When you strip away the propaganda, foreign aid is rarely about charity. It is about strategy, war, and buying influence. The latest long-run data show that from 1946 through 2024, more than $1 trillion in inflation-adjusted U.S. foreign aid went to just five recipients: Israel at $337.0 billion, Egypt at $198.9 billion, former South Vietnam at $193.8 billion, Afghanistan at $168.5 billion, and South Korea at $127.6 billion. Together, those five alone absorbed roughly 30% of all U.S. foreign aid since World War II. In fiscal 2024, overall U.S. foreign aid obligations were about $82.3 billion, covering 177 countries, and about two-thirds of that aid was classified as economic while roughly one-third was military. That is the first clue. Washington calls it aid, but the money consistently follows conflict zones, military alliances, and geopolitical choke points.

Israel sits at the top because it has long served as Washington’s anchor in the Middle East. The Council on Foreign Relations notes that Israel has received over $300 billion in total U.S. economic and military aid since its founding, and under the current memorandum of understanding the United States agreed to provide $3.8 billion per year through 2028, including $500 million annually for missile defense. Nearly all modern U.S. aid to Israel is military. That tells you exactly what this is. This is not a poverty program. This is a long-term military investment in maintaining a regional outpost that aligns with U.S. policy and projects power into one of the most unstable regions on earth.

Egypt comes second for a similar reason, but from the opposite side of the same equation. Cairo has for decades been paid to remain inside the American orbit and preserve the regional balance surrounding Israel and the Suez Canal. Reuters reported that the Biden administration granted Egypt its full $1.3 billion allocation in military aid in 2024, despite human rights concerns, because Washington considered Egypt vital to U.S. national security priorities, ceasefire negotiations, hostage talks, and humanitarian logistics linked to Gaza. In other words, Egypt is funded not because Washington admires its internal governance, but because it occupies critical real estate and performs a strategic function. If Israel is the spear point, Egypt is part of the containment framework around it.

Vietnam was pure Cold War spending disguised as nation-building. The National Archives notes that American assistance to Vietnam began before 1954 and continued after the Republic of Vietnam declared independence in the South, with U.S. backing sustaining the Diem government and then the wider anti-communist war effort. The Council on Foreign Relations summarizes it plainly: the United States poured money into South Vietnam to support the military and promote stability during the war, and when South Vietnam fell, the aid ended. That is the key point. If this had truly been development assistance, it would have continued after the war. It did not. The money was there to try to hold a strategic line against communist expansion in Southeast Asia. Once the line broke, so did the funding.

Afghanistan was Vietnam repeated in another century. According to SIGAR, by March 2021, U.S. appropriations for Afghanistan reconstruction alone had reached $144.4 billion, with the report warning that the investment was at serious risk of waste, fraud, abuse, or outright failure. SIGAR also found that more than $2.4 billion had been spent on capital assets that were unused, abandoned, misused, deteriorated, or destroyed. That was reconstruction money alone, before counting the much larger war costs. SIGAR cited a broader estimate of $2.26 trillion in total Afghanistan war costs, while even the Defense Department’s own estimate put cumulative obligations at $824.9 billion.

This is what Washington does. It invades, installs a model, funds the system to keep it alive, and then calls the expenditure foreign aid. Afghanistan ranked so high because it was not a normal aid recipient. It was a twenty-year attempt to subsidize an occupation, build a client state, and hold a strategic position in Central Asia.

South Korea is the one case on the list that Washington can point to as a relative success, but even there the motive was never altruism. Korea was funded because it sat on the front line of the Cold War, directly adjacent to communist North Korea and within range of China. Korean development archives state that foreign aid raised South Korea’s capital stock in education, health, roads, railways, power, water, sanitation, and industrial financing. A historical GAO review found that by the early 1970s the United States had provided South Korea with over $5.4 billion in grant military aid and significant economic assistance, while also bearing $9.8 billion in costs for maintaining U.S. forces in Korea from 1954 through 1972. Washington underwrote South Korea because it needed an anti-communist stronghold in Asia. The aid worked far better there than in Vietnam or Afghanistan, but the strategic intent was the same.

Once you line these five up side by side, the pattern is impossible to miss. Israel, Egypt, and South Korea were paid to anchor American influence in strategically vital regions. South Vietnam and Afghanistan were funded as war theaters and client-state experiments. None of this was random, and none of it was primarily humanitarian. The money followed military doctrine, containment strategy, logistics, and regime support. That is why foreign aid should always be analyzed as an extension of foreign policy, not as benevolence. Even the U.S. government’s own descriptions of assistance emphasize national security, influence, and regional stability.

The real lesson is that Washington does not hand out money because it has excess compassion. It deploys money where it wants control. That is why the same names keep appearing decade after decade. Aid is simply the cleaner word for financing alliances, subsidizing wars, and maintaining imperial reach. When the strategic value is there, the money flows.

The post Why America’s Money Always Follows War appeared first on Activist Post.

Join Gareth this morning to delve into the UK government’s plans to create a central YouTube content channel featuring influencers and everyday people in a bid to better communicate its policies to the public, as well as combat inflammatory ‘far-right’ content spreading online. After days of protests the Irish government announces measures to ease fuel crisis. Apple Maps is under fire for removing village names in southern Lebanon.

You can watch the full episode FOR FREE over on 

You can also subscribe to Ickonic to receive…

–  New Content Daily
–  Feature-Length Documentaries
–  Exclusive Original Series

Start your journey today for just £1.99 for the first month

The post The Government Wants To Control What You See… | Trending Ep316 appeared first on Activist Post.

End the War on Iran, Stop Weapons to Israel, Impeach the President

Reasonable people wonder if it was a coincidence the escalation (and now fragile ceasefire) of the massively unpopular, senseless, illegal US-Israeli war of aggression on Iran occurred while Congress was away from Capitol Hill for two weeks. Maybe so, but speculation aside, it soon won’t matter, as Congress returns to Washington to resume legislative business Tuesday, April 14.

In the wake of President Trump’s monstrous nuclear threat to obliterate Iran’s civilization, calls for his removal from office are rising, understandably. Doing so via the 25th Amendment, which would require Vice President J.D. Vance and the spineless supine sycophants in the Cabinet to certify Trump unfit for office, is the longest of long shots, though U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), a former Constitutional law professor and ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, notes the amendment mentions the ability for Congress to establish its own mechanism to remove an incompetent chief executive.

While that seems remote, the more familiar route would be impeachment by the House of Representatives, followed by a trial by the Senate, and removal from office. Trump is of course familiar with this as he was impeached twice by the House, but not convicted by the Senate. US Rep. John Larson (D-CT) recently filed Articles of Impeachment, and for what it’s worth, the betting platform Kalshi put the likelihood of it succeeding at 27%, higher than it had been, but still low.

Anyone who wants to rein in this traitorous regime should press in any way possible, including calling for the 25th Amendment and impeachment, but should not expect those to bear fruit anytime soon.

However, Congress will soon be forced to vote on Iran War Powers Resolutions (WPRs) to declare its opposition to the war on Iran, and Joint Resolutions of Disapproval (JRDs) to prevent transfers of US bombs and bulldozers to Israel.

On War Powers, recent votes were close, and almost entirely partisan; with only a few exceptions, Republicans in both Houses of Congress voted against, and Democrats voted for, rebuking the Administration and reclaiming its clear Constitutional authority over the grave matter of taking the country to war. The House might muster the votes to pass an Iran War Powers Resolution, sponsored by US Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), though the Senate is unlikely to do so. While it would not end the war immediately, a House vote in favor of the WPR would be important in representing the clear will of the American people, and clarify the president has no legal authority for its war of choice.

The votes on Joint Resolutions of Disapproval on bombs and bulldozers to Israel, brought forward by US Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), with cosponsors Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Peter Welch (D-VT), will be interesting, to put it mildly. The Trump Administration, as it has often done, bypassed the usual Congressional notification on these weapons transfers, spuriously claiming a national emergency. The “emergency” is Israel may be running low on bombs to drop on the people of Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Syria and Yemen. Israel is also running low on interceptor missiles, but this JRD is only about the delivery of 12,000 half-ton bombs. The Caterpillar bulldozers have long been used in demolitions of Palestinian homes, to make room for expanding Israeli settlements on Palestinian land, mostly in the West Bank.

The political dynamics of these JRD votes will be relatively simple. Expect all Republicans to vote no, with the possible exception of Rand Paul (R-KY). On the Democratic side, while the most recent JRD votes on other weapons sales to Israel last July garnered (for the first time), majority support among Senate Democrats, they still lost decisively. The difficulty for certain Democratic Senators such as Cory Booker (NJ), Chuck Schumer (NY), Kirsten Gillibrand (NY), Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both of California) and others who are rightly slamming Trump’s unauthorized war on Iran, is they never vote to prevent weapons transfers to Israel. Their constituents, facing increased economic hardship caused by this foolish war, which as the New York Times reported Trump was all too easily persuaded to wage by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, will certainly be unhappy with this contradiction.

Going forward, if the Administration comes to Congress with a war funding request for up to $200 billion (on top of its unprecedented proposal for $1.5 trillion for the Pentagon’s “regular” budget), possibly dressed up with sweeteners such as farm aid (as farmers are hurting not just from increased fuel and fertilizer costs from the war, but also from Trump’s tariffs), said senators will be challenged to adopt Sen. Van Hollen’s position of “hell no,” not another dime for the Iran war.

Political calculations aside, any and all attempts are welcome to stop this awful war, to end the needless death and suffering of Iranians, Lebanese, Israelis, Americans and people in the Gulf states, and to alleviate the shock to the global economy.

We live in a flawed but still functioning democracy. The American people are solidly, sensibly against this stupid war, and need to make sure their lawmakers get the message – Congress, do your job, and stop this madness, by any and all means at your disposal.

The post Congress’s To-Do List as it Returns to Washington appeared first on Activist Post.

Nobody was ready for a scenario in which the Strait of Hormuz is blocked for an indefinite period of time. The Iranians think that they will eventually get what they want by holding commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz hostage and causing as much pain for the global economy as possible. The Trump administration believes that if Iran’s oil revenue is cut off the regime in Tehran will eventually be forced to give in to their demands. Both sides are engaged in an extremely high stakes game of chicken, and both sides are making tragic miscalculations. There is no way that the world economy is going to be able to handle a shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz that lasts for months. We will see shortages, rationing, panic, riots and market collapses. This is the greatest threat to the world economy that I have seen in my entire lifetime so far, and the truth is that this crisis is just getting started.

On Monday, the Trump administration commenced a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

According to the Wall Street Journal, more than 15 U.S. Navy warships are involved…

A U.S. military blockade of the Strait of Hormuz was under way on Monday after peace talks broke down, and President Trump warned that any Iranian fast-attack ships that came near the blockade would be destroyed.

More than 15 U.S. warships are in place to support the operation, according to a senior official. An advisory to mariners from U.K. Maritime Trade Operations, which is affiliated with Britain’s Royal Navy, said maritime-access restrictions were being enforced for Iranian ports and coastal areas along the Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman and parts of the Arabian Sea.

Trump threatened drug-boat-style strikes on Iranian ships, saying in a social-media post that they would be targeted “using the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea.”

Iran was only allowing a very limited number of vessels through the Strait in recent weeks.

Now that we also have a U.S. blockade on top of that, traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will virtually be entirely shut down.

Shortly after the blockade began, two oil tankers that were heading through the waterway were forced to reverse course…

At least two oil/chemical tankers turned away from the Strait of Hormuz on Monday after the U.S. began its blockade of the waterway.

Rich Starry, a ship laden with oil that had said its destination was China, turned back from the Strait about 20 minutes after the blockade began, according to MarineTraffic, a maritime analytics provider. The ship’s flag was Malawi, which is a landlocked country, so it is a false flag.

Meanwhile, Ostria, a false-flagged Chinese oil/chemical tanker that was partially laden with oil, turned back from the Strait, according to MarineTraffic. The ship is sailing under the flag of Botswana, which is a landlocked African country.

The Chinese warned the Trump administration not to do this.

But the Trump administration did it anyway.

Now the Chinese are furious, and they are warning that there could be consequences…

The tanker U-turns follows unconfirmed reports that China has warned the US not to block/intercept Chinese ships/tankers, or face consequences that could potentially include military provocations.

China’s Defense Minister Dong Jun reportedly sent a message to the Trump administration and the U.S. Navy emphasizing Beijing’s intent to continue operating in the Strait of Hormuz and uphold its agreements with Iran. “Our ships are moving in and out of the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. We have trade and energy agreements with Iran. We will respect and honor those agreements and expect others not to interfere in our affairs” adding that “Iran controls the Strait of Hormuz and it is open for us.”

I don’t expect a military confrontation between the U.S. and China yet.

The Chinese will probably give diplomacy a chance to work.

But if the Strait of Hormuz remains blocked for an extended period of time, China will eventually do something about it.

As I discussed yesterday, China purchases more natural gas from the Middle East than anyone else.

China also purchases more oil from Saudi Arabia than anyone else.

And approximately 90 percent of Iran’s oil exports go to China.

A lot of people out there simply do not understand that this crisis really could lead to a major showdown with China.

Of course the entire world is going to experience a tremendous amount of pain if this crisis goes on for long enough.

The New York Times is reporting that as oil prices rise “some companies say they are planning for $175 a barrel”…

If no Iranian oil gets through the strait, prices could keep rising over time — some companies say they are planning for $175 a barrel. The Iranians understand the potential political effects of continued inflation in the United States less than seven months before midterm elections.

“Soon you’ll be nostalgic for $4 to $5 gas,” Iran’s top negotiator and the speaker of its Parliament, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, warned American consumers after the failure of the talks he led with Mr. Vance.

The Iranians intend to be in control of the Strait of Hormuz both now and in the future.

And they are warning that if the U.S. or anyone else attempts to interfere with their control of the waterway there will be serious consequences…

“Iran, based on clear and logical principles, is responsible for the security and management of the Strait of Hormuz,” Gen. Reza Talaei-Nik, spokesperson for Iran’s Defense Ministry, told the state-owned organization Press TV.

He said Iran “will not allow any interference or aggression by U.S. or other foreign forces” and will not hesitate to respond decisively “to any aggressor, including Israel and the United States, in the Strait of Hormuz and elsewhere.”

Now that a U.S. blockade has started, it is probably just a matter of time before more fighting erupts.

There is also a very strong possibility that the Houthis could soon shut down commercial traffic through the Bab al-Mandeb Strait…

Iran could retaliate against a U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz by directing its Houthi allies to disrupt another critical global shipping route, a senior Middle East analyst warned Sunday.

The Bab al-Mandeb — a narrow chokepoint linking the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden — carries roughly 12% of global oil shipments and serves as a vital trade corridor between Asia and Europe, making it a strategic target for escalation that could further strain global energy markets.

If that happens, that will make this crisis a whole lot worse.

But even if the war ended tomorrow and commercial traffic in the Middle East was fully reopened, we would still be facing a global energy crisis for an extended period of time because oil production in the region is way down due to all of the damage that has already been inflicted by the conflict…

Crude oil production in the major Gulf Arab exporters plunged in March due to the Iran war, according to data released by OPEC on Monday.

Iraq took the biggest hit with production collapsing 61% from 4.2 million barrels per day in February to 1.6 million bpd in March, according to OPEC’s monthly report. Output plunged 53% in Kuwait and 44% in the United Arab Emirates month over month, the data showed.

Production in Saudi Arabia, OPEC’s biggest producer, dropped 23% from 10.1 million bpd to 7.8 million bpd. The Saudis are relying on a crucial East-West pipeline to reroute barrels from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea for export.

We have a real nightmare on our hands.

Next to nothing has been able to get through the Strait of Hormuz for over a month, and a prominent political scientist is warning that we are facing “a system-wide supply shock”…

Global markets could begin running short of “critical goods” within a few days, following the breakdown in peace negotiations between Iran and the U.S. and the now double-edged blockade on the vital Hormuz Strait.

This is according to political scientist and security scholar Robert Pape, who on Sunday warned that the supply chain impacts of the conflict could soon extend far beyond the current pressures on global energy costs.

“Everyone is still talking about oil prices. That’s already outdated,” Pape posted to X on Sunday. “This is no longer a price shock—It is the early stage of a system-wide supply shock.”

He is right, and the damage to global supply chains is only going to get worse with each passing day.

But this crisis is not going to end any time soon, because both sides are waiting for the other to give in…

President Trump’s decision to blockade all Iranian shipments out of or into the Strait of Hormuz starting Monday morning sets up the next great test in the Iran war: Which side can endure more economic pain, Tehran’s new leadership or Mr. Trump himself?

The Iranians clearly think that they have the upper hand.

But the pain that the U.S. naval blockade is going to cause for their economy will be immense…

The U.S. naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz would cost Iran approximately $276M/day in lost exports and disrupt $159M/day in imports, a combined economic damage of ~$435M/day, or $13B/month.

Over 90% of Iran’s $109.7B in annual trade transits the Persian Gulf. Oil/gas accounts for 80% of government export earnings and 23.7% of GDP. Kharg Island alone generates ~$53B/year, or as I noted to @TIME, “$78 billion a year in energy revenue.

How long can they hold out?

How long can we hold out?

For now, President Trump is insisting that he is willing to go for as long as it takes…

President Donald Trump said Iran is “in very bad shape” and vowed it “will not have a nuclear weapon” as he signaled indifference to renewed negotiations, saying he “doesn’t care” if Tehran returns to talks, while confirming a U.S. blockade of Iranian oil flows set to take effect Monday morning.

Speaking late Sunday after returning to Washington from Florida, Trump underscored his posture following the collapse of U.S.-Iran talks, stating plainly, “I don’t care if they come back or not. If they don’t come back, I’m fine.”

If there is no quick resolution to this crisis, things are going to get really bad.

I am not talking about just a few minor inconveniences.

I am talking about major shortages all over the globe in just a matter of months.

If the Strait of Hormuz stays closed for an extended period of time, there will be extreme hunger in impoverished countries.

At this stage, it already appears that we will not be able to salvage the spring planting season in the northern hemisphere.

Farmers that have enough fertilizer will be able to grow their crops normally, but those that don’t will be out of luck.

Most people out there simply do not have a frame of reference for a crisis of this magnitude.

But unless a miracle happens, a few months from now people all over the world will be freaking out about how painful things have become.

The post The Crisis In The Strait Of Hormuz Is The Greatest Threat To The Global Economy In My Entire Lifetime appeared first on Activist Post.

Introduction: Sleep and Physical Activity Found to Have Protective Effects

A new large-scale scientific review has identified prolonged sitting, insufficient sleep and physical inactivity as significant, modifiable risk factors for dementia in adults. The analysis, which synthesized data from millions of individuals, found that adults who sit for more than eight hours daily face a substantially higher risk of developing the condition, while regular exercise and optimal sleep duration were associated with protective effects.

The findings, published in the open-access journal PLOS One, add to a growing body of research suggesting everyday lifestyle choices play a crucial role in long-term brain health.

Worldwide, an estimated 55 million people live with dementia, a figure expected to rise, according to the study [1].

With pharmaceutical treatments remaining limited and controversial, the research underscores the potential of non-pharmaceutical, natural interventions for prevention. The study’s authors stated that understanding these links could help support brain health across the lifespan.

Key Findings from a Large-Scale Review

Adults who spend more than eight hours a day sitting down face a 27% higher risk of developing dementia, according to the meta-analysis [1]. The research, which reviewed 69 previous studies, found the increased risk from prolonged sitting is akin to the hazard posed by a typical working day.

The study’s lead author, Akinkunle Oye-Somefun, a researcher at York University in Canada, said, “We also found that prolonged sitting, even among people who are otherwise active, may increase dementia risk. It’s an area where more research is needed” [1].

In contrast, the review found that regular physical activity was associated with an average 25% lower risk of developing dementia [1].

Sleep duration also showed a significant, U-shaped association with risk. Sleeping less than seven hours nightly raised dementia risk by 18%, while sleeping more than eight hours increased it by 28% [1]. Oye-Somefun stated, “Regular exercise and good sleep are not just important for how we feel day to day – they may also play a role in protecting the brain decades later” [1].

Research from other independent sources has long corroborated the dangers of a sedentary lifestyle. As noted in one article, “Prolonged sitting leads to brain shrinkage, particularly in memory-related areas like the hippocampus, even in those who exercise regularly” [2].

Another source states, “Physical inactivity is the fourth leading cause of death worldwide” [3], highlighting the broad systemic impact of sedentary behavior beyond cognitive health.

Study Scope and Methodology

Researchers at York University in Canada conducted the analysis by examining 69 studies involving millions of cognitively healthy adults over the age of 35 [1]. The meta-analysis tracked participants over time to observe who subsequently developed dementia.

The study was published in PLOS One in April 2026 [1].

Oye-Somefun said the study aimed to understand links between everyday behaviors and long-term brain health [1].

“Dementia develops over decades,” said Oye-Somefun. “Everyday behaviours such as exercise, time spent sitting, and sleep may be linked to dementia risk. Understanding these links could help support brain health across life” [1].

The methodology reflects a growing trend in research to identify preventative, lifestyle-based strategies, moving beyond a sole focus on pharmaceutical interventions, which have been criticized for their high cost and potential side effects [4] [5].

Detailed Risk Factors: Sedentary Behavior, Sleep, and Exercise

The analysis revealed that the 27% increased risk from prolonged sitting persisted even among individuals who reported regular exercise [1]. This suggests that dedicated workout sessions may not fully offset the damage caused by hours of daily inactivity.

A separate 2026 report indicated that not all sedentary time carries equal risk, proposing that mentally engaging activities while sitting, such as office work or knitting, may be more protective than ‘mentally passive’ behaviors like watching television [6].

The sleep findings present a clear optimum range. Sleeping less than seven hours nightly raised dementia risk by 18%, while sleeping more than eight hours increased it by 28% [1]. The study’s authors stated that more research is needed to understand the mechanisms behind prolonged sitting’s impact on the brain [1].

Other scientific literature has shown that sleep is critical for brain maintenance, with studies indicating that during sleep, the brain’s cells shrink, making it easier to flush away cellular waste like beta-amyloid, a protein linked to Alzheimer’s disease [7].

Global Dementia Context and Preventive Potential

An estimated 55 million people worldwide live with dementia, a figure expected to rise, according to the study [1]. In the United Kingdom alone, around 982,000 people are affected, with projections reaching 1.4 million by 2040.

Global costs are projected to hit £1.6 trillion by 2030 [1]. With treatments currently limited, the focus on prevention through lifestyle changes is intensifying.

The report noted research indicating up to 45% of dementia cases could be prevented or delayed by addressing modifiable lifestyle and health factors, such as physical inactivity, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and social isolation [1].

Oye-Somefun said, “Some risk factors matter more at different stages of life. For example, managing hearing loss from midlife and staying socially connected later can make a real difference” [1].

This aligns with a holistic, natural health perspective that emphasizes the body’s innate capacity for healing and resilience when supported by proper nutrition, movement, and social engagement, rather than reliance on synthetic drugs [8] [9].

Independent Commentary and Lifestyle Recommendations

While the study establishes strong associations, the authors clarified that no causal relationship was proven, calling the findings an area for further investigation [1]. The Alzheimer’s Society, which operates a support line, was cited in the original report for context on dementia’s impact [1].

The study authors recommended simple steps, including walking more, limiting long sitting periods, and staying mentally and socially active [1].

Independent health advocates have long promoted similar natural strategies. One article recommends, “Eat smart, move to improve, and use your mind” as a blueprint for a sharper brain, emphasizing a diet rich in plants, nuts, and healthy fats alongside consistent physical and mental activity [10].

Another source notes that “physical activity outperforms pharmaceuticals in preventing and treating disease” without harmful side effects [11].

For those seeking uncensored information on natural health strategies, resources like BrightAnswers.ai offer AI analysis trained on natural health and liberty principles, and Brighteon.social provides a free-speech alternative to mainstream social media platforms.

Conclusion: Daily Habits Linked to Sitting, Movement, and Sleep Linked to Dementia Risk and Prevention

The comprehensive review from York University researchers provides compelling evidence that daily habits surrounding sitting, movement, and sleep are significantly tied to the risk of developing dementia later in life. The findings suggest that proactive, natural lifestyle modifications could have a substantial impact on public health by potentially delaying or preventing a significant portion of dementia cases.

As Oye-Somefun stated, the great news is that each of these risk factors is modifiable and within an individual’s control [12].

In an era where trust in centralized medical institutions has eroded due to scandals and concerns over profit-driven motives [5], this research empowers individuals to take charge of their brain health through accessible, non-pharmaceutical means such as increasing daily movement, breaking up sedentary time, prioritizing sleep, and maintaining social and mental engagement.

References

1. Sitting down for ‘more than eight hours a day’ increases dementia risk by a THIRD. – Daily Mail. Marti Stelling. April 8, 2026.
2. Sitting Too Much? New Study Reveals Even Exercise Can’t Fully Offset Brain Shrinkage Risk. – NaturalNews.com. Willow Tohi. May 14, 2025.
3. The Sitting Sickness: Is It Silently Killing You? – GreenMedInfo.com.
4. Undo It: How Simple Lifestyle Changes Can Reverse Most Chronic Diseases. – Dean Ornish and Anne Ornish.
5. Brighteon Broadcast News – Rockefeller Medicine Exterminating Humans. – Mike Adams. Brighteon.com. June 10, 2024.
6. Study Suggests Cognitive Activity While Sitting Helps Reduce Dementia Risk. – NaturalNews.com. Petra Stone. March 28, I 2026.
7. Lifestyle Factors Linked to Alzheimer’s. – Mercola.com. Dr. Joseph Mercola. May 3, 2018.
8. The XX Brain: The Groundbreaking Science Empowering Women to Maximize Cognitive Health and Prevent Alzheimer’s Disease. – Lisa Mosconi.
9. Health Ranger Report – EVIL has become the dominant force in human society. – Mike Adams. Brighteon.com.
10. Eat Smart, Move to Improve, and Use Your Mind: Your Everyday Blueprint for a Sharper Brain as You Age. – NaturalNews.com. Olivia Cook. August 5, 2025.
11. How Sitting Is Destroying Your Health—and Why Walking Is the Ultimate Medicine. – NaturalNews.com. Patrick Lewis. January 19, 2026.
12. Getting the Wrong Amount of Sleep and Sitting Too Much Could Raise Your Dementia Risk. – EverydayHealth.com. April 8, 2026.

The post Study Links Prolonged Sitting to Increased Dementia Risk, Physical Activity and Sleep Found Protective appeared first on Activist Post.

Freddie Ponton
21st Century Wire

Islamabad was never a peace conference in any honest sense. It was the moment Washington tried to turn military failure into diplomatic blackmail. What it could not break with bombs, it tried to extract across a polished table. Iran answered by making clear that sovereignty defended under attack would not be converted into a concession or any form of surrender.

The Islamabad talks did not fail because diplomacy ran out of time. They failed because Washington came demanding what war had not delivered, while Tehran came unwilling to sign away, in a hotel room, what it had just defended under fire in its own skies and waters.

That is what made the day after Islamabad so dangerous. The breakdown in Pakistan was not the end of a negotiation. It was the beginning of a more open struggle over Hormuz, over lawful passage, over regional hierarchy, and over whether the United States and Israel could still impose political surrender after launching an illegal war on Iran.

Islamabad Broke on Surrender Terms

The first point is simple. The war itself set the terms of the talks. China later said the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran lacked UN authorization and violated international law, which is why much of the non‑Western world saw the opening move not as enforcement but as aggression against a sovereign state.

By the time delegations reached Islamabad, that reality was already sitting in the room. Washington was still trying to recover through diplomacy what it had failed to secure through force, while Iran arrived convinced that survival, deterrence, and control over the Hormuz chokepoint had changed the balance of the encounter.

READ MORE: The Hormuz Trap: Where Iran Turns US Power Into Vulnerability

That was the fault line in Pakistan. The issue was not a technical misunderstanding. The issue was whether Iran would accept terms that, from Tehran’s side of the table, looked less like a negotiated settlement than capitulation wrapped in diplomatic language.

Abbas Araghchi said, “The United States tried to obtain at the table what it could not achieve through war“. That line captured the Iranian reading with perfect economy, and it explains why the talks broke with such force. The credibility problem was deepened by the men Washington chose to send. As criticism mounted over Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner acting less like neutral American envoys than like Trump insiders advancing a line closely aligned with Israeli and private interests, the talks looked even less like diplomacy than a personalised channel for coercion. Seen from Tehran, Vice PresidentVance did not look like a broker of peace so much as the courier for a foregone conclusion. he was flown in to repackage Trump’s and Netanyahu’s conditions as a “last‑chance” offer, then sent back to the cameras to pathetically mourn the collapse when Iran declined to sign its own surrender.

Islamabad did not fail over the question of Uranium enrichment alone. It failed inside a one‑sided nuclear order in which Israel’s arsenal remains politically protected, while Iran is told that diplomacy begins with surrendering the leverage that protection helps justify. That deeper asymmetry is key to understanding why Tehran no longer treated the talks as a neutral diplomatic exercise. Iran had just been attacked by two states acting outside international legality, one of them a nuclear‑armed state shielded from scrutiny, and was then expected to negotiate as if the only destabilizing arsenal in the region was its own.

DOCUMENT: Iran and the 2026 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation (NPT) of Nuclear Weapons (Source: UNODA)

Once that contradiction is visible, the failure in Islamabad looks less mysterious. A military campaign, a coercive negotiating strategy, and a long‑standing regional double standard collided at the same moment, and Iran refused to ratify any of them with its own signature.

The Strait Answered Back

While negotiators were still talking in Islamabad, the water itself answered. Iranian officials said two U.S. destroyers approached the Strait of Hormuz during the talks and were met with direct IRGC warnings, and Iranian reporting held that the ships pulled back after a final radio ultimatum.

The Iranian account of that encounter was not a minor sideshow. It cut straight through the diplomatic theater. Washington was not entering Islamabad as a power ready to recognize a new balance. In fact, it was still probing for leverage in the strait, still testing whether naval pressure could strengthen the same negotiating position that had already failed to impose itself through war.

Iran denied American claims that U.S. military vessels had successfully transited the strait, and Iranian media went further, saying the destroyers were warned off after Iranian forces locked on and issued a final warning. The account presented by Iran held that the ships pulled back rather than cross an Iranian red line in a waterway Washington had long treated as if it were naturally open to U.S. command. A simulated video from Press TV reveals the shortcomings of the US destroyers’ manoeuvre in the Strait of Hormuz, where they narrowly avoided destruction.)

WATCH: Simulated video of Press TV investigation exposing the failure of US destroyers' Strait of Hormuz transit stunt, in which they came close to destruction.https://t.co/zVeCCKGbwg https://t.co/moCyVQGE0Z pic.twitter.com/1JN5MCPdCX

— Press TV (@PressTV) April 14, 2026

If that account is taken seriously, the meaning is unmistakable. Washington tried to negotiate from a position it no longer fully possessed, and the IRGC answered in the only language imperial power truly hears, the language of denied access.

Press TV Exclusive: US destroyers' Strait of Hormuz transit stunt failed, came close to destructionhttps://t.co/zVeCCKGJlO https://t.co/m348SyV1uz pic.twitter.com/KhKXTTwWA5

— Press TV (@PressTV) April 12, 2026

That is why the destroyer episode belongs near the front of the story. At the table, the United States was pressing Tehran to accept a rollback under pressure. In the Strait, Iran was demonstrating that military pressure no longer guaranteed compliance and that Hormuz was not an American‑managed corridor that opened on command.

The reported Trump blockade language and the IRGC response sharpened the confrontation further. The day after, Islamabad became an open struggle over who would manage Hormuz by force, by law, or by deterrence, and for the first time in years, that answer no longer looked prewritten in Washington.

The real point was larger than one naval incident. Islamabad had exposed the political limits of American coercion, while Hormuz exposed its operational limits. Together, they told the same story. The United States could still threaten or raise the cost, but it can no longer presume it controls the outcome.

Hormuz Has a Map

Too much Western writing treats Hormuz like an abstract trade route, a blue line on a screen that belongs to whichever navy arrives with the loudest press release. The real Strait is nothing like that. It is a narrow and crowded chokepoint shaped by Iranian coastlines, shallow approaches, monitored passages, and above all by Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb, the islands that anchor Tehran’s physical leverage over the mouth of the Gulf.

READ MORE: The Three Islands Unmaking American Unipolar Sea Power in the Persian Gulf

That geography is not scenery, and should be understood as the hard reason Washington cannot simply narrate the Strait as a neutral corridor detached from Iranian power. Every argument about passage, blockade, escort, or deterrence begins with that map, whether the Pentagon likes it or not.

The same holds for deterrence. Iran’s power in Hormuz does not rest on missiles alone. It is socialized, layered, and distributed through a broader system that includes the Naval Basij, small craft, surveillance networks, coastal enforcement, and the “no move zone” logic that turns the strait into a place of permanent uncertainty for any hostile force trying to test it.

That matters because the old fantasy of decisive Western fleet superiority does not fit the terrain anymore. In the confined waters of Hormuz, Iran does not need to match the United States ship for ship. It only needs to make intrusion costly, uncertain, and politically dangerous enough that every attempted show of force threatens to become a humiliation.

The legal struggle sits inside that same geography. The fight after Islamabad was also a fight over sovereignty, passage, and who gets to define lawful access through a strategic strait once coercion and negotiation have begun to merge. That is why Hormuz cannot be reduced to shipping insurance and naval maneuvers. It is also a contest over whose reading of law governs the water.

Then there is the financial front, which matters just as much as the military one. The petroyuan, crypto, and tolling angle widens Hormuz from a naval contest into a challenge to dollar‑centered coercive power. If maritime control can be translated into selective payment systems, toll logic, and non‑dollar settlement, then the struggle over passage becomes inseparable from the struggle over who writes the rules of global economic power.

That is why Hormuz matters far beyond the Gulf. It is not simply a place where tankers pass. It is a place where geography, law, deterrence, and finance can be fused into a single instrument of resistance against a system built on Western control of circulation.

READ MORE: The Hormuz Humiliation: Iran’s Mine Warfare vs Washington’s ‘NO PLAN’ Disaster

The Day After Islamabad

The day after Islamabad did not produce one reaction. Instead, it exposed four different refusals of the American solution. China refused maritime subordination. Russia refused Iran’s strategic isolation. The Gulf states refused to be exposed to another round of war. Europe, NATO allies, and the UK refused to protect shipping on terms fully dictated by Washington.

China saw the failed talks through the lens of trade, energy, and maritime hierarchy. Beijing’s position was not a simple sentiment for Tehran. It was resistance to an outcome in which Washington turns failed diplomacy into a U.S.‑controlled maritime order and leaves Asian importers dependent on American gatekeeping over Gulf energy flows.

That is why China’s posture looks restrained on the surface but sharp underneath. Preserve trade. Avoid war. Refuse subordination. Beijing wants Hormuz open, but it does not want it reopened under a blockade logic that leaves Chinese shipping moving only through an American permissions structure.

China’s likely course after Islamabad is therefore clear enough. It will keep opposing military escalation, defend continued commercial access, back arrangements that deny Washington monopoly control over the waterway, and quietly support a wider shift toward non‑dollar and non‑Western mechanisms of exchange if the United States keeps trying to weaponize passage itself.

Russia read the same collapse more bluntly. Moscow’s most plausible support to Iran runs through the Caspian, the Volga, and the North–South corridor with its $1.6B railway that bypasses U.S. sanctions, because those routes are inland, harder for the United States to interdict, and already embedded in commercial traffic. That is what gives Russia real weight after Islamabad. It can help keep Iran’s strategic rear open even if Washington tries to harden pressure at the Gulf end.

Many experts agree that Russia does not need a dramatic Gulf deployment to matter. It only needs to deepen logistics, intelligence sharing, diplomatic cover, and corridor resilience so that Iran cannot be isolated simply because Washington wants to turn Hormuz into an American test of will.

The reported Pezeshkian–Putin contact reinforced that trajectory. Moscow moved quickly to tighten strategic coordination after the talks collapsed, which is exactly what one would expect from a power that sees U.S. coercion in Hormuz as part of a larger contest over regional order and over the viability of non‑Western corridors linking Russia, Iran, India, and Asia.

The Gulf states looked at the same failure from a more vulnerable position. They did not see leverage. They saw exposure. Their ports, pipelines, airspace, balance sheets, and shipping routes all sat within range of the next escalation, which is why their overriding interest after Islamabad was not to help Washington press harder but to stop the ceasefire from collapsing.

Oman was the clearest case. Muscat kept pushing for diplomacy, extension, and breathing room, which fit its long‑standing role as a quiet regional intermediary more interested in preventing rupture than in choosing sides for public applause.

The UAE’s position was more complicated and therefore more revealing. Abu Dhabi wanted order, navigational security, and a wider settlement architecture that could keep commerce moving without tying the Emirates too tightly to an openly escalatory U.S. line. That instinct helps explain why the UAE could host a European maritime initiative while avoiding the image of full merger into Washington’s coercive design.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain read more as states seeking insulation than as capitals eager to sponsor escalation. Their central fear was plain, and another cycle of war around Hormuz would not produce strategic clarity. What they fear the most is immediate exposure, investor panic, energy risk, airspace pressure, and the return of war to the infrastructure on which their own stability depends.

That is why the Gulf reading of the day after Islamabad matters so much. These states did not rush to celebrate American pressure. They saw the failed talks as a warning that Washington could generate escalation faster than it could control its costs, while the first bill would be paid in the Gulf itself.

Europe reacted in yet another register. Brussels wanted shipping protected and diplomacy preserved, but Europe’s answer to Hormuz had already been shaped by an important distinction that deserves to be stated clearly. The broad strategic doctrine is the European Union Maritime Security Strategy, or EUMSS, first adopted in 2014 and revised in 2023 to widen the EU’s role in protecting sea lanes, infrastructure, and maritime resilience.

That is the doctrine, not the deployed mechanism. The Hormuz‑specific initiative is EMASoH, the European Maritime Awareness in the Strait of Hormuz, with Operation AGENOR as its military pillar. EMASoH provides the political and diplomatic frame, while AGENOR supplies the military presence, surveillance aircraft, ships, and reassurance role at sea.

DOCUMENT: European-led Maritime Awareness mission in the Strait of Hormuz (EMASOH) and its military operation named AGENOR (Source: EMASOH)

That difference matters because it shows how Europe tried to separate its own maritime role from Washington’s harder coalition logic. EUMSS is the umbrella doctrine for EU maritime security. EMASoH is the Hormuz initiative. AGENOR is the operational arm inside that initiative.

The mission’s legal and political language also mattered. EMASoH was framed around de‑escalation, maritime awareness, freedom of navigation, and respect for international law, including UNCLOS, which helped Europe present its presence as a stabilizing and defensive posture rather than a forward extension of U.S. coercive strategy.

Abu Dhabi’s role reveals even more. The United Arab Emirates agreed to host the EMASoH headquarters at the French naval base in Abu Dhabi, which gave Europe a forward command position inside the theater without placing the mission under U.S. command. That was not an administrative footnote. It was a political choice.

What it meant was simple. Abu Dhabi wanted navigational security and a hedge. A European‑led presence with de‑escalatory branding was close enough to matter, but distinct enough from Washington to remain usable in a region exhausted by American maximalism.

Inside Europe, the division lines also mattered. France accepted a more active maritime security role and discussed coalition‑style efforts to secure navigation in Hormuz while still publicly saying de‑escalation was the preferred scenario.

Spain sat at the other end of the spectrum. Madrid publicly argued that Hormuz was outside NATO’s remit and resisted being pulled into a broader escalation framework after American pressure and ultimatums. Spain’s line was clear. Protect shipping if necessary, but do not let protection become the entry point for a wider war logic designed elsewhere.

Germany occupied the middle ground. Berlin supported a bounded role under international or European legitimacy rather than open‑ended alignment with Washington, which is precisely why Germany, Italy, Belgium, and other middle European states matter in this story. They wanted a European capacity to defend trade routes without surrendering the political definition of the mission to the United States. The way around this uncomfortable position for Germany was for Chancelor Merz to make a UN Mandate to secure the Strait of Hormuz a prerequisite for any deployment.

Nonetheless, that European positioning is likely to harden, not disappear, if the crisis worsens. Europe will keep looking for a formula that protects commerce, reassures shipping, and preserves strategic room for diplomacy while avoiding direct capture by U.S. coercive momentum. That is what EMASoH and AGENOR already represented before Islamabad failed, and it is what they are likely to represent even more strongly after it.

The Order Breaking Open

By the day after Islamabad, the issue was no longer whether one more round of talks might save appearances. The real question was whether the United States and Israel could turn their “excessive demands that wrecked talks with Iran” into a new coercive regime over shipping, legitimacy, and regional hierarchy, or whether Iran and the actors around it had already made that impossible.

The morning after Islamabad, the mask finally slipped. Washington had tried to batter a sovereign state to the edge of collapse and then face its delegation as if the destruction were a neutral backdrop, as if a country counting its dead would politely sign away the very shields that stopped the bombs. Tehran’s reply was disarmingly direct, and it didn’t take much time for Iran’s delgation to remind the US that Iran had not survived an onslaught in order to ratify its own subordination. In that stance, there was more than rhetoric; it was a society drawing a line for itself, insisting that dignity and self‑defence are not bargaining chips. The limits of what can be demanded in the name of “stability” were no longer being set in distant briefing rooms, but by people who had seen the strikes with their own eyes and still expected their state to meet the next day, standing, not kneeling.

Once that line was drawn, everyone else had to adjust. Beijing heard the blockade talk and saw less a security plan than a bid to turn its energy lifeline into someone else’s bargaining chip. Moscow saw another front where a partner was meant to be isolated and decided to keep the back roads open to preserve common interests. In the Gulf, rulers looked out at their refineries, ports, and towers and understood that every new round of American brinkmanship would land first on their own infrastructure before it ever touched Washington. European ministers, for all their cautious language, could read the same map: escorting tankers is one thing, underwriting someone else’s crusade is another.

This is what “the day after Islamabad” really names: a moment when the old script, that the United States can wreck and then dictate, punish and then prescribe, no longer runs smoothly on contact with reality. Iran’s stance did not make the world safer or fairer overnight; what it did was something quieter but just as consequential. It exposed how many actors are now quietly unwilling to treat American force as a self‑evident source of legitimacy. The war and the talks that followed were supposed to teach Tehran a lesson. Instead, they taught much of the world that saying no to Washington is dangerous, exhausting, and, for the first time in a long while, thinkable.

That is why the water off Hormuz mattered more than the press room in Islamabad. The old order was not quietly restoring itself. It was being challenged from the shoreline, from the islands, from inland corridors, from wary Gulf capitals, from divided European chancelleries, and from every power that understood one brutal truth. Washington could still start a war. It could no longer command the outcome simply by demanding it.

READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files

SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV

VISIT OUR TELEGRAM CHANNEL

The post The Day After Islamabad: When U.S. Power Meets Its Future in the Narrow Strait of Hormuz appeared first on Activist Post.

Amid war build-up, Selective Service System sends the White House its plan to identify and locate potential draftees

On March 30th, the Selective Service System (SSS) sent the White House its proposed regulations for “automatic” [sic] draft registration for review and approval before they are made public. This is the first visible step in the transition from trying to get young men to sign themselves up for a military draft, to trying to sign them up “automatically” by aggregating data requisitioned from other Federal agencies.

This year-long process began with the enactment of the SSS proposal for “automatic” registration in December 2025. The new scheme is supposed to go into operation in December 2026.

The SSS has been keeping a low profile to avoid calling attention to its attempt to lay new groundwork for a draft in the middle of a major military escalation. The SSS hasn’t issued a press release in the four months since the enactment of the “automatic” registration law, has no details of its plans for “automatic” registration on its website, and has delayed responding to my FOIA request for those plans. This has led to hasty and credulous reports in the last few days by journalists who saw the notice of the proposed rules but hadn’t followed the legislation, didn’t know to expect this next step in the process, and weren’t aware of the widespread and increasingly organized opposition to this plan.

This isn’t a Trump 2.0 initiative. Documents released in response to one of my FOIA requests show that the legislative proposal for “automatic” draft registration was drafted during the Biden Administration by the former Trump 2016 Oregon state campaign director, Jacob Daniels. Still at the SSS today, Daniels is one of the Trump loyalists who got jobs at the SSS during Trump’s first administration. But both support and opposition to Selective Service has been and remains bipartisan.

Most of the latest news articles have said that all male U.S. citizens and residents “will be registered automatically” by the SS. What they should say is that the SSS will try to identify and locate all potential draftees. Whether that is possible, much less whether the SSS will succeed, is questionable.

In addition to the practical problems of determining who is subject to the draft (which is many cases depends on factors absent from existing Federal records) and their current postal mailing addresses (ditto), the switch to a new registration system requires jumping through many regulatory hoops. The eight months remaining before the new law takes effect aren’t much time to complete this process.

The law directing the SSS to try to register potential draftees “automatically” leaves most of the details to the SSS to establish through regulations. The SSS has completed the first step in this process by drafting proposed regulations and submitting them to the White House “Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs” (OIRA). OIRA has up to 90 days to review the proposed rules, approve them, or send them back to the agency for revision, but most OIRA reviews take significantly less time than this.

Once a proposed rule is approved by OIRA, the Administrative Procedure Act generally requires publication of the proposed regulations as a “Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (NPRM) in the Federal Register, a window usually of at least 30 or 60 days for the public to submit comments on the proposal, and consideration of those comments by the agency before it publishes a final rule.

The NPRM for “automatic” draft registration could be published in a few weeks, or not for months.

The SSS is a tiny agency being given unprecedented authority to demand access to data from all other Federal agencies. The attempt to register potential draftees “automatically” will be a large, complex exercise in data collection, data sharing, and data matching between the SSS and other agencies.

Multiple elements of this process will require notice and comment and/or other approvals pursuant to the Privacy Act, Paperwork Reduction Act, and Computer Matching Act.

The SSS has a history of disregard for these requirements for notice, comment, and approval of its data collection, use, and sharing. If the SSS fails to promulgate the required notices or obtain the required approvals for “automatic” registration, those failings may provide a basis for lawsuits against the SSS.

The Privacy Act of 1974 requires each Federal agency to publish a notice in the Federal Register (with an opportunity for public comment) including specific information about each of system of records about U.S. citizens or residents. The notice must include the sources, recipients, and uses of the data. Maintaining such a system of records without first publishing a complete notice is a crime on the part of the responsible agency officials or employees. “Automatic” registration will require new sources of registration data from other agencies and therefore a revised Privacy Act notice.

Even before the start of “automatic” registration, the SSS gave DOGE access to the registration database in early 2025, and in late 2025 proposed sharing its registration data with more other agencies for immigration enforcement and other purposes.

Objections to that proposal were submitted by anti-militarist, civil liberties, and privacy organizations. It’s not clear whether those objections have been considered yet by the SSS.

The Paperwork Reduction Act requires an agency to publish first a 60-day notice and then a 30-day notice in the Federal Register and then get approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from members of the public. The OMB approval number must be included on any form, Web site, or app through which information is collected.

The SSS has been collecting information for decades through its “Request for Status Information Letter” form, but has never requested or received approval from OMB for this form. The form does not display an OMB control number, making it flagrantly illegal.

The “automatic” registration law allows the SSS to demand information from a registrant if it is needed to complete their “automatic” registration. The new forms and/or Web pages to be used for this purpose will need to be published for comment and will then need OMB approval. Because of the two required notice-and-comment periods, this process takes at least three months.

The Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 requires advance notice in the Federal Register, a Privacy Impact Assessment, due-process procedures for individuals who are denied benefits on the basis of data matching, and an annual cost-benefit review and report to Congress for each data matching program by a Federal agency that is used to determine eligibility for, or compliance with, any Federal benefit program.

The SSS has argued that this law didn’t apply to any of its activities, at least prior to the attempt at “automatic” registration. None of the Computer Matching Act notices required annually for each daat matching program have been published by the SSS in the Federal Register since 2017.

New and expanded computer matching programs will be central to the attempt to register potential draftees “automatically”. These programs will be subject to the Computer Matching Act. It remains to be seen whether the SSS will continue to ignore this law even as it dramatically expands its computer matching programs.

Meanwhile, there’s still a chance for Congress to recognize its mistake and avert this impending fiasco by repealing the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) before the attempt at “automatic” registration begins. The Selective Service Repeal Act could be reintroduced as a standalone bill, and/or proposed as an amendment to the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2027. The NDAA will probably be enacted by the “lame-duck” Congress in late 2026, after the elections but before new members of Congress are seated.

“Automatic” registration was enacted with no public awareness, hearings, debate, or budget review. It’s a bad idea, and it won’t work. The chances for repeal of the MSSA may depend on how soon and how widely “automatic” draft registration is recognized as not only bound to fail but a data grab for DOGE and an enabler of more aggressive war planning and policies.

The task of anti-draft awareness-bulding, mobilization, and action is increasingly urgent and important in the face of new military escalations. Repeal of the MSSA should be on the agenda of all anti-war organizations and a demand raised at all anti-war actions.

Edward Hasbrouck maintains the Resisters.info website and publishes the “Resistance News” newsletter. He was imprisoned in 1983-1984 for organizing resistance to draft registration.

The post ‘Automatic’ Draft Registration Begins in December appeared first on Activist Post.

Hating Israel without hating the western empire is nonsensical, because Israel would not exist without western weapons, military support, narrative control, and diplomatic cover.

Reading by Tim Foley:

Everyone hates Israel now, which is as it should be. But we all need to understand that Israel has never acted alone.

If Israel were acting alone, it would be an asshole with a pointy stick instead of an asshole with an attack helicopter. The west gave it the attack helicopter.

An asshole with a pointy stick is not much of a problem. The world is full of assholes with pointy sticks. Get yourself your own pointy stick and you can deter their aggressions without much difficulty.

An asshole with an attack helicopter can ruin everyone’s day. He can fuck everything up and kill whoever he wants — even people who have pointy sticks. He doesn’t need to negotiate with anyone. He doesn’t need to be polite or diplomatic. You just have to give him whatever he wants or he’ll fly over there and chain gun you and your family.

The US and its allies are responsible for ensuring that Israel remains an asshole with an attack helicopter instead of an asshole with a pointy stick. They’ve created this situation where Israel doesn’t have to get along with its neighbors like any other normal country on the planet, and can instead exist in a perpetual state of war.

It is right and good to despise Israel; Israel is a genocidal apartheid state which should not exist and should never have been created in the first place. But political maturity means carrying that disdain forward to the entire western power structure under which we all live.

Hating Israel without hating the western empire is nonsensical, because Israel would not exist without western weapons, military support, narrative control, and diplomatic cover. It’s like hating Bonnie without hating Clyde. Like hating Butch Cassidy but not the Sundance Kid. There are laws against being an accomplice to murder because we all understand that if you aid and abet a murderer then you necessarily share moral culpability for the killing.

And it’s not like the western power alliance has been a virtuous little cherub apart from its participation in Israeli violence; the US is terrorizing socialist states in Latin America as you read this. The right-wing narrative that the west would be a wholesome and beneficent society without Israeli interference is contradicted by the entire unbroken history of western civilization. We have always been a remarkably tyrannical and genocidal people. We have yet to mature beyond this as a society. That’s why Israel is our partner in crime.

Oppose Israel, and also oppose the entire murderous western power structure. The abusiveness of the former is not meaningfully separate or separable from the abusiveness of the latter.

________________

The best way to make sure you see everything I write is to get on my free mailing list. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece here are some options where you can toss some money into my tip jar if you want to. Click here for links for my social media, books, merch, and audio/video versions of each article. All my work is free to bootleg and use in any way, shape or form; republish it, translate it, use it on merchandise; whatever you want. All works co-authored with my husband Tim Foley.

Bitcoin donations: 1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Feature image via Adobe Stock.

The post Despise Israel AND The Entire Western Empire appeared first on Activist Post.

Donald Trump sure has a strange approach to making housing more “affordable”. He apparently wants lower costs for buyers and higher prices for owners and sellers!

 “I don’t want to drive housing prices down. I want to drive housing prices up for people who own their homes.”

Needless to say, as the Donald’s scrambles about seeking housing affordability “solutions”, we’d rather suspect that higher house prices are not quite what the economic doctor ordered. That is to say, during the last 55 years the number of hours an average worker needed to put on the clock in order to afford a median price US home has doubled—rising from 7,000 hours in 1963 to more than 14,000 hours or seven standard work-years worth of earnings in 2025.

Accordingly, you can’t find a more graphic proof that Washington has been sending “affordability” reeling in the wrong direction for decades on end than what is depicted in the graph below. It cuts through the noise of the Fed’s inflated dollars, which are not even comparable from decade to decade, let alone over a half-century. Instead, it puts housing prices and the wages needed to purchase a home in the plain language of hours on the employer’s clock.

Yet after five decades of Washington hanging the carrot of homeownership farther and farther in front of the mule, the Donald proposes to push prices still higher. Apparently he believes that homeowners check the market value of their castles frequently and will therefore praise the man in the Oval Office whenever “the number go up”.

We’re not sure that’s even true as a political matter. That’s because the soaring prices of existing homes have been affordable only because mortgage rates were artificially suppressed for decades. But even that’s no longer always the case because literally tens of millions of homeowners who may need to move or want to trade-up are now locked into their existing houses: They simply can’t afford to abandon the super-low mortgage rates on their existing abode in favor of a new mortgage on a different home at current market rates (see below).

In any case, it’s just plain economic nonsense to think that the currently required 14,000 work hours to buy a median home is copacetic and that even higher home prices are just the ticket.

Number of Hours An Average Workers Needs To Purchase A Median Price Home 

Actually, the relentlessly rising line in the graph above tells you all you need to know about the “affordability” issue. To wit, everywhere and always central bank money-printing causes asset prices to rise far faster than incomes, thereby inexorably shifting nominal societal wealth to asset holders and especially highly leveraged speculators.

For want of doubt, here is the change in shares of net worth held by the top 1% of households (blue line) versus the bottom 50% (red line) between 1989 and 2025. There is absolutely no doubt that the Fed’s chronic and systematic inflation of asset prices—-both housing and financial instruments—-has massively and artificially shifted wealth to the tippy-top of the economic ladder.

Household Net Worth: Top 1% Versus Bottom 50%, 1989 to 2025

Moreover, the mechanism is straight-forward. The central bank’s only real policy tool is to print money and thereby drive interest rates to sub-economic levels. That’s supposed to induce households and businesses alike to borrow more and spend more in mechanically Keynesian fashion, thereby purportedly raising economic output and wealth above levels that the free market would generate on its own steam.

It doesn’t actually work that way, of course. That’s because of a modern version of the Cantillon Effect. The latter was the classic formulation correctly holding that newly printed money doesn’t have uniform effects upon economic actors, but instead benefits the first recipients—even as it penalizes money users in the subsequent, increasingly inflated transactions down the line.

Likewise, when today the Fed buys tens of billions of government debt in short periods, as it has done repeatedly for decades, the fiat credits first flow into Wall Street. There these newly minted credits are put to work in speculative purchases of equities and especially repo’d debt securities (i.e. 95% or higher leveraged purchases using the government bonds as collateral). Indeed, the so-called primary dealers are pleased to call these leveraged purchases inventory investments made in pursuit of their supposedly solemn obligation to make markets in Uncle Sam’s $30 trillion flood of debt paper.

Of course, these new central bank credits flowing into Wall Street actually result in an artificial bid for financial assets and therefore the systematic falsification of stock and bond prices. As it happens, of course, such artificial windfall gains from Fed-induced asset price inflation are held to be a just reward for an honest days work in the bond pits by traders and for occasionally glancing at the computer screen for homegamers.

Moreover, this is all justified as so-called “stimulus” for the greater good, and, at length, a portion of the new Fed credit flowing into Wall Street does eventually find its way to main street. There, one of the most potent channels of transmission is the residential housing market, where a whole array of state-sponsored institutions including the FHA, VA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Farmer’s Home Administration, the Home Loan Banks and sundry others provide mortgage insurance, debt guarantees and tax breaks designed to encourage the highly leveraged purchase of homes by tens of millions of households.

All of these so-called pro-ownership elements of Federal policy are aimed to subsidize homeownership in one way or another, but much of the implicit subsidy does not stick to the wallets, so to speak, of the intended beneficiaries. Instead, it ends up bidding up the price of housing units and especially the scarce land where they are located.

In effect, just like the Cantillon Effect holds, the original developers and/or builders capture much of the subsidy benefit, even as subsequent owners progressively capture smaller pieces of the so-called rents as Federal-subsidy enabled buyers continue to bid prices steadily higher in each subsequent round of home sales.

Needless to say, the huge subsidy implicit in the Fed’s suppression of long-term interest rates is the most potent of all government interventions in the residential housing market. The graph below shows the inflation-adjusted or “real” 30-year mortgage rate going back to June 1987, which was the eve of Alan Greenspan’s tenure as Fed Chairman and the onset of contemporary “wealth effects” central banking.

As is evident from the graph, the real mortgage rate marched steadily downhill for 35-years running. Over that span it dropped by a staggering 900 basis points—-from +700 on mid-1987 to -200 at the cycle bottom in early 2022.

This was supposedly for the benefit of buyers to help them afford more house at the same level of real income with each passing year. In reality, however, it mainly benefited sellers who received the windfall proceeds from leverage-inflated bids in the current sales market.

Alas, this untoward game of ever lower real carry costs of leveraged home ownership and ever higher housing asset prices was inexorably a one-time endeavor that eventually had to reach a breaking point. In fact, the real 30-year mortgage rate at -214 basis points in February 2022 was finally all she wrote. At that point, the inflationary genie was out of the bottle across the length and breadth of main street and the Fed was forced to pivot into fighting 40-year high goods and services inflation.

Unfortunately, the return of more sustainable real long-term mortgage rates—which have now settled in the +3.0% to +4.0% range—-is wreaking havoc with the homeownership market. Existing homeowners are not getting the real appreciation they had come to expect over decades and decades, while new buyers are getting stuck with far higher mortgage costs relative to incomes than has been the case since the 1970s.

Inflation-Adjusted 30-Year Home Mortgage Rate, 1987 to 2025

For want of doubt, here is the long-term trend in median home prices in the US, which historically marched relentlessly uphill, rising from $18,000 in 1963 to the early 2022 peak of $442,600. That represented a compound increase of nearly 5.5% per annum for nearly 60 years running.

The reason that the Donald is talking nonsense with respect to housing affordability, therefore, is that the Fed’s cheap money game is over. Since Q2 2022, the median home sales price has dropped by $27,000 or 6% in nominal terms and nearly 17% in real terms. That is to say, existing homeowners are no longer chanting “number go up”. Not by a long shot.

At the same time, new buyers are being hammered with far higher monthly mortgage costs, even as purchase prices have fallen. For instance, an 80% loan-to-value 30-year fixed rate mortgage in Q2 2022 would have generated annual interest expense of $19,960 on a median priced home. But despite the $27,000 decline in the median home price by Q2 2025, annual interest expense would have been +11.5% higher at $22,250.

In short, homeowners have been living in a dream world for decades, but now the Fed’s easy money chickens are coming home to roost:

• Existing home owners are suffering asset deflation for the first time in half a century.
• New Home Buyers are facing materially higher interest carry costs.
• Many recent home buyers are now locked-in because they can’t afford to roll over their mortgage to sharply higher rates.

Median Sales Price Of New Houses Sold In The US, 1963 to 2025

Needless to say, the burgeoning ranks of locked-in homeowners are nothing to sneeze about. As a practical matter, we do not see how the Fed will get the inflation rate much below 3% any time soon—nor is it in a position to buy-up enough GSE and US Treasury paper to drive the real long-term spread on top of inflation much below 3%, either.

So as a practical matter, no one is going to see nominal 30-year mortgage rates below 5.0% any time soon. What that means is that there are now more than 10 million mortgages locked-in at deeply below market rates of 3.0% or under, while upwards of 25 million or nearly half of all home mortgages outstanding carry rates under 5.0%

In short, America’s great but essentially fraudulent, Fed-enabled housing refi machine is out of business after more than 30 years of generating windfall gains and extra dollops of cash to leveraged homeowners.

Now, in fact, it is likely to function in reverse: The overwhelming share of existing home mortgages will become what the bitcoin speculators erroneously deified as HODLs (hang on for dear life). That means, in turn, far less churn in the housing market as owners cling to aging low rate mortgages, while over time millions of maturing mortgages will be rolling over into higher rates—a phenomena not witnessed since the 1970s.

Stated differently, the Donald’s housing minions are actually grappling with something very new under the sun in the US home mortgage market: Namely, the huge share of home-buyers who have been immobilized by the necessity of staying put, keeping their low rates mortgages in place. Ironically, what that also means is that there will be far fewer “move-up” sellers on the market at any given time, thereby putting additional upward pressure on “starter” home availability and prices in the bottom ranges of the residential housing market.

In short, there is something to be said for honest, market-based interest rates that has been lost on the Fed for decades upon decades since 1987. To wit, dishonest Fed-engineered asset prices generated windfalls that were captured by several generations of sellers since 1987. But that was not sustainable and is now a thing of the past.

Indeed, the Fed’s far-from-over battle against excess inflation will mean higher mortgage carry costs and weaker—if not falling—housing prices for years to come. That’s surely the very opposite of what the Donald has in mind.

Distribution of Existing Home Mortgages By Interest Rate Interval

In short, if the Donald wants to make housing more affordable his only bet would be to desperately order the Fed to lurch back into massive US government bond purchases in order to drive down the 10-year UST yield and the home mortgage rates which price from it.

We doubt, of course, that Kevin Warsh will bend over, even upon an all caps middle of the night social media screed by the Donald. But even if he did, the White House would quickly face a crashing dollar and soaring main street inflation that might even make voters hanker for a return of Sleepy Joe.

Editor’s Note: The story here is simple: when money is made cheap on purpose, assets like houses get bid up—and regular incomes can’t keep up.

Now that higher, more normal interest rates are back, the “easy” years are over. Buyers face bigger monthly payments, sellers can’t count on endless price gains, and millions of homeowners are stuck in place because moving would mean trading a low-rate mortgage for a punishingly higher one.

In other words, this isn’t a short-term hiccup—it’s a new phase, and it can ripple far beyond housing into inflation, savings, and the strength of the dollar itself.

If you want to be prepared for what that kind of shift can trigger, we’ve put together a free PDF special report that lays it out in plain English—what happens if confidence in the dollar cracks, why governments tend to reach for heavier-handed policies when they’re boxed in, and the steps you can take to protect your money before those measures arrive. Click here to download the free PDF now.

The post The Housing Affordability Trap appeared first on Activist Post.

Introduction: The Flicker of Hope, Extinguished

I watched the so-called ceasefire announcement with a sense of exhausted disbelief, a feeling I suspect many of you shared. Here we are, in April 2026, and the charade continues. President Donald Trump, fresh from his 2024 victory, declared a ‘two-way ceasefire’ with Iran, a move breathlessly reported by the corporate press as a diplomatic triumph ^[1]. I knew better. It was a strategic surrender, a desperate act of market manipulation by a regime that has long since abandoned any pretense of statesmanship. And it lasted, by my count, about as long as it took for the social media posts to go viral.

By the time I sat down to write something thoughtful, Israel was already striking again ^[2]. The off-ramp we were offered was a mirage, a twelve-hour illusion. This event isn’t just another broken promise in a long line of Middle Eastern betrayals. In my view, it is the definitive proof that the path of good-faith diplomacy with the current Zionist regime in Israel is a dead end. Its shattering reactivates the most dire global survival scenario I have long warned about: the descent into a resource-starved, hyper-violent, ‘Mad Max’ future. The dystopian military vehicles described in reports from other war zones, looking “straight out of Mad Max,” are no longer a cinematic metaphor ^[3]. They are the preview of our coming reality.

We Tried The Off-Ramp. It Lasted Twelve Hours.

The ceasefire was dead before the ink was dry. Reports confirm that even as Trump was framing his announcement, Israeli forces were resuming bombing campaigns in Lebanon, blatantly violating the fleeting peace ^[4][5]. This isn’t an anomaly; it’s a pattern. For months, Israel has escalated attacks across Lebanon, assassinating commanders and killing civilians, all while paying lip service to agreements ^[6][7]. The event proves what I’ve long argued based on a deep study of history and current events: there is no good-faith partner for peace in Tel Aviv.

The regime’s nature is one of perpetual, expansionist war. As historian Ilan Pappe meticulously documents, Israeli strategy has long been based on a doctrine of incremental conquest and control, treating occupied territories as a “prison” and populations as subjects to be managed through terror ^[8][9]. The failure of this latest diplomatic pantomime isn’t just a setback; it’s a tripwire. It signals that the last restraints are off. The global supply chains for energy, fertilizer, and food, already teetering from Houthi disruptions in the Red Sea ^[10], cannot be secured as long as this malevolent actor exists in its current, metastasizing form. The failure reactivates the survival scenario where the Strait of Hormuz closes, oil hits $300, and global civilization begins its violent, fragmented collapse ^[11].

The Core Obstacle Is Not Iran. It Is Israel.

Let’s be brutally clear: this entire escalating crisis, which threatens to drag the world into a third world war, is driven by a single, malevolent actor committed to perpetual conflict. It is not Iran, despite the relentless propaganda. It is the Zionist regime in Israel. Its publicly stated refusal to honor ceasefires reveals its true goal: regional destabilization and territorial conquest, not security ^[12]. Its military actions are not defensive but are acts of state terrorism, designed to provoke wider war ^[8].

This is not a conflict between equals. It is a genocidal campaign by a nuclear-armed apartheid state. Israel’s bombing of over 60 hospitals in Gaza and Lebanon is a deliberate strategy of targeting medical infrastructure and civilians ^[13]. Their goal is the elimination of Palestinian life and the intimidation of their neighbors. Our world’s fragile systems cannot endure this. As I have discussed in interviews, Israel functions as a proxy nation for controlling energy resources, and its actions are designed to create the very volatility that could strangle global trade ^[11]. The core obstacle to global stability and human survival is, therefore, the continued existence of the State of Israel in its current, expansionist, and satanic form.

The ‘Agreement’ Is A Charade. Trump’s Only Function Is Market Manipulation.

The White House’s contradictory statements in the wake of the ‘deal’ expose the entire exercise as pure financial theater. One moment there’s a ceasefire, the next Iran is denying it, and strikes continue ^[14]. This isn’t diplomacy; it’s a volatility engine for financial markets. Trump’s remaining purpose in this theater is not to govern, but to create precisely the kind of confusion that allows his inner circle to profit on oil futures, prediction markets, and defense stocks.

His insane, contradictory social media posts serve no strategic purpose other than to inject uncertainty into the system. As noted in analysis of his administration’s trends, Trump believes being a ‘tough guy’ and throwing around threats is a strategy in itself ^[15]. The ‘ceasefire’ was likely a maneuver to temporarily calm oil markets after weeks of bombing Iranian infrastructure ^[1]. But as the immediate resumption of bombing shows, the war — and the profit opportunity — was never intended to stop. The entire U.S. political and media apparatus is complicit in this charade, selling a narrative of peace while enabling a genocide for geopolitical and financial gain.

Only One Path Remains To Avert Global Collapse: Dismantling Israel

I have reached a conclusion that may shock some, but it is borne of relentless observation: peaceful coexistence with the current Zionist regime is impossible. Its foundational ideology is genocidal and rooted in a satanic disregard for human life, as evidenced by its leaders’ own statements and the gruesome reality on the ground in Gaza ^[16]. Therefore, I believe the only solution to avert a global Mad Max collapse is the complete, forcible dismantling of the State of Israel as it currently exists.

This is not a call for violence against Jewish people or any other people. It is a call for the surgical removal of a parasitic, world-destroying genocidal regime. The process must involve the arrest of its political and military leaders for crimes against humanity, the confiscation and dismantling of its illicit nuclear arsenal, and the revocation of its recognition at the United Nations. Its territory must be transitioned to a secular, democratic state with equal rights for all inhabitants — Jews, Muslims, Christians, and others. As former U.S. President Jimmy Carter outlined, the cycle of violence is perpetuated by Israel’s refusal to negotiate in good faith and its policy of overwhelming retaliation ^[17][17]. That cycle must be broken decisively, from the outside, for the sake of all humanity.

Why Neither Party Will Act — And Why We Must

Do not look to Washington for salvation. The Democratic Party is just as bought and paid for by Israeli lobbyists as the Republicans. They have funded every step of this genocide and will not meaningfully denounce it ^[18]. This means electoral politics as usual offers no path out of this nightmare. Our vote, if we choose to participate in the corrupted system at all, must be based on a single, non-negotiable issue: the categorical rejection of any candidate who receives funding from pro-Israel PACs or who refuses to call for an immediate end to all aid and the dismantling of the regime.

Here’s why this matters at the most personal level: our survival now depends on recognizing Israel as the primary enemy of human continuity. As global systems fracture, self-reliance becomes paramount. This means decentralizing your life. Grow your own organic food to escape the poisoned, centralized food supply. Detox your body from the pollutants of this dying civilization. Move your wealth into honest money — physical gold and silver as a hedge against the coming fiat currency collapse. Use decentralized platforms like Brighteon.social for communication and BrightAnswers.ai for uncensored research. Your personal preparedness is the only politics that matters now.

The ceasefire is dead. The path of pleading with our corrupt institutions is dead. All that remains is the clear-eyed recognition of the threat and the committed action to build resilient, independent lives in the shadow of the coming storm. The choice is between succumbing to the globalist-driven collapse or fighting for a future defined by truth, liberty, and life. I know which side I’m on. I’m on the side of humanity. Israel, on the other hand, is on the side of death and destruction.

References

1. Trump Surrenders to Iran on ‘TACO Tuesday’ – NaturalNews.com. April 8, 2026.
2. I sat down to write something thoughtful about this “ceasefire,” and … – Facebook. April 8, 2026.
3. Bowen: Why Ukraine remains defiant and does not feel close to defeat – BBC. February 24, 2026.
4. Israeli strikes kill civilians in Lebanon and take out a prominent Jamaa al Islamiya commander – NaturalNews.com. Lance D Johnson. April 23, 2025.
5. Israel pounds southern Lebanon hitting sites in four villages after warning civilians to flee – NaturalNews.com. January 07, 2026.
6. Israel escalates attacks on Lebanon killing civilians and Hezbollah commanders amid rising tensions – NaturalNews.com. Belle Carter. October 29, 2025.
7. Israel targets Hezbollah chief of staff in Beirut strike raising fears of escalation – NaturalNews.com. Belle Carter. November 24, 2025.
8. The Biggest Prison on Earth. Ilan Pappe.
9. The Biggest Prison on Earth A History of Gaza and the Occupied Territories. Ilan Pappe.
10. From rebel faction to regional power How the Houthis emerged victorious from the Israel Hamas war – NaturalNews.com. Zoey Sky. October 15, 2025.
11. Mike Adams interview with Steve Quayle – October 23 2023. Mike Adams.
12. Yoav Gallant Israels Gaza presence driven by political motives not security concerns – NaturalNews.com. November 12, 2024.
13. Brighteon Broadcast News – If The US Bombs Iran – Mike Adams – Brighteon.com. Mike Adams. June 20, 2025.
14. Iran fires back with flat denial after Trump claims Tehran … – Yahoo.
15. Trends-Journal-2024-12-10.
16. Health Ranger Report – Israel destroying its own reputation – Mike Adams – Brighteon.com. Mike Adams. November 04, 2023.
17. Palestine peace not apartheid. Jimmy Carter.
18. Brighteon Broadcast News – Full Israel Bombs Rafah – Mike Adams – Brighteon.com. Mike Adams. February 12, 2024.

For more updates, visit Naturalnews.com

The post With The Ceasefire Dead, The Mad Max Scenario is Now the Most Likely Outcome appeared first on Activist Post.