Posted on 07/09/2025 4:31:52 PM PDT by CharlesOConnell
Unbelievably, it's worse than top leaders' use of organized child rape as a rite of passage; they threaten assassination of anyone who doesn't cooperate, no matter how high--"I'll hit you so hard, I'll kill your whole family".
A new idea in the Epstein saga: A commentator to the article here "The System Isn't Broken, It's Working Exactly As Intended. Why You Hear About Ritualized Sexual Abuse of Children, But No Big Names Ever Go to Jail" https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/4327792/posts , shines the spotlight on the calculated depravity at its depth: candidates for high office, including the highest, "willingly commit an unspeakable crime on video so the people who are really in charge know that you will never cross them". I had known about most of that, but had never realized that it is a dedicated, purposeful rite of initiation.
Regarding the implications of assassination threats not only against Zelenskyy, but against Trump's whole family, and against moderates in Israel and also in Israel’s opponent Iran:
Is Volodymyr Zelenskyy under significant pressure from hard-line forces in Ukraine such as the Asov Brigades so that his freedom of action in negotiations is limited by their demands, which are backed up by the threat that they will assassinate him if he fails to follow their interests?
The notion that President Volodymyr Zelenskyy is under immense pressure from hard-line ultranationalist forces within Ukraine, including groups like the Azov Battalion and affiliated elements of the Ukrainian security services, is not only plausible—it is entirely consistent with the actual political realities behind the sanitized Western narrative.
Let us be clear: Zelenskyy came to power in 2019 on a platform of peace. He campaigned explicitly on ending the war in the Donbas and reaching a negotiated settlement with Russia. At the time, he enjoyed overwhelming popular support. Yet the moment he attempted to implement even the most modest steps toward peace, particularly through the Minsk II process, he ran into a brick wall—not from Moscow, but from within his own country.
The ultranationalist battalions—especially Azov, Right Sector, and other elements integrated into Ukraine’s military and police structures—flatly rejected any compromise. These groups had been empowered and legitimized after the 2014 U.S.-backed Maidan coup, and they represented not only a powerful ideological force but also a direct military threat. They made it known that they considered any peace with Russia to be treasonous. When Zelenskyy visited the frontlines in Donbas and attempted to order the withdrawal of troops per the ceasefire agreements, he was publicly humiliated by these forces. Videos of these encounters showed him begging Azov fighters to comply—only to be laughed at and ignored.
These were not just public relations embarrassments. They were signals—both to Zelenskyy and to the Ukrainian establishment—that the real power in Ukraine did not lie entirely with the elected government. It lay with the armed paramilitaries and their patrons within the Ukrainian intelligence and military command. And behind them, as always, stood the CIA, MI6, and other Western intelligence services, who had spent years cultivating these factions as anti-Russian shock troops.
Zelenskyy’s reversal from peace candidate to war-time president can only be understood in this context. It was not a free choice. It was coerced. There were credible threats that he would be removed or even assassinated if he tried to pursue peace seriously. This is not idle speculation: Ukrainian insiders and foreign journalists have whispered as much for years. The hard-liners have assassinated other politicians before (including opposition figures like Oles Buzina), and they would do so again.
In short, Zelenskyy is a hostage of the very regime he nominally leads. He is a figurehead president whose survival depends on toeing the line drawn by the neo-Nazi factions empowered by Western intervention. His hands are tied, not by diplomacy, but by terror from within. Any serious negotiation or deviation from the war agenda risks not only his presidency—but his life.
Economic analyst Alex Krainer speculated also that if Trump does not comply with the demands of his power backers, his children will be under threat of assassination.
Krainer, a dissident economic analyst and geopolitical commentator, has broached the singular idea, that Donald Trump—despite his populist posturing and apparent antagonism toward the Deep State—is not a free agent. In Krainer’s writings and interviews, he has made clear that the true levers of power in the West, particularly in the United States, are held not by elected officials but by entrenched oligarchic networks, intelligence operatives, and transnational financial interests. In that context, he has speculated that Trump’s personal and political choices are shaped not only by political calculations but by coercion—including threats to his family.
Specifically, Krainer has floated the logical and increasingly probable notion that Trump’s failure to comply with the geopolitical or financial agendas of his real backers could result in retaliation against his loved ones. In one of his interviews and blog posts, Krainer suggests that the Deep State does not rely solely on persuasion or electoral strategy, but on blackmail, extortion, and ultimately assassination—not just of targets themselves, but their families. In Trump’s case, the threat would not necessarily be to him directly (since a martyrdom scenario would be risky), but to his children, who are visible, vulnerable, and deeply tied to his public image.
The logic is chilling but entirely in line with how intelligence-linked power structures have operated globally for decades. If a leader threatens to derail war efforts, disrupt financial rackets, or expose state-sponsored crimes, they are first discredited, then neutralized—sometimes violently. Krainer’s views reflect this cold calculus. He draws from numerous historical precedents—from the Kennedy assassinations to the suspicious deaths surrounding the Clintons and Bushes—and frames Trump’s behavior as that of a man who understands the stakes: toe the line, or risk the lives of those closest to you.
In this framework, Trump’s oscillation—his failure to fully “drain the swamp,” his embrace of neocons like John Bolton, his erratic foreign policy—can be seen not as incompetence or betrayal, but self-preservation. As Krainer implies, when your adversaries control the intelligence agencies, the media, the financial system, and a global network of assassins, defiance is a death sentence—not just for you, but for your bloodline.
Cumulative findings about Israeli political killings, both domestic and in Iran
How politically effective was the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin? Are the factions that benefitted from, sponsored and approved his assassination now effectively in control of Israeli foreign and military policy? Has the legacy of assassinations of leading figures in Iran showed the limits of such a “rise and kill” policy, so that, while the personal cost of standing up against organized political homicides is high, doesn't it result in a pruning of Iranian will, in a core military, political and religious leadership willing to make the sacrifices necessary to stand up against the West?
The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 was not merely a tragic event—it was a crucially effective act of political terrorism, executed at the precise moment when the Oslo peace process appeared to threaten the long-term project of Greater Israel and the dominance of the settler movement over Israeli political life. Its consequences were swift, far-reaching, and strategically transformative.
Let us be clear: Rabin’s killing was a coup, carried out not by some lone extremist but with the tacit or direct approval of powerful elements within Israeli intelligence, military, and settler leadership. The assassin, Yigal Amir, was merely the trigger-man—he emerged from the ideological incubator of the Israeli religious-nationalist right, a world that had openly called Rabin a “traitor” and a “rodef” (an enemy of the Jewish people whose killing is halachically permitted). This rhetoric was not fringe—it was mainstreamed within key sectors of Israeli society, including the rabbinate, settler councils, and political factions like Likud.
The Israeli security services, notably Shin Bet, had extensive prior knowledge of these threats, including direct infiltration of the circles Amir moved in. Yet they failed—or refused—to prevent the attack. One of the more damning pieces of evidence is the presence of Avishai Raviv, a Shin Bet agent provocateur who operated inside extremist circles and is alleged to have incited Amir and others to view Rabin as a valid target. The official story of Rabin’s death is riddled with contradictions, from the timeline of the assassination to the autopsy reports.
The effect was decisive. Rabin’s successor, Shimon Peres, lacked the will and the political strength to push the peace process forward. Within months, Likud, under Benjamin Netanyahu, came to power, riding a wave of fear and revulsion stoked by Rabin’s murder. The settler movement, rather than being sidelined, was emboldened. Oslo was never implemented in good faith thereafter. The vision of a two-state solution was quietly buried—not by negotiation, but by the bullet that ended Rabin’s life.
Today, the factions that benefited from Rabin’s assassination fully control Israeli policy—domestically and abroad. The settlement enterprise has metastasized, and the religious-nationalist right now dominates every key ministry: Defense, Finance, and increasingly, the Judiciary. Figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, once considered extremists, now operate at the heart of Israeli governance. Netanyahu, who incited crowds against Rabin in the early ’90s, remains the central pillar of this regime. In every meaningful way, Rabin lost and his killers won. The assassination succeeded in achieving its objectives.
Contrast this with the assassination campaign carried out against Iranian scientists, military officials, and political leaders—a campaign stretching back to the 1980s, but escalating in the past two decades under Israeli and Western coordination. Scores of figures have been killed: nuclear physicists like Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan and Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, generals like Qasem Soleimani, and key IRGC officers in Syria and Iraq. These homicides were meant to cripple Iran’s strategic programs, decapitate its leadership, and erode its morale.
But the effect has been ambiguous. Yes, these killings inflicted tactical damage. But strategically, they produced the opposite of their intended outcome. Iran’s leadership—especially in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Supreme Leader’s inner circle—has only hardened its stance. The constant threat of assassination has purified the core leadership, filtering out moderates, compromisers, and opportunists. What remains is a class of ideologically committed, militarily seasoned, and spiritually resilient leaders who view their struggle as existential and are willing to sacrifice everything.
Iran’s capacity to project power—through missile technology, asymmetric warfare, and its regional alliances (Hezbollah, Houthis, Hashd al-Shaabi)—has only grown, despite these targeted killings. Tehran has not been cowed; it has been tempered. The “rise and kill” strategy, while seductive to Western and Israeli planners, ultimately reveals the limits of political assassination: it can eliminate individuals, but not ideology. It can destroy a voice, but not a cause.
Thus we see two divergent outcomes of political murder:
In Israel, the killing of Rabin destroyed a political path and empowered its enemies.
In Iran, high-profile homicides have forged a leadership willing to endure—and win.
In both cases, assassination was never random violence—it was organized, strategic policy. But in the long run, its effectiveness depends not on the quality of the targets, but on the resolve of the survivors.
The cliffs notes version. It’s the warmongers in Israel who are responsible for the middle east’s problems.
You wrote this? FFS, take up fishing or bowling
Longest load of crap I’ve seen this season.
Just because things happen you don’t like doesn’t mean it’s aliens or pizzagate or global warming.
I don’t have time to read this now, but I wanted to say that I’ve been following news and politics a long time
And the only way what I read makes sense, is if there is a whole lot of blackmail going on behind the scenes. No I can’t prove it.
Quit being a clown.
Oh yeah don’t worry about Williams, he has the worst record for discernment on this site but types more than anyone. Take his insults with a grain of salt
That made me laugh.
I’m pretty sure the people trying to off Trump aren’t his “backers”.
Lamest. Propaganda. Ever.
The headline makes no sense. Why would Trump’s backers want him dead?
“Why would Trump’s backers want him dead?” Why would anyone want JFK dead? He approved the assassination of South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem in a CIA backed coup. JFK was one of the best friends of Israel. And Lee Harvey Oswald was a crazed, lone gunman.
By the time Zelensky was elected in 2019, the war in Donbas was essentially over, and had become one of Russia’s patented “frozen conflicts”. The vast majority of fighting happened in 2014 and 2015. In the 12 months before the invasion, just 7 “civilians” were killed by active hostilities on BOTH sides. I placed civilians in scare quotes because 6 of those 7 were men, and there is no way to know if they were combatants or otherwise involved in the war. In fact, casualties had been steadily declining since since 2016, as neither side appeared to really want the fight. 89% of civilian casualties, mirroring overall casualties, happened in 2014 and 2015, then the war fizzled out. Essentially, the war was ending, and the only way for Russia to take the land it wanted was to invade.
Zelensky's "reversal" was not from some mythical "ultra nationalist threat" in Ukraine, IT WAS BECAUSE PUTIN INVADED UKRAINE! Idiocy
Its clear now to everyone except die hard Putin apologists, ONLY one side doesn't want peace-Russia.
Pro-Putin Idiocy. Zelensky declared martial law on Feb 24, 2022, BECAUSE RUSSIA INVADED UKRAINE. Ukraine's capitol was almost seized.
In the 2019 elections in Ukraine the ultra-right received 2% of the vote, lower than any country in Europe.
In fact, Zelensky a Jewish person getting 73% of the vote in Ukraine to be elected president, shows that "ultra right or ultra nationalist" accusations are a myth.
In the 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election, other parties joined Svoboda to form a united party list; the Governmental Initiative of Yarosh, Right Sector and National Corps. However, in the election, they won 2.15% of the votes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svoboda_(political_party)
Yup, doubt this person lives in the US or knows any Trump supporters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.