Authored by Iain Smith via Off-Guardian.org,

Apparently, in order to be able to work in the UK, we will all be forced to adopt digital ID—the mandatory so-called BritCard. There is absolutely no public appetite for this, as the more than 2 million and rising (at the time of writing) signatures to the online petition to stop it demonstrates.

Of course, online petitions don’t make any difference to governments, but at least they illustrate to us that government propaganda, such as the IPSOS poll that alleges 57% of the UK public want digital ID, is garbage. Though given IPSOS enormous number of government contracts, including its contract to assist in the design of the BritCard, willingly fulfilling its propaganda role is understandable.

Proudly announcing mandatory digital ID at the Global Progress Action Summit, Keir Starmer said:

Let me spell that out. You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have Digital ID. It’s as simple as that.

This all sounds very “authoritarian,” but if we decide we are not going to adopt the BritCard, and if the UK government insists on enforcing it, the entire UK economy and the government will collapse. If government issued digital ID is “mandatory” to work in the UK, and millions, perhaps tens of millions, of people decide they are not going along with it, then that means mass unemployment, a vanishing government tax take, and economic destruction on a cataclysmic scale.

The government can be as tough as it likes, but if we tell it to do one there is sweet FA it can do about it. The government only has power while we comply, if we don’t it has absolutely none at all. It’s a paper tiger. We have all the power, we just have to realise it by not complying.

Clearly, there is no need for a UK digital ID. In a moment of stupidity, the UK Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Lisa Nandy, told the BBC that the national ID card would be the same as a national insurance number (NIN), insofar as you won’t be able to work without one. It didn’t occur to her that having a NIN is indeed a prerequisite for employment in the UK and, therefore, no one needs a government digital ID. Assuming, that is, the government’s claimed justification is remotely plausible. Which it isn’t

The government has exploited illegal immigration as an excuse to supposedly introduce digital ID:

[Digital ID] will [. . .] be required for right to work checks to stop those with no right to be in the country from finding work. This is to send a clear message that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to work, deterring people from making dangerous journeys.

There are few glaring problems with this ludicrous argument.

For a start, you can’t get a NIN if you are in the UK illegally. Those who employ people illegally couldn’t care less whether you have a NIN or not, just as they won’t care if a slave labourer has a BritCard or not. No “message” will be sent because those who come here illegally do so knowing it is illegal and the BritCard won’t make any difference to them either. Nor will trafficked illegal immigrants be deterred because they don’t have a choice and the traffickers show no signs of giving up on their multi-billion dollar industry which, in any event, digital ID will do nothing to hinder.

In addition, if they receive leave to remain, refugees and asylum seekers can secure a NIN for themselves and work here legally. So, all in all, the government’s argument for introducing digital ID is total codswallop.

It is obvious that tackling illegal migration has nothing to do with the UK governments alleged hope of foisting digital ID on us all. It is equally obvious that the restricting the right to work is not really the purpose of digital ID:

A new digital ID scheme will make it easier for people across the UK to use vital government services. The roll-out will in time make it easier to apply for government and private sector services, such as helping renters to quickly prove their identity to landlords, improving access to welfare and other benefits, and making it easier for parents to apply for free childcare.

So, “in time,” we will supposedly need digital ID to access services like child care, to receive “welfare and other benefits,” and to rent a home. But that’s not all. We will also need it to access “private sector services” such as those offered by banks. You’ll need your government approved digital ID to buy a home too, in time.

In short, a state issued digital ID gives the state total control over your life and, to a great extent, the economy.

Currently migrants given leave to stay, either permanently or temporarily, can use government issued biometric ID—digital identity that contains biological information—to “open a bank account.” Starmer’s biometric BritCard, and all digital ID, merely extends that government mandated “privilege” to the rest of us.

Starmer is a globalist member of numerous policy think tanks, including the Trilateral Commission. The policy to enforce digital ID on everyone has nothing to do with his government. That Policy emanated from globalist think tanks, like the Trilateral Commission, and was set by the United Nations as SDG 16.9 in 2016.

Starmer and the UK government are seemingly doing what they are told. But something doesn’t quite add up.

The global digital ID systems and networks that have been put into place, to date, do not require the issuance of any single biometric digital ID card or app. Rather, a smorgasbord of “vendor agnostic” digital ID products can be made “interoperable” and share data in a uniform machine readable format. If the SDG 16.9 plans for data interoperability proceed as envisaged, the data from your UK biometric digital ID driving licence—which you probably already possess—and your biometric digital ID passport, for instance, could be linked to all your purchases through your interoperable digital bank card.

The data from all these “vendor agnostic” digital ID products, because they each use interoperable machine readable data exchange formats, can then be hoovered up to the global digital ID database. At present, the World Bank’s ID4D looks like the most likely candidate. The UN’s World Bank has set the interoperability data standards that the digital ID database requires and has divided them into five categories:

Major standards to facilitate the technical quality and interoperability of the ID system related to: (1) biometrics, (2) cards, (3) 2D barcodes, (4) digital signatures, and (5) federation protocols.

For example, the Indian government’s Aadhaar unique digital ID card (or app) uses “the ISO/IEC 19794 Series and ISO/IEC 19785 for biometric data interchange formats.” These are approved World Bank ID4D interoperability standards. In this case, Indian’s biometric data can be exported in a “machine-readable format enabling ease of import into” the SDG 16.9 compliant global ID4D database.

In July 2022, the ID2020 Alliance—the group tasked with fulfilling SDG 16.9—appointed Clive Smith as its new executive director. Clive was the former Director of Global Operations at the United Nations Foundation Mobile Health Alliance. Speaking about his new role, Clive said:

ID2020 can play a pivotal role, helping ensure that the appropriately interoperable solutions – and related financial, legal, and regulatory guardrails – are in place, and become the foundation of digital ID in the decades ahead.

The interoperable digital infrastructure is the key to constructing our digital IDs from interlinked vendor agnostic digital ID products. In effect, our digital ID can be manufactured by the system, as we interact with it, without us having any one, designated digital ID app or card. That is the point of digital ID-linked product interoperability.

The UK government already has an SDG 16.9 compatible biometric digital ID platform called One Login. It is part of the Government Digital Service (GDS) and provides users with access to government services via their GOV.UK digital wallets. The system is hopelessly insecure and the risk of identity theft is high, but all digital ID systems are prone to criminal misuse, so there’s nothing unusual there.

In India R.S. Sharma, Chairman of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), decided to demonstrate that claims of digital ID security flaws were all “conspiracy theories.” He published his Aadhaar number on, what was then, Twitter to prove the system was secure. Within hours, hackers had released his mobile number(s), personal Gmail and Yahoo addresses, his home address, date of birth, frequent flyer number, private photographs and bank account details to which—for a laugh but making their point—they sent some small payments.

Nevertheless, the interoperable digital ID infrastructure that is being installed globally means there are no technological reasons to account for the UK government’s attempt to introduce an extremely unpopular single, government issued digital ID. Especially seeing as it already has a digital ID system (One Login) that uses existing ID, such as driving licenses, to essentially achieve the same thing that the BritCard is supposed to deliver.

Compounding this unfathomable government strategy, the British have a long history of objecting to government issued ID. To expect us to go along with it this time is nonsensical.

Government issued ID was introduced in the First World War and abolished by public demand in 1919. They were reintroduced shortly after the start of the Second World War and withdrawn in 1952, again due to public opposition. The Blair Labour government tried again in 2010 and, though it was cost and election defeat, rather than unpopularity, that saw that attempt fail, government issued ID was widely opposed nonetheless. The government knows such national ID projects are extremely unpopular and it must have anticipated a political backlash.

Not only that, Starmer’s government decided to formally announce another government issued ID at a time when its popularity has never been lower. Notably, leading voices in the UK Reform Party have already taken a stance against the BritCard, as have those in the Conservative Party. Nor does the announcement do anything to assuage Labour’s alleged concerns about the so-called “far-right” as its supposed leaders have also come out against the BritCard move.

There is no realistic prospect that the government is going to get people to adopt its ridiculous BritCards. From Starmer’s and the Labour government’s perspective, this looks like political suicide. What’s going on?

After its initial leaky debacle, the contract for the cyber security for the government’s One Login was given to the US multinational Accenture led by Julie Sweet who sits on the Board of Trustees for both the World Economic Forum and the Center for Strategic & International Studies. Accenture is partnered with Peter Thiel’s Palantir and Thiel sits on the Steering Committee of the Bilderberg Group. Both Accenture and Palantir are strategic partners with Larry Elllison’s Oracle. Ellison, like Thiel, is currently highly influential within the US government. All three companies have close links to the intelligence agencies, but Palantir’s and Oracle’s are very close.

Palantir is deeply embedded within the UK government and its defence and health sector. Oracle is similarly central to the digital transformation of UK government and, as we have just discussed, so is Accenture. These US Tech giants, led by people close to the centre of global power, all want to see digital ID succeed in the UK and fully back UN SDG 16.9.

Ellison is known to be a close associate of former UK prime minister Tony Blair and reportedly the money-man behind the Tony Blair Institute (TBI). The TBI has been pushing for digital ID in the UK for years. But what is digital ID really about for think tanks and policy setting groups like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and the TBI?

It is all about using the harvested data to control our lives. Lest you have any doubt, in September 2024, Ellison told Oracle investors:

Citizens will be on their best behavior because we are constantly recording and reporting everything that’s going on.

In February this year, the TBI published a blueprint for what it calls the UK’s National Data Library (NDL). The TBI wants the data from all corners of the society and the economy, all public and private services, all industry, all business and all of us, to be stored in one unified central database: the NDL.

However, in order for the NDL to work, the TBI noted:

Harmonised personal identifiers, using a consistent number to refer to the same entity in different places, should be introduced to improve interoperability. [. . .] None of this would be possible without efforts to improve the broader data infrastructure, including efforts around interoperability and digital identity. [. . .] This allows the NDL to focus on closing a critical gap by addressing the legal, operational and structural barriers that prevent effective data use. Interoperability and even linkage efforts, welcome as they are, do not guarantee access or usability.

Clearly, the TBI is acutely aware of the interoperability that lies at the heart of the global digital transformation. The One Login GDS system is prepped for the completion of the necessary digital infrastructure. Digital ID is the linchpin that sets the entire system in motion. Therefore, it is essential to the government and its partners—Palantir, Accenture, and Oracle, etc.,—that we can somehow be cajoled into accepting digital ID.

Starmer’s BritCard is not intended to convince us to adopt digital ID. Its announcement is spectacularly ill-timed, the arguments offered to justify it are absurd and there is no reason to think the British public will ever buy in to it.

It is not unreasonable to speculate that BritCard is a bait-and-switch psyop.

The BritCard has stimulated debate about digital ID. I’m sure Newsnight and Question Time will cover it. We can argue the pros and cons and consider if we want digital ID. Then we will either accept or reject the BritCard, imagining that it is the totality of digital ID, and the issue will be resolved. Which I think is the point of BritCard.

The most likely outcome is that as anger is stoked and resentment swells, the completely unnecessary BritCard will be flung out along with the Labour government: again.

The door will then be open for the political saviours, be they the Tories, Reform or whomever, to come to power promising never to subject us to any more of these idiotic government issued ID schemes.

However, to keep pace with the digital revolution, our digital infrastructure, our cards and licenses, will need to be upgraded to facilitate the necessary interoperability.

Voila! We will rejoice in our victory and accept digital ID without even knowing it.

Authored by Thaddeus McCotter via American Greatness,

Last week, I wrote about the left’s playbook of projection and deflection, wherein they ascribe their own sins unto their victims. This week, let us examine how the left tries to advance its radical agenda by redefining words and standards.

Today’s case study: free speech.

While the First Amendment of the United States Constitution recognizes and protects the God-given right to free speech, there has always been a reasonable, popular consensus that there exists material not suitable for young, impressionable children and that, alternatively, for adult consumption, cannot be banned. The left is endeavoring to rend this consensus.

Presently, the left equates the removal of age-inappropriate materials that sexualize children from public schools as “censorship.” As readers of last week’s article will recognize, such is a deflection and a projection from the fact the left has for years been banning, eliminating, and re-editing all manner of media, usually by “dead white European males” (though certainly not exclusively), from curricula for being contrary to the dictates of their “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) secular religion.

While one might expect leftists to recognize their own mendacity and hypocrisy, one would be sorely mistaken. For the left is both benighted and buoyed in their self-delusions by their ideology, one that has engaged in a long-running war on language. Believing that redefining the language will refashion reality, the left weaponizes the language to advance its political agenda, providing a word with a meaning antithetical to its original popular understanding—often in combination with replacing an existing objective standard with a new subjective one. These weaponized, twisted terms and standards are designed to deceive both the general population and the left itself—in short, turning their black hats into white hats in the distorted funhouse mirror of their minds.

Building upon Steven Soukup’s exceptional American Greatness piece, “The Left’s Repressive Tolerance,” let us ponder how the left has come to redefine this term.

In his 1965 essay “Repressive Tolerance,” Herbert Marcuse brazenly proclaimed the left’s plan to twist the language and the concept of objective standards for free speech beyond all recognition. Bluntly, in the hands of Marcuse and his fellow leftists, “day is night as dark is light and wrong is right,” and tolerance is perverted into intolerance.

Under the constitution, tolerance is tantamount to “live and let live.” Regarding free speech, in sum, one need not agree or even listen to another but must tolerate the other’s right to speak. The more free speech the merrier, as it were—unless one were a leftist who, unable to convince the public of the rectitude of their cause (because it is non-existent), believes that stifling other views will allow their genius to persuade the populace to support their radical agenda.

Thus, the objective standard of content neutrality undergirding tolerance for all manner of free speech must be jettisoned, and a subjective standard must be substituted (though duplicitously not expressed in such honest terms). For, as Marcuse asserts, “This sort of tolerance strengthens the tyranny of the majority against which authentic liberals protested.”

How so?

“The political locus of tolerance has changed: while it is more or less quietly and constitutionally withdrawn from the opposition, it is made compulsory behavior with respect to established policies. Tolerance is turned from an active into a passive state, from practice to non-practice: laissez-faire the constituted authorities. It is the people who tolerate the government, which in turn tolerates opposition within the framework determined by the constituted authorities.”

Cutting through the cant, Marcuse and his fellow travelers disliked modern society; ergo, the objective standard is out of the Overton window and his subjective assessment will now dictate your right to free speech. Why?

First, the left thinks other people are problematic morons:

“The toleration of the systematic moronization of children and adults alike by publicity and propaganda…are not distortions and aberrations, they are the essence of a system which fosters tolerance as a means for perpetuating the struggle for existence and suppressing the alternatives.” [Emphasis mine.]

Aye, there’s the rub and reason number two: Marcuse and the left are upset that their voices are being ignored—granted, they are being ignored by sane people, but that is lost upon the left. Ergo, folks need to shut up and listen and submit to the left’s demands, lest a feckless, fascist-abetting humanity squander the opportunity to improve their lot in life:

“…promulgated, practiced, and defended by democratic and authoritarian governments alike, and the people subjected to these governments are educated to sustain such practices as necessary for the preservation of the status quo. Tolerance is extended to policies, conditions, and modes of behavior which should not be tolerated because they are impeding, if not destroying, the chances of creating an existence without fear and misery.”

Per Marcuse and his ilk, your God-given right to free speech must be repressed so you can be herded into an existence without fear and misery, like the workers’ paradise of the Soviet Union or Pol Pot’s Cambodia.

Patently, Marcuse’s “repressive tolerance” is tantamount to “perverting tolerance.” Non-leftist thought will not be tolerated and will be silenced (i.e., “repressed”). This is Marcuse channeling his inner totalitarian to put his own verbose sophist pillows on the threadbare intellectual chair of Rousseau’s civil religion:

“The conclusion reached is that the realization of the objective of tolerance would call for intolerance toward prevailing policies, attitudes, opinions, and the extension of tolerance to policies, attitudes, and opinions which are outlawed or suppressed. In other words, today tolerance appears again as what it was in its origins, at the beginning of the modern period—a partisan goal, a subversive liberating notion and practice. Conversely, what is proclaimed and practiced as tolerance today is in many of its most effective manifestations, serving the cause of oppression.”

Oh, and the reward for being “forced to be free?” As if regressing from corrupting civilization into noble savagery and socialism progressing into communism, repressive tolerance will one day magically morph into “liberating tolerance,” whereby everyone in the world will agree with Marcuse and the left, so everyone will have free speech and tolerance again. No, really….

For the record, Marcuse is up front about why he feels entitled to destroy your rights:

“The author is fully aware that, at present, no power, no authority, no government exists which would translate liberating tolerance into practice, but he believes that it is the task and duty of the intellectual to recall and preserve historical possibilities which seem to have become utopian possibilities—that it is his task to break the concreteness of oppression in order to open the mental space in which this society can be recognized as what it is and does.”

Succinctly, this academic believes one can only open a mind by closing it first. Is there any greater explanation and, yes, indictment of modern academe? How Allan Bloom was so prescient back in the day….

So, here, in all its hubristic duplicity and imbecility, is the left’s stance on free speech: projection and deflection; substituting a subjective standard for an objective standard; the perversion of the term “tolerance”; and the rationalization for not only censorship but also cancel culture and worse for dissenting opinions and people. Frankly, Marcuse and the left’s idea of tolerance is intolerance—shut up and listen, or else.

Now, you can see why the left calls non-leftists “fascists” and “Nazis” and why any dissenting opinions from leftist doctrine are deemed “hate speech.” Simply, the left aims to repress your right to free speech to control the public discourse and agenda, and feels justified in so doing because you are a cog in the regime’s machine.

Perhaps, then, it is also because this diabolical distortion of “tolerance” and the subjective standard, which both allows its twisting into “intolerance” and rationalizes away the repression required to enforce it, that renders leftists susceptible to “justifying” and indulging their “rage” with violence?

While there are more strategies and tactics to be explored within its pages, suffice it to once more note that, if unchecked, the postmodern left’s playbook could become Western civilization’s suicide note.

Gold has just topped the $4,000/oz level for the first time ever, cementing its status as the year’s best performing asset and most intriguing story in global commodities, not to mention the most important themes across broader financial markets – one of accelerating and relentless fiat destruction coupled with what Rabobank earlier today called passing the global fiscal event horizon (read letting inflation run amok in hopes of inflating away the $330 trillion in global debt).

Spot bullion climbed as much as 1% to $4,014 an ounce…

… in a milestone moment for the metal that traded below $2,000 just two years ago, with returns that now well outstrip those for equities this century. 

Much of that upside has taken place in 2025 when gold soared more than 50% in the face of continued paper currency debasement and uncertainties over global trade and fiscal stability in the US (people also like adding “Fed independence” here but only idiots believe the Fed was actually independent, ever). At the same time, geopolitical tensions have boosted demand for haven assets, while central banks have continued to buy gold at an elevated pace

The recent re-start of the Fed’s rate cutting cycle has also been a boon for gold, which benefits any time the Fed injects liquidity into the system like now. Investors have responded by piling into exchange-traded funds, with bullion-backed ETFs seeing their biggest monthly inflow in more than three years in September according to Bloomberg, something we predicted well ahead of time.

Think the move in gold is notable? Just wait until the ETFs start chasing pic.twitter.com/SoOXEd2Hdz

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 3, 2025

As Bloomberg notes, jumps in the price of gold typically track broader economic and political stresses. The metal breached $1,000 an ounce in the aftermath of the financial crisis, $2,000 during the Covid pandemic, and $3,000 as the Trump administration’s tariff plans washed over global markets in March.

“Gold breaking $4,000 isn’t just about fear — it’s about reallocation,” said Charu Chanana, a strategist at Saxo Capital Markets Pte. “With economic data on pause and rate cuts on the horizon, real yields are easing, while AI-heavy equities look stretched. Central banks built the base for this rally, but retail and ETFs are now driving the next leg.”

Gold’s rally is on pace for its best annual performance since the 1970s, a decade when soaring inflation and the end of the gold standard sparked a 15-fold rally of the precious metal. At that time, Richard Nixon pressured the Fed to lower rates. The central bank under then-chair Arthur Burns was clearly not independent and some speculate that a similar suppression of monetary policy may emerge in the next year when Powell is gone and replaced with a Fed chair of Trump’s choosing.

Ahead of the historic breakout, Goldman this morning raised its 2026E gold price forecast from 4,300 to 4,900, a move which the bank believes will still be supported by:

• Central bank buying to average 80/70 tonnes in 2025/2026 (contributing 19pp by Dec26).
• Western ETF holdings to rise as the Fed cuts the funds rate by 100bp mid-2026 (contributing 5pp by Dec26).
• Speculative positioning to gradually normalize (contributing -1pp by Dec26)

Elevated central bank buying is a “structural shift in reserve management behavior, and we do not expect a near-term reversal,” Lina Thomas, Goldman commodities strategist wrote in a September note. “Our base case assumes that the current trend in [central bank] accumulation continues for another three years.”

We have been hammering the table for years on gold’s disconnect and relentless meltup ever since the Biden admin weaponized the dollar after the Ukraine war, which we now know was meant to cover up the local crimes of the Biden crime family.

Meanwhile, a staggering gap has opened between gold spot, net speculative positions, and total gold ETF holdings. The (physical) east is all in, the (paper) west refuses to wake up pic.twitter.com/InWzVMYacb

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) June 4, 2025

Goldman also sees risks skewed to the upside, as private sector diversification may boost ETF holdings above our rates-implied estimate.

As a result, Goldman’s trading desk has proposed a trade to take advantage of the coming meltup with 10x leverage. 

How To Trade (from GS Sales & Trading)

Buy a 6m XAU Binary call with 10x Payoff (indic 4700 strike, off spot 3960) 

• Limited Loss (Given lack of COT data or Economic Data, significant run in recent weeks leaves room for a pull-back so we prefer to trade through optionality than one-delta)
• Exposure to Upside Convexity (6m Gold Vol is at 17v, 3v off the April tariff highs while 10d callskew is in the 20th percentile vs the precious 10 years, which makes wingy upside relatively cheap).
• No knock-outs (due to the cheap callskew, price knock-outs are not especially cheapening and sell upside tails. This ensures maximum exposure to price rallies).

Goldman’s full gold report available here for pro subs.

President Donald Trump issued a presidential memo on Oct. 6 ordering the approval of a proposed 211-mile industrial road in Alaska to allow access to copper and cobalt minerals.

Trump had initially approved the Ambler Road project during his first term, but the Biden administration blocked it after taking office, citing the need to protect “a pristine area that Alaska Native communities rely on.”

In a statement, Trump approved the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority’s (AIDEA) appeal of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) decision under the Biden administration last year.

As Aldgra Fredly reports for The Epoch Times, Trump stated that the road, which will stretch from the Dalton Highway to Alaska’s remote Ambler Mining District, would provide transportation access to an area rich in mineral deposits.

“The decision finds that the road is in the public interest given our need for access to domestic critical minerals, and there is no economically feasible and prudent alternative route,” the White House said in a fact sheet.

The president has instructed the BLM, National Park Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to reissue the required permits to enable construction of the road, according to the fact sheet.

“I signed this years ago, and Biden unsigned it for me,” Trump told reporters at the Oval Office.

“This is something that should’ve been long operating and making billions of dollars for our country and supplying a lot of energy and minerals.”

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said that building the Ambler Road in Alaska will enable access to copper, lead, zinc, gold, gallium, and other minerals the country needs “to win the AI arms race against China.”

“We’ve got to get back in the mining business. China controls 85 to 100 percent of all the mining and refining of the top 20 critical minerals,” Burgum said at the press conference.

The White House said the project is expected to create thousands of jobs, boost economic growth in rural Alaska, and open transportation access to more than 1,700 active mining claims in the district.

The Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, where the Ambler Road project would pass through, is visible from Ambler, Alaska, on Sept. 28, 2025. Annika Hammerschlag/AP Photo

The environmental group Sierra Club said it opposed Trump’s decision.

Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s lands protection program, said the Ambler Road will cause “significant harm” to Alaska’s landscape, as well as the local communities and wildlife in the area.

“This order ignores those voices in favor of corporate polluters,” Manuel said in a statement. “This is no ordinary road – it’s an industrial corridor through intact forests and Alaskan landscapes long enough to connect Washington, D.C. to Philadelphia. Moreover, it would divide the migration route of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, causing irreversible damage.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The World Health Organization (WHO) said in an outbreak notice last week that some countries are reporting a resurgence in the chikungunya virus, which is transmitted via mosquitoes, and warned that the virus could spread further.

In a notice issued on Oct. 3, the U.N.-backed health body said that the chikungunya virus saw “a resurgence” in 2025, including in countries “that had not reported substantial case numbers in recent years.”

The disease typically produces symptoms including fever, muscle pain, nausea, fatigue, and a rash. But in rarer instances, it can cause debilitating joint pain that persists for months or even years, while patients who develop severe forms of the disease usually have to be hospitalized due to organ damage

As of Sept. 30, at least 445,271 suspected chikungunya cases and 155 related deaths were reported worldwide in 40 countries, according to the WHO.

“Some WHO regions are experiencing significant increases in case numbers compared to 2024, although others are currently reporting lower case numbers,” it said. “This uneven distribution of cases across regions makes it challenging to characterize the situation as a global rise.”

The Americas region reported the highest number of viral cases, followed by the European region, which the WHO said comprises “cases reported predominantly from French Overseas Departments in the Indian Ocean.”

Due to what it says is an “uneven distribution of cases across regions,” the WHO said it’s difficult to describe the situation as a global rise, but it warned that “the potential for further spread remains significant.”

The risk caused by the mosquito-borne illness is “heightened by limited population immunity in previously unaffected areas, favorable environmental conditions for vector breeding, gaps in surveillance and diagnostic capacity, and increased human mobility and trade,” the U.N. health agency added.

“Strengthening disease surveillance, enhancing vector surveillance and control, and improving public health preparedness are essential to mitigate the risk of further transmission,” it said.

Late last month, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a travel warning for Cuba over concerns of chikungunya’s transmission in the country. The agency said an outbreak of the chikungunya virus is currently active across Cuba. As a result, a Level 2 travel warning was issued by the health agency.

Women who are “infected around the time of delivery can pass the virus to their baby before or during delivery,” the CDC said on Sept. 26. “Newborns infected in this way or by a mosquito bite are at risk for severe illness, including poor long-term outcomes.”

Aside from Cuba, the CDC released a list of other countries with an outbreak of chikungunya, including Bangladesh, Kenya, Madagascar, Somalia, and Guangdong Province, China. Countries with an elevated risk include Brazil, Colombia, India, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Thailand, it added.

Earlier this year, cases of chikungunya were spreading rapidly across southern China, as local residents at the time told The Epoch Times that Chinese Communist Party (CCP) officials forced people into quarantine.

On Aug. 1, the CDC issued a Level 2 travel alert for China over the virus, adding that “most cases have been reported in Foshan city” in Guangdong Province.

“Seek medical care immediately if you develop fever, joint pain, headache, muscle pain, joint swelling, or rash during or after travel,” the agency warned.

Chikungunya is transmitted by infected mosquitoes and mostly causes mild symptoms. The majority of people who get chikungunya recover without needing medical attention after one to two weeks, health officials say.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

An FBI document obtained by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) shows that the FBI, under Joe Biden, spied on 8 Republican senators as part of its Arctic Frost investigation.

The revelation that the FBI snooped on the phone records of Republican members of Congress during its January 6 investigation is bringing greater scrutiny to then-FBI Director Christopher Wray, during whose tenure the bureau effort occurred, and to then-Special Counsel Jack Smith, who was leading the Biden Justice Department’s investigation into Donald Trump.

The once-secret FBI record, dated late September 2023, has the title of “CAST Assistance” – a likely reference to the bureau’s cellular analysis survey team.

The case ID for the record is “ARCTIC FROST – Election Law Matters – SENSITIVE INVESTIGATIVE MATTER — CAST.”

As American Greatness reports, Grassley said the 2023 investigation, which formed the basis of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s elector case against President Trump, targeted 8 GOP Senators’ personal cell phones for “tolling data” tracking their use between January 4 and January 7, 2021.

According to a press release from the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, the FBI targeted 8 GOP Senators, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO), Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK),  Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI), Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) as well as Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA).

This document shows the Biden FBI spied on 8 of my Republican Senate colleagues during its Arctic Frost investigation into “election conspiracy” Arctic Frost later became Jack Smith’s elector case against Trump

BIDEN FBI WEAPONIZATION = WORSE THAN WATERGATE pic.twitter.com/V2JyiVlX48

— Chuck Grassley (@ChuckGrassley) October 6, 2025

In that press release, Grassley stated, “Based on the evidence to-date, Arctic Frost and related weaponization by federal law enforcement under Biden was arguably worse than Watergate.”

Grassley added, “What I’ve uncovered today is disturbing and outrageous political conduct by the Biden FBI. The FBI’s actions were an unconstitutional breach, and Attorney General Bondi and Director Patel need to hold accountable those involved in this serious wrongdoing.”

The FBI’s Arctic Frost investigation began in April 2022 by former agent Timothy Thibault and was assigned to Special Counsel Jack Smith in November 2022.

Whistleblower disclosure obtained earlier this year revealed the FBI, with personal assistance from officials in the Biden White House, also obtained the government cell phones of President Donald Trump and former Vice President Mike Pence as part of the investigation.

Just last month, Grassley released records showing that 92 Republican-linked individuals and groups like Turning Point USA were also scrutinized by the FBI as part of the Arctic Frost investigation.

Grassley noted that he has been working with whistleblowers since July 2022 and stated, “It’s taken years to get records and advance my investigation, but what the public is seeing now demonstrates the importance of congressional oversight and whistleblowers. My whistleblowers deserve great thanks for what they’ve helped expose. None of this would have been known without them.”

Patel tweeted on Monday that “we recently uncovered proof that phone records of U.S. lawmakers were seized for political purposes” and “that abuse of power ends now.”

President Trump is not pleased…

And Senator Josh Hawley went off on “Biden’s Stasi”:

The truth comes out. Biden’s Stasi who claimed to be saving “our sacred democracy” in fact worked overtime to destroy it – all for power. They spied on Catholic churches, prosecuted pro-lifers, deployed the FBI against parents at school board meetings – and tried to tap the… https://t.co/d9ULjfVZWM

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 6, 2025

Biden’s FBI spied on my phone calls AND tracked my location

But they didn’t stop there. They also targeted parents, pro-lifers & 92 conservative organizations like Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA

We need a thorough investigation – and there needs to be prosecutions pic.twitter.com/19r7uA1H4b

— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) October 7, 2025

How will the left spin this?

*  *  *

Swedish journalist Christian Peterson located Johan Victorin, identified as a co-founder of the Portland-based Rose City Antifa cell, at his residence in Varberg, Sweden. The encounter occurred as the Trump administration formally designated Antifa a domestic terrorist organization and comes amid ongoing coordinated disruptions by Antifa-linked woke soldiers targeting federal deportation operations at an ICE facility in southern Portland.

“After the Trump administration designated Rose City Antifa as a terrorist group, I can now reveal that its founder has resurfaced in Varberg, Sweden,” Peterson wrote on X, adding, “Early this morning, I approached Johan Victorin for comment on the designation — and whether he fears prosecution.” 

After the Trump administration designated Rose City Antifa as a terrorist group, I can now reveal that its founder has resurfaced in Varberg, Sweden.

Early this morning, I approached Johan Victorin for comment on the designation — and whether he fears prosecution. pic.twitter.com/RuBxT0MRwh

— Christian Peterson 🇸🇪 (English) (@christianpet_) October 6, 2025

Peterson linked back to journalist Andy Ngo’s X post from April 2020 that revealed: “Caroline Victorin (née Gauld) is one of the founders of Rose City Antifa, the oldest known antifa organization in the U.S. With her Swedish husband, Johan Victorin,—who is also antifa—they helped import the European antifa extremism model into the U.S.” 

The founders of Rose City Antifa are Caroline Victorin and Johan Victorin. They fled to Varberg, Sweden after forming the violent militant group in Portland years ago. RCA has gone underground since around 2021, fearing conspiracy charges. https://t.co/E6xaBUPNMq

— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) September 20, 2025

Ngo continued, “The founders of Rose City Antifa are Caroline Victorin and Johan Victorin. They fled to Varberg, Sweden after forming the violent militant group in Portland years ago. RCA has gone underground since around 2021, fearing conspiracy charges.” 

In the video, the Swedish journalist attempted to ask Johan Victorin, who has U.S. and Swedish dual citizenship, whether President Donald Trump’s designation of Antifa as a domestic terrorist group made him afraid of being convicted.

As a reminder for Johan Victorin, Sweden has an extradition treaty with the U.S. that was signed in 1961 and took effect in 1963. Also, Sweden is bound by the European Convention on Extradition (1957). This means extradition is possible for serious crimes, such as operating domestic terror networks in the U.S.

Meanwhile, Portland Antifa continues to apply maximum pressure on the ICE facility in Portland, disrupting federal deportation operations. President Trump is reportedly considering invoking the Insurrection Act to justify federal troop deployment to secure federal buildings and personnel amid Antifa-linked attacks in the metro area. The armed radical left has declared war (read report).

Submitted by Gun Owners of America, 

Recently leaked text messages from Virginia AG candidate Jay Jones revealed violent fantasies about Republican lawmakers. Jones has the backing of the gun control lobby, which is completely silent on the entire situation. 

The texts in question detailed Jones’ fantasies about shooting one of his Republican colleagues in the head, twice, instead of Hitler or Pol Pot.

The private messages offer a disturbing glimpse into how Jones — who is looking to oust incumbent Republican Attorney General Jason Miyares this fall — describes his political adversaries in private conversations. pic.twitter.com/vvbtcn4vIQ

— National Review (@NRO) October 3, 2025

That’s not all, he also made plans to “piss on their graves,” referring, of course, to the Republicans he fantasized about murdering. 

And finally, he wished death upon a Republican politician’s children in the hopes that tragedy would move that individual closer to his personal views on policy. 

“Only when people feel pain personally do they move on policy?”

How many think this way? pic.twitter.com/XiCTSJ9wuy

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) October 4, 2025

But even more telling is the fact that in response to this exposure of Jones’ violent fantasies, no gun control groups have made any statements condemning Jones’ remarks or rescinding their endorsements. 

In fact, Jones’ website still proudly displays the endorsements of large and small gun control groups alike. Featured prominently are Moms Demand Action, Everytown, Brady, Giffords, Virginians for Change, and Prevent Gun Tragedies PAC.

🚨BREAKING🚨

VA Democrat Jay Jones—who threatened to shoot Republicans and wished their children would die—still lists endorsements from gun control groups @GIFFORDS_org, @MomsDemand, and @bradybuzz on his website. pic.twitter.com/SG0aVqvaGt

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 6, 2025

You’d think that in their work to oppose “gun violence,” a candidate who fantasizes about shooting his political opponent twice in the head would be a no-go. 

Yet, nothing but silence from the anti-gun lobby. It seems as if you are on their side, violence is acceptable. 

This refusal to condemn Jones’ violent fantasies is clearly why Jones has no intent to drop out of the Virginia AG race, even after these text messages were leaked. 

Everytown, the anti-gun group belonging to billionaire and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, donated $200,000 to Jay Jones’ campaign in August.

In Everytown’s announcement of their support, their President, John Feinblatt, was singing Jones’ praises, even calling him a “committed gun sense champion.”  

⚠️@Everytown’s president @JohnFeinblatt thinks Jay Jones is a “committed gun sense champion.”

Anti-gunners support Democrats who want to shoot Republicans & confiscate their guns. https://t.co/ghviuyvya8 pic.twitter.com/ZBXqe4m6k9

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 6, 2025

Anti-gun groups love Jay Jones. And there’s a reason for that. During his time as a State Representative, he voted for numerous anti-gun bills—many of which became law.

Jones voted for the establishment of new gun-free zones, bans on privately made firearms, bans on carrying around the Capitol Square in Richmond, red flag laws, and more. 

His gun-control activism and attempts to restrict your right to own a firearm clearly didn’t stop him from fantasizing about killing his Republican coworkers. 

It doesn’t seem to bother his anti-gun donors either.

Every single one of these gun control organizations backing Jay Jones must loudly renounce him & his calls for political violence.

Another day, another Ukrainian long-range drone attack on energy and industrial sites deep inside Russian territory. But overnight, Kiev set a record for distance.

On Monday evening, authorities in Western Siberia’s Tyumen region said they downed three drones near an industrial and oil refinery site in what marks furthest known Ukrainian drone incursion reported inside Russian territory since the start of the war.

Tyumen residents posted videos online showing fire trucks and ambulances rushing toward the Antipinsky oil refinery, among the region’s largest, with a processing capacity of 9 million tons of crude per year.

“A prompt response from emergency services prevented a detonation. There were no casualties, explosions or fires. All enterprises in the area continue to operate normally,” the Tyumen government press service said.

At least two explosions were observed, likely in the air, based on local news sources, along with mobile network disruptions in the area.

Crucially, the region is located roughly 1,240 miles (or 2,000 kilometers) from the Ukrainian border.

But it appears the inbound drones may have been intercepted before hitting any industrial site, as a regional statement said three drones were “detected and neutralized on the premises of an enterprise.”