Politics
This Type Of Burnout Could Be A Sign Of ADHD
!function(n){if(!window.cnx){window.cnx={},window.cnx.cmd=[];var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’);t.display=’none’,t.onload=function(){var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’);c.src=”//cd.connatix.com/connatix.player.js”,c.setAttribute(‘async’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c)},n.head.appendChild(t)}}(document);(new Image()).src=”https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″;cnx.cmd.push(function(){cnx({“playerId”:”19654b65-409c-4b38-90db-80cbdea02cf4″,”mediaId”:”eba97976-f596-4dee-924c-0d7195ccf52b”}).render(“69823a5be4b0f9ced96e8b5c”);});
The way much of the media handled last week’s ‘news’ about Gaza’s death toll is nothing short of shameful.
On 29 January, left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported, based on an anonymous source, that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) had ‘accepted’ the Gaza Health Ministry’s (GHM) estimate of 70,000 Palestinian deaths since October 2023. Immediately, major outlets ran headlines declaring an Israeli ‘u-turn’ – after all, officials had long dismissed such figures as Hamas propaganda. Journalists and commentators, who had spent two years lambasting those sceptical of the GHM figures, rushed to claim vindication. Among them was Mehdi Hasan, who crowed on social media that after every Gaza war, Israel ‘accepts the Palestinian death toll’. Hasan implied that those of us who dared ask questions about it were engaging in gaslighting.
However, as is often the case, there appears to be a significant gap between media narrative and reality. To begin with, the IDF has outright denied Haaretz’s report. LTC Nadav Shoshani of the IDF Spokesperson’s Department stated the reported 70,000 figure ‘does not reflect official IDF data’. In other words, the widely promoted ‘admission’ was based on an anonymous background briefing – not an official, verified statement. The IDF emphasised that any formal report would be issued through the proper channels. Unsurprisingly, this caveat has been conveniently ignored in much of the news coverage.
Even so, the framing of this story has been highly misleading. The debate over the death toll was never about whether tens of thousands have died in Gaza. Everyone agrees the war has been devastating. The real dispute, both then and now, concerns the composition of that death toll, the credibility of its sources, and how many of the dead were Hamas combatants or victims of Hamas’s own actions, rather than civilians killed by the IDF. In addressing these questions, the media’s performance has been appalling.
From the outset of the war, the Hamas-run GHM became the main source of casualty figures in Western reports. By early 2024, the GHM was claiming that about 70 per cent of the dead were ‘women and children’ – a statistic cited endlessly by sympathetic journalists and activists. This claim was always nonsense, and is easily disproven just by looking more closely at Hamas’s own data. Most of the casualties were, in fact, male, with a disproportionate number of those being of fighting age. But you wouldn’t know that from reading the BBC.
Those of us who dared to scrutinise the Gaza death toll were not denying that civilians were being killed. We were simply emphasising that the figures came from a party directly involved in the conflict. A study of international coverage between February and May 2024 found that a staggering 84 per cent of major media reports failed to distinguish between combatant and civilian deaths when citing Gaza’s death toll. Ninety-eight per cent of reports cited Hamas’s numbers, while only five per cent referenced Israeli estimates. Tellingly, one in five articles didn’t even attribute the death toll to a source, presenting Hamas’s tally as if it were an uncontested fact. Meanwhile, on the rare occasions that Israeli figures were mentioned, they were often treated with outright scepticism. This blatant double standard undoubtedly laid the foundations for today’s rampant disinformation.
Over a year ago, the Henry Jackson Society published my team’s analysis on the GHM’s fatality lists. The findings were damning. We discovered that Hamas’s lists were riddled with errors and non-combat deaths. Individuals’ ages and genders were frequently misreported (men were listed as women, adults as children) in ways that artificially inflated the count of female and child victims. The lists included people who had died before the war – including those killed by Hamas’s own actions (such as by misfired militant rockets). All of these were lumped together as if Israel was directly responsible. Unsurprisingly, the published toll made no mention of any Hamas combatants whatsoever. Every single fatality was implicitly presented as a civilian who died as a result of Israeli strikes – a near-impossible scenario in a conflict of this nature.
We also observed evidence that the Gazan death toll encompassed natural deaths, which would have occurred regardless of the war. Gaza, like any society, experiences deaths from illness and old age every day. These do not stop during wartime. But the GHM’s methodology appeared to include all manner of deaths in the conflict tally. It even used a public Google Form for individuals to self-report deceased relatives. Given that compensation is offered to families of the deceased, this was clearly a system prone to duplicate entries or misuse. Our qualitative analysis found that these lists were unreliable, and the media should never have treated them as definitive.
Initially, the Palestinian representative in London angrily dismissed our warnings. But a few months later, Hamas discreetly took action that proved our point. In March 2025, the Gaza Health Ministry released an updated casualty report that had quietly removed around 3,400 names that appeared on previous lists. At least a thousand supposed child victims were among those deleted. The likely explanation is that these were duplicate entries, errors, or otherwise invalid records that Hamas erased once they were identified. Our paper was validated: the lists contained thousands of errors.
Our research identified a consistent pattern in conflicts in Gaza: Hamas hides its combatant casualties during the fighting, only acknowledging them much later (if at all). This war has been no exception. Hamas officials have largely remained silent on how many of their militants have perished. Meanwhile, the IDF has consistently reported its estimates of enemy fighters killed. By late 2025, the IDF stated it had killed at least 22,000 Hamas and allied combatants in Gaza. It reported that the fatalities were roughly one-third combatant, two-thirds civilian. This ratio, though tragic, has been consistently maintained in Israeli military briefings. It is a far cry from the ‘nearly all civilians’ picture painted by Hamas.
Can we say for sure that the IDF’s own militant body count is reliable? Of course, Israel is itself an actor in the conflict. But there is historical precedent to suggest its figures are more reliable. After the 2014 Gaza war, independent analyses of casualty lists, along with statements made by Hamas officials, revealed that hundreds of the dead were combatants. Though during the 2014 conflict, Hamas had insisted that almost all fatalities were civilian, the numbers ended up roughly aligning with Israeli estimates.
The same dynamic is unfolding now. While Hamas’s public statements still account for zero militant deaths, behind closed doors, Palestinian sources have acknowledged thousands of militant losses via their Telegram channels. Our report found that Hamas privately pegged around 6,000 of the dead as their fighters. While this number is far lower than Israel’s estimate, it offers stark proof that the GHM’s narrative is a fabrication.
It is important to remember that the GHM figure includes everyone who died as a result of the war. This covers not only airstrike victims, but also people who died from secondary effects like lack of medical care, starvation, being trapped under rubble, or strikes from stray rockets launched by Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad. While Gazan officials claimed over 440 deaths from malnutrition or starvation during the war, Israel firmly disputes that any deaths from hunger ever occurred. The IDF notes that Hamas likely counted individuals with severe illnesses as ‘starvation’ victims. The upshot remains that the death toll of 70,000 is a composite of many categories of deaths which, though devastating, cannot be attributed entirely to Israel.
The heated debate that followed the Haaretz report completely overlooks these vital distinctions. Instead of engaging with the complex reality of Gaza’s death toll, much of the press chose self-congratulation. ‘See, even Israel now admits 70,000 died – we told you so!’, they have insisted. But what exactly did they ‘tell us’? Many of these outlets spent two years obscuring the very issues I have outlined. They parroted Hamas’s GHM without caveats, failed to verify the figures, and overlooked the astonishing lack of combatants listed among the dead. They were quick to doubt Israeli statements about militant casualties, yet slow to acknowledge clear evidence of Hamas’s number-fudging. When the GHM quietly removed thousands of names from its records in March 2025, did CNN or the BBC make it headline news? Of course not. That ‘small inconvenience’ was largely left to niche researchers and think-tanks to expose.
Personally, I do not enjoy saying ‘I told you so’. The loss of tens of thousands of lives in Gaza is a reality, and nothing can lessen that human tragedy. However, facts matter, especially in wartime. I warned over a year ago, in detail, that the Gaza death toll was being reported without proper care: that it included errors, double counts, natural deaths and propaganda; that the frequently cited civilian-versus-combatant breakdown was unreliable; and that eventually, the truth about the underreported militant casualties would emerge. I was correct on all points.
Shame on the world’s media for ignoring these red flags for so long. Shame on them for allowing a terror group’s unverifiable claims to shape the narrative, and for smearing those who raised legitimate questions as bad-faith actors. The press should be scrutinising both sides’ claims rigorously, not selectively echoing whichever figures fit a simplistic morality tale we wish to tell ourselves.
The mishandling of this issue has done a huge disservice to both truth and history. Gaza’s dead deserve to be remembered accurately, not reduced to pawns in a propaganda contest. We can mourn the innocents lost while still insisting on an honest accounting. We should not fail them by obscuring the reason their lives were cut short in the first place: a war that was started by the terrorists of Hamas, in which they did everything they could to place civilians in harm’s way.
Andrew Fox is a former British Army officer and an associate fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, specialising in defence and the Middle East.
Republicans are in full-out panic mode over their plunging support with Hispanic voters after losing a special election in a ruby-red Texas district over the weekend.
On Saturday, a Democrat posted a 14-point victory in a Fort Worth-based state senate district President Donald Trump had won by 17 points in 2024, a staggering swing that was powered by significant shifts across the district’s Hispanic areas.
It’s the clearest sign yet that the GOP’s newfound coalition that propelled Trump’s return to the White House may be short-lived. Many Republicans are warning the party needs to change course on immigration, focus on bread-and-butter economic issues and start pouring money into competitive races — or risk getting stomped in November.
Polling already showed that Republicans were rapidly losing support from Hispanic voters. But the electoral results were a confirmation of that drop.
“It should be an eye-opener to all of us that we all need to pick up the pace,” U.S. Rep. Tony Gonzales, a Republican from a majority-Hispanic district in South Texas, said in an interview. “The candidate has to do their part, the party has to do their part. And then those of us in the arena, we have to do our part to help them as well.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told reporters Tuesday that the election was a “very concerning outcome.” Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick posted on X that the results should be a “wake-up call for Republicans across Texas. Our voters cannot take anything for granted.” Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis said “a swing of this magnitude is not something that can be dismissed.”
Taylor Rehmet, the Democrat who flipped the state Senate seat over the weekend, made huge gains with Hispanic voters amid national pushback to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement tactics and widespread economic frustration across demographic groups.
Ahead of the election, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott — an immigration hardliner who bused migrants to Democratic-led cities during the Biden administration — said the White House needed to “recalibrate” on its immigration crackdowns following the shooting of Alex Pretti by an immigration officer in Minneapolis.
“That imagery coming out of Minnesota in the last few days has had a huge impact on not only Hispanic voters, but swing voters, independents in Texas and around the country,” said Texas GOP consultant Brendan Steinhauser. “What’s transpired there has definitely led to a bit of a political backlash.”
As Republicans panic, Democrats are feeling a renewed jolt of optimism after they swept statewide races last year in Virginia and New Jersey. They believe they found a winning formula with Rehmet, whose working-class biography as a union leader, Air Force veteran and Lockheed Martin machinist resonated with voters, along with his narrow focus on local issues like maintaining public school funding.
Tory Gavito, president of Democratic donor network Way to Win, said she received excited texts from several major donors over the weekend after the win. “Knowing it’s a wave year, this just adds a little bit of more wind in our sails,” she said. “It’s not just a question around Texas, it’s a question around Texas and Mississippi and Alabama and what does this mean for lots of places.”
Texas Republicans have the most to worry about of any in their party about a major Hispanic snapback towards Democrats.
Hispanics are now the largest ethnic group in Texas, making up 40 percent of the population. Trump carried Latinos in the state in 2024, exit polls showed, a massive swing from earlier elections, and Republicans had been making especially strong gains with rural, more conservative Hispanic voters in the Rio Grande Valley. But as Texas Democrats look to win a U.S. Senate election for the first time since 1988, they’re eyeing an opportunity to pull those voters back in.
“They are leaving in droves and going in the opposite direction,” said Javier Palomarez, president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Business Council. “This is a warning sign.”
And Texas Republicans also banked on retaining at least some of their newfound Hispanic support when they redrew their Congressional map last year, creating several majority-Hispanic districts that Trump would have carried by double digits last year. That includes rejiggering district lines for two top GOP targets, Democratic Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, as well as a third district outside San Antonio.
“They’ve banged three of these five new Republican seats on a demographic that Democrats were never able to turn out for 30-40 years, ” said GOP consultant and Trump critic Mike Madrid, referring to young, Hispanic male voters. But now, Trump’s hardline immigration policies have “angered and upset them.”
Samuel Benson and Alex Gangitano contributed to this report.
Reform UK treasurer and ‘property tycoon’ Nick Candy appears in the latest Epstein files. More than appears, in fact. Serial child-rapists and Israeli agents Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were so enamoured of him that Maxwell was “very disappointed” that Candy didn’t let her know he was coming to town.
Furthermore, they were eager to arrange dinner together before he left:
Candy also asked for Maxwell’s email address. Afterwards, he received congratulations as (apparently) Maxwell congratulated him on something and gushed about how great it is on “Jeffrey’s island”:
Candy also received a message from one of Maxwell’s friends, whose name is redacted – but may, based on a missed redaction in a different email, be called ‘Sarah’ — perhaps Sarah Kellen, an interior designer and Epstein associate. ‘Sarah’ wished Candy “exciting adventures” and hoped to see him again soon, even if he never got to know her surname after their first party meeting:
As Middle East Eye has pointed out:
Kellen was in her early 20s when she met Epstein, and she was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2008 plea deal in which Epstein pleaded guilty to procuring a child for prostitution. But her legal representatives have said Kellen was one of Epstein’s victims.
Kellen was seemingly the sender of the ‘Ghislaine is disappointed’ email at the top of this article.
Harry Eccles, who discovered the emails in the latest release, asked Reform UK for comment. None appears to have been sent. Eccles also pointed out that emails referred to Candy’s company selling a property for Epstein and therefore making money from him:
Jed Garfield, is a known associate of Nick Candy.
Here it seems ‘Candy’ is arranging a first, and second visit to a house with the help of Jed Garfield liaising directly with Jeffrey Epstein pic.twitter.com/c5XnCOVGvQ
— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) February 3, 2026
And here Epstien and Jobor Y are discussing Candy’s tax court case. pic.twitter.com/0u3URlWPkA
— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) February 3, 2026
The emails also show that Candy had Epstein’s personal number:
The above forwarded to Epstein personally pic.twitter.com/ZrmZUvxq35
— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) February 3, 2026
And they show both that Maxwell was involved in the property discussions. Epstein said he had spoken with Candy himself. In addition, Epstein was a fan of Candy and his brother:
Epstein about Candy: ‘no I spoke to him’ pic.twitter.com/cKBi6oeqOk
— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) February 3, 2026
Jeffrey Epstein about the Candy Brothers: ‘I like both of those guys’ pic.twitter.com/wPS0VEyzo7
— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) February 3, 2026
And – of course – the disgraced ex-peer and senior Starmer adviser Peter Mandelson had his fingerprints on it, too:
Epstein Residence plans – on the Epstine Library has C Candy (copyright Candy) as the title. pic.twitter.com/22LgL2JVYI
— Harry Eccles (@Heccles94) February 3, 2026
Reform and its treasurer have questions to answer about the association. Somehow it seems unlikely that they will.
Featured image via the Canary
Never a party to miss a vapid appeal to populism, Reform UK have announced plans to cut beer duty by 10%. Except, how do they plan to fund such a feat? Well, by reintroducing the two-child benefit cap, of course.
Under Reform’s new commitment, the party would gradually phase out business rates altogether for UK pubs. Incidentally, they’d also plunge around 350,000 children back into poverty, and 700,000 into deep poverty.
The fact that a mainstream political party can suggest something like this without being spat on immediately by everyone in range indicates that something is deeply wrong with our country. I just don’t have a better way to say that.
Facts about taxes, as if that’s the problem here and not Reform
In Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget, the chancellor unveiled plans to hike business rates for pubs by 76%. This would boil down to additional costs of around £4,300 a year, after the current freeze ends.
However, on 27 January Labour announced that it would reverse course. Starting in April, pubs will now receive a 15% cut to new business rates bills, along with a two-year real-terms freeze.
Reform MP, and general shithouse, Lee Anderson stated that:
The loss of one pub is not just the loss of livelihood for a landlord, or the loss of a local employment hub. The loss of one pub is a loss to all of us as inheritors of a tradition dating back to Roman rule.
He went on:
Yet the Conservatives, and now Labour, have facilitated the closure of thousands of pubs over the last decade. Any contrition they show is false.
As things stand, beer duty – i.e., tax – averages out at around 49p a pint, although that varies according to the drink’s strength. Reform’s plan would knock 10% from that figure by taking the money directly from struggling children and families.
Likewise, the far-right party would also cut VAT from 20% to 10% for the hospitality sector. Reform said that the fact supermarkets don’t pay VAT on food sales gives them an unfair advantage over pubs, as if the party has any concept of what fairness is.
The entire plan would carry a cost of £2.29bn in the first year, rising to £2.9bn by the fourth year. For contrast, estimates suggest that scrapping the two-child benefit cap will cost £3.6bn a year once it’s fully implemented.
There’s something wrong with all of us
There are too many things to say about this, I don’t really know where to start.
As recently as May 2025, Reform was all for scrapping the two-child cap. Then, they flipped to saying it should only be lifted for two-parent full-time-working households, and finally to opposing the removal of the cap altogether. This pointless contrarianism was motivated purely by Labour getting behind scrapping the cap.
This plan is yet another monstering of people who receive benefits – this time pitting them against local pubs, of all things. These two causes are completely unrelated to one another, but Reform has very deliberately chosen to pair them off.
Given Reform’s projected image as champion’s of ‘British culture’, pubs make sense as their chosen cause to champion – but that’s not a compliment. The UK has massive problems with alcoholism and binge drinking, and has even topped world alcohol consumption charts in recent years.
And finally, this is children we’re talking about. Reform are proposing to take money directly from the very poorest children in the UK, and to then give it to pub landlords. If the landlords chose to pass that saving on to customers, a pint might be 5p cheaper, at the cost of making life harder for 100,000 kids.
When did we get to this point, as a society? How can a mainstream political party can suggest something like this without it immediately sinking them? Why are the right-wing papers reporting this like it’s a normal idea?
This job sometimes involves reading, seeing, and reporting on heinous things. Many of them are objectively more awful than this. But this is just such a banal, calculated, cynical evil, it’s turned something in my stomach. There is something deeply wrong with us all. None of this is OK.
Featured image via the Canary
Defence minister Luke Pollard just reiterated in the House of Commons what UK defence policy is all about these days. It’s about massively expensive drones, nukes that aren’t ours, and a sniveling attitude to the US. Rule Britannia etc.
Pollard was answering questions from MPs on a range of military matters on 2 February. Tory Mark Francois (remember him!?) wondered if the UK would gift its Watchkeeper drones to Ukraine. Pollard said no:
Supposedly, the search for Watchkeeper’s replacement – AKA, the Corvus program – will cost £130mn. This seems very optimistic. Based on the Israeli Hermes drone, Watchkeeper was ten years late late and cost £1bn. That’s according to Drone Wars UK. The NGO also said Watchkeeper flew only 14 hours in Afghanistan in 2014 because combat operations had effectively ended by the time it was usable.
The drone, which is unarmed, was then used to monitor refugees coming over the channel:
Very cost effective indeed.
Also on 2 February Pollard was questioned about US-UK defence relations. Independent MP Ayoub Khan asked:
Whether he is taking steps to increase the UK’s level of military independence from the US.
Pollard said:
The US remains the UK’s principal defence and security partner, and our co-operation on defence, nuclear capability and intelligence remains as close and effective as any anywhere in the world, keeping Britain safe in an increasingly dangerous environment.
No change there then, despite Donald Trump’s increasingly erratic warmongering. Pollard added:
As close friends, we are not afraid to have difficult conversations when we need to. Friends turn up for each other, as we did for the US in Afghanistan, and friends are also honest with each other, as the Prime Minister has set out.
Trump recently disparaged the NATO contribution to the disastrous Afghan war, causing immense public butthurt to British MPs. Trump eventually walked back his comments, lauding British soldiers for their efforts in that pointless, failed occupation.
Cheers, Don.
Independent nukes?
Khan had another question, however. He asked if the government would consider dropping military programs which did nothing to protect the country:
Our nuclear deterrent now consumes nearly a third of the defence budget through Trident, a system that cannot be launched without US approval. In pursuing nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction, we have drained funding from conventional forces and neglected the diplomacy and development that actually prevents conflicts.
He asked:
Does the Minister believe that prioritising nuclear defence over reducing tensions, ending conflicts and promoting peace genuinely delivers security for our people, and if so, can he explain why?
Pollard reiterated that the House of Commons is populated largely by sycophants divorced from public outlooks:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; it comes from a point of view that is different from that of many people in this House and in the wider public.
Then he leant into the usual inaccurate stock answer
Our nuclear deterrent is operationally independent; the only person who can authorise its firing is the Prime Minister. It is a part of our security apparatus, which keeps us safe every single day, and has done for decades.
Adding:
As a Government, we are continuing to invest in our nuclear deterrent, just as we are investing in jobs and skills right across the country that keep us safe every single day. Our relationship with the United States is a key part of that, but we will also continue to invest in our relationships with our other allies, especially around Europe.
In reality, as the US publication National Interest explained on 5 March 2025:
the Trident missiles are not even owned by Britain, but are instead leased by the British military from the Americans.
They expanded:
British nuclear deterrent relies exclusively on American ballistic missile technology, the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) known as the Trident II D5, built by the U.S. defense contractor Lockheed Martin.
So, not independent then. The UK has lashed its future security to the whims of US leaders – whoever is in charge at a given time. Donald Trump’s first year back in power has rocked alliances like NATO. It seems like exactly the time to start thinking about what a serious, independent defence and foreign policy would look like. Pollard and Starmer, however, remain committed to a dying consensus which serves nobody but the US.
Featured image via the Canary
The wealthy, high-profile contacts of late paedophile Jeffrey Epstein surprises no one. From one US president to another, billionaires to yet more billionaires, Israeli war criminals to British politicians, and transatlantic fascists to royalty — it makes sense. But one big shock has been Epstein’s apparent friendship with Noam Chomsky.
What we know about Chomsky’s relationship with Epstein
For decades, Chomsky railed against US imperialism, and its propping up of a settler-colonial system, “worse than apartheid” in occupied Palestine.
He exposed the hypocrisy of Western media propaganda and called out its cynical smears against progressive movements.
Even though Epstein was apparently a charismatic charmer with sociopathic traits who could “go between different cultures and networks“, Chomsky’s positions might make you think he’d never socialise with multi-millionaires like Epstein. But whether through awful judgement or hypocrisy, he did.
It appears, as pundits contend, that Chomsky had reportedly maintained a very “close friendship” with Epstein even after the latter’s imprisonment in 2008. And the academic’s support for free speech and the fact he has unapologetically “met and corresponded with everyone” — including war criminals — does not explain the level of warmth in their interactions.
Chomsky once said his dealings with Epstein were mostly financial. But new communications releases show that:
- The two spoke about dinner and holiday plans, while sharing jokes and affectionate exchanges.
- Epstein served as a social and political connector, linking Chomsky up with prominent far-right figure Steve Bannon and Israeli war criminal Ehud Barak.
- Epstein made numerous payments to Chomsky and his relatives. Chomsky’s wife called Epstein a “very dear friend”, and even a “hero” at one point.
- While there’s no evidence he went to Epstein’s island, Chomsky insisted he was “eager” to. And in one response to an invitation, he said “I’m really fantasizing about the Caribbean island”.
- Chomsky gave Epstein advice in 2019 about how to deal with the sex-crime allegations against him. His words seemed to downplay the accusations and treat Epstein like the victim. He described “a hysteria that has developed about abuse of women” that could cause “torture and distress” to someone like Epstein.
Countless academics needed money and linked up with Epstein for financial reasons. The serial rapist, on the other hand, collected connections in exchange for information or favours. He was curious about genetics and how other people could serve his interests.
Epstein may have pulled Chomsky in, but the academic stuck around. And Chomsky either refused to accept his friend was a criminal (disbelieving the women who called him out in the process), or he simply cared more about Epstein.
Chomsky, meanwhile, didn’t just look the other way on Epstein.
Fellow academic Lawrence Krauss also faced accusations from numerous women, asked Epstein for advice on how to deal with them. He said he would trust Epstein’s words over those of the women accusing the multi-millionaire. Chomsky, meanwhile, continued to appear publicly with Krauss despite the allegations against him.
“Unforgiveable”
Journalist Matt Kennard, who has interviewed Chomsky on numerous occasions, responded to the latest revelations by saying the academic’s:
consorting with Epstein is unforgiveable
As philosopher Émile Torres added:
Chomsky has shown a clear pattern of poor judgment and low moral standards.
Author Vijay Prashad, meanwhile, insisted:
There is no defence for this, in my view, no context that can explain this outrage.
He also clarified that, in addition to Epstein being a sex offender, the multi-millionaire:
was a man of the Far Right and a Zionist
Epstein’s connection with Israel is clear, though we don’t know all the details. It’s not just that the father of his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, was reportedly an Israeli “superspy“. Numerous sources highlight his own apparent connections to Israel and its intelligence agency too.
Epstein’s work in the arms trade reportedly saw him work with numerous governments. And he often bragged about how he advised dodgy regimes around the world, while:
making a fortune out of arms, drugs, and diamonds.
In short, the corruption in the world’s economic system seemed to reward his sociopathic personality and lack of a moral compass. And apparently, the settler-colonial regime of Israel did too.
Because of how Epstein represents so much of what Chomsky spent his career criticising, his friendship with the sex offender will leave a shameful stain on his legacy.
Featured image via the Canary
Thousands of families missing out
A Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) impact assessment has revealed that roughly 50,000 families who are currently affected by the two-child limit won’t actually be any better off once the cap is removed in April. This is due to the separate, overall benefit cap, which limits the total amount a single household can receive.
Likewise, another 20,000 families won’t receive the full benefit of the two-child cap’s removal, as it would take them above the overall limit.
The overall cap is currently frozen, and hasn’t increase with inflation since 2023. As things stand, the upper limit on benefits is currently £22,020 for a couple with children.
Worse still, it will remain in place for the coming fiscal year 2026/2027. MPs are only under a statutory obligation to review this limit every 5 years.
‘It’s not enough’
The DWP’s assessment underscores a warning issued last week by independent social change organisation the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. It stated that, even in spite of the removal of the two-child benefit cap, 4.2 million kids will still grow up in poverty by 2029.
Iain Porter, a senior policy adviser at the JRF, said:
It’s good news that the government has begun the process of reducing child poverty and the removal of the 2-child-limit for Universal Credit is a undoubtedly a step in the right direction.
But on its own it’s not enough.
Our analysis shows child poverty will fall sharply in April, but then stall. By the end of the parliament there will still be around 4m children in poverty – unless the government takes additional steps. An immediate and obvious step is to address the damage done by the benefit cap, which leaves families in hardship.”
The foundation urged the government to adopt a ‘protected minimum floor’ for Universal Credit. This would set a limit on payment reductions such as the overall benefit cap or debt deductions. Likewise, the JRF also called for an ‘essentials guarantee’, ensuring that benefit payments meet a minimum standard of living costs.
The second reading of the Universal Credit Bill brings us that bit closer to seeing the ruinous two-child cap scrapped, as it should have been all along.
However, as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned, Labour has much more work to do if they’re serious about their plans to tackle child poverty across the UK.
Featured image via Unsplash/the Canary
FIFA President Gianni Infantino’s statements regarding the possibility of reviewing the suspension of Russia’s participation in international competitions have reignited a broad debate about the consistency of FIFA’s standards in dealing with armed conflicts.
Both FIFA and UEFA suspended the participation of Russian national teams and clubs in February 2022, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. At the time, FIFA said the move was aimed at protecting the integrity of competitions and ensuring the safety of participants. However, Infantino has spent the intervening years courting Donald Trump’s hateful regime ahead of the next world cup in the US. Now, Infantino has claimed that banning Russia “achieved nothing” and instead contributed to increased “frustration and hatred.” He went on to claim that allowing Russian children to play football outside their country could be “a positive thing.”
‘Irresponsible and Childish Statements’
Infantino’s remarks were met with sharp criticism from Ukrainian Sports Minister Matvey Bidny, who argued that Infantino’s remarks disconnected football from the reality of a war that continues to claim civilian lives, including children.
The Ukrainian minister pointed out that Russia is politicizing sports and using them to justify its aggression, emphasizing that his position aligns with that of the Ukrainian Football Federation, which also warns against Russia’s return to international competitions.
He described Infantino’s recent statements regarding the possibility of lifting the ban on Russia as “irresponsible” and “childish,” given the ongoing Russian war on Ukraine, adding:
As long as the Russians continue to kill Ukrainians and politicize sports, there is no place for their flag or their national symbols among those who respect the values of justice, integrity, and fair play.
Inevitable questions
These stances have brought to the forefront comparisons with FIFA’s handling of Israel’s genocide in Palestine. Just as with the above invasion, Israel have continued their settler colonial domination of Palestinian territory, and murdered footballers and other sports people. Passionate pleas from human rights organisations, players unions, and football fans calling for FIFA to ban Israel have gone ignored.
Critics argue that FIFA, which emphasizes its commitment to the principle of “not politicizing sport” in the case of Gaza, has adopted a different and more decisive stance in the case of Russia, raising questions about the application of the same standards in different conflicts.
Human rights reports indicate widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure in Gaza, including sports facilities, in addition to a large number of casualties among athletes and children. Nevertheless, FIFA continues to assert that it is closely monitoring the situation and addressing it through internal mechanisms without resorting to suspensions or sanctions.
As calls for accountability for violations of international humanitarian law persist, FIFA’s handling of the situations in Ukraine and Gaza is seen as a true test of its credibility as a global body that claims to uphold the values of justice, integrity, and impartiality.
Based on its current showing, FIFA is a craven and corrupt organisation who values the lives of white people over and above the lives of Palestinians.
Featured image via the Canary
The US Department of Justice has released three million ‘Epstein files’, exposing horrific crimes against children by US, Israeli, and other elites. However the Department of Justice’s deputy head has confirmed in a speech that his department is withholding much of the worst:
What has already been released from the Epstein files includes admissions of torture and witness statements about rape, murder and violence toward children, mostly girls.
And Blanche admits that it includes photographic evidence of maiming, torture, rape – and murder.
All perpetrators must be exposed. There isn’t a punishment strong enough both for those who’ve carried out these heinous crimes, and those who’ve enabled them or looked the other way. The whole system that has enabled and protected them must be dismantled.
Featured image via the Canary
In a new interview with the Times, Peter Mandelson has spoken about his decision to resign from the Labour Party. It’s apparent from his latest comments, that the disgraced lord gives no shits about anything besides his own feelings:
EXCLUSIVE
Lord Mandelson interview with @katyballs, who spoke to him both before and after the release of thousands of new Epstein emails
* On resigning from Labour. ‘The decision wasn’t easy but I feel better for it as I need to reset. I am a New Labour person and always…
— Steven Swinford (@Steven_Swinford) February 2, 2026
Blood brothers
Mandelson is currently floundering after the latest instalment of the Epstein Files exposes more details about his relationship to the deceased paedophile.
Bank statements, released in the files, show three unexplained payments totalling $75,000 from Epstein’s JP Morgan accounts to Mandelson in 2003 and 2004.
During his tenure as business secretary in 2009, Mandelson allegedly forwarded confidential UK government documents to Epstein. The documents detailed £20bn in potential asset sales. Owing to these revelations, Mandelson is currently under investigation by the London Metropolitan Police for misconduct while in office.
Now, Mandelson has spoken about the latest Epstein Files, as summarised by the Times’ political editor, Steven Swinford.
Lord Mandelson interview with [Katy Balls], who spoke to him both before and after the release of thousands of new Epstein emails
* On resigning from Labour. ‘The decision wasn’t easy but I feel better for it as I need to reset. I am a New Labour person and always will be wherever the current party situates itself. But I think I want a sea change. I want to be more an outsider looking in than the other way round. I want to contribute ideas that enable Britain to strengthen and to work for all, in every part of the country’
* On being sacked: ‘It felt like being killed without actually dying. It’s a unique experience. I mean, I’m navigating the experience because I have really good friends who are helping me do so, starting with Reinaldo more than anyone else’
* Says Epstein is ‘muck that you can’t get off your shoe… Like dog muck, the smell never goes away’
* On the $10,000 his partner accepted for an osteopathy course while he was business secretary. ‘In retrospect, it was clearly a lapse in our collective judgment for Reinaldo to accept this offer. At the time it was not a consequential decision
‘The idea that giving Reinaldo an osteopath bursary is going to sway mine or anyone else’s views about banking policy is risible.* What drew him to Epstein? ‘He was a classic sociopath. Outwardly, completely charming and engaging. He was very clever’
* Mandelson also says Epstein threw good dinner parties. ‘I remember one of the two dinner parties of his I went to. I sat next to someone in charge of brain research at Harvard. I was sitting opposite the founders of Google. At the other end of the table was Bill Gates. I think I also brushed past Noam Chomsky on a later date’
* On giving evidence to Congress: ‘There is nothing I can tell Congress about Epstein they don’t already know. I had no exposure to the criminal aspects of his life’
Mandelson refuses to take accountability
The public reaction to the article has not been positive, to put it mildly:
The sheer fact Mandelson is still being treated softly enough to do chummy at home interviews is a sign of how untouchable he apparently remains. Guy’s under investigation by the Met but gets a magazine profile like he’s a game show host https://t.co/pXlU0YbxhP pic.twitter.com/aGnxJgR9yl
— Ross McCafferty (@RossMcCaff) February 2, 2026
Let us no forget that this morning Labour sent out its people to argue there was no need for any kind of investigation into Mandelson and to bat away suggestions he lose his peerage.
Neither line last through lunch!!— Andrew Neil (@afneil) February 2, 2026
And, worryingly, Mandelson appears keen to continue working in the public sphere:
NEW: Mandelson still wanted to come back to civic life as recently as LAST NIGHT.
Iv with @katyballs – this is from their call after he resigned his membership https://t.co/WSViSzJoF1 pic.twitter.com/uZBuXsCKlR— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) February 2, 2026
Well, he’s not sorry
Given his repeated refusals to apologise, it’s clear the disgraced Lord doesn’t give a shit about his past with Epstein — beyond the damage it’s done to his reputation. Leaving the Labour party appears to be little more than a symbolic gesture — a temporary retreat from the public spotlight, in other words.
Mandelson must now be stripped of his lordship and face criminal scrutiny for what his actions.
Featured image via Epstein Files
Tyson Expects Pressure on Cattle Herds for Foreseeable Future
Trading Bot Bankr Expands to Solana with Token Launches on Raydium
Kim Kardashian And F1 Legend Lewis Hamilton Have Gone On A ‘Few Dates’
-
Crypto World5 days agoSmart energy pays enters the US market, targeting scalable financial infrastructure
-
Crypto World5 days agoSoftware stocks enter bear market on AI disruption fear with ServiceNow plunging 10%
-
Politics5 days agoWhy is the NHS registering babies as ‘theybies’?
-
Crypto World5 days agoAdam Back says Liquid BTC is collateralized after dashboard problem
-
Video1 day agoWhen Money Enters #motivation #mindset #selfimprovement
-
NewsBeat5 days agoDonald Trump Criticises Keir Starmer Over China Discussions
-
Crypto World4 days agoU.S. government enters partial shutdown, here’s how it impacts bitcoin and ether
-
Politics2 days agoSky News Presenter Criticises Lord Mandelson As Greedy And Duplicitous
-
Sports3 days agoSinner battles Australian Open heat to enter last 16, injured Osaka pulls out
-
Fashion4 days agoWeekend Open Thread – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World3 days agoBitcoin Drops Below $80K, But New Buyers are Entering the Market
-
Crypto World2 days agoMarket Analysis: GBP/USD Retreats From Highs As EUR/GBP Enters Holding Pattern
-
Crypto World4 days agoKuCoin CEO on MiCA, Europe entering new era of compliance
-
Business4 days ago
Entergy declares quarterly dividend of $0.64 per share
-
Sports2 days agoShannon Birchard enters Canadian curling history with sixth Scotties title
-
NewsBeat20 hours agoUS-brokered Russia-Ukraine talks are resuming this week
-
NewsBeat2 days agoGAME to close all standalone stores in the UK after it enters administration
-
Crypto World5 hours agoRussia’s Largest Bitcoin Miner BitRiver Enters Bankruptcy Proceedings: Report
-
Crypto World5 days agoWhy AI Agents Will Replace DeFi Dashboards
-
Tech4 days agoVery first Apple check & early Apple-1 motherboard sold for $5 million combined