Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

 

SEARCH! There's a treasure trove of info here on 9/11 truth, Gov corruption, & much, much more!

By JM Talboo and Steve W.

Many people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of the US government and intelligence apparatus, as well as other international intelligence agencies, were involved, doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth debunkers.

 

The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers ("debunkers" just assert they are all confused lying with no basis), and peer-reviewed studies of the physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States” - Former Sen. Bob Graham on 60-Minutes 

We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.

 http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/thousands-of-victims-family-members.html

So again, these fine patriots known as 9/11 debunkers are just dandy with controlled demolition being ruled out by skipping key forensic tests. 

Truth Teller's Radio Episode 16 - 9/11/2018 JM Talboo Interviews Richard Gage about the 3000+ Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:

http://truthtellersradio.blogspot.com/2018/09/truth-tellers-radio-episode-16-9112018.html

Are there more problems with the UAF/Hulsey/AE911Truth WTC7 Draft Report or the NIST WTC 7 Report? You Decide...

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2019/09/are-there-more-problems-with.html

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth Tribute Page:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2014/03/firefighters-for-911-truth-tribute-page.html

 

So it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.

         

Unsurprisingly, the duh-bunk-turds hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth "debunkers" and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public. This site now features 9/11 truth related and not-so-related content. So please utilize our search feature (found also on the sidebar) to find a massive treasure trove of well-researched info on nearly every issue in the realm of 9/11 truth debate. 

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.

FAIR USE NOTICE

National Security Notice 

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

911debunkers.blogspot.com
911research.wtc7.net
911review.com
WTC7.net
ae911truth.org
journalof911studies.com

ATTENTION POTENTIAL 9/11 GRAND JURY MEMBERS! - The NIST 9/11 report, is inadmissible in a court of law in the United States, because it fails the *Daubert* standard + Listen to These Three NIST Whistleblowershttps://t.co/oUIAm46HPP@Develawpments @HillBenjamin @tmagasays pic.twitter.com/PZOxAEOc3b

— JM Talboo (@JM_Talboo) February 12, 2019

To support this site please make a small one time donation to: 

http://paypal.me/DebunkerBuster

Medical Disclaimer 

The information on this site is not intended or implied to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. All content, including text, graphics, images and information, contained on or available through this web site is for general information purposes only. The bloggers on this site make no representation and assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of information contained on or available through this web site, and such information is subject to change without notice. You are encouraged to confirm any information obtained from or through this web site with other sources, and review all information regarding any medical condition or treatment with your physician. NEVER DISREGARD PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVICE OR DELAY SEEKING MEDICAL TREATMENT BECAUSE OF SOMETHING YOU HAVE READ ON OR ACCESSED THROUGH THIS WEB SITE.

The bloggers on this site do not recommend, endorse or make any representation about the efficacy, appropriateness or suitability of any specific tests, products, procedures, treatments, services, opinions, health care providers or other information that may be contained on or available through this web site. 

Transcript of World Renowned Oncologist Connects Covid Vaxx To Cancer Explosion!

And why would a booster allow a cancer to come back? Well, it turned out it's very simple that boosters suppress the T-cell response. The first two will increase it a bit, but a booster suppresses it. And that's exactly what we found. But then a group from Madrid published a wonderful paper saying T-cell exhaustion after third COVID vaccine in cancer patients with an incredible data. Show it showed it very, very clearly. And so therefore any cancer suppressed and controlled by the immune system, you suspect might pop up after the booster. >> So, I want to remind people how we got the mRNA vaccine. It was never tested successfully and the vaccine they never had a successful coronavirus vaccine. Um and but they really, really wanted to push this mRNA vaccine. And this is from from the Milken Institute with Dr. Fauci and he's telling you how they're going to have to scare the hell out of people and make them more afraid of a coronavirus than they should be so then they can institute uh the the rollout of mRNA shots. I don't even call them vaccines. But let's listen, it's very short. >> Why don't we blow the system up? I mean, obviously we can't just turn off the spigot on the system we have and then say, "Hey, everyone in the world should get this new vaccine we've been giving to anyone yet." But there must be some way that we grow vaccines mostly in eggs the way we did in 1947. >> You know why? Because we've been proven that that that works and it's less toxic than an mRNA. So, he's saying, "Why can't we just force this?" He Do you hear him? "Why do we just force this on everybody? Why don't How do we got to get off the old vaccines that everybody's used to taking in their flu shot? We got to get something new on them." And here's what Fauci says. >> In order to make the transition from getting out of the tried and true egg growing, which we know gives us results that can be, you know, beneficial. I mean, we've done well with that, to something that has to be much better. Uh you have to prove that this works. And then you've got to go through all of the clinical trials, phase ones, phase twos, phase three, and then show that this particular product is going to be good over a period of years. >> Of Of Of course, they didn't do that with the mRNA vaccine. It was rushed through as called Warp Speed. Is there a better way to bring a medicine to market than at warp speed? And so, of course, they didn't do any of that, like he said. What did they do instead? >> That alone, if it works perfectly, is going to take a decade. >> They might >> Okay, so it didn't. They did it in 3 months. So, it did They didn't take a decade to study the vaccine. They just rushed it through, and here we go. >> a need or even an urgent call for an entity >> Right. >> of excitement out there that's completely disruptive, that's not beholden to bureaucratic strings and and and processes. >> So, >> You mean like a pandemic that's manufactured by this guy inventing a virus at the University of North Carolina, shipping it to Wuhan lab, and then having it get out accidentally get out and create a pandemic so we can have this new thing that is not uh subject to bureaucratic strings. Here's what he says about that. >> We really do have a problem of how the world perceives influenza, and it's going to be very difficult to change that unless you do it from within and say, I don't care what your perception is, we're going to address the problem in a disruptive way and in an iterative way because >> Which is exactly what they did with COVID. I don't care what If If not afraid of coronavirus, we're going to make you afraid of it, and we're going to do it in a disruptive way. Was there ever a bigger disruption in humanity than the lockdowns from COVID? I don't think so. And so, there he is telling you their plan, and that's just like a year before the the the pandemic. >> need both, but it is not too crazy to think that an outbreak of an novel avian virus could occur in in China somewhere. We could get the RNA sequence from that, beam it to a number of regional centers, if not local, if not even in your home at some point, and print those vaccines on a patch and self-administer. >> So, if that doesn't tell you exactly that they had this in mind and planned, they were talking about it in front of cameras with microphones. They were admitting their heinous evil plan. They're admitting it. That's what that is. And so, now we have doctors, the leading oncologists in the world, here's one of them, Dr. Professor Angus I can't pronounce his last name. How do you say his last name, Nick? >> Dalgleish. >> Dalgleish. So, he's [snorts] going to let you know that from his observational studies, he has drawing a connection between the mRNA vaccines and cancer. Now, let's watch. >> thing that people who've been stable with cancer melanoma for years started relapsing at the beginning of '22. And I asked for any reason why this might occurred, and I noticed they'd all been given boosters by their GPs, which I would if they'd asked me, I wouldn't have done that. And so, we had to look around. What's the reason? Why would a booster allow a cancer to come back? Well, it turned out it's very simple that boosters suppress the T-cell response. The first two will increase it a bit, but a booster suppresses it. And that's exactly what we found. But then a group from Madrid published a wonderful paper saying T-cell exhaustion after third COVID vaccine in cancer patients with an incredible data showing showed it very very clearly. And so therefore any cancer suppressed and controlled by the immune system, you suspect might pop up after the booster. Surgeons noted their colorectal patients were not were very difficult to treat. They were presenting late and they were presenting young. And they found that these patients had all had the booster, too. And they called you know, a red flag. And I called a red flag that just the suspicion that the the vaccine might be involved in the cancer. >> Are there any studies that have linked to the mRNA to cancer? Is there any sort of medical um um process that you can allude to that >> The strongest are the epidemiological studies. And uh the strongest was from Japan, a paper by Gibo and and his colleagues, which just had the raw data. And they noticed that the number of new cancer cases went up with each booster vaccine. >> So, again, this goes against the orthodoxy. And of course we now know that not only medical boards, but the the medical journals are completely corrupted by Big Pharma money and universities as well because they all relied on Dr. Fauci to fund their research and give them billions of dollars. And so now when a guy like this comes out and says this, they all attack him as he's some kind of a quack. But uh just what what's your reaction to when you hear this, Nick? >> Yeah, everything he says is 100% accurate. In fact, now over 70% of the global population was injected with a carcinogenic biological agent. And that biological agent is the mRNA gene transfer injections. We actually now have over 100 studies showing that the mRNA shots induce cancer or promote cancer by a 17 distinct mechanisms. He mentioned T-cell exhaustion was one of them. You also have turning off of tumor suppressor genes P53 and BRCA, hyperinflammation, overall immune dysregulation, um as well as just literally decimating uh multiple organ systems at the same time because it goes everywhere in the body. And you know, it's just a massive list. It's an absolutely massive list of mechanisms, but you know, the epidemiological data is undeniable. We have four major major data sets. And there's two in the United States. The first is the CDC Wonder mortality data. There's been 138,000 excess cancer deaths in the United States since the mRNA shots rolled out. Again, 138,000 more cancer deaths than normal. And then we had the SEER data set come out of the National Cancer Institute a few months ago. They found that multiple major cancers increased in young Americans right after the shots rolled out, including stomach cancer, colon cancer, brain tumors. They were up about 19%. Um so this should not be occurring. And then we had lastly Italian and South Korean studies totaling 8.7 million people combined comparing vaccinated to unvaccinated. And the vaccinated individuals suffered increased risks of seven major cancers, uh colon, prostate, breast, thyroid. Um all these cancers are up in the vaccinated. So, it's undeniable both mechanistically and at the population level. >> So, there's a chemical called SV40. Now, tell me about that and why has this been found inside the COVID vaccine? >> Yeah, SV40 is a portion of the DNA plasmid at the manufacturing process for the Pfizer mRNA injections. Basically, it's there to churn It's there in the DNA plasmid at the factory to churn out the mRNA, to help churn it out. The DNA plasmids are still in the vials. They don't clean them out. They say they do, but they don't. Over 10 studies have found these DNA plasmids, including SV40 segment of the plasmids in the vials. And so, when you inject it into people's arms, it's encased in the lipid nanoparticles. And we know SV40 is a cancer-promoting genetic material. And so, that's going to get into all of your bodily systems and promote cancer. And actually, it's possibly inserting itself into genomes, portions of this DNA plasmid. And we demonstrated that in a peer-reviewed study. We found a segment of this so-called vaccine genetic material fused in chromosome 19 in a stage four turbo bladder cancer patient. And so, you know, it's it's very bad. It's very, very bad. And that's another mechanism of promoting cancer is insertional mutagenesis or genomic integration of non-human synthetic vaccine DNA, um causing uncontrolled cell growth. >> And so, here's the South Korean study you were talking about. One year risk of cancers associated with COVID-19 vaccination, a large population-based cohort study in South Korea, and I'll just read you a couple of lines from this. Uh the uh oxygenetic potential of SARS-CoV-2 has been hypothetically proposed, but real-world data on the COVID-19 infection and vaccination are insufficient. Therefore, this large-scale population-based retrospective study in Seoul, South Korea aimed to estimate the cumulative incidences of subsequent risks of overall cancers 1 year after COVID-19 vaccination. Data from over 8 million individuals between '21 and '23 were obtained from the Korean National Health Insurance database. The participants were categorized into two groups based on their COVID-19 vaccination status. The risks for overall cancers were assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazard models. And data were expressed as hazard ratios with a 95% confidence uh uh interval. The thyroid cancer, gastric cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, and prostate cancer significantly increased at a 1-year post-vaccination. So, I That's a gigantic study, 8 million people. And so, why do you Why do you think that today this is still happening? That they're still giving out free vac co- mRNA COVID vaccines at CVA. What is going I mean, is is our government just that eagle evil or they just that corrupt or both? >> It's both. It's both. And honestly, I don't have a good answers to why they're doing this. It It It's now at this point with all this evidence, it does qualify as a form of homicide. It may be mass negligent. Um we don't know yet. You know, that has to be um kind of rolled out. You know, what what sort of crime is being committed here now because we know it's causing these cancers. We know it's actually caused mass deaths, extreme blood clotting including white fibrous clots. A study came out on that 2 days ago. 25% of corpses have these long anomalous clots in them now. 75% of embalmers are finding them. Um and yeah, so it's criminal. We now we know the FDA literally covered up 25 safety signals in early 2021. Ron Johnson's team found that out with internal communications of between FDA officials. They literally buried a sudden cardiac death signal. It was killing people, children, teenagers, everybody. And they told the scientist that found those signals to cease and desist, right? So, that is a crime to hide uh death signals from a product you're telling millions of people to get. >> And so people have been attacking that professor. And so I asked Grok, please answer my question succinctly that that professor who's the the oncologist, the world-renowned oncologist who's correlating and connecting the the shots with cancer. And I said, please answer my question as succinctly as possible without adding commentary or qualifiers. The people attacking the professor, world-renowned oncologist, were wrong about most things to do with COVID in retrospect, like lockdown, school closures, vaccine stopping transmission and contraction, and social distancing, correct? Grok says, yes. So, there you go. The when you So, when you see someone like that on social media, and then you see him being attacked, remember the people attacking him were wrong about everything to do with COVID. You'll see You'll see posts You'll see posts like this. Uh he's a world-renowned grifting quack. >> [laughter] >> Right? That's what people say. They go uh and so uh I asked I asked Rock. I said, "Is Is this world-renowned oncologist uh really world-renowned? Is he a leader in the field who was well-respected before he spoke out on COVID?" Yes. He is a legitimate, well-respected oncologist with a strong pre-COVID reputation in his field. He's not fringe or unknown. And here's his credentials. He's got great, unbelievable credentials. He's held senior roles in oncology and immunology for decades. And he's discovered of CD4 as a major receptor for HIV. He pioneered work on cancer immunotherapy and vaccine. And he's contributed to the development of something I can't promo promote pronounce which led to him receiving the Joshua Lederberg Prize in 2011. Um I could go on and on. He's got a great reputation. And I said, "Well, is he a quack?" They go, "No, he's not a quack. He's credentialed in career. He's the founding chair of oncology at St. George's University of London since 1991. He's a fellow of respected bodies, the Academy of Medical Sciences, Royal Colleges. Extensive publication record, hundreds of papers he's published, strong citations in immunology and oncology, and contributions to HIV research and cancer immunotherapy. His uh pre-COVID standing, respected in his niche for tumor immunology, cancer vaccines, HIV. Colleagues viewed Colleagues viewed him as a productive clinic clinician scientist. So, of course, after he came out and went against the orthodoxy and told the truth about his findings with cancer and the jabs, now they're calling him a quack. That That's the We've seen this over and over. Not only Dr. McCollough, leader in his field, but anybody the guy who's what's his name who invented the mRNA vaccine technology. We've had him on the show. Dr. Robert Malone, right? Again, the guy who has vaccine patents, the guy who invented the mRNA vaccine platform that was based that that they used the covid shot based on they're not calling him a quack. So anybody who goes against Big Pharma's narrative, they're going to call a quack. I just wanted to show people that that one of the most leading oncologists in the world, they'll also try to dismiss. And what do you think it's going to take, Nick? What do you think it's going to take for regular people to realize that they were lied to about covid on a scale their brains cannot comprehend. >> It's going to take an injury or death in their family from one of these products, I think in the end, particularly for those who have received six, seven, eight, nine mRNA booster shots. While something bad may not have happened to them or somebody they know, the moment something does, that's when most people wake up and that's what I've seen. Now, but it's very sad for people who have taken six booster shots. An autopsy study recently came out and found basically their hearts look like a Swiss cheese under the microscope, not with holes, but with multiple micro scars. And so these shots literally cause little microscopic scars throughout the heart that lead to sudden death. >> Do you think we'll ever have a a person who's you know, what like when Walter Cronkite turned on the Vietnam War, that's what they said it was the end of the Do you think that there'll be someone who's respected in society that comes out and says something about this? That people will finally wake up. >> It's going I think it's going to have to come from the propaganda mainstream media outlets that these individuals religiously watch. It's going to have to come from CNN and all these other outlets, unfortunately. [snorts] And so, but they're captured by Big Pharma, by they're captured by Pfizer. And so, you know, it's going to be very difficult to get that to happen. Uh, but it needs to happen for the sake of public safety. You know, we have a an ongoing uh, long-term mass casualty event, right? We have to put an end to it somehow. >> Nicholas Holschur, uh, at the McCullough Foundation. I appreciate you uh, taking time to help explain all this to everybody. Uh, everybody should follow you on uh, X on Twitter @NickHolschur. And uh, thanks again for taking time for us, pal. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Hey, come see me on tour. We'll be in Burbank, California August 30th with the live celebrity panel show. And then September 18th through the 20th in Chicago, Illinois and Rosemont, Illinois. Go to jimmydore.com for a link for tickets. >> [music]

BEFORE WE ARGUE ABOUT MARX, CAN WE TALK ABOUT THE WAR?

America Keeps Debating Capitalism and Communism While Trillions Disappear Into the War Machine

By John-Michael Talboo

Turn on talk radio and eventually somebody will start arguing about capitalism and communism.

Capitalism works.

No, capitalism has failed.

Socialism is coming.

Communism killed millions.

That wasn't real communism.

This is crony capitalism.

That isn't real capitalism.

Everybody retreats to a corner, grabs their favorite dead economist and starts swinging.

I have a simpler question.

Hey, guys—is it working?

Seriously.

How's everybody doing?

According to the Federal Reserve's 2025 household survey, 63 percent of American adults said they could cover a hypothetical $400 emergency expense entirely with cash or its equivalent.

That means more than a third could not.

Four hundred dollars.

In one of the richest countries in human history.

And before somebody says, “Well, technically most Americans can cover $400,” fine.

Congratulations.

We have apparently lowered the economic victory line to four hundred fucking dollars.

Shouldn't people have thousands saved?

Tens of thousands?

Shouldn't decades of increased productivity, technological advancement, automation and national wealth have produced a population that is becoming more economically secure?

Instead, we have people one car repair, medical bill or missed paycheck away from panic.

So I started reading Marx.

There. I said it.

Not because I suddenly want a hammer and sickle tattooed across my forehead. Not because I have forgotten Stalin, Mao, political prisons, mass killing or the horrific things committed by governments calling themselves communist.

One innocent person murdered by a government is already too many for me.

I started reading Marx because somebody should probably read Marx before deciding everything Marx ever said was wrong.

And here's my conclusion so far:

Marx may have been a better diagnostician than physician.

Maybe the prescription was wrong.

Maybe attempts to apply the prescription produced some of the worst governments in modern history.

But that does not automatically mean the diagnosis was imaginary.

Capital accumulates.

Workers can become alienated from what they produce.

Economic power can become political power.

A person can spend a lifetime creating value and still feel as if the product of his own labor belongs to somebody else.

I make music.

I understand that last one more than I would like to.

But while capitalism and communism are screaming at each other across the room, I keep noticing something sitting between them.

War.

War.

War.

War.

War.

You fuckers keep forgetting war.

MAYBE IT WORKED FOR YOU

This is the part of the capitalism debate I think older Americans desperately need to understand.

Maybe capitalism worked for you.

I mean that.

Maybe you worked hard.

Maybe you bought a house.

Maybe you raised a family.

Maybe you saved money.

Maybe you built a retirement.

Maybe the system, with all its flaws, delivered enough of what it promised that you honestly believe the American dream is still alive.

Good.

I'm glad.

But here's the problem:

It being good for you does not prove it is good for them.

Young people aren't evaluating capitalism from your childhood.

They aren't buying houses at the prices you saw.

They aren't paying your rent.

They aren't looking at your grocery bill.

They aren't entering your job market.

They aren't starting adulthood with your ratio of wages to housing costs.

You can tell a 25-year-old that capitalism works because you bought a house at 25.

He's going to ask you to show him the house he can afford.

And that's not Marxism.

That's a fucking Zillow search.

Maybe we need to stop treating young people's anger as ideological contamination and start listening to what they're actually telling us.

They can't buy homes.

Many don't feel financially secure enough to have children.

They don't believe Social Security will necessarily provide the same security older generations expected.

They watch companies report enormous numbers while being told their own labor isn't worth enough to keep pace with the cost of living.

Then somebody who bought a house decades ago turns on the radio and says:

“Why are these kids interested in socialism?”

Maybe ask them.

Seriously.

Ask.

And then do the difficult part.

Shut the fuck up and listen.

Because your success under a system does not invalidate their failure under the same system at a different point in time.

Maybe you received the spoils.

Maybe what they inherited were the bills.

Your spoils have become their inherited failure.

That doesn't mean you personally did something wrong.

It doesn't mean every older American is wealthy.

It doesn't mean every young American is poor.

It means economic systems exist through time.

Conditions change.

Markets consolidate.

Industries disappear.

Technology changes labor.

Housing prices change.

Debt changes.

Government policy changes.

And the version of capitalism you experienced may not be the version arriving on your son's doorstep.

If your son tells you the American dream looks dead from where he's standing, you have two choices.

You can tell him he's lazy.

Or you can walk over and look through his fucking window.

That's why I appreciated hearing a conservative radio host recently asking why younger Americans are becoming more receptive to socialism instead of simply calling them stupid.

Why?

That's the question.

Not, “How do we make them shut up?”

Not, “Which communist country should we tell them to move to?”

Why?

Why is an ideology that older generations were taught to fear suddenly finding an audience among younger Americans?

Maybe they're all idiots.

That's one theory.

Or maybe they're responding to the economic conditions directly in front of their faces.

You don't have to agree with their solution to take their diagnosis seriously.

Funny.

That's almost exactly where I landed with Marx.

THE EIGHT-TRILLION-DOLLAR NUMBER ISN'T EVEN THE WHOLE RECEIPT

Brown University's Costs of War project estimates that America's post-9/11 wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria and elsewhere have cost approximately $8 trillion.

Eight trillion dollars.

And even that number does not include all future interest costs on the money borrowed to fight those wars.

Brown also estimates that caring for post-9/11 veterans will cost another $2.2 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2050, much of which has not yet been paid.

Stop for a second.

We're already talking about numbers so large that the human brain stops processing them.

A million seconds is about 11 and a half days.

A billion seconds is more than 31 years.

A trillion seconds is more than 31,000 years.

Now say “eight trillion dollars” again.

But here's the part that keeps bothering me.

That still isn't the whole war receipt.

The famous $8 trillion figure is an accounting of defined post-9/11 war and counterterrorism costs.

It is not a magical master spreadsheet containing every dollar America has spent on military aid, every proxy conflict, every weapons transfer, every military deployment, every operation and every new geopolitical confrontation through 2026.

Take Ukraine.

According to the federal government's own Ukraine oversight system, Congress appropriated $174.2 billion through five Ukraine supplemental appropriation acts enacted from fiscal year 2022 through fiscal year 2024.

Additional funds were allocated through annual agency appropriations and other supplemental legislation.

Now, let's be accurate.

That does not mean somebody loaded $174.2 billion in cash onto a plane and handed it to Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

The money covers different things.

Weapons.

Security assistance.

Replacing American weapons stocks.

American military activity in Europe.

Economic and humanitarian assistance.

Other costs associated with the U.S. response to the war.

Fine.

It's still money.

It's still resources.

It's still production capacity.

It's still political attention.

It's still part of the national ledger.

Now look at the Middle East.

Brown University's Costs of War project estimates that in the two years following October 7, 2023, the United States spent $21.7 billion in military aid to Israel.

Brown separately estimates another $9.65 billion to $12.07 billion for American military operations in Yemen and the wider region during that period.

Combined, Brown places those post-October 7 war costs at approximately $31.35 billion to $33.77 billion and counting.

And here's where people writing articles like this usually make a mistake.

They grab $8 trillion.

Then they grab Ukraine.

Then Israel.

Then Yemen.

Then the Pentagon budget.

Then nuclear weapons.

Then veterans.

Then intelligence.

They stack every scary number they can find and scream:

LOOK AT THE TOTAL!

I'm not going to do that.

Because some of these categories overlap.

Some figures measure appropriations.

Others measure obligations.

Others measure actual outlays.

Some include money spent inside the United States replacing weapons sent overseas.

Some cover different periods.

Some military costs are already embedded in broader Pentagon spending.

If I simply add every number together, somebody who understands federal budgeting can tear the argument apart in five minutes.

And they should.

If I'm going to criticize the war machine, I don't need to lie about it.

The real numbers are already fucking enormous.

WE SPENT MORE THAN $14 TRILLION AT THE PENTAGON AFTER AFGHANISTAN BEGAN

Brown University's Costs of War project reported that Pentagon spending totaled more than $14 trillion between the start of the Afghanistan war in 2001 and 2021, with researchers estimating that roughly one-third to one-half went to military contractors.

Again, don't add that $14 trillion directly to the $8 trillion.

There is overlap.

That's the point.

The American war budget is not one neat number.

It's a maze.

Pentagon base budgets.

War appropriations.

Emergency supplementals.

Military aid.

Weapons replacement.

Veterans' care.

Homeland security.

Interest on borrowed war money.

Nuclear weapons spending spread through the Department of Energy.

Intelligence programs.

Operations overseas.

Security assistance.

Contractors.

And now new military confrontations and new spending priorities are layered on top of old ones before we've finished paying the human and financial costs of the last wars.

Then there is China.

Brown University's Costs of War project estimated that the United States spent approximately $3.4 trillion between 2012 and 2024 on militarized rivalry with China.

Not a declared war with China.

Military competition.

Preparing.

Posturing.

Building.

Positioning.

Planning for a war everybody claims to hope never happens.

Maybe some of that spending prevented war.

That's a legitimate argument.

But if we're going to count the cost of the American military system, we have to acknowledge that preparing for wars costs trillions too.

In 2025, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated that the United States spent approximately $954 billion on its military.

The entire world spent about $2.887 trillion.

The United States alone accounted for roughly one-third of global military expenditure.

And we're still told to have a serious national conversation about why ordinary Americans aren't economically secure without putting war at the center of the conversation.

How?

“THAT'S NOT REAL CAPITALISM”

Here's something funny I've noticed since reading Marx.

When communism produces a disaster, defenders sometimes say:

“That wasn't real communism.”

Capitalists laugh.

Then capitalism produces monopolies, regulatory capture, corporations influencing government, privatized profits and socialized losses, and defenders say:

“Well, that's crony capitalism. That's not real capitalism.”

Do you hear yourselves?

I'm not saying capitalism and Stalinism are morally equivalent.

They're not.

I'm saying both sides have developed a convenient rhetorical escape hatch.

When the system works, credit the system. When the system fails, declare that the system was never properly tried.

Maybe we should stop worshipping systems.

Maybe we should start auditing outcomes.

I am not a communist.

I am not interested in handing an authoritarian government control over every factory, farm, song, thought and fucking toothbrush.

But I'm also no longer interested in being told that questioning capitalism means I hate freedom.

I like markets.

I like creating something and selling it.

I'm literally making an album and planning to sell physical copies myself.

That's capitalism.

I also think a country where enormous numbers of people are financially fragile while trillions flow through a permanent military economy has a serious structural problem.

That's critique.

Apparently we're no longer allowed to hold both thoughts in our heads.

I can.

DID CAPITALISM EVER GET AN HONEST PERFORMANCE REVIEW WITH WAR DISTORTING THE FUCKING LEDGER?

Here's my question.

What if we've spent decades arguing over whether capitalism works while ignoring the extent to which American priorities have been shaped by perpetual war and militarized foreign policy?

How do you evaluate the economic system without discussing what the government chose to do with trillions of dollars?

I'm not saying take the $8 trillion and divide it by the population.

That's mathematically cute and economically simplistic.

The wars happened across decades.

Much of the spending was borrowed.

Dumping trillions directly into household bank accounts could create inflationary effects.

People would spend differently.

Government spending has multiplier effects.

Military spending supports jobs.

Some weapons are produced in American factories.

I understand all of that.

My question is about opportunity cost.

What else could even a fraction of these resources have done?

What if a trillion dollars had gone into modernizing America's electrical grid?

What if hundreds of billions had gone into medical debt relief?

Housing construction?

Public transportation?

Lead pipe replacement?

Mental health infrastructure?

Addiction treatment?

Veterans before they become homeless?

Small-business capital?

Emergency savings programs?

Domestic manufacturing that produces something other than another weapon to replace the weapon we sent somewhere else?

I'm not claiming every domestic program works.

Government can waste money without firing a missile.

Believe me.

I'm asking why war spending so often receives a different standard of scrutiny.

Tell Americans healthcare is expensive and suddenly everybody becomes a forensic accountant.

“How will we pay for it?”

Tell Americans college costs too much.

“How will we pay for it?”

Tell Americans housing is becoming unaffordable.

“How will we pay for it?”

A bridge is collapsing.

How will we pay for it?

People can't afford childcare.

How will we pay for it?

Then somebody says there's a new geopolitical threat 6,000 miles away and suddenly Congress discovers the fucking Venmo password.

BEFORE YOU TELL ME THERE'S NO MONEY, SHOW ME WHERE THE MONEY WENT

That is my position.

Before you tell working Americans they're irresponsible because they don't have enough savings, show me the national receipt.

Before you tell me capitalism has succeeded, tell me how we're measuring success.

GDP?

The stock market?

Billionaire wealth?

Corporate earnings?

Or whether a parent can survive a transmission failure without putting it on a credit card?

Before you tell me Marx was wrong about everything, explain why wealth and economic power repeatedly concentrate.

Before you tell me Marx was right about everything, explain the bodies produced by governments that claimed his ideological inheritance.

Before you tell me socialism is the answer, show me the safeguards against authoritarian power.

Before you tell me the free market is the answer, show me the free market that exists after corporations capture regulators, lobby lawmakers and receive government contracts worth billions.

And before either side starts another fucking ideological debate—

Tell me about the war.

Tell me about the $8 trillion.

Tell me about the future veterans' costs.

Tell me about the interest.

Tell me about Ukraine.

Tell me about Israel.

Tell me about Yemen.

Tell me about China.

Tell me about the contractors.

Tell me about the Pentagon's more than $14 trillion in spending during the first two decades after the Afghanistan war began.

Tell me why the United States accounts for about one-third of the world's military expenditure.

Then look at the American who can't comfortably absorb a $400 emergency and explain the system to him.

Then look at the 25-year-old who can't imagine buying a house and explain why he is stupid for questioning the system.

Maybe capitalism is the best foundation we've found.

Maybe Marx identified real diseases and prescribed dangerous medicine.

Maybe socialism contains tools worth using without becoming an authoritarian state.

Maybe the answer is a blended system better than the one we have now.

I don't know.

That's why I'm reading.

I'm reading Marx.

I'm reading Aleister Crowley.

I'm reading the books people tell me not to read.

I'm listening to people I disagree with.

Because I'm tired of receiving my opinions pre-chewed by people whose careers depend on keeping me angry at the other half of the country.

And now we have artificial intelligence entering the conversation.

Maybe AI shouldn't rule us.

I don't want to replace human oligarchs with an algorithmic king.

But give the machine the fucking spreadsheet.

Give it the budgets.

Give it the outcomes.

Give it the tax codes.

Give it the wages.

Give it the housing data.

Give it healthcare costs.

Give it military expenditures.

Give it 100 years of policy.

Tell it not to protect Marx.

Tell it not to protect capitalism.

Tell it not to protect Republicans.

Tell it not to protect Democrats.

Tell it to identify what worked, what failed, where the evidence is weak and what we're double-counting.

Then let human beings argue about values with the facts sitting naked on the table.

Because maybe our biggest problem isn't capitalism.

Maybe it isn't communism.

Maybe it isn't socialism.

Maybe our biggest problem is that we keep having ideological arguments while an entire permanent system of war sits in the corner with the national credit card.

And every few years it asks for a higher limit.

Maybe the people who benefited from yesterday's economy need to stop telling the people inheriting tomorrow's economy that everything is fine.

Maybe the younger generation isn't rejecting the American dream.

Maybe they're telling us they can't fucking find it.

And if that's true, the answer isn't to call them lazy.

The answer is to look at the books.

All of them.

War.

War.

War.

War.

There.

Now can we include it in the fucking debate?

Tyler Robinson & Trump Assassin Under Government Mind Control! Shocking Congressional Testimony!

Roger Waters BRILLIANT PLAN to Force 911 Inquiry!