The Original Deep State: The Anglo-Canadian Hand Behind the Civil War and Lincoln’s Murder

[…]

It is thus worth taking the time at this moment of crisis to review the true reasons for America’s last British intelligence managed Civil War 160 years ago, how Lincoln revived a system of constitutional banking to preserve the nation, how Russia saved the beleaguered nation in 1863, and how the Anglo-American oligarchy killed Lincoln, and undid his vision for a world liberated from empire after his murder.

What in Hell was Lincoln Actually Dealing With?

Beyond the dangers of secession, Lincoln had to contend with the Wall Street financiers and anglophile families who worked tirelessly to sabotage the president’s ability to acquire the funds necessary to execute the war.

[…]

While modern defenders of the confederacy maintain the lie that slavery itself would have disappeared peacefully in time had Lincoln not made it an issue, the fact is that the Confederate Constitution enshrined slavery as perpetual, actually making it illegal for any one at any point to pas any law “denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves” [Article 1, Section9].

In Article 4, section 2, the constitution enshrined the Dred-Scott fugitive slave amendment into law saying: “No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or unlawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs, or to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Perhaps most indicative of the nature of the struggle that nearly undid the republic in 1861 is the following devotion to British liberal monetarism banning protectionism, national banking, or investments into internal improvements. In Article 1 section 8 of the Confederate Constitution, we read: “no bounties shall be granted from the treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties imposed and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States” and Congress shall never “appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce”.

The City of London’s Two American Confederacy Operations to Undo 1776

Russian Ambassador to London de Brunow reported to Moscow of England’s desire to break the Union writing in January 1861:

“The English government, at the bottom of its heart, desired the separation of North America into two republics, which will watch each other jealously and counterbalance one the other. Then England, on terms of peace and commerce with both, would have nothing to fear from either; for she would dominate them, restraining them by their rival ambitions.”

This was not only the opinion of Russia’s ambassador to London, but Robert Gascoyne Cecil (later called the Marquess of Salisbury and three-time Prime Minister of Britain) expressed his viewpoint on the matter in the British Parliament:

“The Northern States of America never can be our sure friends because we are rivals, rivals politically, rivals commercially…With the Southern States, the case is entirely reversed. The population are an agricultural people. They furnish the raw material of our industry, and they consume the products which we manufacture from it. With them, every interest must lead us to cultivate friendly relations, and when the war began they at once recurred to England as their natural ally.” [emphasis added]

British Traitors in America

[…]

150 years of revisionist historians have obscured the real Lincoln and the true nature of the Civil War as a British run operation to undo the revolution of 1776. The martyred president was always an opponent to slavery and always situated himself in the traditions of the American System of Hamilton describing in 1832 a policy which he later enacted 30 years later: “My politics are short and sweet, like the old woman’s dance. I am in favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the internal improvement system, and a high protective tariff. These are my sentiments and political principles.”

As early as 1839 Lincoln was a loud advocate for reviving a third Hamiltonian National Bank and worked to get Whig president William Harrison elected on that ticket in 1840 (who unfortunately died after only three months in office with a national bank revival act sitting unsigned on his desk). The second (and last) Whig leader to become president in 1851 supported by Lincoln was Zachary Taylor who also died under similarly conspicuous circumstances in the middle of his first term while fighting against America’s proto Deep State. Official cause of death? Eating too many cherries and cold milk.

[…]

From this period in the Congress where he became a leading ally of John Quincy Adams alongside other Henry Clay Whigs, Lincoln played a leading role in opposition to the unjust U.S.-Mexican War, Lincoln committed himself consistently to ending not only systems of slavery but also all hereditary power structures internationally which he understood were inextricably connected . . .

[…]

Putting this economic policy into action during the height of the war occurred in a 3-step operation which began with Banking and Currency Acts in 1862 and 1863. These acts established placed the thousands of local state banks under a federal charter with federal supervision for the first time in decades. By imposing a 10% tax on state bank notes, private independent state banks shrank from 1466 in 1861 to only 297 by 1865 and over 1630 national banks took their place.

The Bank Act of 1863 established reserve requirements for the first time, and also capped the interest rates in order to destroy usury within the nation itself. In order to eliminate international interference and manipulation from Wall Street financiers, the Bank Act also forced 75% of all bank directors to reside in the state in which the bank was located and all directors had to be American citizens.

The most important step in this fight was the sovereign control of credit issuance which, according to Article 1 section 8 of the U.S. constitution, can only be affected through the U.S. treasury (an important lesson for anyone serious about ending the privately run Federal Reserve controls over national finance today). Following this constitutional principle, Lincoln issued a new form of currency called Greenbacks which could only be issued against U.S. government bonds. These began being issued with the 1862 Legal Tender Act.

[…]

These measures were accompanied by a strong protective tariff to grow American industries as well.

[…]

Some Uncomfortable Questions

The story has been told of Lincoln’s murder in tens of thousands of books and yet more often than not the narrative of a “single lone gunman” is imposed onto the story by researchers who are either too lazy or too corrupt to look for the evidence of a larger plot.

How many of those popular narratives infused into the western zeitgeist over the decades even acknowledge the simple fact that within John Wilkes Booth’s possessions was found a $500 bank draft signed by Ontario Bank of Montreal President Henry Starnes (later to become Montreal Mayor) when he was (apparently) shot dead at Garrett Farm on April 26, 1865?

How many people have been exposed to the vast Southern Confederacy secret service operations active throughout the civil war in Montreal, Toronto, and Halifax which was under the firm control of Confederate Secretary of State Judah Benjamin and his handlers in British intelligence?

How many people know that Booth spent at least 5 weeks in the fall of 1864 in Montreal associating closely with the highest echelons of British and Southern intelligence including Starnes, and confederate spy leaders Jacob Thompson and George Sanders?

[…]

On The Trail of the Assassins

After Lincoln was murdered, a manhunt to track down the intelligence networks behind the assassination was underway that eventually led to the hanging of four low level co-conspirators who history has shown were just as much patsies as John Wilkes Booth.

Days later, President Johnson issued a proclamation saying:

“It appears from evidence in the Bureau of Military Justice that the … murder of … Abraham Lincoln … [was] incited, concerted, and procured by and between Jefferson Davis, late of Richmond, Va., and Jacob Thompson, Clement C. Clay, [Nathaniel] Beverly Tucker, George N. Sanders, William C. Cleary, and other rebels and traitors against the government of the United States harbored in Canada.”

Two days before Booth was shot, Secretary of War Edwin Stanton wrote:

“This Department has information that the President’s murder was organized in Canada and approved at Richmond.”

[…]

In the book Montreal City of Secrets (2017), author Barry Sheehy proves that not only was Canada the core of Confederate Secret Services, but also coordinated a multi pronged war from the emerging “northern confederacy” onto Lincoln’s defense of the union alongside Wall Street bankers while the president was fighting militarily to stop the southern secession.

[…]

The Many Shapes of War from the North

Although not having devolved to direct military engagement, the Anglo-Canadian war on the Union involved several components:

Financial warfare: The major Canadian banks dominant in the 19th century were used not only by the confederacy to pay British operations in the construction of war ships, but also to receive much needed infusions of cash from British Financiers throughout the war. A financial war on Lincoln’s greenback was waged under the control of Montreal based confederate bankers John Porterfield and George Payne and also JP Morgan to “short” the greenback.

By 1864, the subversive traitor Salmon Chase had managed to tie the greenback to a (London controlled) gold standard thus making its value hinge upon gold speculation. During a vital moment of the war, these financiers coordinated a mass “sell off” of gold to London driving up the price of gold and collapsing the value of the U.S. dollar crippling Lincoln’s ability to fund the war effort.

Direct Military intervention Thwarted: As early as 1861, the Trent Crisis nearly induced a hot war with Britain when a union ship intervened onto a British ship in international waters and arrested two high level confederate agents en route to London. Knowing that a two-fold war at this early stage was unwinnable, Lincoln pushed back against hot heads within his own cabinet who argued for a second front saying “one war at a time”. Despite this near miss, London wasted no time deploying over 10,000 soldiers to Canada for the duration of the war ready to strike down upon the Union at a moment’s notice and kept at bay in large measure due to the bold intervention of the Russian fleet to both Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the USA. This was a clear message to both England and to Napoleon III’s France (who were stationed across the Mexican border) to stay out of America’s war.

[…]

Despite Russia’s intervention, Britain continued to build warships for the Confederacy which devastated the Union navy during the war and which England had to pay $15.5 million to the USA in 1872 under the Alabama Claims.

Terrorism: It is less well known today than it was during the 19th century that confederate terror operations onto the north occurred throughout the civil war with raids on Union POW camps, efforts to burn popular New York hotels, blowing up ships on the Mississippi, and the infamous St Albans raid of October 1964 on Vermont, and attacks on Buffalo, Chicago, Sandusky, Ohio, Detroit, and Pennsylvania. While the St Albans raiders were momentarily arrested in Montreal, they were soon released under the logic that they represented a “sovereign state” at conflict with another “sovereign state” with no connection to Canada (perhaps a lesson can be learned here for Meng Wanzhou’s lawyers?).

[…]

 

The Truth is Buried Under the Sands of History

[…]

While four low level members of Booth’s cell were hanged on July 7, 1865 after a four month show trial (1), the actual orchestrators of Lincoln’s assassination were never brought to justice with nearly every leading member of the confederate leadership having escaped to England in the wake of Lincoln’s murder.

[…]

Via https://matthewehret.substack.com/p/the-original-deep-state-the-anglo

Former Israeli commander warns Israel faces ‘irreversible collapse’

Israeli activists hold placards during a demonstration in Herzliya on October 29, 2026, (Photo by AFP)

Press TV

2026/11/02

Retired Israeli commander Itzhak Brik says Israel has become an international pariah, warning that its growing isolation is unsustainable.

Retired Israeli commander Itzhak Brik has warned that Israel is facing an “irreversible breakdown” across its military, economy, and institutions, saying it has lost international legitimacy and allies and could not endure prolonged isolation.

In an opinion article published by Israel’s Maariv daily on Sunday, Brik called the results of last Tuesday’s parliamentary elections “the official death certificate of the [regime] of Israel as we knew it,” criticizing television commentators for focusing on parliamentary seats and coalition negotiations while ignoring the regime’s mounting structural problems.

He likened their coverage to “an orchestra playing aboard the Titanic in its final moments,” noting that the political debate was obscuring a far deeper crisis.

The regime is not in a “political crisis, it is in the process of a total, multi-system collapse, from which there is no way back,” he added.

Brik, a former commander of military colleges and former Ombudsman for Soldiers’ Complaints at the ministry of military affairs, said Israel had become an international pariah, warning that its growing isolation was unsustainable.

“We have lost legitimacy and allies,” he wrote, adding that Israel could not remain completely isolated for an extended period.

He also warned of a structural collapse within Israel’s ground forces, citing deteriorating morale and an inability to adequately defend the occupying entity against simultaneous threats from within and beyond its borders.

According to Brik, an exhausted army would be unable to stop large-scale incursions or protect civilians in a broader regional war.

The former military commander further pointed to the economic consequences of prolonged warfare, saying Israel’s national debt had reached 1.4 trillion shekels ($445 billion).

He pointed out that economic sanctions, restrictions on arms supplies and increasing financial isolation were placing additional pressure on the Israeli economy.

Brik dismissed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal to use cryptocurrencies to circumvent potential European sanctions as “naive and absurd,” warning that further economic deterioration could put Israelis’ savings at risk.

Turning to Israel’s internal divisions, Brik said the occupying entity was experiencing a “silent civil war,” rather than merely political polarization.

He warned that the departure of doctors, scientists, technology entrepreneurs, and other highly skilled professionals was draining decades of accumulated expertise and weakening the regime’s institutional and economic foundations.

Brik also slammed Israel’s political leadership for undermining the rule of law and public institutions, arguing that political loyalty and appointments had increasingly taken precedence over competence and integrity.

The October 27 parliamentary election left Netanyahu’s bloc with 53 seats in the 120-member Knesset, compared with 48 seats for the opposition bloc led by Yashar party leader Gadi Eisenkot and 19 seats for Arab parties.

Neither of the two main blocs secured the 61 seats required to form a parliamentary majority.

Via https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/11/02/779736/former-israeli-commander-warns-israel-faces-irreversible-collapse

Trump pushed Justice Dept. to subpoena reporters covering war on Iran

Trump has reportedly pushed the Justice Department to issue subpoenas to reporters covering the war in Iran in an effort to uncover their sources.

US President Donald Trump has reportedly pushed the Justice Department to issue subpoenas to reporters covering the war against Iran in an attempt to uncover their sources, according to officials familiar with the matter.

Trump delivered his message on a sticky note bearing the word “Treason” written in Sharpie, which he placed atop a stack of printed articles handed to acting Attorney General Todd Blanche during a White House meeting, officials said.

Following the meeting, the department issued several subpoenas, including to The Wall Street Journal, which first revealed the probes.

One official told CNN that the Justice Department’s National Security Division was already preparing to examine some of the stories’ sources, but Trump’s stack of articles accelerated the effort.

A source told CNN that the investigation aims to identify government employees who leaked information, not the reporters themselves.

Nevertheless, the subpoenas represent one of the administration’s most aggressive attempts against leaks concerning the administration.

Trump, who has complained about leaks of classified information to reporters since his first term, has been particularly furious when his private comments or details of his briefings related to the Iran war became public, according to several people familiar with his response.

Months into Trump’s second term, former Attorney General Pam Bondi revised Justice Department policy to allow federal investigators, in certain cases, to seek reporters’ phone records, notes, or testimony through court orders, warrants, or subpoenas.

The move, which made it easier for investigators to identify sources, reversed a years-long ban imposed after revelations that Attorney General William Barr had secretly sought reporters’ emails during Trump’s first term.

Last month, just one day after the US president fired Bondi, Trump publicly threatened to send an unspecified reporter to jail as part of a hunt for the “leaker” behind reports of an injured Air Force officer missing inside Iran.

Following Trump’s threat, Blanche stated that the Justice Department “will always investigate” leaks involving classified information, particularly those that put US service members at risk.

“And we will investigate if it means sending a subpoena to the reporter,” he said. “That’s exactly what we should do, and that’s exactly what we will be doing.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Monday that it had received a grand jury subpoena for reporters’ records related to an article published five days before the war began.

The article concerned Joint Chiefs Chairman General Dan Caine and others at the Pentagon who had warned the president about the risks of an extended aggression against Iran.

“The government’s subpoenas to The Wall Street Journal and our reporters represent an attack on constitutionally protected newsgathering,” a spokesperson for Dow Jones, which publishes The Journal, said in a statement to CNN. “We will vigorously oppose this effort to stifle and intimidate essential reporting.”

In addition to The Journal, other news outlets have received subpoenas in recent months, a person at one of the news outlets said on condition of anonymity. However, some of those news organizations have chosen not to comment on the matter for the time being.

Via https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/05/12/768483/Trump-pushed-Justice-Department-subpoena-reporters-covering-Iran-war-Report

US Judge orders Trump administration to stop intimidation of election officials

This image, taken on June 3, 2026, shows voting ballots being inspected at the Los Angeles County Ballot Processing Center in the City of Industry, California, following the state’s primary election. (File photo by AP)

Press TV

2026/11/02

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by labor unions and other groups, who filed a complaint against the Trump administration for interfering in the administration of the midterms.

US District Judge Trina Thompson, who is based at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California, ruled on Friday that the Trump administration was operating outside of its constitutional authority and likely violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits “attempting to intimidate, threaten or coerce” officials facilitating the election process.

“Although Defendants claim that their actions are designed to halt unlawful voting by non-citizens, their actions are likely to have the effect of interfering with election administration and disenfranchising lawful voters,” she said.

The judge issued a temporary restraining order that expires on November 16, almost two weeks after Election Day.

The ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed just a day earlier by labor unions and other groups, who filed a complaint against the Trump administration for interfering in the administration of the midterms.

Later on Saturday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) challenged the California judge’s ruling.

A DOJ spokesperson said in a statement that “the judge issued an order against the federal government without even waiting to hear from the US, while in other cases the Department’s own urgent election claims are delayed by judges until after Election Day.”

On Friday, the Trump administration also lost an appeal against an earlier ruling by another federal judge, who denied the DOJ’s request for California to block more than 20,000 ballots from alleged non-citizens, noting that it “violates longstanding constitutional principles mandating that states have control over their elections.”

On Saturday, District Judge Tanya Chutkan warned that the Trump administration’s efforts to intervene in elections could have a “chilling effect.”

“The government has made no secret of their determination to purge the voter rolls” of individuals they believe to be noncitizens, Chutkan said. “Past efforts to do so have resulted in US citizens being swept up into this law enforcement dragnet.”

Chutkan said she was concerned people may not go to the polls if they’re afraid they could be wrongly accused of noncitizen voting.

The Trump administration is said to be considering taking legal action against more states in the lead-up to — or possibly after — the midterm elections as part of its effort to force states to comb through voter rolls for noncitizens trying to vote in federal elections.

NBC News average of national polls, published on Sunday, suggested that 52 percent of US voters preferred a Democrat-controlled Congress, while 44 percent are in favor of one with a Republican majority.

Via https://www.presstv.co.uk/Detail/2026/11/02/779742/judge-orders-trump-administration-to-stop-intimidation-of-election-officials

Israeli opposition leaders rally behind Eisenkot as PM amid government formation talks

(Photo credit: Israel Hayom)

The Cradle

NOV 2, 2026

Opposition politician Avigdor Liberman says he rejects forming a government with Netanyahu or with Israeli-Palestinian parties

Israeli opposition politician Avigdor Liberman will recommend Yashar leader Gadi Eisenkot for prime minister and support B’Yachad’s Yair Lapid for Knesset speaker, Israeli media reported on 2 November.

Liberman, who leads the Yisrael Beytenu Party, made the announcement at a press briefing on Monday.

Liberman, Eisenkot, and Lapid are among Israel’s most prominent opposition leaders. They are seeking to form a coalition of opposition parties to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the Likud party from power as prime minister.

Under Israel’s Basic Law, President Israel Herzog must consult the political parties represented in the Knesset before deciding which member of parliament should attempt to form a government, which requires 61 of the 120 Knesset seats to form a majority.

When asked whether he expected to be nominated as prime minister, Liberman said he had no expectations and was working to form a government as soon as possible.

Until now, Eisenkot had called for the leader of the largest party in the opposition bloc to become its candidate for prime minister.

Among opposition parties, Eisenkot’s Yashar led with 21 seats in last week’s Knesset election, followed by Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid’s Together Alliance with 12.

However, Liberman announced no agreement on the arrangement within the opposition bloc.

The four-party opposition bloc won 48 seats, compared with 53 for Netanyahu’s bloc. Parties representing Palestinians with Israeli citizenship won another 19 seats.

Former prime minister Naftali Bennett, who leads the B’Yachad party, announced on Sunday that he would recommend Eisenkot to President Herzog as its candidate to form the next government.

If opposition parties cannot form a coalition, new elections may result.

Another possibility is that Netanyahu’s bloc will reach an agreement with members of Eisenkot’s bloc to form a national unity government.

Such an outcome could allow Netanyahu to remain prime minister.

The Palestinian-Israeli parties have said they are willing to cooperate with the opposition bloc to ensure Netanyahu is ousted.

If Eisenkot partners with the Palestinian-Israeli parties, they could form a coalition with 67 seats, prompting Herzog to give Eisenkot the mandate to form a government.

However, Liberman continues to reject forming a government with Netanyahu or one that is reliant on support from Palestinian-Israeli parties, which he says would “survive less than a year.”

Herzog is expected to begin consultations with party representatives on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, opposition party leaders also plan to oust Knesset Speaker Amir Ohana, a member of Netanyahu’s Likud party.

“Also regarding the Knesset speaker, all the speculation and nonsense – we were not extortionists, and we do not intend to extort,” Liberman said. “Yair Lapid said he wants to be Knesset speaker. We will support Yair Lapid’s candidacy for Knesset speaker.”

If Ohana is replaced as speaker, the opposition bloc will gain greater control over the parliamentary agenda, including votes, legislation, and committee appointments, even if Netanyahu remains prime minister.

Via https://thecradle.co/articles/israeli-opposition-leaders-rally-behind-eisenkot-as-pm-amid-government-formation-talks

STUDY: Natural Soil Bacteria Combo Completely Eradicates Tumors Across Multiple Human Cancer Types in Mice

A-gyo and UN-gyo achieved 100% complete tumor regression in animal models of human colorectal, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer, with no observable systemic toxicity.

***

A remarkable study published in Nature Biomedical Engineering reports 100% complete tumor regression in mouse models of human colorectal, ovarian, and pancreatic cancer using a naturally occurring bacterial combination.

Researchers at the Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) demonstrated that two highly synergistic soil- and water-associated bacterial species could fully eliminate established tumors, even in mice with severely compromised immune systems.

The results were extraordinary across the tested human cancer xenograft models:

  • Colorectal cancer: 100% tumor elimination
  • Ovarian cancer: 100% tumor elimination
  • Pancreatic cancer: 100% tumor elimination

Two Naturally Occurring Bacteria Working Together

See this video.

Two intravenous doses of a bacterial combination consisting of Proteus mirabilis and Rhodopseudomonas palustris produced complete tumor regression in the experimental groups.

The researchers named this combination AUN, consisting of two complementary bacterial strains that perform distinct biological functions.

1. Proteus mirabilis (A-gyo): The Primary Tumor Destroyer

A-gyo is the principal tumor-destroying component of the combination. After administration, the bacteria selectively accumulate and proliferate inside tumor tissue, where they contribute to the destruction of tumor blood vessels, extensive tissue necrosis, and cancer-cell death.

Remarkably, the bacterial combination induces localized thrombosis, disrupting the blood supply that tumors depend on for continued growth:

See this video.

A-gyo also undergoes structural changes that increase its ability to move through and penetrate cancerous tissue:

2. Rhodopseudomonas palustris (UN-gyo): The Protective Synergistic Partner

UN-gyo suppresses A-gyo’s potentially harmful biological activity while promoting its transformation into highly motile, tumor-penetrating forms.

The researchers found that the presence of UN-gyo moderates bacterial activity, reduces hemolytic effects, and enhances cancer-specific activity.

The combination initially consists of approximately 3% A-gyo and 97% UN-gyo, illustrating how a relatively small population of tumor-destroying bacteria can operate alongside a larger population of regulatory bacteria.

Complete Tumor Regression Without Observable Systemic Toxicity

Despite its extraordinary anticancer activity, the bacterial combination demonstrated a favorable safety profile at the tested therapeutic doses in mice.

Researchers reported no observable systemic toxicity or cytokine release syndrome, and long-term histological examinations conducted 150 days after treatment revealed no apparent tissue damage in major organs, including the heart, lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys.

Importantly, safety depended on the precise bacterial ratio and dosing regimen. Excessive doses or improperly proportioned bacterial mixtures caused fatal reactions in mice, highlighting the importance of maintaining the naturally occurring 3:97 ratio of A-gyo to UN-gyo.

Conclusion 

The central discovery is remarkable: two naturally occurring bacterial species, working synergistically, eliminated established tumors in multiple experimental cancer models while demonstrating favorable tolerability at the tested therapeutic regimen.

Nevertheless, this remains preclinical research. Human safety, optimal dosing, and clinical efficacy have not yet been established. Further research on this promising bacterial combo is urgently needed as cancer rates continue to climb.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/study-natural-soil-bacteria-combo-completely-eradicates-tumors-across-multiple-human-cancer-types-mice/5944730

Finland and Norway Reach Out to Putin as Peace Talks Loom

On October 27, Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre held a 90-minute phone call with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

At the request of Helsinki and Oslo, they discussed ways to end the war in Ukraine, planned trilateral talks in Abu Dhabi in November involving Russia, Ukraine, and the United States, and security issues in the Baltic Sea and northern Europe. According to the Kremlin, the sides also agreed to maintain direct phone contact.

Immediately afterward, Stubb and Støre called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who thanked them for their active support. The Finnish and Norwegian leaders emphasized that they spoke as representatives of their countries, not on Europe’s behalf. Stubb described the discussion as frank and substantive, noting that the war’s outcome will directly affect Nordic and broader European security and that ending it requires direct dialogue. Støre stressed the importance of de-escalation.

The call was unexpected, given that Stubb has previously made negative remarks not only about the Russian state but also about Russian culture, identity, and history. The timing is significant, though. In recent weeks, Stubb has emerged as one of the European figures most often mentioned as a possible mediator or channel for the European Union in any settlement process. Only days earlier, Zelensky publicly said he wanted the EU at the negotiating table.

European capitals increasingly recognize that an upcoming trilateral meeting among the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and the US will likely produce major decisions about the war, leaving Europe on the sidelines. A direct channel would allow Helsinki and Oslo to bring European perspectives into the discussion. However, greater European involvement could complicate and delay the process, giving Zelensky more grounds to postpone or condition talks, while Europe continues its futile attempt to weaken Russia.

Moscow’s acceptance of the call is notable because Russian officials have repeatedly said they prefer to address core issues with the US, yet they were willing to engage with Stubb and Støre. This strengthens Stubb’s credentials as a potential European interlocutor in the eyes of other EU leaders and shows that the Kremlin is prepared to talk with him despite earlier rhetorical clashes.

Finland and Norway both border Russia. Finland has suffered particularly severe economic consequences from the anti-Russia sanctions: trade, energy, and logistics ties once vital to its economy have been severed. Norway, meanwhile, is an Arctic coastal state with a direct stake in the emerging Northern Sea Route and does not want to be left out.

The phone call immediately sparked a rare public split among the Nordic states. Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said she was “very skeptical” of the uncoordinated move and claimed Russia’s ongoing military pressure on Ukraine as evidence that Putin has no serious interest in peace. Frederiksen likened the call to earlier unilateral initiatives, including Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s visit to Moscow, and argued that Europeans have long insisted on acting together rather than allowing individual countries to open separate channels.

Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson said he believed everyone except Putin wants peace, that he had low expectations for direct talks of this kind, and that such discussions risk dividing Europe. He added that any talks that make Russia more willing to accept a decent peace on Ukraine’s terms would be welcome.

All four leaders were in Helsinki for a Nordic Council session when the news broke, underscoring how unusual this open disagreement is among countries that have otherwise remained closely aligned on Ukraine, sanctions, and military support.

Despite reactions in Copenhagen and Stockholm, Zelensky publicly defended Stubb and Støre, describing their relations as very good and noting that they have provided genuine practical help. He said Putin’s diplomatic isolation had already been broken by the Alaska meeting with Trump and that Europeans have maintained contact with Russia since then, though usually less openly. According to Zelensky, the Finnish-Norwegian call simply made the channel transparent.

There were also other European reactions beyond Denmark and Sweden. Italian officials were irritated as the call underscored the lack of an agreed European representative. A source in Rome warned that constantly changing formats and separate national initiatives weaken Europe’s influence, adding that Europe “cannot continue to act randomly.” The European Commission spokesperson simply noted that the call was bilateral and that negotiations were already underway in several formats involving the EU.

At the same time, European involvement in the peace process could mean that, within months, Putin and Zelensky may be dealing with different leaders, depending on election and coalition outcomes across the continent.

The Finnish-Norwegian call shows that Europe’s claim to a seat at the table still hinges on individual capitals acting alone. Brussels has not even identified a suitable interlocutor to open channels with Putin, so states will now act independently of the bloc to defend their interests, which have been ravaged by the boomerang effects of anti-Russia sanctions.

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/finland-norway-reach-out-putin-peace-talks-loom/5944808

Will Netanyahu’s Extremist Government Fall, or Will Israeli General Eisenkot Transform Israel Into a Moderate State?

There is no clear winner in the Israeli election as of October 29. The Netanyahu bloc received 53 seats, the Opposition Eisenkot bloc received 48 seats, and the Arab bloc received 19. If Eisenkot allies with the Arab bloc, Netanyahu’s extremist gol be out.

But, if Benjamin Netanyahu is able to remain in power, there will be significant implications for the future of the Middle East, shaping regional security, relations between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict. His continued leadership may influence tensions with Iran, the prospects for peace, and efforts to establish a Palestinian state.

As the region continues to face political uncertainty and conflict, Netanyahu’s return to power raises important questions about whether the Middle East will move toward greater stability or experience further tensions and confrontation.

Journalist Steven Sahiounie interviewed Nizar Sadawi, a Palestinian journalist and Middle East correspondent for TRT World. Mr. Sadawi is giving his own personal analysis, and not representing the views of TRT World.

Steven Sahiounie (SS): How could the election results influence Israel’s policy towards Iran? Could they change the course of military confrontation?

Nizar Sadawi (NS): I believe the election results may change how Israel manages its confrontation with Iran, but not necessarily its strategic objectives. There is a broad consensus across Israel’s political and security establishment that Iran represents a major strategic threat.

The main difference lies in approach. Netanyahu has relied heavily on military pressure and confrontation, while Eisenkot, as a former military chief, may place greater emphasis on strategic calculations, coordination with Washington, and the political costs of military operations.

However, an Eisenkot-led government would not necessarily mean an end to military confrontation. Ultimately, US policy, regional dynamics, and the calculations of both Israel and Iran may prove more decisive than the identity of Israel’s next prime minister.

SS: What impact could the election results have on settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, and on Palestinian statehood?

NS: A Netanyahu-led government, particularly one dependent on far-right parties, would likely continue expanding settlements and pursuing policies that further undermine the possibility of an independent Palestinian state.

An Eisenkot-led government could adopt a more restrained approach towards settlement expansion and settler violence, particularly under international pressure. However, this should not be confused with a fundamental shift towards ending the occupation or recognising Palestinian statehood.

The fundamental problem is that much of Israel’s political debate concerns how to manage the occupation rather than how to end it.

In my view, changing the Israeli government alone will not revive the two-state solution. That requires concrete steps to end the occupation, halt settlement expansion, and recognize Palestinians’ right to self-determination and an independent, sovereign state.

SS: Could Netanyahu and Eisenkot form a national unity government despite their political rivalry?

NS: The election has created a complicated parliamentary situation, with neither camp securing a clear majority. Ironically, the Arab parties could hold the balance of power with their historic parliamentary representation, yet most major parties in both camps remain unwilling to rely on them to form a government.

I see two main scenarios. The first involves defections or political realignments within the opposition that could give Netanyahu the additional seats needed to reach a majority of 61.

The second is a national unity government, despite the deep mistrust between Netanyahu and Eisenkot.

Of course, these scenarios face significant political obstacles, particularly given Eisenkot’s previous resignation from Netanyahu’s war cabinet and their disagreements over the conduct of the war.

Ultimately, political necessity could push the two rivals towards an agreement, but even a unity government would not necessarily signal a fundamental change in Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.

SS: How could the election results shape the wider Middle East conflict, and what are the prospects for a political solution guaranteeing Palestinian rights?

NS: Israel’s election will undoubtedly influence regional dynamics, particularly given the growing interconnectedness of the Iranian, Lebanese, and Palestinian fronts. However, I believe it would be a serious mistake to treat the Palestinian question merely as an extension of the confrontation with Iran.

The Palestinian struggle predates these regional rivalries by decades. Its roots lie in occupation, displacement, and the denial of Palestinian national rights.

A change in Israeli leadership could create opportunities for diplomacy and de-escalation, but it would not automatically produce a meaningful peace process.

The experience of recent years has demonstrated that managing the conflict through military superiority and temporary security arrangements does not address its underlying causes.

In my view, lasting regional stability requires a political settlement based on ending the occupation, stopping settlement expansion, and guaranteeing Palestinians’ right to self-determination and an independent, viable state.

Without addressing these fundamental issues, any change in Israeli leadership risks becoming a change in tactics rather than a genuine turning point towards peace.

SS: What is the real disagreement between Netanyahu and Eisenkot over the wars in Gaza and Lebanon? Is it about their military objectives, or rather the timing of operations and their political costs?

NS: The disagreement is mainly about strategy, timing, and the political cost of military operations, rather than the objectives themselves. Both Netanyahu and Eisenkot share broadly similar security priorities, but differ on how to achieve them.

In Gaza, Eisenkot has criticized Netanyahu for prolonging military operations without a clear political strategy.

[…]

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/netanyahu-extremist-government-fall-eisenkot-transform-israel-moderate-state/5944827

Millions of Children About to Fill Halloween Bags With Arsenic-Contaminated Candy

As millions of American children prepare to go trick-or-treating this Halloween, troubling findings from the Florida Department of Health are raising serious concerns about toxic contaminants in some of the nation’s most recognizable candy brands.

Through its Healthy Florida First initiative, Florida tested 46 popular candy products and reported detectable arsenic in 28—over 60% of those tested:

I joined Finnerty on NEWSMAX to discuss these alarming findings and the potential health risks associated with arsenic exposure, particularly among children. Dr. Kelly Victory also joined the discussion to explain how arsenic can enter candy through contaminated ingredients and food-processing practices.

.

Click here to watch the video

Inorganic arsenic is an established human carcinogen and a systemic toxicant capable of damaging multiple organ systems, including the brain, heart, liver, kidneys, and nervous system.

Particularly concerning are Florida’s extraordinarily low estimated annual consumption limits for certain candies.

How Much Candy Can Children Consume Per Year?

According to Florida’s published calculations, the following are the approximate annual consumption amounts for children before exceeding the state’s estimated arsenic exposure safety limit:

  • Hershey’s Cookies ‘N’ Creme: 1.2 bars per year
  • Kit Kat: 2.4 pieces per year
  • Snickers: 2.4 pieces per year
  • 3 Musketeers: 2.4 pieces per year
  • SweeTarts Ropes: 3 ropes per year
  • Laffy Taffy Banana: 4 pieces per year
  • Twizzlers Strawberry: 4 pieces per year
  • Jolly Rancher Sour Apple: 6 pieces per year
  • Jolly Rancher Strawberry: 6 pieces per year
  • Twizzlers Cherry: 8 pieces per year
  • Tootsie Rolls: 8 pieces per year
  • Tootsie Roll Vanilla: 8 pieces per year
  • Tootsie Fruit Chew Lime: 8 pieces per year
  • Swedish Fish: 8 pieces per year
  • Trolli Sour Brite Crawlers: 12 pieces per year
  • Sour Patch Kids Watermelon: 12 pieces per year
  • Dots: 12 pieces per year
  • Black Forest Gummy Bears: 16 pieces per year
  • Twizzlers Watermelon: 18 pieces per year
  • Sour Patch Kids Tropical: 18 pieces per year
  • Nerds Gummy Clusters: 24 pieces per year
  • Sour Patch Kids Original: 36 pieces per year
  • SweeTarts Original: 48 pieces per year
  • Original Skittles: 48 pieces per year
  • Nerds Grape: 96 individual pieces per year
  • Nerds Strawberry: 96 individual pieces per year
  • SmartSweets Caramel: 1 bag per year
  • SmartSweets Sweet Fish: 1 bag per year

Which Candies Had No Arsenic Detected?

Thankfully, several recognizable candies had no arsenic detected in the tested samples, including:

  • Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups
  • Hershey’s Milk Chocolate
  • M&M’s
  • Twix
  • Milky Way
  • Whoppers

Conclusion

It is deeply concerning that arsenic, a toxic element whose inorganic forms are established human carcinogens, was detected in so many popular candies consumed by children.

With Halloween approaching, parents would be well advised to avoid the specific candy products flagged in Florida’s testing until their arsenic levels and potential health risks are independently clarified.

Via https://www.globalresearch.ca/millions-children-fill-halloween-bags-arsenic-contaminated-candy/5944872

Pope Leo XIV first pope to vote in US elections

Al Mayadeen English

Pope Leo XIV has become the first pontiff in history known to have voted in a US general election, casting a mail-in ballot in Illinois ahead of the November 3 midterm elections.

Via https://t.me/almayadeenenglish/26588