News Ticker

American Pravda: Nick Fuentes, Tucker Carlson, Jeffrey Epstein, and Pizzagate

February 18, 2026 MyRoger Commentary, Media 0

by Ron Unz

 

Over the last few years I’ve begun spending a considerable amount of my time on some YouTube channels, notably those of Judge Andrew Napolitano, Nima Alkhorshid, and Prof. Glenn Diesen, as well as that of the Grayzone.

The videos they offer have been most useful for the many excellent guests regularly featured. These include leading academics such as Jeffrey Sachs and John Mearsheimer, former senior government officials such as Chas Freeman and Larry Wilkerson, former intelligence officers such as Ray McGovern and Jacques Baud, and a host of others. These knowledgeable experts may not necessarily always be correct in their analysis of world events, but they are certainly sincere and far more knowledgeable than the talking heads on the cable news channels that I had abandoned twenty years ago.

 

I occasionally watch other YouTube channels along similar lines. For example, Col. Danny Davis recently interviewed a British military officer with considerable personal expertise in naval and air operations. In an hour-long discussion, the guest convincingly argued that if President Donald Trump chose to attack Iran with the military assets that he had deployed to the Persian Gulf, those forces would have little chance of inflicting any substantial damage before they exhausted their munitions. Therefore, he was skeptical that any such order would be given, and despite widespread expectations to the contrary, no such attack has yet occurred.

Video Link

Meanwhile, a number of younger, right-wing podcasters had become extremely popular on the Internet, having audiences that were enormously larger than those of the channels that I followed, sometimes by a factor of five or ten. But I almost never watched any of them.

For example, prior to his assassination last September, I’d barely been aware of Charlie Kirk, and I’d been equally ignorant of his leading Jewish rival Ben Shapiro.

I’d been almost as unfamiliar with Nick Fuentes, another major right-wing rival to Kirk. His extremely sharp criticism of the powerful and pervasive but hidden influence of Jews and Israel in our society had gotten him banned from YouTube, forcing him to instead stream his daily show first on his own cozy.tv platform and then on Rumble once it became available. He seemed quite popular among some of our commenters, and over the years they’d mentioned that Fuentes had occasionally cited our website and my own American Pravda series as important sources of information, an endorsement that I’d greatly appreciated.

 

After Kirk’s death, I’d been surprised to discover that Kirk had become such an enormously popular figure among young conservatives that his killing had been a major political event. He had been protected by a professional security detail and shot by a distant sniper, so in many respects the closest historical parallel had been the assassination of JFK sixty-two years earlier.

The FBI claimed to have quickly caught the culprit, who turned out to be the sort of deranged lone gunman almost invariably blamed in these sorts of high-profile killings. But the evidence seemed extremely weak. Several independent analysts quickly highlighted some of the severe flaws in the case, and I noted some additional peculiarities in my own writing.

But if the suspect arrested were merely a patsy and Kirk had died at the hands of a conspiracy, who had actually been responsible?

Kirk had spent his entire long career as a fervent supporter of Israel and Zionism but over the previous couple of months, there were indications that he had begun strongly shifting away from that position, instead supporting his close friend conservative media superstar Tucker Carlson, who had grown strongly critical of Israel and its American influence. As a result, Kirk had come under fierce attack from many hair-trigger pro-Israel partisans and major donors outraged over what they regarded as his growing apostasy.

So although there was not the slightest bit of solid evidence implicating Israel or its Mossad in killing Kirk, there was a mountain of circumstantial evidence that they might have had a strong motive to do so. And given Mossad’s absolutely unmatched record of high-level assassinations, that organization seemed the obvious suspect behind any such conspiratorial killing, as I explained in several articles.

Indeed, the case for Israel’s guilt was so strong that in the weeks that followed, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was forced to repeatedly release video statements denying that he had killed Kirk. Despite or perhaps because of such heated public denials, several of the highly reputable mainstream figures regularly interviewed by Napolitano strongly suggested Israel’s possible guilt, as did Carlson.

Indeed, a respectable mainstream journalist also noted that Netanyahu had issued his official public statement praising Kirk’s lifelong devotion to Israel very soon after his death, a statement released so quickly that it almost seemed to have been already prepared prior to Kirk’s sudden and unexpected demise.

 

I’d heard that Fuentes had long argued that the Mossad had played a central role in the JFK Assassination, the 9/11 Attacks, and numerous other sinister operations conducted on American soil. Yet oddly enough, I soon discovered that he vehemently rejected any such possible Israeli involvement in Kirk’s killing.

The world of young podcasters has long been marked by its bitter enmities. Two of the leading figures promoting a conspiratorial view of Kirk’s assassination and suggesting a possible Israeli role were Candace Owens and Max Blumenthal, both of whom Fuentes regarded as his personal enemies, and that might have helped to explain his extreme reluctance to align himself with their analysis. But other enemies of Fuentes such as Andrew Anglin ferociously attacked him for his views, claiming that he had been compromised.

Normally I would have disregarded all this bitter backbiting, so endemic to those ideological circles. But I noticed some rather surprising developments.

As one of our leading critics of Israel and Jews, Fuentes had naturally spent years being massively vilified and blacklisted by our overwhelmingly pro-Israel and Jewish mainstream media. Despite his considerable audience, his name was almost never mentioned in any respectable outlets and on the very rare occasions that it was, he was viciously smeared as a disgusting anti-Semitic White Supremacist Holocaust Denier, the heir-apparent to David Duke. Yet I’d discovered that all of this had suddenly begun to change in the weeks prior to Kirk’s killing.

As I wrote at the time:

However, in the wake of momentous political events, strange coincidences strike me as highly suspicious. I discovered that the day before Kirk was killed, the New York Times had published a major 2,100 word profile of Fuentes, the tone of which seemed far less hostile than I would have expected and indeed seemed to promote him as the rising new leader of right-wing youth. Fuentes had previously been fiercely demonized in nearly all past media coverage, which had made him one of the most vilified figures in America. But although this piece certainly included a long list of his extreme ideological transgressions, it also suggested that his beliefs might evolve over time as he matured, just as had already been the case in his views about Trump…

I’d think that the lead-time of this sort of journalistic project might be about a month or so, suggesting that it may have been put into the works just after the complete failure of the early August effort by Bill Ackman and others to bribe or browbeat Kirk into submission. So to take a very conspiratorial slant, perhaps some powerful individuals then concluded that there might soon be a new opening at the top for a youthful right-wing podcaster, and decided to audition Fuentes for that role.

Powerful Colombian drug cartels used to offer local officials the choice of plata o plomo—“silver or lead”—and these two options may have been implicitly extended to Kirk, with the decision he made sealing his fate. Then after his death, perhaps a similar sort of offer was extended to Fuentes as well, and mindful of his predecessor’s violent demise, he decided to take the other path.

The Nick Fuentes Story and His Political Views

Fuentes’ online audience quickly exploded in size in the wake of Kirk’s assassination. Moreover, although he had previously been boycotted by almost every other significant podcaster, his surprisingly respectful, even favorable profile in the Times now suddenly opened many of those doors to him. Thus, he quickly snared lengthy interviews with Patrick Bet-David, Glenn Greenwald, and Dave Smith, shows that together attracted more than 6 million views on YouTube.

Even bigger appearances soon followed. Tucker Carlson’s interview in late October drew some 7 million views, more than anything Carlson had ever gotten other than for his shows with Donald Trump, and with Russian President Vladimir Putin

Video Link

A December interview with British host Piers Morgan did nearly as well, getting 6 million views.

Video Link

And although Fuentes’ long and very friendly discussion with former Alt-Right leader Richard Spencer later that same month only attracted a small fraction of those huge audiences, some of the resulting clips gained quite a lot of attention on Twitter.

Taken together, these Fuentes appearances accumulated well over 20 million views during just a few weeks, while other interviews and video platforms must have added many millions more. This wave of public exposure vastly exceeded his regular audience on Rumble.

I’d grown curious about this youthful right-winger podcaster, so I watched all these shows. The total came to more than a dozen hours, probably at least twenty times more than all my previous exposure to Fuentes over the past decade, and I tried to draw some conclusions from that material.

Most of these interviews were largely introductory, so much of his discussion focused upon his personal background and his history in conservative circles. He explained that while still a teenager, he’d gained some notoriety for the controversial right-wing views he’d so effectively expressed and his success in debating liberals and leftists on his college campus. These achievements had brought him to the favorable attention of Ben Shapiro’s established conservative media organization.

But Fuentes then refused to trim his beliefs to conform to conservative orthodoxy on various issues including racial ones, and he was soon purged and blacklisted as a consequence. While still in his teens, he had been forced to relaunch his efforts as a lone, independent podcaster lacking any organizational support. Soon banned from YouTube and most other platforms, he very slowly rebuilt his audience from a miniscule base. The story he told sounded perfectly plausible to me.

In his interview with Piers Morgan, he’d emphatically denied that he’d ever questioned the reality of the Holocaust. But aside from that very understandable disclaimer, all his other statements to Morgan, Carlson, and everyone else seemed absolutely sincere, so my suspicions regarding the likelihood that he’d been co-opted or compromised were greatly diminished. I’m hardly a perfect judge of such things, so others who think differently should watch some of his interviews and decide for themselves.

He certainly seemed highly intelligent, and provided quite insightful views on many matters such as recent politics, political correctness, censorship, and issues dealing with Jews and Israel. But on the much less favorable side, I was very far from impressed with the opinions he expressed on most other important policy matters.

In that regard, his long and friendly December discussion with Richard Spencer was quite enlightening. Although he now admitted his mistake, Fuentes confirmed that he’d been wildly enthusiastic about President Donald Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariff hikes, which I’d regarded as total economic lunacy. He also seemed to think that our deep involvement in the Ukraine war against Russia had proven surprisingly beneficial for America, while I and every expert whose opinion I respected considered it a total disaster for our national interests. And along with almost every other conservative and right-winger in America, he expressed views on immigration issues that I regarded as ridiculous and totally wrong-headed.

I was obviously disappointed to hear those positions, but hardly surprised. After all, Fuentes was a 27-year-old who had dropped out of college as a freshman. Although obviously very bright, he had then spent the decade that followed scrambling to stay afloat, producing hours of daily monologues as an independent right-wing podcaster and probably working entirely alone during most of those years. Banned from PayPal, credit cards, and other financial processing systems, he desperately sought to somehow raise the necessary donations to keep his show on the Internet. He had spent his entire existence in conservative or right-wing circles, so it was unreasonable to expect him to have acquired a broader understanding of some of those complex policy issues.

He’d occasionally mentioned that he’d learned much about certain topics by reading my own articles, probably those dealing with Jews, Israel, and certain controversial historical events such as World War II, the JFK Assassination, and the 9/11 Attacks. I found it unfortunate that he apparently hadn’t read or at least been swayed by my many articles on other matters, but given how busy he was and that my voluminous writings had totaled around 1.5 million words over the past half-dozen years, I was hardly surprised.

I think that Americans in their 20s are often described as constituting a post-literate generation, and during the dozen hours that I watched, I don’t think he’d mentioned a single book or major article that had ever influenced him. Instead, he and most equally youthful podcasters seem to draw most of their understanding of the issues they discuss from Tweets, video clips, podcast interviews and some occasional blogposts, but only very rarely from serious books or articles.

The sources of the information that they relied upon may be adequate for their reasonable comprehension of their favored topics such as political correctness, racial controversies, censorship, and the major foibles of the Biden and Trump Administrations. But that sort of haphazard material is totally inadequate for many other more complex matters, perhaps helping to explain why they generally avoid those or treat them very gingerly.

 

This situation has resulted in some amusing ironies.

Fuentes might be widely regarded as the most extreme fringe figure possessing a large media following, while his polar-opposite on the spectrum of mainstream respectability would be someone like Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University.

Sachs had been one of the very youngest tenured professors in Harvard University history and as far back as the early 1990s, the New York Times had already hailed him as the world’s most important economist. During the decades that followed, he had frequently had private meetings with major world leaders while the current top editor of the Economist got her start as one of his young assistants.

Yet in many respects, the public positions taken by Sachs on important world issues have been vastly more radical and inflammatory than anything ever expressed by Fuentes or similar right-wing podcasters.

For example, during a Bloomberg interview, Sachs casually declared that America had almost certainly destroyed the vital Nord Stream energy pipelines in Europe. He has frequently described in detail how we provoked Russia’s Ukraine war by overthrowing the democratically elected neutralist government of that latter country. And most remarkably, he has pointed to the strong evidence that the Covid virus was actually produced in America’s own biological laboratories.

Perhaps Fuentes has made such incendiary factual claims during his thousands of hours of provocative livestreaming, but if so no one has ever brought those remarks to my attention.

The obvious reason that Fuentes has apparently avoided such important topics is that he lacked the self-confidence to weigh in on them. To do so in credible fashion would have required either a great deal of personal expertise or else an enormous amount of background reading. Otherwise, he might make himself look ridiculous by taking extremely controversial positions that he could not readily defend.

For similar reasons, although my own very large body of work including my American Pravda series has generally been written in a cautiously phrased and often circumspect style, taken as a whole I think that its actual contents may be more extreme and controversial than anything found almost anywhere across the entire Internet, with much of it going places that someone like Fuentes would never remotely dare.

As a consequence, although I am aware that some prominent podcasters regularly read my material and find much of it persuasive, none of them would ever be willing to actually interview me on any of those controversial topics.

Meanwhile, one reason that I feel so comfortable taking those explosive positions has been my own past history on other such matters.

Fuentes was born in August 1998, just a couple of months after I had won my first sweeping victory in the English Wars of that era. Although almost totally forgotten today, those years of national political conflict radically changed crucial aspects of the American public educational system and as a consequence may have possibly even prevented the disintegration and collapse of our society.

During those campaigns and in some other matters, I regularly took positions strongly opposed by perhaps 90% or even 99% of our political and academic establishments, and I was usually vindicated in my views. So I have never been too concerned at finding myself in a small minority on other issues in which I firmly believed that I had facts and logic on my side.

In some of his interviews, Fuentes explained that people should not be held responsible for many of the controversial things they have said in the past. In addition, I have seen a number of examples in which Fuentes nervously attempted to distance himself from some of his overly provocative past statements by claiming that they had merely been misunderstood jokes.

Those are not unreasonable positions to take. But my philosophy has been that someone who regularly discusses ultra-controversial issues should always be ultra-careful with his facts. And as a consequence, I have repeatedly declared that I fully stand behind at least 99% of everything I have published during the last thirty-odd years, which obviously represents a much higher standard of intellectual accountability.

 

My strongly negative appraisal of some of Fuentes’ policy views grew even more severe during 2026.

After Trump launched his outrageously illegal attack on Venezuela, successfully kidnapping the president of that country and his wife, Fuentes became positively gleeful in his cheerleading, with one of his viral clips declaring “We will kill all of you and take your oil!”

 

Individual clips may sometimes be taken out of context and provide a misleading impression, but a right-wing blogger deeply hostile to Fuentes published a post entitled “Nick Fuentes Goes Full Neocon Imperialist” that collected together such a long list of those clips that I found it impossible to seriously question that assessment.

 

Stephen Miller is one of Trump’s top advisors and I’ve been told that Fuentes has denounced him as a fanatic Zionist Jew. But Fuentes’ rants seemed so similar to the one that Miller had notoriously made on CNN a week earlier that I almost wondered if the young podcaster weren’t auditioning for the role of Miller’s own understudy.

 

Meanwhile, I had presented my extremely contrary view on our Venezuela attack in several articles, with the title of one of these describing my understanding of Trump’s foreign policy framework:

I was also hardly surprised that Fuentes was an equally enthusiastic supporter of Trump’s deployment of huge numbers of militarized federal ICE agents to various cities around the country, including Minneapolis, nor his vigorous defense of their illegal behavior, including their high-profile killing of two civilians in that latter city. My own views were extremely different.

So based upon all of this, I concluded that Fuentes was hardly someone worth taking seriously.

Indeed, with the very notable exception of his courageous positions on Jews and Israel, he otherwise seemed to have now become an absolutely straight down the line extreme right-winger, having views that were little different than those of our current FoxNews hosts, but often taken to much more ridiculous extremes. His jingoistic rhetoric might appeal to his youthful audience, many of whom were probably ignorant and transgressively-minded teenagers, but there would be little of interest to me. I’d stopped watching TV twenty years ago and even when I still did, I’d never watched FoxNews.

Prior to their acrimonious rupture, right-wing provocateur Andrew Anglin had spent many years as a close ally and mentor of Fuentes. In a long article in late January, he ridiculed the latter as having enlisted in the political ranks of the “neo-boomers,” a very stinging epithet in their shared ideological circles.

Tucker Carlson and His Growing Clash with the Israel Lobby

Ironically enough, even as Fuentes now seemed to be promoting merely a more extreme version of the right-wing FoxNews party-line and abandoning many of his longstanding anti-establishment positions, the leading media figure in that same ideological milieu had been steadily moving in exactly the opposite direction.

For more than a decade, Tucker Carlson has ranked as the most powerful figure in the conservative media world, beginning that run on FoxNews in 2015.

In the last couple of years of his top-rated cable show, Carlson had become increasingly willing to cross all sorts of flashing red lines, taking public positions that would have once been almost unimaginable for anyone else having a prominent perch in the media.

For example, in early 2022 he had pointed to the strong evidence that America had destroyed the vital Nord Stream energy pipelines providing inexpensive Russian natural gas to Germany, and he did so at a time when so much of our entire media establishment was absurdly parroting the official line that the Russians had demolished their own pipelines.

Video Link

Later that same year, he had declared that President John F. Kennedy had probably died at the hands of a conspiracy, with our own CIA heavily involved, a media segment that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. praised as the most courageous American newcast in 60 years.

Video Link

Perhaps coincidentally, Carlson was purged by FoxNews just a few months later despite having long had the highest rated show on all of cable television.

But although he lost his electronic media platform, technological changes allowed him to quickly land on his feet, and he soon launched his own political discussion show that he distributed on Twitter and YouTube. So instead of losing most of his public visibility and influence, Carlson’s profile instead soared to even greater heights.

During the most recent presidential campaign, Carlson’s personal interview with Donald Trump in August 2023 attracted considerably more viewers than the official Republican Presidential debate that aired on television around the same time.

Six months later, Carlson landed an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow, reaching an absolutely gigantic global audience numbering in the many tens of millions on Twitter and YouTube. Carlson’s erstwhile corporate television competitors were left green with envy at that media triumph and they reacted by denouncing him as a Russian stooge, but that merely left them looking ridiculous.

As a free agent, Carlson now had a platform that allowed him to speak even more candidly than ever before, and he soon began using it to great effect. In an interview not long after launching his new show, he disclosed some of the past political secrets that the DC media had kept hidden from the American people during the 2008 presidential campaign.

 

He followed up those provocative claims with the long interview that he had promised.

 

I found that absolutely astonishing story highly credible, and in a subsequent article I explained how it provided some of the missing pieces of that strange 2008 presidential campaign:

 

For decades, America’s Israel Lobby had been quietly recognized as the most fearsome force in our media and political worlds, but so fearsome that its vast power was almost never made known to the American people, and the closely associated Neocons also remained largely untouchable, even invisible.

But Carlson had now established his own media operation, independent from corporate control. So during the last couple of years he began to directly confront that power, offering his platform to individuals few of whom would have ever been allowed on regular electronic media.

In April 2024 I was very impressed by his long interview with a Christian evangelical pastor in the holy city of Bethlehem, someone who described the severe oppression that he and his flock regularly faced at the hands of Zionist militants, fiercely anti-Christian groups that have bizarrely received the complete support of America’s own Christian establishment.

 

The next month he invited Jeffrey Sachs to explain the Neocon origins of the Ukraine war, with the interview running more than two hours and attracting millions of views.

 

And one month later Rep. Thomas Massie explained the stranglehold that the Israel Lobby exerted over Congress, even revealing that every Republican was assigned a personal AIPAC handler to direct his votes on all matters related to the Zionist State.

 

In September 2024, Carlson attracted huge waves of media outrage when he interviewed history podcaster Darryl Cooper for more than two hours. The latter highlighted his own very controversial ideas regarding the real story of World War II and the true villains of that gigantic global conflict that shaped our modern world.

Video Link

These very bold actions continued into 2025. In June of that year, Carlson interviewed Sen. Ted Cruz, with the hawkish Republican humiliating himself before an audience of millions. Among other things, Cruz revealed that although he was fiercely pressing for an American campaign of regime-change in Iran, he actually knew very little about that large Middle Eastern country that Israel regarded as its most formidable regional rival.

Video Link

The following month, John Mearsheimer discussed the ongoing Middle East conflict and our government’s full support for Israel’s genocidal rampage against the Palestinian civilian population.

 

Perhaps most importantly, Carlson was working on a five-part series on the 9/11 Attacks that he planned to release on September 11, 2025. Although he steered clear of any of the bolder 9/11 conspiracy theories, he emphasized the total falsehood of the official account of those dramatic events that had forever changed American society. He also highlighted some of the extremely suspicious Israeli activities in connection with those terrorist attacks. In recent years, the 9/11 Truth movement had gone dormant, and in a pair of articles I suggested that Carlson’s documentary series might revive it and bring the issue to the attention of a new generation of younger Americans.

His one-minute trailer certainly suggested this, proclaiming that everything we had been told by our government for the last twenty-four years had been a complete lie.

Video Link

Such sentiments would hardly be remarkable if uttered by anonymous commenters on conspiracy-websites. But they had an entirely different impact when declared by America’s most powerful media figure after he had spent months of his time researching the issue and producing a documentary series scheduled for immediate release.

On the 8th, Carlson was interviewed for an hour on the Piers Morgan show, describing the series and its controversial conclusions to his skeptical British host. When I watched it a couple of days later, I thought he did an excellent job, effectively laying out many of the key issues and maintaining the sort of calm and rational demeanor so often lacking among the more excitable proponents of conspiratorial 9/11 theories. This greatly whetted my appetite for the forthcoming release of the the full series itself.

Video Link

 

Two months before his own assassination, Kirk had given Carlson a major speaking role at a TPUSA conference, and the latter had used it to harshly condemn many aspects of Israel’s overwhelming control over America, a situation totally at odds with the purported “America First” doctrine of Trumpian conservativism. These statements provoked a wildly enthusiastic response from the large audience of youthful conservatives.

Video Link

This became the last straw for Kirk’s pro-Israel allies and they angrily demanded that he cut all ties with Carlson and ban him from future TPUSA events, steps that he refused to take during the remaining weeks of his life.

After Kirk’s death, those same pro-Israel organizations sought some means of destroying Carlson’s powerful influence, and they jumped on his October interview with Fuentes. Mustering their compliant media allies, they denounced Carlson for having given a platform to someone so disreputable and extreme. A huge wave of condemnation washed over Carlson, with these donors and activists outrageously demanding that all conservatives break their ties with the most powerful figure in the conservative media landscape.

For decades the Heritage Foundation has ranked as DC’s leading conservative thinktank and when Heritage CEO Kevin Roberts issued a statement standing by Carlson, he was forced to back down and publicly apologize. Longtime friends of Carlson such as conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly reported the terrible abuse they suffered merely for refusing to knuckle under to such demands.

Mark Levin, a second-tier FoxNews host and fiercely committed Zionist Jew, had attacked Kirk shortly before his death, and now unleashed an almost unhinged rant against Carlson, Fuentes, and others in their camp at the annual leadership conference of the wealthy and powerful Republican Jewish Coalition. In that emotional tirade, he demanded that all such “Jew-haters” must be driven off every media platform and totally destroyed, identifying them with Neo-Nazis, Klansmen, White Supremacists, Islamic Jihadists, and almost every other favorite bugaboo of the ADL and similar Jewish activist groups.

Video Link

The stated justification for this large wave of media vilification against Carlson had been his willingness to provide a platform to someone as extreme as Fuentes, but this was obviously no more than a dishonest excuse.

After all, numerous other major podcasters such as Glenn Greenwald, Piers Morgan, and Dave Smith had hosted Fuentes both before and after Carlson, but none of them were subjected to even a sliver of those attacks. A few weeks earlier, the New York Times had published a major profile of Fuentes that was surprisingly friendly in its tone, and that publication also escaped almost scot-free. Obviously, Carlson rather than Fuentes was the actual target, with the latter merely providing a convenient excuse.

Carlson easily survived these attacks with almost none of his prominent friends or supporters breaking with him. This demonstrated that today’s decentralized media landscape differed greatly from the top-down controls of the traditional electronic media.

 

The final proof that Carlson rather than Fuentes had been the real target of the pro-Israel media-mob came in a very strange development last month, one that actually rekindled some of my earlier suspicions about Fuentes.

For years Levin had been known as one of the most fiercely pro-Israel, Zionist right-winger hosts, and last month Fuentes boasted that he’d been offered a seven-figure sponsorship contract by one of Levin’s leading financial backers.

The official narrative about Fuentes was that he had spent years ranking as America’s most prominent anti-Semitic, White Supremacist Holocaust Denier, and still remained impossibly radioactive today, so radioactive that Carlson should be purged merely for interviewing him. But if that were actually the case, was it really plausible that a business company would publicly pay him a million dollars or more for the privilege of advertising on his popular podcast? What would have been the fate of any business enterprise that had paid a million dollars to David Duke during the 1990s?

Naturally the many right-wing enemies of Fuentes pointed to that development as proof that the young podcaster had now been bought off or otherwise compromised. They claimed that he was eagerly refashioning himself into a right-wing shill, deploying the credibility he had gained by his past statements so that he could now promote Trump’s policies and many other positions of the right-wing establishment.

While I did not go that far, I was certainly very puzzled that Fuentes had been offered such a lucrative advertising contract.

Evaluating the Jeffrey Epstein Files

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump had regularly promised to declassify and release all of the government’s Jeffrey Epstein files, a position enthusiastically endorsed by nearly all of the Republicans and conservatives.

But a few months after regaining the White House, Trump completely reversed himself on that issue. This provoked a bipartisan firestorm of outrage and angry protest, including from some of Trump’s most ardent supporters. For example, Elon Musk ridiculed Trump in an insulting meme that was viewed more than 63 million times.

In his very controversial speech at the TPUSA event in July 2025, Carlson had declared that “everyone” in DC was sure that Epstein had been running a sexual blackmail ring on behalf of Israel’s Mossad, and he demanded that the files be released. The enthusiastic response from his audience showed how deeply those ideas had already penetrated into the ranks of youthful, mainstream conservatives.

Video Link

I discussed all of these developments and related past events in a long article I published at that time.

Months of this steadily mounting public pressure eventually grew too great and despite Trump’s opposition, Congress passed legislation requiring the full public release of all the files. Near the end of January, the Trump Administration began belatedly complying with that legal requirement, finally releasing some 3 million Epstein Files, and the resulting scandal totally dominated the national and even international headlines. Despite the considerable redactions, prominent names were disclosed, leading to angry attacks on many public figures who seemed to be implicated in Epstein’s decades-long sex-trafficking and influence-peddling ring. Two important British political figures close to Prime Minister Keir Starmer were forced to resign.

If Carlson ranked as the most important conservative media figure on the Internet, The Young Turks (TYT) channel founded by Cenk Uygur held the same spot for progressives, having twice the number of subscribers of Amy Goodman’s venerable Democracy Now! A few months earlier TYT had repeatedly highlighted Carlson’s 9/11 documentary series, whose revelations greatly impressed them.

Despite their seemingly sharp ideological differences, Carlson invited Uygur on his show just after the release of the Epstein Files. In a wide-ranging discussion that ran for well over two hours, they covered that topic and others, with both agreeing that many of their apparent political differences were the result of manipulation by the establishment forces eager to keep Americans weak and divided. But if sincere elements of both the American Left and Right could resist that pressure and unite together, they stood a much better chance of fixing the severe problems afflicting our ailing society.

Video Link

 

Meanwhile, the huge volume of suddenly released Epstein material was far too much for me to possibly evaluate so I awaited the careful analysis of solid journalists and researchers who were willing to devote their time and effort to that important project.

Soon after the Epstein case had originally reached the headlines in 2019, I had concluded that he had pretty obviously been running a sexual blackmail ring on behalf of Israeli intelligence, complete with under-age girls, hidden cameras, and a vast trove of incriminating evidence on extremely wealthy and powerful individuals.

Nothing I had seen in the years since then had led me to revise that early verdict. So just after the release of the files, I summarized my own reconstruction of the case:

Here’s my own very simple reading of the Epstein story.

Infiltrating the community of billionaires and other top international figures isn’t too easy. They’re generally surrounded by staffers and flunkies who protect them from such people, huge numbers of whom are obviously always trying to get close to them.

However, someone who is himself a member of that ultra-elite circle can do that since the others regard him as a peer and their defenses are down.

So Mossad got some of their wealthy pro-Israel supporters to given Epstein many hundreds of millions of dollars, allowing him to buy the biggest mansion in DC, a plane, a private island, and all sorts of other nice things, while he distributed enough money to Harvard and other elite institutions to gain status and influence in those non-financial circles. Epstein was apparently a very good manipulator, and once he had all that money, he could acquire the other points of leverage.

Given his money and leverage, he soon became very influential in those ultra-elite circles and blackmailed some of those top people into giving him access to other people and circles. Presumably, his Mossad handlers regularly gave him various assignments and told him to pull the strings of various important people as necessary.

The main reason I think he was run by Mossad (or the CIA or the KGB or some other agency) is that’s the only plausible explanation of how he got all that money. Without the money, he’d just be a typical manipulator, of which there must be many thousands, and he never would have gotten enough access to all those powerful people to be able to blackmail them. And since all the money came from pro-Mossad people, it must have been Mossad that was using him.

I regarded this as the important story, with everything else being much less clear and also secondary.

For example, once the Epstein Files were released, activists began circulating all sorts of outrageous accusations of murder and pedophilia, including the rape, torture, and killing of young children. Someone claimed that that the documents proved that prominent entertainment journalist Robin Leach had strangled a girl to death with his bare hands while others declared that our very respectable former President George H.W. Bush had regularly been raping and killing children. But I viewed all these lurid stories with a very skeptical eye.

After all, the contents were raw FBI intelligence files, and these naturally contained totally unsubstantiated accusations, including those provided on public tip-lines.

Those same years had marked the peak of the bizarre but wildly popular QAnon movement, and many millions of gullible Americans had become convinced that our country had been secretly controlled for decades or generations by rings of elite Satanic pedophiles. So it would have hardly been surprising if some of those agitated individuals had passed along their QAnon-related accusations to the FBI’s Epstein tip-line.

The released emails of Epstein himself or those communicating with him were credible, but most of the other material was probably much less so.

Indeed, although the the media stories almost invariably described Epstein as a “pedophile” I wasn’t entirely sure whether that was actually correct. It sounded to me like almost none of the girls involved in Epstein’s operation had been younger than 15 or 16, certainly below the age of legal consent but hardly the children implied by “pedophilia.”

For example, one of the biggest rock-and-roll stars of the bland 1950s had been Jerry Lee Lewis, who scandalously married his own 13-year-old cousin, but then falsely claimed she was actually 15, which the public considered much more reasonable. Even today, more than half of all American states allow 16-year-olds to marry.

If the girls that Epstein procured were in those age ranges, what he was doing was obviously illegal, but hardly constituted what I would call “pedophilia,” and using that term was merely a distraction.

I even wondered whether those sorts of widely promoted distractions might be part of a deliberate damage-control strategy. Wouldn’t pro-Israel partisans prefer that the public focus on lurid, unsubstantiated accusations that Satanic pedophiles were ritualistically sacrificing children on demonic altars rather than the more mundane problem of Mossad blackmailing most of our Western leaders with simple sex-tapes?

 

Fuentes also became heavily caught up in this huge Epstein controversy.

One of the earliest pieces that we published on the story was a long column by racialist right-winger Greg Johnson of Counter-Currents, and it quickly accumulated a great deal of readership and nearly 700 comments.

Most of these extreme right-wingers are always involved in bitter personal feuds, and Johnson leveled some very serious accusations against Fuentes, claiming that the young podcaster had been doing his best to minimize and deflect away the terrible crimes that Epstein had committed.

The biggest loser in our sphere is Nick Fuentes…

In the weeks before the second Epstein document dump, Fuentes revealed that he has a big new Jewish sponsor. He also began romanticizing Epstein as “Cool as fuck.” He even started selling reproductions of one of Epstein’s sweaters. The timing is suspicious. I think it is safest to assume that Fuentes works for the enemy and was deployed in advance of the new document dump to soften the blow. He’s organically part of the system we want to destroy. He needs to go down with it.

Fuentes’ credibility should not recover from this. I’m picturing Jonestown. Or Heaven’s Gate. Time for Groypers to put on their Epstein zips, lie down under their trans flags, and take their poisoned applesauce so they and their cult leader can escape the cringe.

Other big losers in our sphere are the Tate pimps, the MAGA whisperers, Patrick Casey, Michael Tracey, and the revolting Richard Hanania. They’ve been given a glimpse of the ultimate arcanum: the way the anti-white system controls us through our vices. And they chose the system. They need to go down with it.

Someone else published a Tweet aggregating a few of Fuentes’ most damning clips.

 

Our very lightly moderated website draws many commenters with strong views on Fuentes, both positive and negative.

One of his biggest supporters passed along a few Tweets containing clips of his statements about Epstein, but most seemed rather ambiguous to me. Meanwhile, his enemies claimed that in his shows Fuentes was absolutely minimizing Epstein’s blackmail activities, instead describing Epstein as merely a very proficient Jewish networker, an absurdly innocuous mischaracterization. The use of hidden cameras to record illicit sexual activity seemed almost absolute proof of a blackmail operation.

Even if the files made available never mentioned blackmail, I hardly regarded that as serious evidence. According to media accounts, only about half the documents had yet been released and it was easy to imagine that the ones still kept back contained the more incriminating material.

It also seemed plausible that Epstein might have avoided any explicit discussion of blackmail in his ordinary emails or texts, instead using more secure communications channels for those topics. Would he have used GMail to discuss his plans to blackmail a co-founder of Google, or iPhone texts to target Apple CEO Tim Cook?

 

Given all these conflicting accusations and counter-accusations about what Fuentes had been saying or not saying regarding Epstein and the released files, I decided that I needed to watch his shows on the matter and decide for myself. The two main ones together totaled nearly three hours, and I’m glad that I put in the time. These were actually the first two Fuentes shows that I had ever watched.

 Video Link

 Video Link

One point that Fuentes repeatedly emphasized was that despite so many wild claims floating around on social media, he hadn’t seen any “smoking guns” anywhere in the Epstein Files. So although it was possible that Epstein had done some of the horrible things widely attributed to him, there didn’t seem any evidence in the documents that had so far been released.

I’d been very skeptical of the lurid stories of Satanic rituals and raped and murdered children, suspecting that they had been promoted to distract people from the real nature of Epstein’s crimes, and Fuentes took a very similar position.

But unlike me, he’d spent some time on Twitter looking into those bizarre claims and had debunked some of the more popular of these. Just as I suspected, most of that evidence was basically either misinterpreted or even fabricated.

He cited quite a number of such items, including those produced by simple OCR errors. For example, in one document the word “Bank” had been mistakenly rendered “Baal,” then widely distributed as proof of Epstein’s demon-worship. In another case, a reference to the age of a 19-year-old Brazilian girl had been rendered as “=9” then cited as proof of pedophilia.

One photo had shown Epstein with a young girl seated on his lap, but the girl turned out to be his own god-daughter, with her billionaire father, an Epstein ally, sitting nearby. An alleged reference to young children had instead been a reference to a New York City street address.

There were also fraudulent examples, some of which had attracted hundreds of thousands or even millions of views on Twitter. A video clip allegedly showed Epstein torturing a naked young woman had been widely circulated but it had been extracted from a sadomasochistic pornography film. A photograph showing a young girl lying bound was actually a doctored version of a different image that had been sitting on the Internet for many years.

While I couldn’t verify that all these particular debunkings by Fuentes were correct, they did seem quite convincing to me. Perhaps Fuentes had avoided other examples that couldn’t be so easily explained away, but these did seem among the most prominent ones that had been widely circulating. Indeed, some of our agitated commenters had previously cited them as proof of Epstein’s unspeakable crimes.

Absence of evidence is famously not the same thing as evidence of absence, and Fuentes fully left the door open to possibilities beyond those he had examined. But overall, I was quite impressed by the contents of his two shows and I strongly recommended them to others interested in the controversy.

Jeffrey Epstein and the Pizzagate Pedophilia Scandal

At this point I was inclined to dismiss most of the more lurid aspects of the Jeffrey Epstein case as smoke lacking any serious evidence of fire.

But the second show of Fuentes had aired around the same time as one by Tucker Carlson on the same subject, and after I watched the latter my verdict shifted once again.

Carlson’s guest was a researcher named Ian Carroll, previously unknown to me, but clearly someone who had spent a good deal of time carefully investigating the contents of the Epstein Files. And although just like Fuentes, he hadn’t found any explicit smoking guns, certain seemingly innocuous words and phrases that regularly appeared set off massive alarm bells. These included repeated references to simple food items such as pizza and grape soda, but used in a context that didn’t make any logical sense.

Video Link

When I’d published my original 2019 article on Epstein and his activities I’d also discussed the very strange story of the Pizzagate Scandal, in which such food items had seemingly been used as codewords by a ring of politically powerful pedophiles. I’d never once suspected that Epstein or his network had any connection to that, so I was shocked to discover that his own private emails used some of those exact same strange codewords.

I don’t regularly read the New York Times these days, but on Friday one of their stories on the Epstein Files mentioned that connection:

The document dump also included hundreds of references to pizza, leading several popular conservative commentators to revive Pizzagate, a debunked conspiracy theory from 2016 about a child sex-trafficking ring operating out of the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, D.C.

Does it seem plausible that the Epstein Files would contain “hundreds of references to pizza” if the actual food were the intended meaning? Did Epstein and his ultra-elite circle of friends enjoy eating pizza so much that they would constantly mention it in their important emails?

After Trump had reversed himself last year and refused to release the Epstein Files, Carlson had interviewed Darryl Cooper for nearly three hours on the Epstein case, and to their tremendous credit, the last portion of that show had discussed the long-suppressed Pizzagate Scandal in considerable detail. That had probably been one of the very rare times that shocking story had been brought before a national audience since 2016.

Video Link

The Pizzagate Scandal came and went almost a decade ago, but with Epstein’s private emails now providing such strong suggestions of the same thing, I think it’s worth revisiting that topic that I had summarized at the time:

When one seemingly implausible pedophilia scandal has suddenly jumped from obscure corners of the Internet to the front pages of our leading newspapers, we must naturally begin to wonder whether others might not eventually do the same. And a very likely candidate comes to mind, one that seemed to me far better documented than the vague accusations being thrown about over the last few years against a wealthy financier once given a thirteen-month jail sentence in Florida a decade earlier.

I don’t use Social Media myself, but near the end of the 2016 presidential campaign, I gradually began seeing more and more Trump supporters referring to something called “Pizzagate,” a burgeoning sexual scandal that they claimed would bring down Hillary Clinton and many of the top leaders of her party, with the chatter actually increasing after Trump was elected. As near as I could tell, the whole bizarre theory had grown up on the far-right fringe of the Internet, with the utterly fantastical plot having something to do with stolen secret emails, DC pizza parlors, and a ring of pedophiles situated near the top of the Democratic Party. But given all the other strange and unlikely things I’d gradually discovered about our history, it didn’t seem like something I could necessarily dismiss out of hand.

At the beginning of December, a right-wing blogger produced a lengthy exposition of the Pizzagate charges, which finally gave me some understanding of what was actually under discussion, and I soon made arrangements to republish his article. It quickly attracted a great deal of interest, and some websites pointed to it as the best single introduction to the scandal for a general audience.

  • Pizzagate
    Aedon Cassiel • The Unz Review • December 2, 2016 • 3,100 Words

A couple of weeks later, I republished an additional article by the same writer, describing a long list of previous pedophilia scandals that had occurred in elite American and European political circles. Although many of these seemed to be solidly documented, nearly all of them had received minimal coverage by our mainstream media outlets. And if such political pedophile rings had existed in the relatively recent past, was it so totally implausible that there might be another one simmering beneath the surface of today’s Washington DC?

Those interested in the details of the Pizzagate Hypothesis are advised to read these articles, especially the first one, but I might as well provide a brief summary.

John Podesta had been a longtime fixture in DC political circles, becoming chief of staff to President Bill Clinton in 1998, and afterward remaining one of the most powerful figures in the Democratic Party establishment. While serving as chairman of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, his apparent carelessness with the password security of his Gmail account allowed it to easily be hacked, and tens of thousands of his personal emails were soon published on WikiLeaks. A swarm of young anti-Clinton activists began scouring this treasure-trove of semi-confidential information, seeking evidence of mundane bribery and corruption, but instead they came across some quite odd exchanges, seemingly written in coded language.

Now use of coded language in a supposedly secure private email account raises all sorts of natural suspicions regarding what might have been under discussion, with the most likely possibilities being illegal drugs or sex. But most of the references didn’t seem to fit the former category, and in our remarkably libertine era, in which political candidates compete for the right to be Grand Marshal at an annual Gay Pride Parade, one of the few sexual activities still discussed only in whispers would seem to be pedophilia, with some of the very strange remarks possibly hinting at this.

The researchers also soon discovered that his brother Tony Podesta, one of the wealthiest and most successful lobbyists in DC, had extremely odd tastes in art. Major items of his very extensive personal collection seemed to represent tortured or murdered bodies, and one of his favorite artists was best known for paintings depicting young children being held captive, lying dead, or suffering under severe distress. Such peculiar artwork obviously isn’t illegal, but it might naturally arouse some suspicions. And oddly enough, arch-Democrat Podesta had long been a close personal friend of former Republican House Speaker and convicted child-molester Dennis Hastert, welcoming him back into DC society after his release from prison.

Furthermore, some of the rather suspiciously worded Podesta emails referred to events held at a local DC pizza parlor, greatly favored by the Democratic Party elite, whose owner was the gay former boyfriend of David Brock, a leading Democratic activist. The public Instagram account of that pizza-entrepreneur apparently contained numerous images of young children, sometimes tied or bound, with those images frequently labeled by hashtags using the traditional gay slang for underage sexual targets. Some photos showed the fellow wearing a tee-shirt bearing the statement “I Love Children” in French, and by a very odd coincidence, his possibly assumed name was phonetically identical to that very same French phrase, thus proclaiming to the world that he was “a lover of children.” Closely connected Instagram accounts also included pictures of young children, sometimes shown amid piles of high-value currency, with queries about how much those particular children might be worth. None of this seemed illegal, but surely any reasonable person would regard the material as extremely suspicious.

DC is sometimes described as “Powertown,” being the location of the individuals who make America’s laws and govern our society, with local political journalists being closely attuned to the relative status of such individuals. And oddly enough, GQ Magazine had ranked that gay pizza parlor owner with a strange focus on young children as being one of the 50 most powerful people in our national capital, placing him far ahead of many Cabinet members, Senators, Congressional Chairmen, Supreme Court justices, and top lobbyists. Was his pizza really that delicious?

These few paragraphs provide merely a sliver of the large quantity of highly suspicious material surrounding various powerful figures at the apex of the DC political world. A vast cloud of billowing smoke is certainly no proof of any fire, but only a fool would completely ignore it without attempting further investigation.

I usually regard videos as a poor means of imparting serious information, being far less effective and meaningful than the simple printed word. But the overwhelming bulk of the evidence supporting the Pizzagate Hypothesis consists of visual images and screen shots, and these are naturally suited to a video presentation.

Some of the best summaries of the Pizzagate case were produced by a young British YouTuber named Tara McCarthy, whose work was published under the name of “Reality Calls,” and her videos were viewed hundreds of thousands of times. Although her channel was eventually banned and her videos purged, copies were later reloaded to other accounts, both on YouTube and BitChute. Some of the evidence she presents seemed rather innocuous or speculative to me and other elements were probably based upon her unfamiliarity with American society and culture. But a great deal of extremely suspicious material remains, and I would suggest that people watch the videos and decide for themselves.

 Video Link

 Video Link

 

Around the same time that I first became familiar with the details of the Pizzagate controversy, the topic also started reaching the pages of my morning newspapers, but in an rather strange manner. Political stories began giving a sentence or two to the “Pizzagate hoax,” describing it as a ridiculous right-wing “conspiracy theory” but excluding all relevant details. I had an eerie feeling that some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch causing the entire mainstream media to begin displaying identical brightly flashing neon signs declaring “Pizzagate Is False—Nothing To See There!” I couldn’t recall any previous example of such a strange media reaction to some obscure Internet controversy.

Articles in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times also suddenly appeared denouncing the entirety of the alternative media—Left, Right, and Libertarian—as “fake news” websites promoting Russian propaganda, while urging that their content be blocked by all patriotic Internet giants such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google. Prior to that moment, I’d never even heard the term “fake news” but suddenly it was ubiquitous across the media, once again almost as if some unseen hand had suddenly flipped a switch.

I naturally began to wonder whether the timing of these two strange developments was entirely coincidental. Perhaps Pizzagate was indeed true and struck so deeply at the core of our hugely corrupted political system that the media efforts to suppress it were approaching the point of hysteria.

Not long afterward, Tara McCarthy’s detailed Pizzagate videos were purged from YouTube. This was among the very first instances of video content being banned despite fully conforming to all existing YouTube guidelines, another deeply suspicious development.

I also noticed that mere mention of Pizzagate had become politically lethal. Donald Trump had selected Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, as his National Security Advisor, and Flynn’s son served as the latter’s chief of staff. The younger Flynn happened to Tweet out a couple of links to Pizzagate stories, pointing out that the accusations hadn’t yet been actually investigated let alone disproven, and very soon afterward, he was purged from the Trump transition team, foreshadowing his father’s fall a few weeks later. It seemed astonishing to me that a few simple Tweets about an Internet controversy could have such huge real-life impact near the very top of our government.

The media continued its uniform drumbeat of “Pizzagate Has Been Disproven!” but we were never told how or by whom, and I was not the only individual to notice the hollowness of such denunciations. An award-winning investigative journalist named Ben Swann at a CBS station in Atlanta broadcast a short television segment summarizing the Pizzagate controversy and noting that contrary to widespread media claims, Pizzagate had neither been investigated nor debunked. Swann was almost immediately purged by CBS but a copy of his television segment remains available for viewing on the Internet.

Video Player

00:00
05:48

 

There is an old wartime proverb that enemy flak is always heaviest over the most important target, and the remarkably ferocious wave of attacks and censorship against anyone broaching the subject of Pizzagate seems to raise obvious dark suspicions. Indeed, the simultaneous waves of attacks against all alternative media outlets as “Russian propaganda outlets” laid the basis for the continuing regime of Social Media censorship that has become a central aspect of today’s world.

Pizzagate may or may not turn out to be true, but the ongoing Internet crackdown has similarly engulfed topics of a somewhat similar nature but with vastly stronger documentation. Although I don’t use Twitter myself, I encountered the obvious implications of this new censorship policy following McCain’s death last August. The senator had died on a Saturday afternoon, and readership of Sydney Schanberg’s long 2008 expose quickly exploded, with numerous individuals Tweeting out the story and a large fraction of our incoming traffic therefore coming from Twitter. This continued until the following morning, at which point the huge flood of Tweets continued to grow, but all incoming Twitter traffic suddenly and permanently vanished, presumably because “shadow banning” had rendered those Tweets invisible. My own article on McCain’s very doubtful war record simultaneously suffered the same fate, as did numerous other articles of a controversial nature that we published later that same week.

Perhaps that censorship decision was made by some ignorant young intern at Twitter, casually choosing to ban as “hate speech” or “fake news” a massively documented 8,400 word expose by one of America’s most distinguished journalists, a Pulitzer-prize winning former top editor at The New York Times.

Or perhaps certain political-puppeteers who had spent decades controlling that late Arizona senator sought to ensure that their political puppet-strings remained invisible even after his death.

 

In discussing those very strange references in Epstein’s emails, Carlson made an excellent point.

There is obviously nothing illegal about discussing pizza and grape soda with anyone, even a notorious conspirator such as Jeffrey Epstein. Opening any sort of criminal investigation might not be justified at this stage.

But since all of Epstein’s interlocutors are so easily available, why shouldn’t FBI agents merely interview them and ask them about all those hundreds of references to pizza and other basic food items? And if they indeed referred to the actual foods, why were they usually used in such strange contexts?

Observers have also noted that the Epstein Files released contained no mention of many of the more controversial things that people expected to find, leading to suspicions that those other, more incriminating files had been kept back from the public, Congressional mandates notwithstanding.

But suppose that were the case. Given that the files numbered in the millions, it seems likely that simple text-searches were used to flag and then review those files that mentioned any sinister activity, doing so based upon the presence of certain words such as “blackmail.”

But the officials running such text-searchers may not have considered flagging emails that contained seemingly innocuous words such as “pizza,” allowing those to slip out along with all the others.

If so, then the use of those simple codewords by Epstein and his fellow conspirators may have been responsible for this major break in the case.

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Related Articles

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*


Copyright © 2012 - 2026 | TLB Project™ LLC