The Political Earthquake: RFK Jr.'s Congressional Hearing and the Unmasking of the Establishment

Every rational human being aspires to good health, both for themselves and their fellow citizens. Who would wish for illness, except those with a perverted mindset?

What transpired during Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s recent congressional hearing will go down in history as the moment the "perverted mindset" of the political elites was laid bare. RFK Jr. merely pledged to rid the United States of the influence of pharmaceutical and agribusiness lobbies, along with deeply corrupt regulatory agencies. This promise resonated so strongly with the American people that many Democrats crossed party lines to vote for Trump, hoping RFK Jr. would bring about much-needed reforms in public health.

However, the Democratic establishment has now unmasked itself: the health of Americans means nothing to them compared to their outrage over RFK Jr.'s perceived alliance with Trump. This alignment has triggered an unprecedented wave of vicious, aggressive, and baseless attacks against him during the hearing.

Of course, money from the pharmaceutical industry plays a significant role in this reaction. For example, Bernie Sanders reportedly received $1.5 million for his campaign. Yet, this financial influence alone does not fully explain the hysteria displayed during the hearing.

A similar phenomenon is observed in France, where politicians and activists react with comparable hysteria whenever Trump or anything they label as "fascist" is mentioned. In their worldview, anyone who disagrees with them threatens their ideological stronghold, which they justify under the guise of fighting "fascism."

This moment has exposed the true nature of political parties: they do not serve the common good but rather their own interests and ideological narratives. Unwittingly, they have just cut the very branch they sit on. Millions of people in the U.S. and worldwide saw a glimmer of hope with the potential nomination of RFK Jr. in the health sector. By attempting to crush this hope with such ferocity, Democrats and some RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) have revealed the essence of their politics—power preservation at any cost.

During the live-streamed hearing, numerous disillusioned Democratic voters were seen tearing up their party membership cards in protest, broadcasting their frustration on social media.

European left-wing parties should take note. If they do not abandon their dogmatic approach and reconnect with the real concerns of their electorate, they, too, will find themselves in the dustbin of history. Ideology alone no longer suffices.

As for the confirmation of RFK Jr., along with Tulsi Gabbard and Kash Patel, it will proceed. General Michael Flynn, who led military intelligence under Obama, has issued a stern warning to those trying to obstruct these nominations. Flynn possesses extensive knowledge about the inner workings of Congress and those manipulating its members. The nature of the hearing suggests that its primary objective was to publicly expose facts that had previously been hidden.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has suspended USAID funding, an agency that, under the guise of humanitarian aid, has long been involved in destabilization efforts, forced GMO introductions, and biological weapons programs. Its operations in Ukraine, in partnership with Hunter Biden and the company Metabiota, will eventually be fully uncovered.

With the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, now in control of USAID’s network infrastructure, the extent of its corruption in health and agriculture across developing nations will soon be revealed. USAID, along with NAIID (headed by Anthony Fauci) and EcoHealth Alliance (led by Peter Daszak), partially funded gain-of-function research on the SARS-CoV-2 virus in Wuhan from 2014 to 2019.

Despite media narratives, this is not about dismantling genuine humanitarian aid but ensuring that taxpayer money—over $200 million annually—is used for actual relief efforts, rather than serving as a tool for covert geopolitical maneuvers.

For those who wish to delve deeper, an insightful analysis of USAID’s influence under deep state and CIA control can be found in this video: A.D.N.M (@adnm_live) / X

This is not just a political shift—it is a global earthquake shaking deep-state structures worldwide. The rug has been pulled out from under their feet. While the battle is far from over, the determined efforts currently underway offer hope for genuine reform.

For those concerned about Trump’s stance on Palestine and his imperialist tendencies, consider this: imagine a series of dominoes standing in a row. When you push the first one, only the next falls, then the next, and so on. The harmful forces in Israel are the last domino. They cannot be toppled until the entire sequence has fallen. USAID is the first domino. And let’s be clear—this is no blind idolization of Trump.

SE

Saisi

Method AND Power COMPARISON 1933 - 2025

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT

Adolf Hitler's Speech to the Reichstag on 23 March 1933 and Donald Trump's Inauguration Speech as President of the United States on 20 January 2025: A Comparative Analysis
This analysis focuses on recurring themes, tone, and proclaimed objectives.

Comparison of Main Themes

Theme	Adolf Hitler (1933)	Donald Trump (2025)
National Unity	Call for moral and political unity to overcome economic and social crises.	Call for a renewal of American greatness and unity against decadence and threats.
National Security	Emphasis on a strong state to restore order and discipline.	Declaration of a national emergency at the southern border to enhance security.
Blame of Enemies	Rejection of Weimar’s democratic experiments as the cause of crisis.	Designation of drug cartels as "terrorists" and criticism of past policies.
Appeal to God	Explicit mention of God's help in fulfilling the national mission.	Invocation of patriotic and religious values to justify new policies.
Sacrifice for the Future	Demand for immediate sacrifices to secure future prosperity.	Announcement of difficult measures for the "salvation" of future generations.

Comparison of Tone and Intentions

• Deceptive Unifying Tone:
• Hitler adopted a moderate, unifying tone to justify total power concentration, promising to solve unemployment while preparing repression.
• Trump used populist rhetoric focused on strong and immediate action, rejecting compromise to combat "internal and external enemies" (cartels, immigration).
• Criticism of Previous Institutions:
• Hitler blamed the weaknesses of parliamentary democracy to justify the need for authoritarian government.
• Trump criticised the previous administration and invoked "failed policies" to justify radical changes.
• Messianic Vision:
• Both speeches present their leadership as providential answers to national crises, positioning their governments as the only saviours of the people.

Although the historical contexts differ profoundly, similarities are evident in rhetorical strategies. Both leaders use promises of national renewal, the designation of enemies to consolidate power, and pseudo-protective discourse to mobilise the populace. This illustrates how political language can manipulate public opinion by playing on fears and hopes at different times.

The comparison between Donald Trump's and Adolf Hitler's behaviour raises questions about power usage, emotional manipulation, and implicit or explicit expansionist objectives. While acknowledging vastly different historical contexts, parallels emerge in rhetorical strategies, economic visions, and geopolitical stances.

Worldview and Expansionism

• Trump: Trump mentioned in his 2025 speech a desire to "flood the world with American oil" and strengthen the United States' economic dominance. Although he does not explicitly discuss military conquest, his statements align with global economic domination strategies. His policies are based on economic nationalism (such as "America First"), protectionism, and using natural resources as geopolitical tools.
• Hitler: In his early speeches, Hitler did not explicitly announce a desire for world conquest. However, his ideology, as outlined in Mein Kampf and subsequent addresses, centred on Lebensraum (living space), justifying territorial annexation and the domination of so-called inferior peoples. Economic resources, including control of raw materials, were pivotal in his strategy.
• Comparison: Trump uses economic language to discuss conquest—market domination and resource exports—where Hitler employed racial and territorial justifications. Both seek hegemony, albeit through different means.

Use of Democracy as a Tool of Legitimacy

• Trump: He invokes democracy and the American people to justify unilateral policies, positioning himself as the nation’s saviour against a "corrupt elite" while attacking press freedom, judicial institutions, and the electoral process when unfavourable.
• Hitler: Hitler rose to power using the democratic structures of the Weimar Republic, which he quickly dismantled with emergency laws, presenting himself as the legitimate people's representative.
• Comparison: Both leaders use democracy as a pretext rather than a goal. Hitler abolished democracy outright; Trump undermines it by attacking checks and balances.

Internal and External Enemies

• Trump: Trump identifies external enemies (China, Iran, Mexican cartels) and internal adversaries as threats. He frequently labels opponents as "traitors" or "anti-American," fostering division and eroding democratic dialogue.
• Hitler: Hitler swiftly labelled internal enemies (Jews, communists, trade unions) as responsible for Germany’s woes, orchestrating hate campaigns that led to systematic crimes.
• Comparison: Both use enemy figures to unite their base. Trump’s targets are primarily political and economic; Hitler’s were ethnic and ideological.

A Worrying but Nuanced Parallel

Trump's economic ambitions and rhetoric do not imply extermination policies. However, his methods of societal division, calls to force, and attacks on democratic institutions recall early 20th-century dangers. If Trump weakens international structures, his economic nationalism could resemble Hitler's expansionist militarism without racial ideology.

The diplomatic or populist disguise of radical intentions is a common strategy for leaders implementing discriminatory policies without immediate public or institutional backlash. Comparing Trump's language with Hitler's reveals troubling similarities despite different end goals and contexts.

Diplomatic Language for Radical Policies

• Trump: He uses phrases like "protecting Americans," "securing borders," or "restoring greatness" to justify restrictive immigration policies, describing migrants as potential criminals or security threats. Euphemisms like "extreme vetting" mask aggressive actions.
• Hitler: Hitler initially used moderate language to gain popular and elite support, planning extreme measures. Words like "purification" and "national renewal" masked systemic violence and genocide.
• Similarity: Both leaders frame unpopular policies with acceptable language. Trump uses security and prosperity to limit immigration; Hitler used stability and racial purity to justify persecution.

Dehumanisation of Immigrants and Minorities

• Trump: Portraying migrants as "rapists," "drug traffickers," or gang members, Trump fosters fear and mistrust, justifying mass expulsions and border walls.
• Hitler: Hitler depicted Jews and minorities as parasites and national corruptors, setting the stage for persecution and extermination.
• Similarity: Dehumanisation prepares the ground for human rights violations. Trump frames it in security terms, Hitler in racial ideology.

Fear as a Political Engine

• Trump: Fear of migrants, "others," and foreign powers (like China or Iran) drives his policy. He portrays imminent danger, presenting himself as the only solution.
• Hitler: Fear of communism, Jewish conspiracies, and hostile powers mobilised Germans behind increasingly extreme measures.
• Similarity: Both legitimise extraordinary actions through fear, uniting loyalists and marginalising opponents.

Similar Political Strategy, Different Consequences

Trump and Hitler share rhetorical strategies, using fear, dehumanisation, and euphemism for radical policies. However, Trump operates within democratic boundaries with checks and balances, whereas Hitler eliminated all opposition.

Democratic vigilance is crucial to prevent populist leaders from crossing into totalitarianism. While Trump’s language resonates with Hitler's, current safeguards remain vital.

Relationship with Economic and Financial Elites

• Trump: A billionaire businessman, Trump immediately gained elite support, with backing from figures like Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, and Peter Thiel. His policies favour deregulation, corporate tax cuts, and traditional energy industries.
• Hitler: Initially lacking elite support, Hitler appealed to industrialists by promising anti-union policies, communist suppression, and economic militarisation.
• Comparison: Trump represents oligarchy in politics; Hitler courted elites to consolidate power. Both dynamics highlight alliances that shape authority.

Influence of Modern Tech Titans: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos

• Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos: In contemporary political landscapes, figures like Musk and Bezos hold significant economic and technological influence, shaping public discourse, policy, and global markets.
• Musk’s and Bezos’ Role:
• Economic Power: Both have built vast empires—Musk in automotive, space exploration, and technology (Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter) and Bezos in e-commerce and cloud computing (Amazon).
• Political Leverage: Musk’s control over communication platforms and Bezos’ ownership of The Washington Post demonstrate how billionaires influence media narratives and public opinion.
• Comparison with Trump: Trump’s direct involvement in business mirrored the growing influence of entrepreneurial figures. Musk and Bezos, although not political leaders, wield soft power that parallels the elite support Trump leveraged. Unlike Hitler, who sought elite backing, these modern titans often act independently, reshaping industries and governance norms without direct political office.
• Democracy and Wealth: The concentration of power in few hands raises concerns about democratic erosion when corporate interests dominate policy decisions.

The Power of Economic Support as a Catalyst for Power

The key difference lies in the fact that Trump did not need to convince elites to support him, as he was already one of them. This gave him immediate economic and media leverage, allowing him to bypass certain regulatory mechanisms with well-funded campaigns and international influence networks. In contrast, Hitler had to build this relationship through political and economic concessions, particularly by crushing the political left.

A Democracy in Danger? Trump's close alliances with wealthy elites and media conglomerates allow him to manipulate public discourse in a way that, although different from Hitler’s approach, can prove equally dangerous. The concentration of wealth and power within a narrow group aligned with a populist leader poses a significant threat to democracy, as it weakens traditional checks and balances.

In this context, it is critical to monitor:

1.    Pressures exerted on the free press and judicial institutions.

2.    Political campaign financing and the influence of large corporations on government decisions.

3.    The use of economic power to shape foreign policy, as Trump did with economic sanctions.

4.    The role of influential entrepreneurs like Musk and Bezos in shaping societal values and technological control.

What should world society fear or protect itself from in order to bring democracy, freedom and fraternity?

This is a significant and sensitive question. To prevent any leader from becoming a modern version of authoritarian figures like Hitler, world societies need to be vigilant and proactive in safeguarding democratic values, freedoms, and social cohesion. Here are key aspects to fear and actions to protect democracy, freedom, and fraternity:

1. Erosion of Democratic Institutions

Fear: Weakening of judicial independence, electoral integrity, and parliamentary oversight.
Protection:

• Strengthen Checks and Balances: Ensure that the separation of powers remains robust.
• Empower Independent Institutions: Support a free judiciary, transparent election processes, and a strong legislative branch to counterbalance executive power.

2. Control over Information and Media

Fear: Manipulation of media narratives, censorship, and attacks on press freedom.
Protection:

• Support Independent Journalism: Defend freedom of the press and encourage investigative reporting.
• Combat Disinformation: Educate the public on media literacy to recognize and resist propaganda and fake news.

3. Vilification of Minority Groups

Fear: Policies or rhetoric targeting specific ethnic, religious, or social groups as scapegoats.
Protection:

• Promote Human Rights: Advocate for laws protecting minority rights and anti-discrimination policies.
• Foster Social Inclusion: Build community programs that encourage diversity and cross-cultural understanding.

4. Concentration of Economic and Political Power

Fear: Alliances between political leaders and wealthy elites to undermine democratic competition.
Protection:

• Enforce Fair Campaign Financing: Limit the influence of money in politics with transparency regulations.
• Strengthen Anti-Corruption Measures: Establish watchdogs to prevent cronyism and corruption.

5. Nationalism and Expansionist Rhetoric

Fear: Policies prioritizing aggressive economic or military dominance at the expense of global cooperation.
Protection:

• Promote International Cooperation: Engage in multilateral organizations to solve global challenges.
• Encourage Diplomacy: Prioritize peaceful conflict resolution over militaristic approaches.

6. Fear-Based Governance

Fear: Leaders using fear of external and internal threats to justify repressive policies.
Protection:

• Defend Civil Liberties: Resist laws that curtail freedoms under the guise of security.
• Encourage Rational Public Discourse: Use education to promote critical thinking and reduce reactionary politics.

7. Undermining of Fraternity and Social Cohesion

Fear: Division among people based on social, racial, or economic lines.
Protection:

• Foster Solidarity: Support movements and institutions that promote equality, inclusion, and mutual respect.
• Encourage Community Engagement: Empower citizens to participate actively in civic life and governance.

Democracy, freedom, and fraternity require constant vigilance, education, and active participation. Societies must prioritize human rights, the rule of law, and open dialogue while resisting fear-driven policies. By protecting these pillars, we prevent the rise of authoritarianism and nurture a world where liberty and justice prevail for all.

SAISI

Are We Still Under the Shadow of Nazism? A Philosophical and Historical Reflection on Modern Society

 

In the current political discourse, accusations of authoritarianism, fascism, and even Nazism are often levied at political figures and systems. Critics frequently argue that many of today’s leaders, even before they came into power, are part of a diabolical system rooted in the dark philosophies of Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich. But is this perception grounded in reality, or simply an oversimplification of our complex modern world?

Nazism and the Aftermath: A Long Shadow?

After the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945, the world stood united in condemning the atrocities committed under Adolf Hitler. The horrors of the Holocaust, fascist ideologies, and extreme nationalism were universally recognized as evil, with post-war laws and conventions established to prevent such atrocities from happening again. International treaties such as the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) were created to protect human rights, ensuring that the fundamental principles of dignity, liberty, and equality would guide nations into the future.

However, despite the defeat of Nazi Germany, some argue that the ideology never truly disappeared. Instead, it has found new forms of expression within certain political systems, sparking fear that the roots of Nazism still linger in today’s global power structures. These accusations—while often dramatic—reflect a concern about the rise of authoritarianism, surveillance states, and extreme nationalism. Some political leaders, like the Israeli Prime Minister and other high-ranking officials, have been compared to Nazis in recent years. However, it’s essential to note that such comparisons often distort the historical and legal realities of modern governance.

European and International Legal Safeguards Against Nazism

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), particularly Article 10, guarantees the right to freedom of expression, while also allowing restrictions to protect the reputation and rights of others. This is crucial when addressing modern accusations of Nazism. In public discourse, accusations without substantiated facts can be deemed defamatory under European law, potentially resulting in legal action. As such, any comparisons made between today’s political figures and Nazi ideology must be carefully nuanced, framed within a broader philosophical or political context rather than as outright historical equivalence.

Stoicism, Freemasonry, and Personal Control

In contrast to the chaotic and often emotionally driven nature of modern political rhetoric, Stoicism offers a timeless philosophy of personal control, self-discipline, and emotional resilience. At its core, Stoicism teaches individuals to accept what they cannot change, focus on virtues, and seek inner peace—principles that stand in stark contrast to the destructive ideologies of Nazism, which sought control over others and thrived on manipulation and violence.

Another philosophical tradition, Freemasonry, emphasizes the pursuit of truth, fraternity, and equality—values directly opposed to the hierarchical, oppressive nature of the Nazi regime. It’s worth noting that Freemasons, alongside other intellectuals and minority groups, were persecuted by Hitler’s regime, which saw Freemasonry as a threat to its fascist ideology. In today’s society, the values of Freemasonry and Stoicism serve as moral and ethical counterweights to authoritarianism, promoting individual responsibility and moral leadership.

The Vatican, Arms Trade, and Modern Conflicts

Today, the world is again gripped by war, with conflicts in Ukraine and Israel highlighting the persistent issues of power, control, and territorial disputes. These modern conflicts, however, are not remnants of Nazi ideology but rather reflections of deep-seated geopolitical tensions, resource struggles, and cultural divisions.

Religious institutions, while not directly shaping these conflicts, do play a significant role in global power dynamics. The Vatican, a symbol of moral authority, has faced criticism for its financial involvement in industries that may not align with its ethical teachings. Some reports suggest that the Vatican holds substantial investments in sectors linked to arms manufacturing. However, it is important to clarify that while allegations have been made, these are speculative, and no definitive proof has surfaced to confirm the extent of Vatican involvement.

To avoid legal complications, it’s essential to rely on verifiable sources when discussing the Vatican’s finances. One can frame the argument cautiously:

“While there are claims suggesting that the Vatican’s financial investments include industries tied to arms manufacturing, these assertions remain speculative. The Vatican has, in recent years, committed to increased transparency in its financial dealings, but concerns remain about the ethical implications of its investments.”

This careful phrasing ensures that no unsubstantiated accusations are made, while still addressing the larger ethical debate surrounding institutional power and its role in global conflicts.

The Arms Trade Treaty and Ethical Concerns

In the context of global arms production and trade, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), adopted by the United Nations in 2014, serves as an international legal framework aimed at regulating the trade in conventional arms and preventing their misuse in human rights violations. Article 6 of the ATT prohibits arms transfers if they are likely to contribute to genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. Article 7 emphasizes the importance of conducting thorough risk assessments before exporting arms to ensure they do not fuel conflict.

This treaty offers a legal framework that contrasts with the uncontrolled arms proliferation seen during WWII and serves as a contemporary solution to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Institutions like the Vatican, along with other major global players, are expected to adhere to these international norms and ethical guidelines, ensuring that financial investments and global influence do not contribute to further instability.

Marc Luyckx Ghisi and the Promise of Energy Freedom

Another voice in the critique of modern power structures is Marc Luyckx Ghisi, who argues that humanity no longer needs to rely on expensive energy resources. According to Ghisi, the technological capacity to provide free, sustainable energy for all exists today, but economic and political structures have prevented its widespread adoption. His ideas challenge the capitalist system that continues to profit from limited energy access, further highlighting how entrenched systems of control—from arms manufacturing to energy monopolies—still shape global society.

In the same way that Nazism promoted control and oppression, today’s economic systems, according to Ghisi, are keeping humanity in a state of artificial scarcity. While the ideologies are different, the methods of control—whether through energy or arms—remain a point of ethical concern.

Human Rights and Philosophical Reflections

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), adopted in 1948, and the Geneva Conventions offer an essential legal framework for protecting human rights and dignity in the modern world. Articles 1, 3, and 18-21 of the UDHR, which focus on freedom, equality, and political participation, provide the foundation for understanding the ethical limits of governmental and institutional power. These laws are designed to ensure that the lessons learned from WWII are not forgotten and that new forms of authoritarianism do not take root.

Conclusion: Navigating Modern Society Through Philosophy and Law

In the modern world, accusations of Nazism and authoritarianism are common, yet they often obscure the more nuanced realities of global power dynamics. Today’s society is shaped by a complex web of historical, political, and economic factors, with philosophies like Stoicism and Freemasonry offering individuals ethical frameworks for understanding and confronting these challenges. At the same time, international laws such as the Arms Trade Treaty and Universal Declaration of Human Rights ensure that governments and institutions are held accountable for their actions.

While it is tempting to draw parallels between today’s political figures and the dark figures of history, such comparisons should be made carefully, with respect to legal precedents and historical accuracy. Philosophy and human rights law offer the tools we need to critically assess today’s world without resorting to oversimplified and potentially damaging analogies.

SAISI

The ApolOgy of SilenCe

 

Straight in the eyes, an unpublished text praising silence: a misunderstood weapon capable of countering the horrors and degrading speeches of a world prone to making only noise; encouraging only speech even when it may prove useless.

There are two very different types of silence: sometimes we remain silent because we cannot speak, sometimes because we have something better to do. These are not at all the same thing!

The first silence, which I have experienced, like everyone else, traps us in the failure or impossibility of speech: the silence of aphasia, isolation, shyness, quarrel, incommunicability, sometimes even within a couple or family.

The second silence opens us up to the world, to ourselves, and to others: the silence of sensation, action, attention, listening, meditation, contemplation, sometimes love. Suffering is not the same as saying “I am in pain.” Enjoying is not the same as saying “This is good.” Loving is not the same as saying “I love you.” This silence is reality itself, life itself, which is not a word, nor several, but that which words speak about when they are true, when they approach the essential instead of masking it. This is what distinguishes confidence from chatter, literature from entertainment, and philosophy from sophistry: by the part of silence they contain or reveal.

Speech, at least the kind I love, is not meant to break silence, but to express it, celebrate it, share it!

Saisi