Source: Caitlin Johnstone, Rogue Journalist
by Caitlin Johnstone
“I recently watched a Sky News segment on the need to ban pro-Palestine marches which nicely illustrates the way the mass media have been working to manipulate the public into believing these demonstrations are causing antisemitic attacks. Reporting on British prime minister Keir Starmer’s recent assertion that the ‘repeat nature’ and ‘cumulative effect’ of pro-Palestine marches may necessitate a ban on some protests following the Golders Green stabbing, reporter Mollie Malone repeatedly told the audience of Sky News that the marches are happening in the ‘context’ of antisemitic incidents and ‘against the backdrop’ of attacks on Jewish people. There is no evidence whatsoever for the claim that pro-Palestine marches have anything at all to do with antisemitic attacks. But watch how this Sky News propagandist marries the two in the minds of her viewers by repeatedly mentioning them in the same breath and connecting them with words like ‘context’ and ‘backdrop’.” (05/03/26)
“When things turned dystopian in March 2020, I was in the middle of a big life change which ultimately led me to create a business coaching families to grow their own chemical-free food. After a decade of international development consulting scouring the African continent to make Africans’ lives more connected to the global economy, and incidentally also more precarious, I had already been slowly seeking an escape route from the abstract world inhabited by the professional managerial class. Covid didn’t create my rupture with this world. It confirmed it.” (05/03/26)
“The day I talked to Dan Osborn last month, he had just quit his job. He had been working as a steamfitter at Grunwald Mechanical, an HVAC contractor in Omaha, while also running his second campaign for U.S. Senate as an independent. The first one, two years ago against Republican Sen. Deb Fischer, nearly succeeded, with Osborn performing 14 points better against his Republican opponent than Kamala Harris did in Nebraska against hers. But a nonpolitician has to eat, so Osborn went back to work, even while signing up for a second campaign against Nebraska’s other senator, former Gov. Pete Ricketts. The demands of the campaign trail got to be too much for a full-time job, and Osborn knows choosing it over a steady paycheck is a risky move.” (05/04/26)
“U.S. President Donald Trump has been very publicly aggressive in expressing his anger at NATO. He told NATO members they will ‘have to start learning how to fight for yourself’ because ‘the U.S.A. won’t be there to help you anymore, just like you weren’t there for us.’ … On April 8, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte held a two-hour ‘frank and open’ discussion with Trump to try to heal the rift. Rutte may have failed to soothe the angry Trump, who, following the meeting, posted ‘NATO WASN’T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON’T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN.’ But Rutte may have failed in more than that mission as Secretary General of NATO. He may have failed in that role to represent NATO members and NATO values.” (05/03/26)
“On May 2, Spirit Airlines ceased operations after it failed to get the US government to bail it out of the latest in a series of untenable situations — at least two of which the US government put it in to begin with. … Maybe Spirit would have failed even absent the massive jet fuel price increases. Perhaps the proposed merger with JetBlue would have dragged that airline down, too, instead of profitably folding Spirit’s assets into a more efficient operating environment. And maybe all of Ted Bundy’s victims were mere moments away from choosing suicide when he strangled them to death instead. We’ll never know, will we? What we do know is that the US government’s murder of Spirit Airlines will almost certainly result in (checks notes) ‘higher fares, fewer seats, and harm [to] millions of consumers.'” (05/02/26)
“President Donald Trump is suing the Internal Revenue Service to force the American people to pay him at least $10 billion in damages because he was embarrassed when his tax returns leaked out in 2020. Trump ordered his appointees at federal agencies to speedily give him the billions to settle his lawsuit. But on April 24, federal Judge Kathleen Williams temporarily stopped the greatest shakedown in presidential history. … Trump’s lawsuit pretends he was an innocent bystander. Who was president at the time of that leak? Trump. Who appointed the chief of the IRS? Trump. And who deserves $10 billion because of alleged federal misconduct under his watch? Trump.” (05/01/26)
“On Wednesday, The Atlantic’s Ashley Parker and Michael Scherer, two serious journalists formerly with the Washington Post, begin their piece with a question: ‘Had President Trump, we wondered, possibly been reading or at least thumbing through – just maybe — the works of … Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel?’ That’s it. That’s the lede. … Is Trump a world-historical figure in the Hegelian sense? Are you high? Of course not. Parker and Scherer are more interested in whether Trump thinks he’s a world-historical figure in the way that Hegel described. The answer to that is also a resounding no. The dude doesn’t read memos. You think he’s thumbing through Hegel? In fairness to them, the real point of their piece is to illuminate that Trump’s delusions of grandeur are worrisomely out of control. And they succeed.” (05/01/26)
“[T]he fragile ceasefire disproportionately favored the United States over Iran: Trump secured his central objective — a swift exit from a costly war — while Iran forfeited its primary source of leverage, namely the inflationary pressure of elevated oil prices. Tehran, by contrast, remained unable to achieve its core objective — meaningful sanctions relief — without entering a difficult diplomatic process with Washington. The asymmetry was stark: Trump could afford strategic patience, whereas Iran risked squandering the most consequential gains the conflict could have yielded if negotiations faltered or collapsed. In short, this emerging status quo could have constituted a quiet but decisive victory for Trump. … But then Trump committed a familiar and consequential error.” (05/02/26)
“The Fourth Amendment protects all persons from warrantless government searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers and effects. It requires that warrants be supported by probable cause of crime and specifically describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Last week, for the first time in the modern era, the government argued to the Supreme Court of the United States that the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution did not outlaw general warrants.” (05/01/26)
