Chris Spencer

A newly written and badly needed law, the New Thought Crimes Act, has been proffered as necessary to defend the moral health of our country by eradicating destructive, unproductive thought crimes that challenge the harmony within the nation. This law, with such foresight, criminalizes certain disruptive thoughts about Israel, Gaza, the ADL, AIPAC, and net neutrality to make sure public discourse conforms to the truth. It is now called thoughtcrime, protection of society from harmful deviations. Here are the 10 thoughts that will now be considered illegal under this vital new act:

1) Thinking That Israel's Actions in Gaza Are Ethnic Cleansing
It is now illegal to believe that Israel's actions in Gaza are anything but a necessary morally justified defense against aggression. Any thought suggesting that Israel's military operations constitute ethnic cleansing will be flagged immediately and revised accordingly. It is fundamentally a misguided and disruptive thought to the national cohesion which we hold dear.

2) Thinking AIPAC Has Too Much Influence on U.S. Politics
It is a lie and dangerous to think that AIPAC, or indeed any such noble lobbying group, could manipulate the U.S. political system unduly. The New Thought Crimes Act has rendered such ideas both untrue and illegal. We shouldn't pick up, in this modern day and age, subversive memes suggesting our political system is no longer transparent, independent, and untainted by outside influences.

Full story »

Tracy Turner

In the 18th century, American patriots rose against the British Crown, decrying its tyranny, monopolies, and disregard for individual freedoms. Today, a new crown has emerged, not draped in royal velvet but cloaked in sleek logos and promises of convenience. The tech giants-Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, and the rest-constitute a new overclass, their command over our lives rivaling, and in some respects exceeding, that of governments. Their imperium is maintained not by redcoats but by algorithms, data, and the siren song of "smart" life. But beneath the gleaming surface lies a disturbing truth: these corporations are the instruments of a new empire, one based on illegality, monopoly, and the destruction of liberty.

USAID struggles to export 50 lb. bags of rice due to budget constraints, yet under Joe Biden's administration, the U.S. funded the shipment of thousands of 2,000 lb. JDAM bombs to Gaza, each costing approximately $40,000. This stark contrast highlights the disparity between humanitarian aid and military spending priorities.

Full story »

Tracy Turner

The federal workforce is one of the strongest pillars of economic stability in the United States, playing a crucial role in balancing and managing the economic cycles that often experience sharp downturns or uncertainties. These workers help ensure the maintenance of essential public services and functions, even during periods of economic strain or recession. The Trump administration, however, cut federal employment far and wide based on the ultimate goal of shrinking the size of government to eliminate inefficient operations and lessen the costs. While such policies were framed as fiscally responsible, the deepest and longest impacts of these cuts have been highly ultimate. Rather than streamlining government operations, these cuts have undermined vital government functions, cut public services, and in many cases caused economic and social instability in the long run.

This report is a critical examination of the aftermath of the job cuts by the Trump administration and focuses on medium to worst-case economic scenarios. It postulates that shrinkage in federal jobs has delivered a direct punch to the country's economic underpinning, undermined vital public services, and laid the framework for structural problems which will continue to manifest even after many years.

Full story »

Fred Gransville

67,000 Dead in 16 Months: The Inarguable Truth of Israel's Global Zionist Death Cult

The killing of 67,000 Palestinians in Gaza in the last 16 months, primarily due to Israeli Talpiot Lavender AI military operations, presents an obvious, unsettling picture: a state that has embraced a mindset representative of a death cult. Death Cult is not rhetoric or speculation but based on the shocking scale of death, destruction, and systematic dehumanization.

The woman with red hair from one of the sitcoms was in the news tonight, she was defending Israel. She was complaining about all the hate mail. 67,000 dead, so that she can have a "precious state" that she won't live in. Debra Messing. Defending a State that she will not live in full-time. Are the 67,000 dead souls a "Religion," an Authoritarian Statist Dystopia or a Death Cult?

The mask of benevolence hides the fist of oppression.

And in continuance, it would not stop killing; the suffering has been incessant, and what's left of Gaza has come to symbolize an unbridled, staunchly uncompromising ideology of destruction. Maybe more disturbingly, this becomes a genocide quite beyond human bombs or drones. It's fast assuming the dimensions of a technologized machine driven by AI power to target human life with uncanny efficiency, almost as a cult of 21st-century death.

Full story »

Tracy Turner

Go to Section 1

While comparing figures like Donald Trump or the CEOs of the world's biggest tech companies to King George III may seem incendiary, it's through the concentration of wealth, influence, and power among these modern-day elites that a striking parallel emerges. This echelon, with its eerie overtones, mirrors what had been solely exercised by absolute monarchy.Â

The shift from monarchy to corporate empires has resulted in a few individuals shaping global policies and economies, distancing themselves from the effects on the masses. This article aims to draw parallels between King George III and today's elite through economic trends, power concentration, and policy manipulation. A closer look at the actions and influence of top tech billionaires provides a deeper understanding of how modern-day CEOs have assumed the role of a 'new crown.'

1. Concentration of Wealth and Power

King George III symbolized accumulated wealth and, therefore, a concentration of power in the hands of a single monarch. Similarly, today's global technological leaders wield immense influence, increasingly surpassing many national governments. Figures like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Tim Cook head mighty empires that dominate the marketplace and even dictate global economic policies. The disparity in global wealth is more pronounced than ever: nearly half of all global wealth is controlled by the wealthiest 1%, a trend most evident in Silicon Valley and among the tech titans. This stark inequality underscores the immense power and influence these individuals hold, akin to the monarchs of old.

Full story »

Chris Spencer

Trump and His Inner Circle of Tech Titans Usher in a New Era of Greek-Style Austerity for the Masses While Insulating Themselves From the Economic Fallout.

In February 2025, the United States had begun the irreversible destruction of one of its most enduring emblems of goodwill toward the rest of the world, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). For decades, USAID had been a cornerstone of America's pledge to assuage suffering, promote democracy, and build stability.

The United States, as a global superpower, has long been a beacon of hope and aid for many nations. However, under the administration of former President Donald Trump and at the urging of tech mogul Elon Musk, this critical agency was defunded and eventually dismantled. To populists, it was a victory--an example of American self-interest reasserting its rightful place in the world.

However, this shift has far more significant consequences, underscoring deeper, darker currents in American identity and running the risk of diminished American leadership globally. At the heart of this shift is the myth of America as the world's most charitable nation--a story that the country has told itself loudly and repeatedly, but which falls apart on closer inspection.

Full story »

By Mark Aurelius

[As was the case for Part 1, this full article is included herein because of Internet censorship. For several days after Part 1 was published, practically all common search engines did not retrieve this title even if typed exactly (and even if surrounded by quotation marks!). Or they might eventually retrieve some obscure website that linked it, but in which it is difficult to actually find to the article itself (buried under the minutia of many other stories). A great deal of censorship has been happening due to algorithms and other devious means meant to censor certain topics or points of view. This is especially true if something is likely to be labeled anti-Semitic (regardless if true or not). And note that truth is not anti-Semitic in a rational and truly just world). If you agree this message, it is important you help promote it.]

It is important for all to read Part 1. Here are two links: Do not overlook this seminal statement.
https://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2025/01/23/trumprs-cabinet-selections-shows-us
or
https://stateofthenation.info/?p=13346

Still, for orientation purposes, four paragraphs from Part 1 are now quoted:
“Too many [of Trump’s nominees] reflect the rabid zealousness of Zionist domination already reigning in the U.S. Government, and its willingness to destroy our American 1st Amendment birthright, that is if speech happens to be critical of Jews, Zionism, and Israel, particularly Israel’s genocidal war against Palestinians.”…

Full story »

Scott Fleitas

Now we find ourselves part of a world wherein the names of a few companies--and their CEOs--have become synonymous with progress, innovation, and ease: Apple, Intel, Microsoft, Google (Alphabet), Amazon, and Oracle appear to be everywhere and to impact everything--from how we work and shop and communicate to even how we perceive reality. Behind the sleek interfaces, catchy slogans, and the ceaseless promise of "better, faster, smarter," there's a considerably darker side to the tech giants. A side few of us know about or, worse, care to admit.

It's not about products or services anymore; it's about power, control, and influence. These companies do not just shape consumer behavior but society--and not always for the better. Let's dig a little deeper into how they've become intertwined into the business of surveillance, censorship, and the explosion of mind control for a hefty dose of government contracts and influence. They are now taking on many aspects of the role, globally, of nation-states.

Full story »

By Tracy Turner

The news media, which at times describes itself as the bastion of truth and the watchdog of democracy, are often riddled with glaring inconsistencies regarding political figures. This selective scrutiny leads to a world where every single action of Donald Trump is picked apart, whereas Joe Biden and Benjamin Netanyahu receive rather lenient treatment despite their passage of policies with far-reaching consequences. The question is, what motivates this discrepancy within mainstream media coverage?

The Trump Phenomenon: Disproportionate Media Scrutiny

Love him or hate him, no one can deny that Donald Trump knows how to whip up a media frenzy. All the same, the blanket coverage of his actions often crosses the line from due diligence in journalism into sensationalism manufactured to sustain perpetual outrage.

Full story »

By Fred Gransville

It should come across as interesting to you: How a man who once sold steaks, vodka, and a gilded illusion of success imagines himself to be now brokering real estate deals with the entire world. Two weeks into his second term, Donald Trump called Gaza U.S. property-complete with boots on the ground. Were audacity not so frequently ignorance's mask, one could have called this the Art of the Deal.

Gaza, over the years, has been many things: haven, prison, battleground, icon of resistance; war-scarred strip of land-and now U.S. real estate? Like Afghanistan and Iraq before it? The consequences are more than just a change of policy, but a cataclysmic declaration that jettisons history and realpolitik in favor of branding and bravado. What does the U.S. hope to gain? A foothold in one of modern history's most politically unstable regions? An exercise in flexing power with an inevitable price? All lessons derived from past interventions into the Middle East have been bloody, expensive, and futile.

Full story »