Elon Musk is about to spend 120 million dollars on the 2026 midterm election. All this money he made as a capitalist. His fortune is built on the backs of the workers, the people who build his cars, run the warehouses, write his code, and drive the routes. Now he is using all this money to decide their elections. Wealth built on exploitation. America PAC has approved 120 million dollars for a field program in at least eight states. The targets are Alaska, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio. As the biggest political donor in American history, he put more than 250 million dollars into the 2024 race. That money is part of the reason Trump won the presidency. His whole fortune is built on the working class, and now he is spending 120 million dollars to control the vote, to control the election.

What can this 120 million actually buy?

They don’t need your opinion. The strategy is to get enough people out to find the right voters and bring them to the polls. They’re gonna do door knocking, digital ads, direct mail, paid canvassers, all of it aimed at people who usually stay home in a midterm. Some of these states only have a few thousand voters who can decide the Senate. Musk understands that changing someone’s mind is slow and expensive. But with enough money, you can get people to the polls. You can get the right people to the polls. And using that money to make sure the other side stays home is cheap and reliable.

Why is Musk back in politics again?

He never left. Years ago Musk was done with the Republicans. He was angry. He talked about starting his own political party, called the America Party. So why is he ready to write the check right now? He needs politics to protect his money. This country only allows two parties. A third party does not make any sense. And Musk does not want to lose access to political power. He made enough enemies in Washington. He wants whoever runs the White House to owe him something. I don’t think he likes the Republicans. He just wants to use his wealth to buy a seat at the table. And the Republican Party, Trump, they are just the ones selling the seats.

This is bigger than Musk

His 120 million dollars is just a small part of a larger play. Trump and his allies have around 1.1 billion dollars ready. That is more than three times what the Democratic Party has. Both parties run the same operation. The same class of rich people writes the checks on both sides. And all this money comes from the same place. It comes from your paycheck. They built their fortune on your back. While you fight each other about red and blue, they just use that to manipulate you.

Free speech

They will call this free speech. But in my opinion, money is the speech. Musk can use 120 million dollars to make his speech. You have speech too. You don’t have 120 million dollars. He can move millions of votes. You can only move one. Free speech doesn’t make sense here. Only power makes sense here. And the power belongs to the people who have assets, who have the capital.

My take

This makes me sick. Not because Musk is rich. People get rich, it’s fine. It makes me sick because the money was never really his. It came from millions of ordinary lives, from the workers, from the people who helped him build his empire. Now it is being used against those same people. They took the value of your labor, and they are spending it to make sure nothing ever changes for you. Stealing money is bad. And the thief, the thief is not only stealing your money, they use that money to lecture you. That’s even worse. They robbed you. Then they told you you should be grateful.

This is not just one election

It has been like this throughout history. As long as rich people can buy the election, buy the operation, they decide who votes and what they hear. The numbers only get bigger. More and more money will pour into the election. It doesn’t matter which team you are on. Both teams are taking the same money from the same people. The only fix is to stop thinking this is some sort of fight between parties. It’s not. It is always the ruling class, the people who own things, against the people who do the actual work.

Subscribe now

New York just promised to make a basket of everyday groceries 30% cheaper for anyone who walks in the door. Within a day, the same voices that cheer billion-dollar tax breaks for corporations were screaming that this is how communism starts.

The fight was never about groceries. It is about who government resources are allowed to help.

Here are the facts. Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced the plan on July 27. Five city-owned stores, one in each borough, by the end of his term. A core basket of produce, meat, seafood, eggs, dairy and around 20 categories of pantry staples sold at a 30% discount, with prices locked monthly instead of swinging week to week. The city puts up 70 million dollars in capital, owns the land, covers rent and property taxes, and lets private operators bid to run the stores. City projections put the savings near 90 dollars a month, about 1,000 dollars a year for a household. Grocery prices in New York have jumped roughly 66% in a decade. This is not a bread line. It is a discount aisle with a landlord who does not need a profit.

A quick note before I dig in. I appreciate anyone who takes the time to read this. If you find it worth your while, please consider subscribing. And if you want to support the work a little further, becoming a paid subscriber would mean a lot to me. Thank you.

Subscribe now

China already answered this question

In many Chinese cities, community food markets do not run on pure hands-off approach. Local governments plan where they sit, help manage or subsidize the space, hold down rents, regulate food safety, and lean on supply and reserve systems to keep prices from spiking. The goal is not to erase private business. It is to make sure ordinary households, especially lower-income and elderly ones, can reach affordable fresh food nearby.

And here is the part the fear-mongers never mention. That same country is where Costco, Walmart and Sam’s Club are making a fortune. Public provision and private retail sit side by side, because shoppers do not choose on price alone. They choose on brand, convenience, selection and habit. A person who has trusted one store for 20 years does not abandon it because a cheaper option opened across town.

So the claim that a public grocery option automatically destroys the private market is not economics. It is a scare story.

Notice which help gets a nice name

When critics warn that a public store will wreck private ones, ask a simple question. The United States government subsidizes agriculture. It insures crops. It hands chipmakers tens of billions. It bailed out banks and automakers. It gives corporations tax breaks and calls it industrial policy and investment in the future. None of that gets called socialism.

Help a company build a data center with public money, that is economic development. Help a grandmother buy eggs, that is the road to communism.

This is not an economic argument. It is a class argument wearing an economic costume. Government touches the market every single day. The only thing up for debate is who it touches the market for. Aim the help upward at shareholders and it gets a respectable name. Aim it down at people struggling with a grocery bill and out comes the socialism label.

Who this store is actually for

This is what gets buried under the panic. A 30% discount is not a luxury for the people it reaches. For a senior on a fixed income, cheaper groceries can decide whether there is money left for the pharmacy or the electric bill. For a family stretching SNAP benefits, the same dollars cover more real food. That is not dependence. That is dignity. For a neighborhood with no full supermarket and no easy transit, a nearby store is not about ideology. It is about whether fresh food is reachable at all.

Yes, a public option will pressure some private grocers. That is real, and it deserves to be taken seriously. But weigh it honestly. Squeeze a handful of competing stores, or leave hundreds of thousands of residents paying prices they cannot carry. That is a trade-off. Pretending only one side of it exists is the whole trick.

Watch the pattern, not the panic

None of this makes the plan a guaranteed win. Five stores is small against a city this size. Supply chains, cost control and long-term funding are real risks, and government-run stores have failed in other towns. So the honest question is not whether this exact plan is flawless. It is whether, in food and housing and healthcare, once the market has priced ordinary people out, the public is even allowed to build an alternative.

That is the fight underneath the grocery fight. Subsidies flow up and get called strategy. Relief flows down and gets called a threat. Watch how fast the word socialism appears the moment a policy might lower your cost of living instead of a corporation’s. That timing tells you exactly who the system was built to serve.

Subscribe now

Close to 30 million dollars. That is what the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and its allied groups have spent to shape one Democratic Senate primary in Michigan, according to the Associated Press, and it is the largest amount the lobby has ever put into a single race. Not a swing seat in November. A primary. To decide which Democrat you are allowed to pick from.

Stop treating this as a routine money-in-politics story. The August 4 primary pits Congresswoman Haley Stevens against Abdul El-Sayed. Count every outside group and total spending in the race has passed 41 million dollars, more than half of it boosting Stevens or attacking El-Sayed, per federal disclosures compiled by Bridge Michigan. El-Sayed is raising more from actual voters, over 4 million dollars last quarter, more than double Stevens’ own haul. He is drawing the small donors. She is drawing the machine. Those are two different contests.

Now the part the party label is built to hide. The money has names. Paul Singer, a longtime Republican donor and former board member of the Republican Jewish Coalition whose giving runs almost entirely to Republicans, put 2.5 million dollars into AIPAC’s super PAC this cycle. Jan Koum, the WhatsApp co-founder who gave 5 million dollars in stock to Trump’s super PAC in 2024, added 1.6 million through an affiliated fund.

Refer a friend

Neither man is a Michigan Democratic voter.

The pattern holds past the headline names. The Quincy Institute’s Eli Clifton went through the large donations, 50,000 dollars and up, to the super PAC. Setting aside the roughly 30 million dollars AIPAC routed to it directly, 22% came from donors who usually fund Republicans and only 36% from reliable Democratic givers. Just 1.7% of the super PAC’s money came from Michigan at all.

Read that again. Republican billionaires are helping decide who the Democrats of Michigan are permitted to nominate.

This is not a slip. It is not a Democratic operation and it is not a Republican one. It buys reliable votes wherever it can find them, and the party label on the candidate is beside the point.

Stevens’ seat was one of these purchases. In 2022 the lobby spent nearly 4 million dollars to take out Andy Levin, a Jewish congressman and self-described liberal Zionist whose offense was supporting a Palestinian state. AIPAC celebrated the result as removing a detractor and strengthening pro-Israel ranks in Congress. Stevens thanked AIPAC publicly after she won.

Ask her about any of this and she has a line loaded. “No one owns my vote and no one owns my policies.” Back in 2019 she went further, insisting her beliefs “will never be bought and paid for.” Her words. Set them next to 30 million dollars. You do not spend that to rent a vote. You spend it to own the seat.

Then look at what she does with the vote nobody supposedly owns. In the July debate she called Benjamin Netanyahu a danger to Jews everywhere and said he had failed on peace. Three weeks later, on July 15, she got the chance to turn that criticism into policy. The House voted on an amendment to cut the 3.3 billion dollars in annual aid to Israel. In that vote, 103 Democrats moved to end it. Stevens voted to keep it.

The criticism changed. The vote did not. A politician will say anything into a microphone, and in a primary where the base has turned on the war, of course she did. Talk is free. But intent shows up on the vote, and at the end of the day that is the only tell that counts. Stevens stood with the 3.3 billion.

And here is what makes it a machine, not a coincidence. The amendment Stevens voted down was written by Thomas Massie, a Republican the same lobby had just run out of Congress. AIPAC and allied pro-Israel groups poured more than 15 million dollars into beating Massie in his Kentucky primary this spring, the most expensive House primary in American history, and celebrated the night he lost. Watch what the money rewards and what it punishes. It buys the Democrat who keeps the aid flowing, and it destroys the Republican who moves to cut it. The party label is not the tell. The Israel vote is.

And notice how the money is sold. The lobby enters the race because of Israel. Its ads, by the group’s own record, barely mention Israel at all. The foreign-policy litmus test picks the candidate, then local advertising about manufacturing and Michigan jobs dresses the transaction up as something homegrown.

So who pays. You do, if you vote in Michigan. The primary is the one moment you choose before the general shrinks it to yes or no. Bury it under 41 million dollars of outside ads, and the things that actually hit your life, the premiums, the wages, the roads, never get argued.

And everyone pays the precedent. Levin was disciplined for stepping out of line. El-Sayed is being spent against in a state with the largest Arab American population in the country. Once a Senate seat clears for 30 million dollars in legal, disclosed, routine spending, the price is set, and your representation goes to whoever writes the biggest check.

This is what it looks like when the pretense drops. Not a coup. A price list. The fight you are handed is one Democrat against a more progressive one, and underneath it a donor class is securing a reliable vote before you reach the booth. The party fight is the packaging. The purchase is the product.

This will not stop at Michigan. AIPAC has already shown that 30 million dollars can dominate the information environment of a Senate primary, and on August 4 the state finds out whether it can buy the result too. But look past the one race. The 2026 midterms and the 2028 election are the working class election, whatever the ballot calls it. The parties will sell you culture fights and personality wars, because that is what keeps you from asking the only question that scares them: who funds this candidate, and what do they expect for it. The real split in every race between now and then is simple. On one side, the donors who write the 2.5 million dollar checks and expect a vote back. On the other, everyone who cannot, and who gets buried under that money in the one race that was supposed to be theirs. Watch the money, and you will know which side a candidate is on.

And be clear about what these donors are buying. Not a party. They fund Democrats and Republicans and they end the careers of both, so party was never the point. They are paying for one thing: a candidate who treats support for Israel as settled and keeps the aid flowing, no matter whose name is on the door.

Here is the bottom line. If you let Haley Stevens win, the money wins. It means Israel wins. It means a donor class that never set foot in Michigan wins. And it means you, the voter who was supposed to own this seat, walk away with nothing.

Subscribe now

Thank you for reading all of this, and I really appreciate your support. This project takes no sponsorships and runs entirely on subscribers, that is the only reason I can call things the way I actually see them. If you want to help me keep digging into this kind of thing, please subscribe. And if you are able to, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It means a lot, and it is what keeps this going. Thank you so much.

Subscribe now

Start with the ugliest part. They will not tell you who paid for it. The agency floated the name of a dark-money group, that group denied it, and the Stevens campaign says it had no idea and no involvement. Fine. So ask yourself who benefits from a pile of fake moms talking up Haley Stevens. Funny thing about these accounts, they only ever help one candidate. I do not have to hand you the missing piece. You already know where it points.

Here is what actually got stolen: your struggle. Rent going up, groceries going up, a paycheck that does not stretch, that is the real life of millions of people. Somebody took that real hardship, dubbed over it, and sold it back to you as an ad for a candidate sitting on a mountain of dark money. One pop-up super PAC alone has dumped around 14 million dollars into ads for Stevens, and almost all of it came from a dark-money group run by corporate lobbyists with drug-industry money in it. Add up all the outside groups and they have spent more than 34 million on her. The rent you cannot cover and the money that bought your feed come from two completely different worlds.

This is what a bought election looks like. The money did not stop at TV ads. It crawled into your feed and put on the face of a tired mom who cannot make rent, and then it pointed at your ballot. Spend enough and you can muddy the water, you can push a narrative into millions of heads and make people think they are hearing a neighbor. And all of it is legal. Sell face cream without saying you got paid and the FTC comes after you. Sell a United States senator with the exact same trick and there is no rule against it at all. That is not a bug in the system. That is the system working as designed.

The creators who took the gig, I will be straight, it is sad and it is a little shameful. A few hundred dollars, 30 posts for around 400 bucks, and they rent out the one thing that was theirs, their credibility, without even knowing who they are really working for. Who is the money? No idea. What is the play? No clue. They just put their face out there and shill for a machine they never got a look at. One person was the exception. Her name is Kendall Boyle. When the agency came to her, she asked one question, who is paying for this. The answer traced back to dark money, so she walked, said it would feel fake to shill for a dark-money PAC, and then she started documenting the paid posts and calling them out. One person asked the question. Everybody else cashed the check.

So now, scrolling your phone, you have to add a layer of doubt to everything. Is the person behind this account even real? Is any of what she is saying what she actually believes? That is the part that should bother you most. What they put a price tag on is not one ad. It is your ability to trust that a voice sounds like you because it is you. The consensus of a country is supposed to be millions of people arguing and living it out. Now it can be manufactured to order, 30 dollars a post. You think you are listening to the public. You are listening to an invoice.

Do not let anyone sell you the “Democratic infighting” line. The real divide was never this establishment candidate versus that progressive one. The real divide is the people rich enough to buy your struggle and sell it back to you, and you, the one getting bought and sold. They are counting on you to keep watching the left-right slap fight so they can quietly load this stuff into your feed again and again. They are betting you can't tell the difference between what's real and what's not, so you make the wrong decision.

Subscribe now

Ask most people in the West what happened in China between 1959 and 1961 and you get the entire history in one breath.

Mao brought in communism, took the farmers’ food, killed 70 million people.

Done. History solved. Now you never have to think about it again, which is the point.

Really appreciate you reading this, and if you want more breakdowns like this one, a free subscribe goes a long way. And if you can support the work a little further than that, honestly it is a real boost of confidence, and it is what keeps this project moving. Either way, thank you for being here.

Subscribe now

The number does not survive contact

The 70 million figure comes from Jung Chang and Jon Halliday’s 2005 biography of Mao. It covers his entire time in power, not the famine. Their own famine figure is 38 million.

When a seminar at UC San Diego tried to reconstruct how 70 million had been calculated, they found no method in the book at all. Guesses, double counting, circular reasoning. Andrew Nathan at Columbia called the authors magpies, putting every shiny piece into the nest regardless of where it came from.

Some estimates run from 15 million to 55 million depending on the years counted and how an excess death is defined, with newer work clustering between 30 and 46 million. And from Chinese report, it was around 10 millions death related to the famine. It is also not the same claim as one man deliberately killing 70 million people, and only one of those two claims is supported.

China criticized this officially, in writing

Another piece of the Western story says Mao is untouchable inside China. That is false.

In 1981 the Communist Party adopted its official resolution on Party history. The economy fell into severe difficulty between 1959 and 1961, it says, mainly due to the errors of the Great Leap Forward and the struggle against Right opportunism, together with natural calamities and the Soviet government’s scrapping of contracts.

Errors first. Weather second.

The same document calls the campaign against Peng Dehuai entirely wrong and says it cut short the correction of left errors. Deng Xiaoping’s remarks on the drafts state that Mao bore the chief responsibility.

The Party’s own verdict is more detailed than the slogan built on top of it. That tells you what the slogan is for.

What the country had to work with

The People’s Republic was founded in 1949 on a ruin. Decades of invasion and civil war. Wrecked rail and irrigation. Hyperinflation that had destroyed both the currency and the tax base.

And as the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan, they took the one asset that could actually be spent abroad. Somewhere between 3 million and 5 million taels of central bank gold crossed the strait, along with silver and foreign currency reserves. Factories cannot be loaded onto a ship. Farmland cannot. Gold can.

That distinction decided what China could do in an emergency. Land, labour and coal do not buy Canadian wheat. Hard currency and foreign credit buy Canadian wheat.

China had almost none. Beijing’s published figures show foreign exchange reserves of 157 million dollars at the end of 1950, and 46 million dollars at the end of 1960, at the very worst of it.

And it was locked out of the market anyway

Washington revoked the general export licence for China in December 1950 and ran a total trade embargo. Not a targeted sanctions list. A total embargo, with pressure on allies, shipping restrictions and controls on financial transactions.

Britain and Western Europe dropped the harsher China-specific controls in 1957. The United States kept its own running into the 1970s.

The embargo did not create the shortage. It decided what a shortage would cost. A country with reserves and open credit lines meets a failed harvest by buying its way through it. China was denied that option by design, and Washington understood that was the point.

The Soviet rupture

Khrushchev denounced Stalin in 1956 and opened an ideological gap that never closed. Mao rejected the idea that China should copy the Soviet industrial model and began arguing for a Chinese road, driven by mass mobilization, that would move faster than Moscow said was possible.

The Great Leap launched in 1958 with that argument inside it. Political competition helped set the targets, and the targets were fantasy.

In 1960 Moscow pulled its experts and tore up contracts. The Politburo responded by accelerating repayment of Soviet loans, compressing the schedule from 16 years down to five, and setting up a trade group to hold down imports and gather goods for export.

Read that again with a famine already underway.

What the weather explains, and what it does not

There were genuine droughts and floods. The 1981 resolution lists them, and it is not inventing them.

Yang Jisheng went through the meteorological records directly and put the maximum contribution of natural disasters at roughly a third of the shortfall in grain production. A third is severe. In a farming economy with no reserves and no way to import, a third can kill people on its own.

It also leaves two thirds.

Where the shortage became mass death

Economists Xin Meng, Nancy Qian and Pierre Yared found that in 1959, the year the famine began, Chinese food production was still nearly three times what the population needed to survive. And rural areas producing more food per person died at higher rates, a reversal that appears in no other period.

The grain existed. It was taken.

Procurement quotas were set against inflated harvest reports and could not adjust downward when the real harvest came in short, so the most productive villages were stripped hardest. Meng, Qian and Yared attribute 32% to 43% of famine mortality to the procurement system by itself. Meanwhile the grain kept leaving the country: 1.92 million tons exported in 1957, 4.1 million tons in 1959, an all-time high, in the middle of the collapse.

Local cadres inflated their harvests because the system paid them to. When Peng Dehuai raised the alarm at Lushan in 1959, he was destroyed for it, and every official watching learned that reporting hunger was a political act.

The official Party history published in 2011 still carries the consequence: nine counties in Henan’s Xinyang region recorded death rates above 10% in 1960. Henan’s own first secretary submitted a self-criticism to Mao in January 1961 reporting more than 2 million dead in his province, over a million in Xinyang alone.

Beijing was not doing nothing. Beijing was blind, and had blinded itself

Economists Ziying Fan, Wei Xiong and Li-An Zhou traced the mechanism. Local officials competed to inflate grain yields to match what Mao wanted to hear, and the central government, reading its own falsified numbers, did not organize systematic famine relief until roughly two years after the famine began. During those two years the center was still moving grain out of the worst-hit provinces, while local cadres inside those same provinces quietly handed local stock back to the peasants.

When the center finally saw it, the policy turned hard. Urban populations were sent back to the countryside from September 1960. Central inspectors went into Xinyang county by county. In 1961 China reversed course and became a net grain importer, taking in 4.4 million tons, paid out of reserves it could barely spare.

And the dying stopped.

Weather and the embargo are both in this story, and both made it worse. Drought and flood cut production. The embargo removed the exits. But neither one explains the timing. The American embargo was still fully in force in 1961. The weather had not transformed. What changed was policy, and when the policy changed the dying stopped.

A system that could be switched off two years late could have been switched off two years earlier. What stood between those two dates was not the harvest and not Washington. It was a machine that had made truth-telling a career-ending act, and then believed the lies it had paid for.

What the West was doing while this happened

Nothing. And not because anything was being hidden from it. Because nobody’s decisions depended on knowing.

In February 1961 Agriculture Minister Alvin Hamilton told the House of Commons that the Canadian Wheat Board had sold 40 million bushels of wheat and barley to China, roughly 60 million dollars, soon expanding into credit sales and a far larger deal. John Diefenbaker was a committed anti-communist and approved it over American objections, because the prairies had surplus grain and China had turned into a buyer.

Files released by Library and Archives Canada show what the men approving it believed. A confidential foreign ministry assessment on Chinese food shortages found no evidence that the country as a whole was starving, and described China as “practically immune from the dangers of drought and flood.” A Canadian grain delegation toured five cities in 1961, ate bread in all of them, and reported that people looked adequately clothed and fed. In Washington, an April 1961 intelligence estimate told the President that widespread famine did not appear to be at hand.

That is not a cover-up. A cover-up would at least require somebody to have looked. Washington kept a total embargo running through the entire catastrophe, and as late as May 1962 its stated position was that it would be prepared to reconsider if Beijing came and asked.

Not one Western government moved because Chinese farmers were dying.

Twenty years later those same farmers became the West’s leading exhibit that communism kills. Nobody counted them while they were starving. They became countable the moment they were useful. That is the cheapest moral capital there is, and it is still being spent.

What the slogan is for

Put the whole thing back together and you get a wrecked treasury, no hard currency, a total American embargo, a collapsing alliance and an accelerated debt, real droughts, fantasy targets, falsified harvests, rigid extraction, a general destroyed for telling the truth, and a government that could not see through its own reporting system for two years.

Then watch it compress into three characters. A dictator, victims, and an ideology described by western media.

That is not education. It is crowd management. The audience never has to learn what a procurement quota is. It only has to remember a name, an ism and a number.

And the technique does not stay in China. A public trained to receive foreign suffering as one villain and one number will accept that sanctions are bloodless, that poverty is a character flaw, that any country standing in the way is a hostage-taker. The same reflex works at home. Institutions that can flatten a famine will flatten a wage collapse, a premium hike or a police shooting the same way. One bad actor, one headline, no mechanism, nothing left to examine.

Ordinary people pay for that habit every time. In 1959 the men who set the quotas did not go hungry. The men who filed the false harvest reports did not go hungry. The farmers who grew a surplus and handed it over did.

Whoever holds the rules, somebody else pays the bill.

Subscribe now

Start with a claim that sounds soft and turns out to be the hardest thing in the room. Artificial intelligence should belong to the people. Not to a country, not to a company. To people, all of them.

Last week that idea got said out loud on a world stage. In Shanghai, Xi Jinping called AI the common wealth of all mankind. Whether Beijing delivers on that is another matter, and the models and compute over there still sit under the state. But at least the goal got named. The American plan names a different one. It is titled “Winning the Race,” and it means exactly what it says.

Really appreciate you reading this. My contents here are always free, so tell me what you think, and if you want more breakdowns like this one, a free subscribe goes a long way. And if you can support the work a little further than that, honestly it is a real boost of confidence, and it is what keeps this project moving. Either way, thank you for being here.

Subscribe now

So before we get to who is paying for what, sit with the question underneath it all. Why should AI serve people in the first place?

Here is why. AI was not conjured out of thin air by a handful of firms in California. It was trained on us. Every model runs on the collective output of billions of human beings, everything we have ever written, drawn, filmed, and figured out, scraped up for free. It runs on public electricity, public water, and decades of publicly funded research, including the internet itself, which your tax money built. AI is the commons, refined and sold back to you. Something built by everyone has a real claim to belong to everyone. That is not sentiment. It is a question of ownership.

Now put it in the line it belongs to. Steam, electricity, the computer, the internet, and now this. None of those were just products. Each was a means of production, a new way to make everything else, and whoever owned it set the terms for everyone who had to work with it. AI belongs on that list for a plain reason. It is a tool you make things with. You write with it, code with it, design and build and plan with it, so it does not just sit in the economy, it multiplies what a single person can produce. And it is being born almost entirely privately owned. So ask the only question that has ever mattered with a leap this size. Do the gains go to the people who do the work, or to whoever owns the machine?

Refer a friend

Here is the part the American side will never say out loud. Their problem with “open source,” with “shared,” with calling AI a commons, is not about security, and it is not really about China. It is older than that. Capital does not share the means of production. It never has. So when one government says the machine should be held in common and the other says the whole point is to win, you are not watching two countries compete. You are watching the oldest fight there is, the people who want the tool owned by everyone against the people who intend to own it themselves. On that one, I know which side I am on.

The American plan is capital doing what capital does. A fully American tech stack, exported to allied countries to lock them in. 500 billion dollars aimed at a single private data center campus. A goal, written in plain language, of dominance. You do not need dominance to help people. You need dominance to control them.

And you are already paying to build it, start to finish. The cost starts in the mines that feed the chips and ends in the electronic waste, with the data centers burning public power and water in between. But the costs are not the story. The direction the money moves is. The company takes the profit. The public eats the cost, socialized onto people who will never own a share of what they are subsidizing. That is the machine in four words. Privatized gain, socialized cost. People on one side, the data center on the other.

Congress has a bill that is supposed to fix this, and it tells you everything. It has not passed. It only asks states to consider making big electricity users pay their own way, and states are free to say no. Even the protection is built to be optional. The tech giants back that toothless version happily, because a fix that fixes nothing costs them nothing, while the versions with real teeth die quietly. The public pays. The private owner keeps the machine.

So here is where it lands. AI is the compressed knowledge and labor of the entire species, a means of production built by all of us, and a thing like that has no business ending up as the private property of a few dozen corporations. Serving people and seeking dominance were never two roads to the same place. The American system picked one on purpose.

We share this world. We built its knowledge together, over thousands of years, and AI is stacked on top of all of it. A tool that came from everyone should answer to everyone, and it should not be split up by class any more than the air is. Anything less is theft dressed up as innovation.

Subscribe now

In July, protests against data centers hit 42 states. Look at who showed up. MAGA voters. Former Tea Party organizers. Environmentalists. Union workers. Suburban homeowners worried about their wells and their bills. These people fight about everything, every day, online and off.

Not this.

What put them in the same county meeting rooms? Not Trump. Not immigration. Not the culture war. The electric bill. The water. A company from Silicon Valley moving into their county without asking anyone who lives there.

A utility bill does not care how you voted.

This is not just anti-AI. This is anti forced subsidy.

The tech industry wants you to believe these protesters fear technology. Listen to what they actually ask. Who pays for the grid upgrades? How much tax did this company get waived? How much water will it draw? How many permanent jobs stay in town?

Here is one answer. JPMorgan Chase got nearly 77 million dollars in tax breaks for a data center in New York. Permanent jobs promised: one. At the public hearing, nobody showed up. Officials sat through 20 minutes of silence, closed the meeting, and approved the deal two weeks later.

Not a fluke. An Ohio expansion worth 136 million dollars is projected to create 10 full-time jobs, and even Republican Senator Bernie Moreno demanded the company hand its subsidy back. Nationally, these deals cost the public over 2 million dollars per permanent job.

For decades, the deal was simple: tax breaks buy jobs. Data centers killed that deal.

The China shield

Ask about the cost and watch what happens. They reach for China.

Kevin O’Leary is backing a data center project in Utah reported at 100 billion dollars, spread across 40,000 acres. When locals raised water and power concerns, he went on TV and said states slowing data centers down are handing the AI race to China. Opposition became obstruction of national defense.

Here is the part that gives it away. O’Leary himself admits that when a normal data center taps the grid, “the electrical costs for their church and the community and the residents all go up.” His words. That is why people push back, he says.

So he knows the cost is real. He just wants you to swallow it for the race.

From Musk’s xAI to the compute plans worth hundreds of billions sold as American AI leadership, the script repeats: wrap the private interest in the flag. A man with a fortune riding on server farms tells you the real threat to America is your question about your water bill. This was never about China. China is the word they deploy so that asking who pays sounds unpatriotic.

Refer a friend

Your utility company is the second winner

You probably think the power company is stuck in the middle, forced to raise your rates. It is not.

American utilities are regulated monopolies, and the law guarantees them a rate of return on infrastructure they build. Every power plant and transmission line built for Big Tech is guaranteed profit. The more they build, the more their shareholders make. Serving data centers is not a burden on your utility. It is the best business opportunity it has seen in decades.

Harvard researchers went through nearly 50 regulatory proceedings and found utilities cutting discounted deals with data center companies through special contracts, reviewed in processes so opaque the public cannot follow them, then spreading the costs across ordinary ratepayers who legally cannot switch providers. Their conclusion: subsidies for trillion-dollar companies are being hidden inside your power price, a wealth transfer to the shareholders of Big Tech and utilities alike.

The servers are theirs. The profit is theirs. The bill is yours, and both sets of shareholders collect on it.

That is the mechanism no cable segment will walk you through.

Most of what I write here is free, and I appreciate you reading it. If you want to support this project and help it go further, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you. It means a lot.

Subscribe now

You may comment. You may not say no.

Someone will point to the public hearings. Yes, you can speak. The question is whether you can decide.

When residents say yes, developers call it community support. When residents say no, developers reapply, lobby the state, rezone, rename the project, or sue. A Michigan township rejected rezoning for a 16 billion dollar project tied to Oracle and OpenAI. The developer sued. A settlement followed. Construction proceeded.

Communities are allowed to comment. They are not always allowed to decide. Local democracy is respected when the answer is yes. When the answer is no, the lawyers arrive.

They share an enemy. Not a future.

Do not romanticize this coalition. The right wants local control and an end to backroom deals. The left wants clean energy, union jobs, and corporate accountability. They oppose the same projects for different reasons, and they will split when the fight turns to solutions.

But this moment already proved something. When politics runs on cultural identity, ordinary people treat each other as the enemy. When it runs on water, power, land, and bills, they start seeing a common interest.

For years, AI was an abstraction: chips, compute, national rankings. Now it is concrete. It shows up in the electric bill, the water dispute, the industrial park going up next door. Tech companies promised investors a productivity revolution. Residents received an infrastructure invoice first.

The question of the AI age is not whether America builds more computing power. It will. The question is whether that infrastructure gets governed as a public system, or whether the public simply gets ordered to pay for someone else’s private empire.

The servers are private. The bill is public. That is what people are revolting against.

Subscribe now

Here is what that means in practice. The provision orders the Secretary of Defense to put one official in charge of fusing the two countries’ defense technology and keep it fused: artificial intelligence, drones and counter-drone systems, missile defense, cyber, and building weapons together. Not America buys, Israel sells. America and Israel develop it jointly, own it jointly, and build it into each other’s systems. No end date. No exit.

The reason nobody gets to vote on it is the same reason it is permanent. Those two facts are one fact.

It started as its own bill, with sponsors, out in the open, where it would have to be debated and voted on. It went nowhere. It could not pass. So the same language turned up inside the Pentagon’s budget bill, which is the one thing Congress cannot refuse to pass. Vote against the Pentagon budget and you voted against the troops.

Refer a friend

Then nobody’s name went on it. In committee, Ro Khanna moved to cut it out and they killed it with a voice vote, where everyone shouts yes or no at once and nothing is written down. Two members backed him. He and Thomas Massie tried again on the House floor, but a small committee decides which amendments are even allowed to be voted on, and they left this one off the list. Not defeated. Never permitted to exist. By then Massie was finished anyway, wiped out in a Kentucky primary where pro-Israel groups spent more than 15.8 million dollars against him. Trump wanted him gone too. But every member of Congress watched that money work.

Most of what I publish here is free, and it stays that way. If you want more of these breakdowns, hit subscribe. And if you can go a step further and become a paid subscriber, it genuinely keeps this project running. Whatever you choose to do, thank you. I appreciate it more than you know.

Subscribe now

Now the part that outlives all of them.

Countries do not have friends. They have interests. That is not an insult aimed at Israel. It describes every government that has ever existed, including the one writing this bill.

Around 2000, Israel was about to sell China a set of radar planes worth roughly a billion dollars. The kind of aircraft that helps China see American planes coming in a fight over Taiwan. Washington came after Israel hard, and what it threatened was the money. Cut the aid. Israel ran the numbers, backed out, and paid China 350 million dollars in penalties to walk away from the contract.

That is the only thing that has ever worked. It worked because there was a check to cancel.

America sends Israel about 3.8 billion dollars a year, and Congress has to touch that number every single year. That is the leash. That is the whole leash.

A merger has no number. It is contracts and licensing and Pentagon paperwork. Nothing to cut, nothing to threaten, nothing that comes up again next year or ever. Turkey got thrown out of the F-35 program and untangling it has taken years, because supply chains are not built to come apart. This one gets tied together on purpose.

Netanyahu says he wants Israel off American aid within ten years. Read that as independence if you want. It means the check disappears and the technology stays.

And if you think the leash is unnecessary, look at what is happening without it. A Chinese state owned company runs a shipping terminal in Haifa today, about a mile from where Israel keeps its submarines and where American warships tie up. Three American administrations told Israel not to. Israel did it anyway, reportedly refused to let Americans inspect it, and last year approved doubling it in size. Nothing happened to them. When the US Army asked for the source code to Iron Dome, the missile system Americans helped pay for, Israel said no. Nothing happened then either.

That is a country choosing itself, which is what countries are for. So stop asking what is wrong with Israel. Ask what is wrong with the Americans holding the pen.

They will tell you it sharpens America’s edge in defense technology. That is the cover story. Here is what is actually running this.

Some of them cannot see past the next election, and they have mistaken today’s warmth for a permanent condition, which is the oldest mistake in the business.

Some of them are into the religious stuff. Believe whatever you want on a Sunday, that is your business. But international relations is not a church service. The day you start making national security calls out of scripture, that is not faith, that is stupidity. American missile data is not a Bible commentary. Nobody in that building swore an oath to a verse. They swore one to a constitution.

And all of them watched 15.8 million dollars remove the one man who wanted a vote.

The Republican chairman and the senior Democrat on his committee wrote this thing together. Massie is a Republican, Khanna is a Democrat, and they are the two who tried to kill it. Whichever way you vote in November, you are buying a permanent foreign policy that somebody richer than you already paid for, out of the same check that just absorbed another premium hike.

One thing is still in the way. On July 14 Senate Democrats blocked the defense bill from even opening for debate, 50 to 46, and said the Israel provisions were part of why. That is the only reason this is not law yet. It is also procedural, which means it gets traded away in a back room, not beaten on a floor. Watch what comes out of that room.

My read. One day those interests will split, over China or Iran or something nobody has thought of yet, and Israel will choose Israel, because that is what Israel is for. Washington used to know that. It threatened the money and the sale died. The day the split comes, the technology is already inside their industry, and there is nothing left to withhold.

Subscribe now

That is the part I cannot get past. The Houston shooting was seven days old and I had the notes open. Before I finished, an ICE agent in Biddeford, Maine put four bullets through a windshield at seven in the morning and killed a 25-year-old delivery driver who was not the man they were looking for.

Most of what I publish here is free, and it stays that way. If you want more of these breakdowns, hit subscribe. And if you can go a step further and become a paid subscriber, it genuinely keeps this project running. Whatever you choose to do, thank you. I appreciate it more than you know.

Subscribe now

On July 7, an ICE officer shot and killed Lorenzo Salgado Araujo at a traffic stop in Houston. He was 52 and had been in this country more than 35 years. ICE said he weaponized his van. The men riding with him say that is false. He was not the target.

On Monday, an ICE agent shot and killed Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford. He was 25, raised in Bucaramanga, Colombia, working two jobs, father to a three-year-old. DHS says he entered in September 2023 and was granted a work permit in May 2025, and made a point of adding that a work permit is not legal status. He was not the target either. A neighbor with a clear view of the intersection says he heard Johan Sebastián say, I tried to stop.

Then watch the story move. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin told Senator Angus King that Johan Sebastián had weaponized his vehicle. King repeated it to reporters because it came from the secretary. Hours later, Mullin told King the man was not the target after all. That evening, roughly 12 hours in, DHS put something in writing and the word weaponized was gone. Now the car had attempted to flee and an officer fired fearing for public safety.

Refer a friend

Those are two different claims, not two versions of one. A car aimed at an officer is a threat. A car driving away is a car driving away, and ICE’s own policy tells agents not to fire at vehicles. Representative Chellie Pingree says DHS acknowledged the man was driving away and the officer was not endangered. There is no footage, so the story that changed twice in 12 hours is also the only record there is.

So ask the real question. Why did he not hesitate.

Hesitation is not a character trait. It is what a consequence feels like from the inside. An officer slows down because somebody will pull the footage, because a prosecutor will read the report, because someone will make him explain why he fired at a car that was driving away. Take all three away and you do not get a worse man. You get a man doing different math.

Monday morning had none of the three. No body camera, so no footage to pull. King says he was told cameras might show up in 45 days. Maine’s attorney general is investigating, but from the outside. If a Biddeford cop had fired those shots, the case would be Maine’s. This one belongs to the FBI and to the DHS inspector general, which is DHS looking into DHS, and King said why in plain terms. Because it was a federal operation.

Then add the pressure. DHS leadership and Stephen Miller called for 2,000 arrests a day. Last month, weekend arrests averaged around 600. This Saturday it was more than 1,300, and Sunday more than 1,100. That target tells every officer what gets counted. Nothing in the building tells him what it costs to be wrong.

So it does not much matter who that agent is. Put the most careful man in the country in that uniform on Monday morning and nothing in that building would have slowed him down either. A police force that answers to the public builds the brake in on purpose. A force that answers to the power that sent it out has no reason to, and ICE did not. Killing a man in the street with no real consequence is not a modern government having a bad week. It is what enforcement looked like before anyone had to answer for it.

Subscribe now

Which brings me to Susan Collins.

Collins chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, which holds jurisdiction over every dollar of discretionary spending in the federal government. She calls it the most powerful committee in the Senate. That is her line, delivered in front of a new fire station last month, and it is the whole argument for sending her back.

In June she voted 70 billion dollars to ICE. Asked why, her office pointed at what was inside: 20 million for body cameras, 2 million for de-escalation training, 20 million for detention oversight. Five weeks later a man was killed 20 miles from her district office by an agent who did not have one. She says a shutdown slowed the paperwork.

Either she is the most powerful appropriator in Washington, or she could not get a camera onto an ICE agent in her own state. She put a fire station in Sweden, Maine. The 70 billion arrived on time. They are still waiting for the cameras.

On Monday a man died. That night she called Mullin to ask him to stop non urgent vehicle stops. By Tuesday she announced she was encouraged that he agreed. Protesters were outside her Biddeford office by the afternoon chanting vote her out. Nirav Shah, one of the Democrats running for her seat, said the only thing there was to say: “a single late-night phone call isn’t going to cut it.”

You vote the money through. You name the guardrail. The guardrail does not show up. A man dies. You put out a statement saying you are encouraged. The 42 million was never a guardrail. It was what made 70 billion votable. One of those numbers was real the day it was signed. The other one was a schedule.

A 25-year-old man left his apartment at 7 in the morning to go to work. He had a work permit the federal government issued him. He was not the man they were looking for. A minute later he was being pulled out of the car onto the pavement, his face covered in blood. Footage shared online shows agents pulling his arms behind his back to cuff a man who was no longer moving. Neighbors described his wife and daughter crying in the street. One watched a little girl in pajamas, beside herself, held back from the tape. The man with the clearest view of it said, nobody should have to see what I saw. By that night the intersection was open again. The only thing left was blood on the crosswalk, and somebody had written THIS IS BLOOD next to it in chalk.

Whatever the inspector general concludes six months from now, here is what happened on Pool Street on Monday. A government killed a working man on his way to a shift, in front of his neighbors, and then took 12 hours to decide what to say about it. That is the fact. Everything else is procedure.

Mullin paused vehicle stops on Tuesday, which is an admission that Monday’s tactic was already unsafe on Sunday. But the pause covers vehicle stops. It does not cover home arrests, worksite arrests, or foot pursuits. The 2,000 a day target has not moved. The pressure did not go anywhere.

Defund ICE.

Subscribe now

40 billionaires put 1.57 billion dollars into American elections since 2010. That is the top line of a new report from Americans for Tax Fairness Action Fund. It is a big number, until you read the second one. That 1.57 billion is 0.09% of what these people are worth. Not even a tenth of one percent. For the median American household, the same slice of net worth is about 180 dollars. A week of groceries.

40 Epstein-Tied Billionaires Have Injected $1.6B Into US Elections, Report Finds | Truthout

So 16 years of elections, courts, tax fights, and wars got shaped by 40 checkbooks, for less than what you spend on food in a week.

Thanks for reading, and I really appreciate it. If you want more breakdowns like this one, please consider subscribing. And if you want to support the work further, becoming a paid subscriber helps keep this project going in the long run. It makes a real difference.

Subscribe now

The report is being read one way: 84% went to Republicans. True. That framing is the trap. It makes this a story about the other team instead of a story about you.

Here is what the 84% hides. The billionaires themselves split almost evenly between the parties. Several of them wrote checks to the Clintons for years. And the two political families America is trained to fight over, the Trumps and the Clintons, both turn up in the same dead man’s birthday book. Trump’s page, the one with his signature that the House Oversight Committee released last year, is one he says is not his. He sued the Wall Street Journal over it. A judge threw the suit out in April. Bill Clinton has a page in there too.

At the top there is no left and no right. There is a donor class that funds the whole show and does not care which actor is on stage.

Look at who they are. The Adelson family, casino money, spent 745 million dollars, all of it to the right. Elon and Kimbal Musk, 365 million. Trump’s own campaigns and the super PACs behind him pulled 282 million out of this single pool of Epstein-tied money.

That 84% skew is not tribal loyalty. The money runs right because the right cuts their taxes hardest. The report says as much. Even the partisan number is not about ideology. It is a return on investment.

Then there is Epstein himself. He was worth around 600 million dollars, and that money bought him a sweetheart deal in 2008 and years of freedom he should never have had. The same class now buys the same immunity at scale. Senator Ron Wyden and the Senate Finance Committee found 4,725 wire transfers, about 1.08 billion dollars, moving in and out of a single one of Epstein’s accounts between 2003 and 2019. Some of it went to women and girls. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is sitting on those records right now, and Senate Republicans blocked the bill that would pry them loose.

They do not fear the law. They price it.

This is the divide that matters, and it is not left against right. It is the people who own the machine against the people who feed it. You paid your 180-dollar share of net worth into nothing. They paid their 0.09% and got two Trump tax laws that handed this same class back many times over what they spent. That is not corruption in the movie sense, with a briefcase in a parking garage. It is a subscription. The rules are a service, and they are the customers.

They know the elections are a market. They know your vote is priced in. They know the fight over borders and pronouns keeps you busy while they close on the tax code. And they are doing it anyway.

None of this is new. In the last century of the Roman Republic, the rich bought offices and juries in the open, everyone knew, and the Republic held elections right up until it was a corpse in a toga. The forms outlived the thing they were meant to protect.

America’s myth is that its billionaires are private citizens who got lucky, not rulers. In China the arrangement is explicit. When Jack Ma criticized the state’s financial regulators, they pulled his company’s public offering and he went quiet for months, then came back smaller and careful, lesson learned. The billionaire there does not cross the state. Here the state answers to the billionaire.

This is what the slide toward authoritarian rule looks like. You don’t even need tanks in the street. A government of the people that keeps running the ceremony while answering to 40 checkbooks. The mask is not slipping by accident, and both parties are staffed by the same hands. The cost lands where it always lands. Your wage that has not moved in years, your premium that keeps climbing, your rent, all of it downstream of a tax code written by the people who bought the writers.

Subscribe now

Trump just fired every sitting member of the one federal agency built to keep either party from rigging how elections are run. That is not a personnel move. It is a takeover of the rulebook.

Everything I publish here is free. If you want to support the work, consider subscribing. And if you want to support it further, consider becoming a paid subscriber. That’s what keeps this going for the long haul.

Subscribe now

The agency is the Election Assistance Commission. By law it has four members, two Democrats and two Republicans, so no single party controls it. That balance is the entire point. This week Trump fired the two Democrats by email, and the lone Republican resigned. A fourth seat was already empty. So the board now has zero members, and a board with zero members legally cannot act.

He could do this because the Supreme Court just handed him the power. In late June, in Trump v. Slaughter, the Court threw out a 91-year-old rule and said the president can fire the heads of independent agencies at will. The same week, it went out of its way to protect the independence of the Federal Reserve. The bankers keep their firewall. The people who guard the ballot do not.

Refer a friend

Here is what the agency actually does, because it matters. It does not count votes. It sets the standards for testing and certifying voting machines. It controls federal election funding. And it maintains the national voter registration form that every state has to accept.

That form is the prize. Trump has been trying for months to bolt a proof-of-citizenship requirement onto it. His own executive order tried it. A law firm aligned with him petitioned the commission to do it. The bipartisan board was the thing standing in the way. Now there is no board, and he gets to nominate the replacements. This is the same requirement Congress would not pass, done through the back door instead.

On the surface it sounds reasonable. Only citizens should vote, and that is already the law. But look at what proving it takes. You need a birth certificate, a passport, or your naturalization papers. About 21 million eligible Americans do not have ready access to those documents. Roughly half the country does not hold a valid passport. A replacement naturalization certificate costs $1,385. And the people who can produce these papers on demand are, by the data, the wealthier and more educated. If you have money, someone pulls your documents for you. If you are retired, you have the time to dig them out. If you are working two jobs, 7 days a week, or you naturalized 30 years ago and your papers are in a box in another state, that is a wall.

And here is the part that breaks the official story. The fraud this is supposed to stop is not happening. Utah reviewed roughly 2 million voters and found one noncitizen registered and zero who actually voted. Georgia checked 8.2 million and found about 20. When Kansas tried a proof-of-citizenship law, it blocked more than 30,000 eligible citizens before a court struck it down. Noncitizen voting has been a federal felony since 1996. The numbers are not close.

So stopping fraud is the excuse. What is actually happening is the effect. Add enough paperwork in front of the ballot, and you do not catch fraud, because there is almost none. You wear down the people who are already stretched thin, working long hours, watching every dollar, with no spare day to track down a document from decades ago. That is one more hurdle stacked on the people who have the least room to clear it. Some of them will not bother, and they will not vote. Strip out the language about election integrity, and what is left is voter suppression aimed straight at the working class.

This is aimed at 2028. The polling is not good for them, and when you cannot win the vote, you take control of the people who write the rules for the next one. The machine standards, the funding, the registration form. That is what this agency touches, and Trump just cleared every obstacle to controlling it.

Subscribe now

Peter Thiel took investment money from Jeffrey Epstein for five years after Epstein was convicted of soliciting minors. Not before he knew. After. The relationship ran from 2014 to 2019, roughly two thousand messages deep, right up until Epstein’s final arrest.

Today Thiel’s company runs the data systems behind Britain’s nuclear weapons management, its police intelligence databases, its Ministry of Defence operations, and its National Health Service. Over £670 million in UK government contracts. One of them, £240 million, handed out with no competitive bid at all.

Everything I publish here is free. If you want to support the work, consider subscribing. And if you want to support it further, consider becoming a paid subscriber. That’s what keeps this going for the long haul.

Subscribe now

Here is the part mainstream coverage keeps skating past. This isn’t a story about Epstein’s crimes. Those are documented, they are grotesque, and everyone already knows it. This is a story about what happened to the men who kept doing business with him anyway. Because the honest answer is: nothing happened to them. They got promoted.

Start with the money. Epstein was a limited partner in Valar Ventures, the fund co-founded by Thiel, putting in around forty million dollars while he was under investigation and after his conviction. Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister who worked with Epstein for years, privately called Thiel and Epstein joint owners of that fund. Thiel’s spokesman denies the ownership claim and says Epstein was only ever a limited partner. Either version tells you the same thing: Thiel kept the money coming in from a convicted child sex offender and never once treated it as disqualifying.

Refer a friend

Say it plainly. Thiel knew Epstein was a pedophile, and he chose to keep working with him and taking his money anyway. That’s not a gray area. That’s a decision.

Then there’s Peter Mandelson. Former UK ambassador to Washington, New Labour royalty, nicknamed the Prince of Darkness decades before any of this. Mandelson leaked sensitive UK government secrets to Epstein between 2009 and 2010, and kept sending him supportive messages after the conviction. He built a lobbying firm, Global Counsel, and in 2018 that firm signed Palantir as a client, tasked with securing it UK government contracts, at the exact moment Epstein was still an active investor in Thiel’s fund.

Mandelson got caught. He was sacked as ambassador, resigned from the Labour Party, quit the House of Lords. He may still face charges for misconduct in public office.

Palantir didn’t get caught. Palantir got the NHS contract.

Three hundred thirty million pounds in 2023 to build a platform pulling together patient records across England, now projected to cost over a billion pounds. NHS staff say patient data that’s supposed to be anonymized is only pseudonymized, easy to unmask with local trust knowledge. External Palantir staff have been given what one internal report called unlimited access to identifiable patient information. Thiel himself has said the NHS “makes people sick.” His words, not mine.

Then in February 2025, Keir Starmer flew to Washington and visited Palantir’s headquarters. Mandelson was there with him. No record exists of what was discussed. Seven months later, Palantir walked away with that £240 million no-bid defence contract. Downing Street won’t say whether Starmer knew Palantir was still a Global Counsel client when he made the trip.

Look at the shape of it. A man loses his ambassadorship and his party membership over Epstein. The company he was quietly lobbying for the whole time keeps winning bigger contracts. That’s not two separate outcomes. That’s one system working exactly as designed: expendable middlemen absorb the scandal, and the capital behind them walks away untouched.

This goes back further than Epstein. Every declining aristocracy reaches a point where the people punished are the ones caught being useful, never the ones actually in charge. Rome didn’t purge its patrician class for corruption. It purged the ones who became a liability to it. Britain is running the same operating system with better branding.

And here’s why this matters beyond one scandal. Punishment is information. When Mandelson falls and Thiel doesn’t, every billionaire watching learns the actual rule: dealing with criminals is fine, as long as you’re the capital and not the courier. Nobody in Thiel’s position will ever behave differently, because nothing in this outcome tells them to.

The behavior you refuse to punish is the behavior you’ve decided to keep.

None of this stays in Britain. Palantir runs data for ICE in the United States and for the Israeli military in Gaza. Same company, same chairman, same track record of being rewarded for the exact relationships that end other people’s careers. Watch the Met’s investigation into Mandelson, and watch whether accountability ever reaches past the courier to the capital. The piece you just read tells you what to expect.

The lesson isn’t that Jeffrey Epstein was uniquely evil. Plenty of people already knew that. The lesson is that touching him should have been career-ending for everyone involved, and instead it was career-ending for exactly one guy, the one with a title and no company behind him.

That’s who impunity protects. Not the man with the worst secrets. The man with the least capital.

So here’s where that leaves you. You’ve got criminals working with criminals, and the whole arrangement runs straight through the government that’s supposed to answer to you. Nobody at the top pays for it. Tweaking the rules won’t fix that, because the rules are working exactly as intended. The only real solution is to uproot the entire system and build something that doesn’t reward this. That’s the size of the problem. Anyone telling you it’s smaller is selling you something.

Subscribe now

Seven million people just found out the loan they’d been living inside for two years was never really a favor. It was a product. And the outfit that runs it, which happens to be the U.S. government, just changed your terms.

Most of what I write here is free. If it helps you see this stuff clearer, a paid subscription is what keeps me doing it.

Subscribe now

Let me walk you through what actually happened, because the news is telling it like a soap opera and it’s not one.

Back in 2023, Biden’s Education Department launched a plan called SAVE. It let you pay your student loans based on what you earn, which for a lot of people meant zero dollars a month, with forgiveness waiting at the end. Then Republican-led states sued. This March a federal court threw the whole plan out. Trump’s big reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, finished it off in writing. So starting July 1, your loan servicer began mailing out a 90-day clock. You get your notice, the countdown starts, and if you don’t pick a new plan in time, they drop you into one that charges you off your balance instead of your income. One example everyone’s passing around: somebody with $80,000 in debt could go from paying nothing to around $900 a month. Automatically. Nobody asks you. Nobody negotiates.

Refer a friend

Now sit with the second half of this, because it’s worse. The same law that kills SAVE puts a hard cap on how much the next student can borrow at all. Grad PLUS loans, the ones that let grad and professional students borrow up to what their program actually cost, are gone. The new ceiling is $20,500 a year and $100,000 total for grad students, $50,000 a year for a short list of professional degrees like medicine and law.

A borrowing cap sounds responsible. Less debt, right? That’s the sell, and it’s garbage. Capping the loan doesn’t lower the price of anything. It just says the government will lend you this much and no more, and if your program costs more, that’s your problem. So the kid who can’t cover the gap doesn’t walk away with less debt. That kid doesn’t get in, or takes a private loan at a worse rate to cover the difference. And the programs that blow past the cap are the expensive ones, medicine, law, the degrees that actually lead to the careers that pay. You just quietly closed those doors on everyone without family money.

Here’s the tell. They capped what you can borrow. They did not cap what the school can charge. Not one dollar. If this were about protecting students from debt, you would cap tuition. They didn’t. They capped your access to the money and left the price right where it was. That is not a policy to make school affordable. That is a policy to make school something you pay for out of pocket or you don’t get at all.

So who actually eats this?

• If you’re one of the 7 million sitting in SAVE right now, you built a life around a payment that’s about to vanish. Maybe you signed a lease. Maybe you were about to apply for a mortgage. Doesn’t matter. Your 90 days run out and your bill shows up.

• If you’re about to start grad school, you’re now short whatever your program costs above that cap, and the only thing left to fill the hole is a private loan. Worse rate, fewer protections, no mercy if you lose your job.

• And if you’re none of those, you’re still watching the same trick. Whoever wins the White House gets to reprice millions of people’s debt every four years, and you get no say in when your number resets.

Here’s my actual take, and it’s not the take you’re supposed to have. This isn’t Biden being generous and Trump being cruel. That’s the story they want you chewing on, because left versus right is a great way to keep you from noticing the real thing. The real thing is that your education debt behaves like a financial product. It gets refinanced every time power changes hands, not because anybody up there has a real idea of what school should cost, but because the debt is the fixed point and the terms are just the dial they turn. Those two years of zero-dollar payments? That wasn’t a gift to you. That was them keeping the product running while the lawsuit sorted itself out. You were never the customer. You were the inventory.

I want to hold one thing up next to this, and not to sell you on China. Just to show you a different choice exists. Tuition at Tsinghua or Peking University, their top two schools, runs about 5,000 yuan a year. That’s roughly $700. Four years there costs a kid less than $3,000. In the US, the average in-state public university charges almost $12,000 a year in tuition alone, before you’ve paid a cent of rent or food.

Subscribe now

And the loans run in opposite directions. On China’s national student loan, the government covers 100% of the interest the entire time you’re enrolled. Your clock doesn’t even start until you graduate, and you get five years after that before you owe a dollar of principal. The US system does the reverse. The unsubsidized loans grad students are now stuck with start charging interest the day the money hits your account, while you’re still sitting in class, and all that unpaid interest gets piled onto your balance by the time you walk. So a Chinese student graduates owing what they borrowed. An American grad student graduates owing more than they borrowed. You start the race behind the starting line, and nobody up there treats that as a problem worth fixing.

Nobody in that whole debate is asking the obvious question. What happens to a whole generation that starts adult life already owing five and six figures before their first real paycheck? I’ll tell you what happens. They don’t buy a house. They don’t start the business. They put off the kid. They spend their strongest years feeding a balance instead of building anything. You do not get a prosperous country out of that. You get a generation running just to stay in place, and a machine that’s perfectly happy to let them.

If you’re in SAVE, go check your servicer account today, before that notice buries itself in your inbox. The deadline is real. But the deadline isn’t the fight. The fight is whether this country keeps letting its young people’s future get sold off as a loan product, repriced by whoever’s in charge this cycle, instead of something it actually decides to pay for.

Subscribe now

Hours before a court deadline, DOJ said it would rather ask for two more months than hand over what it was ordered to produce. The excuse: protecting victims. The problem: the same filing is fighting to keep sealed the exact material that mentions Donald Trump.

Stop pretending this is about privacy. Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Trump signed it into law in November. The deadline to release everything was December 19. That date came and went. It took independent journalist Katie Phang suing the department in April to force the issue. In a 48-page opinion, Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled DOJ likely broke the law, ordered it to either release specific documents or justify on the record why it couldn’t, and refused to pause his own order to give the government time to appeal.

Refer a friend

Most of what I publish here is free, and it stays that way. If you want more of these breakdowns, hit subscribe. And if you can go a step further and become a paid subscriber, it genuinely keeps this project running. Whatever you choose to do, thank you. I appreciate it more than you know.

Subscribe now

On Thursday night, hours before that new deadline, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward filed DOJ’s answer. The department flatly disagrees with the order. It wants 60 more days, or it wants the judge to just accept its reasoning and drop the whole thing. Woodward’s own words: DOJ has “not knowingly violated, nor has it ever acknowledged violating” the law.

DOJ says it reviewed more than 6 million pages before deciding you don’t get to see them. That review ran on your tax dollars, start to finish. What you got back was a press release about victim protection.

Nobody is arguing survivors should be named without consent. Real redaction protects real people, and that’s not in dispute. But watch what’s actually bundled under that excuse. The court order covers at least 8 email exchanges with Epstein about a torture video and sexual activity with young women, including minors. In one from 2015, the sender asks whether he’s a pervert for calling 14 and 15 year old girls of reproductive age. On the torture-video email, the recipient’s name is blacked out. Blanche himself later suggested it was Sultan Ahmed bin Sulayem, the former head of Dubai’s DP World. The same filing is also fighting to withhold the FBI interview notes behind an uncorroborated assault claim against Trump, which he denies. Victims became the shield. The men on the other end of those emails became the ones actually protected.

Subscribe now

And here’s where the excuse collapses. The transparency law flatly bars redacting anything to spare someone “embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity.” Those are the only reasons that fit hiding the name of a man emailing Epstein about a torture video. Meanwhile Blanche told Fox back in April that the department had released everything, that it wasn’t sitting on a single page. Half of it is still withheld.

This weekend the country threw itself a 250th birthday party. The president stood on the National Mall and called America the crowning achievement of human history. The greatest political journey ever undertaken. A golden age. The largest fireworks show ever staged.

And in the same 72 hours, that same government looked a federal judge in the eye and said it could not manage to unredact who Epstein was emailing about girls as young as 14.

Two hundred and fifty years. Moon landings. The most powerful law enforcement apparatus on the planet. Six million pages reviewed. And it cannot, or will not, name the people in Jeffrey Epstein’s files. Sit with that. A country that can put a man on the moon says it lost the paperwork.

That is not incompetence. The swamp isn’t a figure of speech here, it’s a load-bearing wall. It runs so deep that a superpower toasting its own greatness would rather misplace a 2007 draft indictment than let you read it. That draft has a heading marked co-conspirators. Four of the five names under it are blacked out. The only one still visible is Ghislaine Maxwell. DOJ says it cannot locate an unredacted copy of the one page tied to the sweetheart deal that let Epstein serve a few months instead of federal charges.

Here’s the part the fireworks are built to drown out. America sells the world one product above all others: the promise that its institutions are independent enough to prosecute their own. The Epstein stall is the proof that the promise is marketing, not machinery, and every country watching already knows it.

And we’re still waiting on Thomas Massie to read out all the names. He named three on the House floor back in February, promised the rest was coming, and now he’s out in January while the list still hasn’t arrived.

This isn’t left versus right, and don’t let anyone sell it to you that way. Both parties spent two decades not asking who was in Epstein’s orbit. The partisan fight over who “really” wants the files released is theater. The real fight is whether any federal agency in this country still answers to a judge when the order is inconvenient to somebody powerful.

Watch what happens next. DOJ has already signaled it may appeal Sullivan’s ruling, and a department spokesperson called his reading of the law “perverse.” The play is always the same: appeal, delay, let the cycle move on. The agency never lies outright. It just runs out the clock and calls that compliance.

Subscribe now

Cut the crap. That is not the order this happened in.

What Actually Happened

Prices moved first. Wages are still chasing them, months behind, and still losing the race.

In June, average hourly earnings hit $37.64, up 3.5% over the year. That is the actual number the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported, not a talking point somebody invented. In May, the Consumer Price Index came in at 4.2% year over year. Gasoline alone was up 40.5%.

Do that math yourself. Wages are not outrunning prices. They are chasing them and falling further behind every single month.

But “workers demanding too much” tests better on cable news than “shareholders extracting too much.” So guess which story keeps getting repeated back to you.

Refer a friend

The Language Does the Dirty Work

Notice how this gets described. A landlord raising your rent is “responding to the market.” An insurer hiking your premium is “managing risk.” A grocery chain raising prices is “supply chains.”

Then a worker asks for a raise to cover those same costs, and suddenly they are “a threat to price stability.”

Same behavior. Different verdict. One side gets described as a passive victim of circumstance. The other gets treated like the disease. That is not an accident of language. That is language doing the work of protecting whoever already has the pricing power.

The Receipts

• Your paycheck: Wages grew 3.5% this year. Prices grew 4.2%. You did not get a raise. You got a pay cut with extra paperwork.

• Your grocery bill: The Economic Policy Institute found corporate profits account for roughly a third of all price growth since 2019. The long-run historical average is about 11%. That gap is not “supply and demand” doing its thing. That is margin, and it used to be yours.

• Your receipts, literally: In June, the DOJ and 17 state attorneys general caught Cal-Maine, Hickman’s, and Versova red-handed, coordinating for nearly three years, from 2022 to 2025, to rig the exact benchmark that sets what you pay for eggs. The playbook was simple: flood a pricing index with bids nobody actually intended to fill, just to push the published number up. It worked. They got caught, and they paid $3.3 million combined. On profits that ran into the billions. That is not a scandal. That is a business model with a rounding error taped to it as punishment.

  Subscribe now

My Take

Since 1979, worker productivity is up 90%. Worker pay is up 33%. That gap did not vanish into thin air. It went straight into corporate profits, executive pay, and shareholder checks, and it has been doing that quietly for over four decades, under both parties, no matter who was in the White House.

This is not a Trump problem or a Biden problem. This is a pricing-power problem. Whoever sets the price wins. Whoever does not, pays for it twice. Once at the register, and again when their raise gets blamed for the register.

That is the actual divide in this country. Not red versus blue. It is the people who get to set the price versus the people who have no choice but to absorb it.

There is a word for what happens when one side holds all the pricing power and the other side holds none.

Extraction.

What’s Next

This will not stop with eggs. Every time inflation runs hot, the same script gets pulled out: blame the paycheck, protect the margin, let the profit-share number quietly become the new normal. Prices almost never drop back to where they started. Neither will your rent.

Next time prices spike, watch who gets called “responsible for inflation.” It is never the shareholders. Watch that pattern do its work, not whichever party happens to be holding the microphone when it happens.

Subscribe now

On the night of June 25th, New York’s Rent Guidelines Board voted to freeze the rent on roughly 1 million rent-stabilized apartments for the next 2 years. It was the first time in the board’s history that even 2-year leases got frozen. 6 of the 9 people who voted were appointed by Mamdani himself.

Refer a friend

Mamdani called it “a historic victory for New York City tenants.” He was right. This time it was real.

Three months earlier, the same mayor did the exact opposite.

His lawyers filed an appeal to New York’s highest court to overturn a ruling that ordered the city to expand CityFHEPS, a program that pays the rent for people about to be thrown out onto the street. The position in that appeal was almost word for word the position of former Mayor Eric Adams, the position Mamdani had attacked every single day on the campaign trail.

Same man. Same administration. Two opposite actions. This is not a contradiction. It is a straight lesson in what a mayor can touch and what he cannot.

To see it, you have to know that renting in New York is really two separate worlds.

I publish all of this for free, and it stays free. If the work is worth something to you, becoming a paid member keeps it going. Either way, the door stays open.

Subscribe now

One world is rent-stabilized housing. About 1 million apartments, a quarter to 40% of the city’s stock, usually older buildings or buildings that took a tax break. How much the landlord can raise the rent each year is not up to the landlord. It is decided by a vote of the Rent Guidelines Board. That is the world the freeze covers.

The other world is market-rate housing, which is everything else. The landlord charges whatever the market will bear. There is no legal ceiling. The freeze does not touch that world by a single dollar.

And the tenants on CityFHEPS? Most of them live in the second world. Stabilized apartments are scarce, and plenty of landlords will not take a tenant paying with a government subsidy. The ones who will are often market-rate landlords, because they can push the rent right up to the CityFHEPS payment cap, a cap that itself climbs every year in step with the federal government’s “fair market rent” number.

That is the whole answer. It is that expanding CityPHEBS was never in his power. Appointing the board that sets stabilized rents was in his power, and that is why the freeze happened. But expanding CityFHEPS costs real money, and the honest way to raise that money is to tax the rich. A New York City mayor cannot do that on his own. That power sits with the state government in Albany, not with him.

In the Bronx there is a man named Juan Figueroa. 57 years old, $33,000 behind on rent, waiting on exactly the CityFHEPS expansion that would have saved him. He does not live in a stabilized apartment. The rent freeze cannot reach him. “He promised this thing,” Figueroa said of the mayor. “The thing people need most help with is paying rent.”

Here is how you tell willpower apart from power. You check whether the person used everything he had, in the place where he actually had it. Mamdani did. Christina Smyth, the landlord representative on the board, quit in protest and said the freeze “was decided last year on the campaign trail.” She was right. Appointing that board was the mayor’s call alone. Expanding CityFHEPS was never his call to make.

Some people will read this far and reach a cheap conclusion. Reformists are useless. Voting is useless.

That conclusion is wrong.

Subscribe now

The rent freeze is real. 1 million households will not face a rent hike for 2 years. That is a socialist reformist, a mayor who came up through the DSA, delivering something solid for ordinary people in the one place he controlled. A win like that is worth wanting, and worth defending.

Follow me long enough and you know where I stand. I am not against reformists, least of all the socialist kind like Mamdani. Because he shows you something worth seeing. The moment a reformist gets even a little real power, ordinary people’s lives get better.

But you have to see the other half just as clearly.

He froze the rent because appointing that board was his to do. He could not save Figueroa because raising taxes on the rich was not. That is the whole design. This system will let a socialist run the largest city in the country, and still keep the two things that matter most, the landlord’s income and the rich man’s tax rate, off the table before he ever sits down.

The rent freeze is not the first step toward something bigger. It is the ceiling. It is the most working people are allowed to win while this system stands.

So here is the real question, and it is not whether reformists can push a little harder. It is this. Who decided that the landlord’s income and the rich man’s tax rate are the two things no one is allowed to touch? Somebody made that rule. It is not natural. It is not permanent. And what one group of people made, another group of people can unmake.

What working people are owed is not one rent freeze. It is not a slightly bigger voucher. It is the power to decide who owns the housing, and who this city is actually run for.

Mamdani cannot give them that. The system he agreed to work inside will never give them that.

That will be the conversation we should be talking, right now.

Subscribe now

At 9:55 at night, the front desk called David Streever’s hotel room in New York City. A federal agent was downstairs asking for him.

Streever is an American citizen. His crime was an email criticizing the director of ICE. For that, the government tracked him across an ocean and back, to a hotel room he had told no one about. He and his seven-year-old daughter had just flown in from Finland, cleared Customs at JFK, and checked in instead of going home to Rochester.

ICE found him anyway. To this day, no one will say how.

He was not the only one. Hours earlier, the same pair of agents had hunted down Paigelynne Gonyea, a poll worker in Syracuse, over an Instagram post criticizing an ICE officer. They tracked her to her polling station and handed her a letter demanding she delete her account and sign for it.

Refer a friend

Neither of these people is an undocumented immigrant. Both are American citizens. Both were hunted by a machine the public was told existed to deport foreigners.

That is the whole story, and it is the part that should frighten American working people.

Because the machine is real and the money is public record. ICE bought Penlink’s Webloc, which lets agents draw a digital fence around any location and track every phone inside it. It bought mobile license plate readers from Motorola. It renewed a contract for a database of more than 20 billion plate scans. When the Supreme Court said in 2018 that police need a warrant for your phone location, the government simply started buying that data from commercial brokers instead. No warrant required.

This is not a glitch. It is the policy. In September 2025, Trump signed an executive order on “Domestic Terrorism” that treats opposition to ICE as a terrorist tactic and lists opposition to capitalism among the warning signs. The Justice Department has subpoenaed X and Reddit to unmask users who criticized the deportation program. They still have not been told what crime they are suspected of.

Every tool sold to you as protection from the outsider ends up pointed at you.

I publish all of this for free, and it stays free. If the work is worth something to you, becoming a paid member keeps it going. Either way, the door stays open.

Subscribe now

Now some of you are going to say it: this guy lives in China, why is he a hypocrite talking about a surveillance state? China is a surveillance state.

Fair. Let’s talk about it.

Yes, China has surveillance. Yes, there’s a firewall. I’m not going to pretend otherwise.

But notice what you just did. You reached for China the second American surveillance got uncomfortable. That reflex has a name. It’s called feeling superior. And it only works if you actually live in a free country.

Do you?

Your government just tracked a man to his hotel room over an email. Your Justice Department is subpoenaing Reddit users for criticizing a policy. Your agents walked into a polling station to tell a woman to delete her Instagram.

And you still think the surveillance is happening somewhere else.

Here’s the part nobody wants to hear. Chinese people walk outside at night. Women walk home alone. Children ride the subway without fear. The infrastructure works. The streets are safe. You can argue all day about why that is. You cannot pretend it isn’t true.

Meanwhile American working people are getting shot in supermarkets, sleeping in their cars, and being hunted by data brokers their own government paid to access, all while being told they live in the land of the free.

You are not living in freedom. You are living in the story your government told you about freedom.

The truth hurts. But you should hear it. It is the truth.

It’s time to wake up.

Subscribe now

The Board of Peace, the body Trump set up to run Gaza, just had its own draft resolution leak to The Guardian. It is four pages, labeled “sensitive but unclassified,” and it does three things.

It grants everyone on the board immunity from any court in Gaza. It lets the board take Palestinian public land for free. And it lets the board judge its own conduct, including cases of injury and death, with no outside court allowed to review it. Section 7 of the draft, titled “Third Party Liability/Claims,” sets up an internal process where the board hears and rules on claims against itself. They wrote themselves a law that puts them above the law.

Six lawyers reviewed the document for The Guardian. Noura Erakat, an international law professor at Rutgers, said it plainly: there is no external oversight, and it creates a legal system unto itself.

A quick note before I go on. Thank you for coming to my Substack. I really appreciate it. Most of the content here is free, so feel free to subscribe. And if you want to support the work a little further, consider becoming a paid subscriber. It would mean a lot. Thank you.

Subscribe now

Look at who holds the pen. The seven-member executive board includes Jared Kushner, Steve Witkoff, and Marco Rubio. Kushner has already said what he wants Gaza to become: luxury resorts, hi-tech cities, business hubs. The draft resolution lays the legal groundwork for exactly that.

Now look at who is missing. The seven-member executive board has no Palestinian on it. The larger eleven-seat Gaza Executive Board has no Palestinian on it either. Israel holds a seat. The only place Palestinians appear at all is a technocratic committee that handles day-to-day services, and even those people were selected in coordination with Washington and Arab governments, not chosen by anyone in Gaza. The people whose land is being taken do not sit on the body taking it.

And they did not consent to it. Hamas rejected the board’s disarmament plan as unacceptable. The Palestinian Authority and Fatah are not on the committee. Diana Buttu, a former PLO spokesperson, said the plan normalizes genocide. Erakat said its goal is to force outcomes onto the Palestinian people. These are not outside critics. These are the people the plan claims to be helping, and they are saying no.

This is the part that matters. The people of Gaza should decide the future of Gaza. It is their land, their homes, their future. That is not a radical position. It is the most basic one there is. And the structure being built does the opposite. It moves all real authority up to the board and leaves a powerless Palestinian committee to manage the wreckage.

There is a term for this. Disaster Capitalism. A crisis flattens a society, and outside powers move in to rebuild it for profit while the population is too broken to push back. The pattern is not new. Blackwater contractors killed civilians in Iraq. KBR billed the US government for work it never did. The reconstruction industry runs on immunity and contracts, and almost no one is ever held accountable. Gaza is being set up the same way, except this time the immunity is written down before the first contract is signed.

The money tells the same story. Countries pledged billions. Most of it has not been transferred. But the legal protection for the people who stand to profit is already drafted. The order of operations tells you who this was built for.

There is also a practical problem the board is ignoring. When you strip a population of any real say in how it is governed, you do not get stability. You get the opposite. The exclusion of empowered Palestinian governance has already left a vacuum, and the actor filling it is Hamas. Cutting people out of power does not end the conflict. It feeds it.

This is what it looks like when imperialism arrives after the bombs stop. The military makes the wreckage. The political class writes the legal cover. The investors move in. And every step gets described as humanitarian aid and peace.

It is not peace. It is invasion.

Subscribe now

“McCarthy was right. McCarthyism was fully justified. And we need a new wave of it.”

That is Matt Walsh, on camera, in 2026.

He was not improvising, and he was not alone. A democratic socialist named Zohran Mamdani runs New York City, and this week the socialist candidates he backed swept their primaries, beating establishment incumbents in the largest media market in the country. The president called them three solid Communists. The cable hosts ran their segments. And Matt Walsh, called for the government to start destroying people again.

Walsh is the loudest of them, not the only one.

Refer a friend

Here is what has them this frightened. Not a revolution. People starting to talk about one. A mayor who wants to freeze the rent, a few socialists winning local races, and a generation that has started saying the word out loud. The Democratic Socialists of America grew from about 6k members in 2015 to over 100k this year. That is the entire emergency.

The answer from the right is not an argument. It is the blacklist

They want people to believe McCarthyism was about Soviet spies. It was not. Its targets were organizers. The Taft-Hartley Act forced union leaders to sign anti-communist loyalty oaths, and the unions gutted under it were the most militant in the country: the electrical workers, the longshoremen, the mine and smelter workers. The people who built American industrial unionism were driven out of public life and ruined. The movement moved right, dropped political organizing, and never recovered.

That is what Walsh calls fully justified.

It helps to know who signs the checks. Walsh works for The Daily Wire, launched in 2015 with a 4.7 million dollar investment from Farris Wilks. Farris and his brother Dan made their fortune fracking, sold Frac Tech in 2011 for 3.5 billion dollars, and each pocketed 1.4 billion. Walsh is no independent thinker wrestling with ideas. He is the spearhead, the useful idiot the oil oligarchs point at their own workforce, and he is proud of the job.

This newsletter is free, and it stays free. If this is worth something to you, subscribe and send it to one person who has not heard it put this way. Or consider upgrade to paid subscribers, thank you so much.

Subscribe now

Here is the part worth saying plainly.

When capital is winning the argument, it does not need the police. It lets the debate happen, because it expects to win. McCarthyism was not confidence. It was panic, the ruling class deciding the only way to stop working people from organizing was to ruin their lives.

They are panicking now for the same reason. The argument is already lost. Nobody calls for blacklists while they are winning. A generation did not turn toward socialism because a foreign government tricked them. They turned because they looked at their rent, their student debt, their medical bills, and their bosses’ second homes, and drew the obvious conclusion.

You know what? If you really want to spend time catching real criminals, how about putting more effort into the Epstein files? It is full of criminals. Instead of trying to crush some union workers, people who are basically just asking for a decent life, go for the real criminals.

So who are these communists they want crushed? They are Amazon warehouse workers trying to form a union. They are the baristas at the Starbucks on the corner. They are nurses fighting for safe staffing so their patients do not die. They are graduate students and teachers and tenants who got tired of asking nicely.

None of them are trying to seize anything. The socialists winning these races are reformists. They work inside the system. They want healthcare, housing, a union, a wage that covers the rent. They are asking capitalism for a better deal, not for its end.

Subscribe now

That modest ask is enough to make the right scream for the blacklist. This is the mild version. If demands this small frighten them now, they should think about what happens when people stop asking nicely.

Walsh has one more rule. If you are not American, he says, American politics is none of your concern.

That is a rich thing to say from the center of an empire. American bombs fall on people who never got a vote. American sanctions starve countries that never appeared on a US ballot. When American foreign policy kills a schoolgirl overseas, her family did not get to weigh in on the election that built the missile. The empire reaches into every corner of the planet and then tells the planet to mind its own business.

So here is a thought for everyone now demanding a sequel to the blacklist. Go ahead. Try it.

The last time America did this, it deported a scientist named Qian Xuesen. He had co-founded what became NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The witch hunt stripped his clearance on no evidence and shipped him to China in 1955. He went home and built China’s missile program. The carrier-killer missiles now aimed at the US Navy trace directly to the man America threw away. The Navy Secretary at the time called it the stupidest thing the country ever did.

This is what McCarthyism is. Not the defense of a nation. A tool the rich use when they can no longer win with words.

They are not afraid of foreign agents. They are afraid of nurses and warehouse workers comparing notes. They are afraid that working people will stop fighting each other and start getting orgnized.

They should be afraid.

The blacklist is not strength. It is what a ruling class does when it has lost the argument and has nothing left but force.

Let them try.

Subscribe now

On Tuesday the Senate voted 50 to 48 to tell Donald Trump to stop his war on Iran or come ask Congress first. It was the tenth try. The first one to pass both chambers. Four Republicans crossed over: Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Rand Paul of Kentucky, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Here is what the headlines skipped. The resolution does nothing. It does not go to the White House. It cannot be signed. It cannot be vetoed. A White House official said so within hours, calling it meaningless because the war already “ended” with the April 7 ceasefire. On the law, he was right.

Now look at the same day. While the Senate was voting to end the war, the Pentagon was passing around a request for $80 billion to pay for it. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Congress last month the war cost $29 billion. The number he actually sent to the budget office was $80 billion. The first week alone cost $11.3 billion. The full Pentagon ask for the year is $1.5 trillion, nearly 50 percent above current levels.

They voted to end the war and fund it on the same afternoon.

Thanks for reading and for checking out my works. I really appreciate it. Almost everything here is free and always will be. If you want to support the operation a little further, consider becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you so much.

Subscribe now

The vote matters anyway, and you already know why. You paid for it.

Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz on March 4. Gas went from $2.96 a gallon the week before the bombing to $4.55 by May 21. A dollar fifty a gallon, every fill-up, for three months, out of the pocket of everyone who has to drive to a job.

Prices are easing now, down to about $3.93, because Trump cut a deal. Notice the order. They broke it, working people paid for it, then they fixed part of what they broke and want credit for it. The pain already happened. The $80 billion bill is still coming.

A Reuters/Ipsos poll says only one in four Americans thought the war was worth it. Three out of four already paid at the pump and already gave their answer.

Nobody asked them first.

One man decided.

Refer a friend

The 1973 War Powers Act was supposed to stop exactly this. It says a president has to notify Congress within 48 hours and cannot run an unauthorized war past 60 days. Trump’s 60 days ran out May 1. He declared the war “terminated” because of the ceasefire, a trick no president had used before. Asked last week on The Axios Show if he learned anything about the limits of his power, he said: “There are no limits.”

He is not lying. Every president since Truman has done this. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, all without a real declaration of war. Congress wrote the War Powers Act in 1973 because it could not stop Vietnam. It has never stopped a war since. Tuesday’s vote is Congress writing a complaint and handing it to a man who is not required to read it.

Watch what the Republicans actually argued. Jim Risch, who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told his colleagues to vote no because if the resolution passed, Iran would get up and leave the negotiating table. Read that again. His case for the war is that the only way to make peace with Iran is to keep Trump’s power to bomb them unlimited and unchecked. That is not a peace deal. That is a hostage note.

And the four Republicans who crossed over did not do it on principle. The math made them. McConnell was in the hospital. Dave McCormick missed the vote. Two absences flipped the outcome. The four who switched are all staring down November midterms with a public that already hates this war. They are not anti-war. They are anti-losing.

Now the part nobody wants to say. The Democrats are not the heroes of this story either, and on the only vote that actually matters, they are about to prove it.

Subscribe now

People will tell you the Democrats are powerless. They are the minority. What can they do. On almost everything, that is true. On the $80 billion, it is a lie, and here is exactly why.

The war money is a spending bill. Spending bills are subject to the filibuster. That means before the Senate can pass it, it first has to end debate, and ending debate takes 60 votes, not 51. Think of it like a condition on a real estate deal. Before the sale can close, the inspection has to clear. The 60-vote threshold is the inspection. Until it clears, the deal does not move.

The Republicans hold about 53 seats. They want this money. So they are the ones who have to clear the 60-vote condition, and they are 7 votes short. They need 7 Democrats to cross over and vote to end the filibuster. If every Democrat refuses, the Republicans are stuck at 53, debate never ends, and the $80 billion dies before it ever reaches a final vote. It takes only 41 senators to hold a filibuster. The Democrats have 47. They can kill this bill by themselves, without a single Republican, any time they decide to.

They are not the powerless minority on this one. They are the lock on the door.

Watch for the trick, because they will use it. A senator can vote to end the filibuster and then vote no on the bill itself sixty seconds later. That lets them go on television and say they opposed the war money, when they are the ones who opened the door and let it through. The vote that funds the war is the vote to end debate. The final vote is theater. Any Democrat who helps clear that 60-vote condition paid for this war, no matter what they say afterward.

The other trick is laundering it through a different door. There are two pots of military money. The $80 billion war bill goes through regular appropriations, which is the 60-vote route where Democrats hold the block. But Republicans are also pushing $350 billion in defense money through something called reconciliation, the same 51-vote process they used to pass Trump’s tax cuts, where the filibuster does not apply at all. If they fold the war costs into that package, they pass it on their own and the Democrats cannot stop it. Or they bundle it the other way. Senator John Hoeven has already said he wants to fold the war money in with disaster relief for California wildfires and aid for farmers, so a Democrat can vote yes on the whole thing and claim they were voting for wildfire victims, not for bombs. Either way, the block disappears, and it disappears because both parties want it gone. As a clean, standalone war bill, the Democrats can kill the $80 billion with the votes they already have. The only question is whether they let it get run through a process where they can pretend their hands were tied.

Refer a friend

So when Chuck Schumer stands up and calls the war Trump’s “historic blunder,” one of the worst foreign policy moves in American history, understand what you are watching. Schumer’s caucus forced ten symbolic votes they knew were toothless and lost the first nine. They never cut off the money while the bombs were actually falling in March. And they are holding the only real veto that exists, the 7 votes Republicans need, and the smart money in Washington says they hand it over. John Fetterman, a Democrat, already voted with Trump outright on Tuesday.

This is the system. The president starts the war. Both parties built the machine that pays for it, and both parties like it that way, because it lets them wage war and dodge the blame at the same time. The Republicans launch it. The Democrats run ads about opposing it while quietly clearing the path so the check clears. And every so often one of them says the quiet part out loud. Jim Banks, Republican of Indiana, on the $80 billion: “To me it’s less about the war, it’s more about the stockpiles. I would sell it to my state as an investment in our defense industrial base, reshoring defense production to Indiana.” That is a sitting senator describing a war bill as a jobs program for the contractors in his state. The defense contractors get the $80 billion. Working people get the gas bill and the grocery bill. Everybody in that building got what they wanted except the people who paid for it.

Here is the part they really do not want you to sit with. Three out of four Americans were against this war. That is not a fringe. That is an overwhelming majority of working people, in both parties, who looked at $4.55 gas and a war nobody voted for and said no. And it did not matter. The bombs fell anyway. The bill came anyway. A clear majority of the country was simply overruled by a hundred people in a building who answer to donors and contractors, not to the public.

That is the real story, and it is bigger than Iran. A majority that agrees on something and still gets ignored is not powerless because it is small. It is powerless because it is not organized. The autoworker paying $4.55 and the nurse paying $4.55 and the trucker eating diesel prices are the same people with the same enemy, and they have been trained to think they have nothing in common. The day they figure out they do, votes like Tuesday’s stop being theater and start being a threat.

Until then, the only thing left to decide in Washington is how the next $80 billion gets through, and how many of the people who called it a failure on Tuesday quietly let it pass.

It will not be you. But it could be all of you.

Subscribe now