Dear Friends, Followers and Subscribers, our dear Americans,

Seeing as one and all are reminiscing about Charlie Kirk today in light of the Iran war, I thought I would make something that happened crystal clear.

Minds are for changing, and when the facts change we change our minds.
We had dinner with Charlie Kirk in London last May 2025, and when Charlie I walked privately after dinner in Hyde Park, Charlie told me then that in his view Bibi Netanyahu was a psychopath and that the actions taken by his government in Gaza were psychopathic.

We already knew that, so it was no shock to me, but it was good to see that his evaluation and capacity to observe the obvious was present and sane.

Charlie had completely changed his mind and his position on Israel from when I first met him in Dec 2018, and in May 2025 he did not support their actions in Gaza or many of the actions of their government, particularly their growing destructive influence in America.

Previously he had been one of Israel’s biggest champions, so this was indeed a complete change. We had witnessed his support of Israel previously as we had visited Israel with him in spring 2019 when he had held almost completely the opposite view.

Charlie was also totally against any military engagement with Iran by America. And he told me in London that he had written a few days previously to Israeli leadership to express his disappointment.

Erika, Charlie’s wife, shortly afterward on June 17th and 18th, communicated to us that she suported Charlie completely concerning his view of the insanity of involving the US in a war with Iran and the importance his attempts to achieve a peaceful resolution.

And she communicated that directly to us in writing.

She also, and most importantly, indicated that she did not agree with how biblical scripture was being used and was being twisted by pastors and politicians to justify their support of military action.

This discussion is historically important in the light of discussions about dispensationalism* (see definition below) and how the Bible is being interpreted today by many politicians and military leaders to justify the current war.

She stated very clearly that “the pastors” in Charlie’s orbit were “hungry for war.”

That was her worry at that time, and Erika was VERY disturbed by it.

Charlie was not alone in his views.

Many feel the same way today.

The elderly in America and the boomer generation seem to be somewhat unconscious on the subject of harmful Israeli government action and how it affects the entire future of America and the world.

Charlie’s view was that most of the youth of today will never forgive Israel for the needless slaughter of innocent children in Gaza, and he suspected that they would not forgive Trump for a future war with Iran either.

Charlie did his best to warn President Trump about this and what voters and the Trump base were telling him on June 18 last year.

He did this knowingly at great personal risk to his personal relationship and friendship with the President.

Today, the youth of the world and young voters in America, on the whole, have recognised that Trump’s actions in Iran are insane and that they have been encouraged by psychopaths.

I personally believe that there is a possibility that Charlie was executed for his efforts to prevent the Iran war.

This is my opinion.

This matter and Charlie’s execution should be completely investigated.

If an American citizen was executed by a foreign power for expressing their opinion, then we should be aware of that.

I am not alone in that thought either.

Charlie was one of my best friends; we communicated directly (often daily) since April 2018. We achieved a tremendous amount together.

I have strong reason to believe that there is a possibility that he has been betrayed by several of those around him.

@RealCandaceO @CarriePrejean1 @TuckerCarlson @BretWeinstein @piersmorgan @IanCarrollShow In our work together Charlie, Irina and I quietly helped to prevent the USA from involving itself in at least four other military engagements and wars. And together we helped to calm down and pacify a few others.

We discussed various religious principles with Charlie and his wife, and he applied them liberally and often, very effectively, to resolve conflicts, to create peace in the world, and for peacemaking purposes with those he advised.

We also helped him to expand Turning Point and Turning Point Action into an election-winning machine.

He trusted me and I trusted him as a friend.

Charlie trusted Candace and always had her back. Even when others tried to cut their line and valuable connection, he always protected it.

Sadly, freedom-fighting groups and governments do get infiltrated by psychopaths and psychopathic philosophies and ideas. The same is true of religions and of political parties.

Entire religions can be destroyed by mis informed or deliberate alteration of their scriptures.

It destroys their workability. It can change history forever.

We all saw this clearly during Covid and have seen it on other occasions.

Well-intentioned beings do sometimes get unjustly attacked.

And sometimes, as is apparent, they do get killed.

I have no doubt that were Charlie here and had he not been betrayed and not been publicly executed, we would not now have a war in Iran.

I certainly would never tell you what to think, but as I have first-hand knowledge of these matters that are relevant to the current state of the world, I thought we should share them.

I am sharing them here because, left unchecked, the psychopaths that have encouraged and engaged in the Iran war can destroy all the hopes of freedom that we have.

Millions can die.

The depth of the evil that Charlie was aware of may be way too much for the world to confront at this time.

It is extremely hard to confront.

But the alternative is not to confront it, and that, my friends, is why he withdrew his support from the psychopaths that were trying to control him.

It is also why we support Candace Owens in her pursuit of truth.

When I drove home from Oxford University, where Charlie last spoke in England in May 2025, I had the odd perception that it would be the last time I would see him. He had been privately talking like a dead man walking.

It was as if he was talking his obituary over supper. Another person present noticed that too and commented on it.

Charlie had noticed what was occurring in the USA at its heart, and it seemed that he knew his fate.

I hope this helps you understand what is shaping and happening in America this week.

I am disclosing this at this time as it is vital in the history and future of America and as several American servicemen have already lost their lives in this Iranian war. There is a high probability that many more will do so, and I know that Charlie would expect me to do what we can to prevent any further loss of life.

This is true.

All our love,

John and Irina

PS The video below was taken during our last supper together during pudding — Charlie is larking in front of an ice cream machine.

Happier times, happier days.

I hope this communication and clarification helps you and your country.

@RealCandaceO @CarriePrejean1 @TuckerCarlson @BretWeinstein @piersmorgan
@IanCarrollShow

How a Certain Strain of French State Philosophy Became the Most Dangerous Ideology in the Modern World

By John Mappin — for IF Magazine

@RealCandaceO @Nero

There are countries whose power is measured in divisions, fleets, or GDP. And then there are countries—more precisely, state traditions—whose danger lies not in their armies but in their ideas. France, for all its breathtaking beauty, architectural splendour, and aesthetic self-confidence, has long exported not only wine and couture but something far more potent: a worldview. A worldview that marries intellectual hauteur, moral exhibitionism, and a distinctly psychiatric philosophy of control, perfumed in such elegance that one barely notices its corrosive effects until it has already crossed national borders and ideological frontiers.

To call France the “most lethal country in the world” is, of course, not to impugn the French people—many of whom are as baffled by their own governing class as the rest of us. Rather, it is to point toward a deep historical pattern: the remarkable ability of the French state and its intellectual vanguard to generate world-shaping doctrines that mask coercion behind sophistication, and which have repeatedly unleashed devastation far beyond the boulevards of Paris.

From the eighteenth century to the present day, one can trace a continuous thread of state-sponsored ideology—part psychiatric, part aesthetic, part imperial—that has acted as a cover for interventions, manipulations, and, at times, civilisational vandalism.

And at the heart of this strange genealogy stands one unforgettable figure: the original theoretician of cruelty, the Marquis de Sade, whose name gave us the very word sadism.

I. De Sade and the Birth of the Aestheticised Cruelty

One does not need to read far into the writings of the Marquis de Sade to understand how his worldview would echo across centuries. In de Sade we find the fusion of three quintessentially French state impulses:

1The intellectualisation of cruelty
2The aestheticisation of vice
3The conviction that human beings are clay for the sculptor-ruler

De Sade’s philosophy was, in many ways, the first great modern manifesto of unrestrained domination disguised as liberation. It was also one of the earliest examples of an idea that would become central to the French governing and cultural elite: that if one describes tyranny in sufficiently elegant prose, one can pass it off as enlightenment.

It was no accident that psychiatry as a mechanism of state power—classification, coercion, “correction”—found such fertile soil in France. Nor was it accidental that the French colonial imagination adopted de Sade’s core principle: that power is justified by the pleasure of the one wielding it.

II. The Colonial Empire: Sadism in Bureaucratic Form

When France embarked on its colonial ventures across Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific, it did so with a paradoxical flourish: barbarism wearing perfume. The rhetoric was always the same—civilisation, enlightenment, culture—yet the methods were textbook Sadean: domination, possession, extraction, and control.

The Atlantic slave trade did not rely merely on economic incentives; it depended on a philosophical conviction that other human beings were objects. France’s brutality in places like Haiti and West Africa was carried out under the tricolour not by accident but by conviction—and then lacquered over with a thin sheen of Parisian refinement.

French colonial governors wrote treatises on virtue even as they ordered floggings. Parisian newspapers rhapsodised about the civilising mission while forced labour camps churned out rubber and sugar.

What distinguished France from other colonial powers was not the scale of its violence—horrific though it was—but its unmatched talent for disguising its excesses beneath couture, cuisine, and philosophy.

The British exported common law.

The French exported illusions and cruelty. III. The Perfume Bottle: Aesthetics as Political Camouflage

Where other empires eventually admitted their sins, France perfected the art of transforming guilt into a brand asset. The more catastrophes French policy unleashed, the more aggressively the French state—and its cultural machinery—produced beauty, fashion, and philosophical abstraction as a kind of moral deodorant.

Perfume for the nose, couture for the eye, existentialism for the mind—these were not merely cultural products but instruments of national absolution.

The scent of Chanel No. 5 was, in geopolitical terms, more than a fragrance; it was a fog machine.

The effect has been profound. Even today, many view France less as a state actor and more as a museum gift shop with nuclear weapons. This misperception has allowed a distinctly French moral arrogance—born of centuries of self-perception as civilisation’s curator—to operate unchecked.

⸻

IV. From Psychiatry to Ideology: The Modern Export

If France’s colonial era fused aesthetics with oppression, its post-war era fused psychiatric theory with social engineering. In Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, and their successors, we find the intellectual descendants of de Sade: thinkers who relativised truth, destabilised identity, and reduced human beings to mere constructs.

Their disciples exported these ideas across the Atlantic, where they blossomed—particularly in American universities—into today’s most volatile ideological fashions.

Which brings us to one of the strangest developments of the twenty-first century: the near-religious fervour with which certain French philosophical currents have amplified and exported the transgender ideology, not as a compassionate response to human suffering, but as a metaphysical assault on meaning itself.

France, ever the aesthete, gave the world the idea that identity could be sculpted like a marble bust. That the self was infinitely malleable. That categories—male, female, true, false—were oppressive inventions rather than descriptions of reality.

This was not liberation. It was the psychiatric worldview disguised as progressive theology.

And, as ever, it came wrapped in beauty, couture, and intellectual sophistication.

As we know Charlie, there are sane people in the world that want Peace @charliekirk11 @realDonaldTrump @JDVance @Scavino47 and there are insane people in the world that want war.

The war lovers are “Merchants of Chaos”.

They thrive and profit from the misery of others.

They work hard to destroy sane peace efforts and they are working hard now to destroy the positive future that President Trump and so many other peace loving people are also envisioning.

@kadmitriev @AndreyGGeorgiev

Peace is entirely more joyful profitable and pleasureable that the horrors of war and so it is worth investigating highlighting and educating ourselves and others as to exactly who it is that seeks to profit from conflict. They should be brought to Justice.

Who has a dog in the fight?

The recent phone call that was from both side’s account and viewpoint respectful and positive can indeed be the foundation for a peaceful and economic future beyond our wildest dreams.

I was recently reminded of a little known part of US / Russian history the other day.

The historical relationship between U.S. President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II during the American Civil War (1861–1865) is a fascinating episode of international diplomacy, marked by mutual interests, parallel reforms, and a strategic alignment that influenced the war’s outcome and the future of the United States. Their governments’ cooperation, including Russia’s deployment of naval flotillas to U.S. ports in 1863, played a significant role in supporting the Union and reinforcing the cause of emancipation.

Below is historical data addressing the role of the Russian flotillas, clarifying British and French positions, and evaluation of the impact on the U.S.’s future, while highlighting the nature of the Lincoln-Alexander connection.

Abraham Lincoln and Tsar Alexander II never met, but their leadership coincided during transformative periods in their nations.

Alexander II issued the Emancipation Manifesto on March 3, 1861, freeing over 20 million Russian serfs, a reform that resonated with American abolitionists and Lincoln’s own moral opposition to slavery. Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, aimed to end slavery in Confederate territories, aligning the Civil War with the cause of human freedom. Both leaders faced domestic resistance—Alexander from conservative nobles, Lincoln from pro-slavery factions and border states—and both were assassinated for their reforms (Lincoln in 1865, Alexander in 1881).
Their governments found common ground in geopolitical strategy. Russia, weakened after the Crimean War (1853–1856), sought to counter British and French influence, which often aligned with the Confederacy due to economic ties to Southern cotton. The U.S., fighting to preserve the Union, needed international support to deter European intervention. This convergence fostered a pragmatic partnership, described by some as a “friendship in spirit.” The Russian Flotillas: Strategic Support in 1863
In September and October 1863, Russia dispatched two naval squadrons—one to New York and another to San Francisco—during a critical phase of the Civil War. These flotillas, comprising ships like the Oslyabya and Alexander Nevsky, remained in U.S. ports for about seven months. The deployment is often cited as a show of support for Lincoln’s Union, but its motives and impact require careful analysis.

Russian Motives

• Geopolitical Strategy: Russia’s primary motive was to protect its navy from British and French threats amid the Polish Uprising of 1863. By stationing ships in neutral U.S. ports, Russia ensured its fleet could operate in case of a European war, potentially disrupting British and French commerce.

• Support for the Union: Russia explicitly backed the Union as the legitimate U.S. government. Foreign Minister Alexander Gorchakov wrote in 1862, “Russia desires above all the maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation.” This stance aligned with Alexander II’s anti-slavery reforms and Russia’s interest in countering Britain and France, who leaned toward the Confederacy.

• Response to Lincoln’s Appeal: Some accounts suggest Lincoln sent a personal appeal to Alexander II, to which the Tsar responded generously, though evidence is anecdotal. A post on X claims Alexander II said, “Before we open this paper or know its contents, we grant any request it may contain,” before sending the fleets. While this story reflects Russian goodwill, primary sources like diplomatic correspondence don’t fully substantiate it.

Impact of the Flotillas

• Deterrence of European Intervention: The Russian presence in U.S. ports signaled to Britain and France that Russia might side with the Union in any escalation. This was critical in 1863, when Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy after Confederate victories like Chancellorsville. The flotillas, combined with Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which galvanized British abolitionist sentiment, helped deter intervention.
• Moral and Diplomatic Boost: The Russian ships were warmly received in New York, with events like the “Soirée Russe” on November 5, 1863, attended by 2,000 elites. This public display strengthened Union morale and underscored Russia’s support, contrasting with Britain and France’s neutrality.
• Specific Role in San Francisco: In San Francisco, the Russian flotilla was seen as a safeguard against potential Confederate or secessionist threats in California, though no direct military action occurred.

——

British and French Positions
Contrary to some narratives, Britain and France did not openly support the Confederacy but maintained neutrality, driven by economic and political calculations:
• Britain: Reliant on Southern cotton for its textile industry, Britain considered recognizing the Confederacy but was swayed by abolitionist public opinion and the Union’s naval blockade, which disrupted cotton exports. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation made intervention on the Confederate side politically untenable.

• France: Under Napoleon III, France explored joint intervention with Britain, particularly during the Trent Affair (1861) and after Confederate battlefield successes. However, France hesitated without British commitment and faced domestic abolitionist pressure.
Both nations prioritized economic interests and geopolitical balance, and their neutrality frustrated the Confederacy more than the Union. The Russian flotillas, by contrast, tilted the diplomatic scales toward the Union.

——

🇨🇭ANNOUNCEMENT FROM SWITZERLAND 🇨🇭

One of the most brainwashed TV presenters in the UK media @JeremyVineOn5 @theJeremyVine has had a wild epiphany and now knows that he and the whole world has been subject to a psyop by the government.

#lockdownfiles

🚀 @IsabelOakeshott Justice is coming.

Those who deceived humanity are rapidly waking up.

🧵The Injection is Lethal.

It kills some instantly, some after a few weeks, some after a few months and some after a few years.

But it does kill and will kill many, perhaps not all, but many, of its recipients.

The cellular level damage is still not fully understood. The fact is, that anyone that has been exposed to mRNA or COVID injections should immediately DETOXIFY the body.

The sooner you get this poison out of your cells the better.

Now America I hope you see why you needed Trump to rebuild your infrastructure.

You trains derail because you transport system’s tracks and roads are broken.

You send money overseas for wars, to line the pockets of the Clinton and Biden families and your economy is on the brink of an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression seem mild.

We desperately tried to help you see that Trump held the key.

And a few remained loyal to him.

But my golly gosh what a disloyal lot some of the republicans are.

It is so sad to see from here.

🧵 It was @ImMappin’s and my pleasure to host Dr Robert Malone @RWMaloneMD and his wife in London with the Hon Andrew Bridgen MP. @ABridgen and other luminaries.

We held a private event at the Carlton Club in london @drcole12 @DrAseemMalhotra @EvaVlaar

rwmalonemd.substack.com/p/the-honorabl… The purpose of the event was “An evening to celebrate the importance of free speech outside and inside Parliament and our need to ensure Safety of Medical Protocols.”

So do vaccines harm?

Vaccine curious Victoria @VictoriaBH explains what happened when she met @RWMaloneMD @DrAseemMalhotra @drcole12 @EvaVlaar and @ABridgen at the Carlton Club this week.

@Nigel_Farage @RobertKennedyJr @elonmusk @JohnBoweActor

rumble.com/v29x24a-victor… Here is what her followers shared with her as feed back.

🧵I do think that @abiroberts has a point.

While Doctors can admit to having made a gross error in taking and promoting the vaccine - and MANY have admitted that, to their credit. We cannot allow the fake news narrative to amplify the narrative that we did not know and that there was not sufficient scientific evidence, at least by March 2020, to know that any emergency trial of an untested novel vaccine was not nessescary and was a very bad idea. After the data from the criuise ship emerged