kosher bacon”: pigs genetically modified to conform to an absurd interpretation of Jewish dietary laws. This is not eccentric curiosity or dark humor. It is a conscious parody of religious law – an attempt to demonstrate power over what, in traditional Judaism, is considered inviolable.

The same pattern appears in other initiatives well known in religious Zionist circles, such as the projects of the Temple Institute. Millions of dollars are invested every year in attempts to artificially produce the so-called “perfect red heifer,” whose sacrifice would allow – according to extremist interpretations – the resumption of rituals on the Temple Mount. For a large segment of Orthodox Judaism, this is not faith; it is heresy. It is a human attempt to force the hand of God.

This logic helps explain why so many religious Jews reject the State of Israel itself. Not out of antisemitism, not out of “self-hatred,” but out of theological conviction. According to this view, only the Messiah can establish the kingdom of the Jews on Earth. Any human attempt to anticipate this process is a sin. The Israeli state, in this reading, is not the fulfillment of the biblical promise but its distortion.

Therefore, Zionism is not merely a secular political project. It feeds on deviant religious interpretations, instrumentalized to justify territorial expansion, ethnic supremacy, and permanent violence. This dimension is systematically ignored in international debate because it dismantles the comfortable narrative of a purely “ethnic” or “security-based” conflict.

Realizing this is essential to understanding what is happening in Gaza. Those who believe that Israeli policy amounts simply to basic racism or irrational hatred of Palestinians are mistaken. If the goal were merely to kill, there would be quieter, more efficient, and less costly means – after all, Israel controls all access routes to the Gaza Strip. The open, televised destruction directed at civilians, especially children, serves another function.

It is not only about eliminating the enemy, but about sending a message. About reaffirming an absolute moral hierarchy. About demonstrating total power over life and death. This is not the product of an atheist, skeptical, or materialist mindset. Those who plan and carry out this kind of policy believe they are fulfilling a historical – if not genuinely spiritual – mission.

Ignoring this factor does not make the analysis more rational. It only makes it incomplete. And in the context of Gaza, analytical incompleteness has cost thousands of lives. Israel is not simply a violent ethno-state – it is also an extremist sect in the form of a state.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A Highly Successful Director

Imagine being the Director of the CIA, as well as a veteran of American diplomacy. Power, knowledge, political and military influence. Now imagine a long series of trips to meet Jeffrey Epstein.

William Joseph Burns is regarded as one of the most experienced figures in U.S. foreign policy, with more than three decades of service at the State Department. Over the course of his career, he served as ambassador to Jordan, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and played a key role in the secret backchannels with Iran that paved the way for the nuclear deal, building a reputation as a discreet, effective negotiator deeply embedded in the “labyrinths” of Washington’s bureaucracy. An impressive career, to say the least—a true statesman.

In 2014, Burns was Deputy Secretary of State, effectively the number two official at the Department, with direct access to the most sensitive dossiers on Russia, the Middle East, Iran, and the Ukrainian crises. Since 2021, he has led the CIA, a position that places him at the apex of the U.S. intelligence apparatus, already shaken by unresolved questions surrounding the handling of the “Epstein case.” It is precisely in 2014 that his contacts with Epstein begin, and it is easy to understand why every detail concerning his prior interactions with the financier is not perceived as mere social curiosity, but rather as a potentially significant piece in the mosaic of relationships linking political elites, intelligence services, and a figure at the center of a transnational network of sexual abuse, blackmail, and opaque financial flows.

Epstein’s internal documents—particularly calendars and emails reconstructed through journalistic investigations—indicate that at least three meetings between him and William Burns were scheduled in 2014. Reconstructions converge on a sequence: an initial meeting in Washington, followed by at least one visit by Burns to Epstein’s Manhattan townhouse, with the possibility of another meeting in the same city. These appointments appear in Epstein’s records between 2013 and 2017, that is, during a period in which the former money manager had already served a sentence for sexual crimes in Florida and was formally registered as a sex offender.

A CIA spokesperson, questioned after the revelations, stated that Burns—then Deputy Secretary of State—had been introduced to Epstein as a financial expert capable of offering general advice on transitioning into the private sector. According to this account, Burns allegedly had no detailed awareness of Epstein’s criminal past and did not maintain an ongoing relationship beyond those few meetings, described as limited contacts with no further developments. The spokesperson also emphasized that “they did not have a relationship” and that the Director does not recall subsequent contacts, including any car rides allegedly provided by Epstein.

However, several counterintelligence specialists have described it as “stunning” that such an experienced official would agree to meet a high-profile sex offender, stressing that even a minimal reputational background check should have raised red flags. From this critical perspective, there are only two possibilities: either Burns knew who Epstein was and underestimated the gravity of the issue, or he failed to ask sufficient questions—demonstrating, according to these analysts, a degree of carelessness incompatible with the security standards expected of someone who leads an agency like the CIA.

Elites and Intelligence

It is important to clarify what the documents that brought Burns’s name back into the spotlight do—and do not—represent. Epstein’s private calendars, agendas, and staff emails are an incomplete source: they record planned appointments, meeting proposals, invitations to events, and travel arrangements, but they do not always confirm that every entry resulted in an actual meeting. In Burns’s case, however, multiple sources agree that at least one or two of these meetings did take place—something the CIA spokesperson did not deny, while attempting to downplay their significance.

These calendars differ from Epstein’s private jet flight logs or the so-called black book, which listed contacts, phone numbers, and addresses and over the years fueled more or less responsible lists of names associated with the financier. While the black book suggests potential lines of contact and flight logs imply physical presence on aircraft and routes, the calendars represent the dynamic map of the social and business network Epstein sought to build. In this framework, Burns’s presence—at a moment when he was exiting a top-tier government role—places him among the high-level interlocutors Epstein aimed to involve in consulting activities, projects, or simply relationships of influence and prestige.

The political and media issue is not limited to what happened—some meetings in 2014—but extends to how and why. On the one hand, the official narrative insists on the absence of any structured relationship: Burns is portrayed as one of many officials leaving government service who, at the end of a long career, explore potential opportunities in the private sector, turning even to individuals presented as experts in finance and networking. On the other hand, a high-profile sex offender like Epstein was hardly an obscure figure in 2014, and merely crossing the threshold of his townhouse should have triggered ethical and security alarms.

The Burns case illustrates a systemic problem of “willful blindness” among elites, who are more inclined to value access to capital and contacts than to consider the risks of associating with toxic figures. The White House chose a policy of silence, declining to comment directly on the revelations regarding the 2014 meetings—a decision that reinforces the perception of a politically sensitive dossier that has not yet erupted at the institutional level.

Yet there is a detail that many risk overlooking: Burns was one of the quiet pillars of Barack Obama’s foreign policy.

The trajectories of the two men intersect during the decade in which Obama, first as a senator and later as president, sought to reshape U.S. foreign policy after the years of George W. Bush. Burns arrived at that juncture with a résumé already marked by explosive dossiers: ambassador to Jordan, then to Moscow, and later Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs—the third-highest position at the State Department. Obama met him personally in 2005 during a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, where he encountered Ambassador Burns and, by his own admission, was struck by his combination of caution, analytical clarity, and deep knowledge of Russian affairs.

When Obama entered the White House in 2009, it was no coincidence that he surrounded himself with figures “inherited” from the bureaucracy, considered reliable by both political parties. Burns was one of these technocrats of power, having served under five administrations, from Reagan to Obama. In those early years, the president faced the reset with Moscow, the war in Afghanistan, the remnants of Iraq, and the early signs of the Iranian nuclear crisis. In this context, Burns progressively emerged as one of the few officials Obama trusted enough to assign highly sensitive missions conducted outside official channels.

Perhaps the clearest sign of their relationship appears in Obama’s statement in April 2014 commenting on Burns’s retirement from the State Department. In that text, the president recalls meeting him in Moscow, admiring him from the outset for his precision, and adds a revealing sentence: “Since taking office, I have relied on him for candid advice and sensitive diplomatic missions.” Obama emphasizes that on multiple occasions he asked Burns to delay retirement—evidence of genuine political reliance on his ability to manage highly complex dossiers—going so far as to say that the country is “stronger” thanks to Burns’s service.

More than mere ceremonial rhetoric, diplomatic reporting confirms this centrality: biographical profiles and think tank analyses describe Burns as a “consummate diplomat,” a professional enjoying bipartisan respect, capable of engaging Netanyahu, Lavrov, Iranian negotiators, or Gulf monarchs with equal composure. In this context, the “friendship” with Obama takes the form of solidarity between cautious reformers: a president seeking to distance himself from the logic of military intervention, and a diplomat who had long argued for privileging negotiation over force.

A career without setbacks

The chapter that more than any other cements the political bond between Burns and Obama is that of the Iranian nuclear negotiations. Beginning in 2013, a small group of officials—led precisely by Burns and Jake Sullivan—was tasked with managing a series of secret meetings in Muscat, Oman, with Iranian representatives. The goal, as ambitious as it was controversial, was to determine whether there was space to defuse the nuclear crisis without open conflict, by opening a parallel channel alongside the official multilateral P5+1 format.

Accounts from those months, reconstructed by the Associated Press and other media outlets, speak of at least five secret meetings conducted by Burns and Sullivan, often with small delegations, during which the foundations were laid for the subsequent interim agreement and ultimately the 2015 JCPOA. In this narrative, Obama is the political decision-maker willing to risk enormous domestic and international credibility to achieve a historic outcome; Burns is the man who translates that risk into diplomatic practice, meticulously managing language, concessions, and pressure on skeptical allies—first and foremost Israel and Saudi Arabia.

One particularly significant detail concerns the triangular relationship between Obama, Burns, and Netanyahu. Analytical sources recall that the Israeli prime minister learned of the secret channel only in 2013 directly from Obama, and that managing this delicate balance—reassuring Israel while keeping negotiations with Tehran alive—depended in part on Burns’s ability to withstand intense crossfire. In some commentaries on Burns’s memoirs, the former diplomat describes Obama in largely positive terms on the Iranian front, crediting him with the determination to avoid “military adventures” and to invest in diplomacy under difficult conditions.

The Iran file is not the only one linking Burns’s political fate to Obama’s. As Under Secretary for Political Affairs and later Deputy Secretary of State, Burns was involved in the administration’s attempts to manage the Arab Spring, the war in Syria, the Libyan dossier, and, more broadly, the effort to realign U.S. policy in the broader Mediterranean after Iraq. His memoirs and several critical analyses note that, while supporting Obama’s negotiating approach, Burns was not without doubts—for example, he later reconsidered whether the United States should have taken a firmer stance against the Assad regime after the use of chemical weapons, in order to avoid a credibility vacuum.

This did not undermine his relationship with Obama, but rather reveals its nature: not blind loyalty, but an ongoing dialogue between a cautious president and a diplomat who shared that orientation while still pointing out the costs of certain hesitations. In essence, Burns embodies the most refined version of the Obama doctrine in the Middle East: fewer direct interventions, more multilateral pressure, more sanctions, and more parallel channels of communication—from Russia to Iran, from Gulf monarchies to opposition movements.

Around them moved an “Obama network” of figures who would later return to key roles: Jake Sullivan would move from the Biden vice presidency to President Biden’s White House; Wendy Sherman, who worked alongside Burns in the Iran negotiations, would become Deputy Secretary of State; other diplomats and advisers would find positions on boards of directors, in think tanks, and in foundations that populate the world of the American liberal establishment. Burns himself, after leaving the State Department, would lead the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, one of the most influential foreign policy think tanks, becoming a permanent fixture in that ecosystem of intellectual and political elites shaped in part by the Obama experience.

Although Burns’s appointment as CIA Director formally came from Joe Biden in 2021, many commentators view that choice as the continuation of an “Obama line” on national security: placing a diplomat—rather than a former military officer or partisan politician—at the head of intelligence, reinforcing the idea that U.S. strength derives more from the negotiating table than from the battlefield. In this sense, the relationship with Obama helped define not only Burns’s public profile but also his symbolic role within the American power structure.

So, to sum up: Burns, a key figure in American political power, a connecting link between Democrats, Middle Eastern diplomacy, and intelligence, begins associating with Epstein in 2014 and later becomes Director of the CIA. Who knows what Burns and Obama whispered to each other, and even more so, who knows what they did on Jeffrey’s magical island.

All perfectly normal. That’s America!