The Doctrine of Fascism

MK3|Oct. 13,2025

Benito Mussolini

1932

From Michael J. Oakeshott:

The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe, pp. 164-8.

Copyright 1939

by Cambridge University Press.

 

Benito Mussolini (1883-1945), Duce of fascist Italy from 1922 to 1945, needs no introduction. The following selections are from his article entitled “The Doctrine of Fascism” which appeared in the Italian Encyclopedia of 1932.

 THERE IS no concept of the State which is not fundamentally a concept of life: philosophy or intuition, a system of ideas which develops logically or is gathered up into a vision or into a faith, but which is always, at least virtually, an organic conception of the world.

 

1. Thus fascism could not be understood in many of its practical manifestations as a party organization, as a system of education, as a discipline, if it were not always looked at in the light of its whole way of conceiving life, a spiritualized way. The world seen through Fascism is not this material world which appears on the surface, in which man is an individual separated from all others and standing by himself, and in which he is governed by a natural law that makes him instinctively live a life of selfish and momentary pleasure. The man of Fascism is an individual who is nation and fatherland, which is a moral law, binding together individuals and the generations into a tradition and a mission, suppressing the instinct for a life enclosed within the brief round of pleasure in order to restore within duty a higher life free from the limits of time and space: a life in which the individual, through the denial of himself, through the sacrifice of his own private interests, through death itself, realizes that completely spiritual existence in which his value as a man lies.

 3. Therefore it is a spiritualized conception, itself the result of the general reaction of modem times against the flabby materialistic positivism of the nineteenth century. Anti-positivistic, but positive: not skeptical, nor agnostic, nor pessimistic, nor passively optimistic, as arc, in general, the doctrines (all negative) that put the centric of life outside man, who with his free will can and must create his own world. Fascism desires an active man, one engaged in activity with all his energies: it desires a man virilely conscious of the difficulties that exist in action and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle, considering that it behooves man to conquer for himself that life truly worthy of him, creating first of all in himself the instrument (physical, moral, intellectual) in order to construct it. Thus for the single individual, thus for the nation, thus for humanity. Hence the high value of culture in all its forms (art, religion, science), and the enormous importance of education. Hence also the essential value of work, with which man conquers nature and creates the human world (economic, political, moral, intellectual).

4. This positive conception of life is clearly an ethical conception. It covers the whole of reality, not merely the human activity which controls it. No action can be divorced from moral judgment; there is nothing in the world which can be deprived of the value which belongs to everything in its relation to moral ends. Life, therefore, as conceived by the Fascist, is serious, austere, religious: the whole of it is poised in a world supported by the moral and responsible forces of the spirit. The Fascist disdains the “comfortable” life.

5. Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his immanent relationship with a superior law and with an objective Will that transcends the particular individual and raises him to conscious membership of a spiritual society. Whoever has seen in the religious politics of the Fascist regime nothing but mere opportunism has not understood that Fascism besides being a system of government is also, and above all, a system of thought.

6. Fascism is an historical conception in which man is what he is only in so far as he works with the spiritual process in which he finds himself, in the family or social group, in the nation and in the history in which all nations collaborate. From this follows the great value of tradition, in memories, in language, in customs, in the standards of social life. Outside history man is nothing. consequently Fascism is opposed to all the individualistic abstractions of a materialistic nature like those of the eighteenth century; and it is opposed to all Jacobin utopias and innovations. It does not consider that “happiness” is possible upon earth, as it appeared to be in the desire of the economic literature of the eighteenth century, and hence it rejects all teleological theories according to which mankind would reach a definitive stabilized condition at a certain period in history. This implies putting oneself outside history and life, which is a continual change and coming to be. Politically, Fascism wishes to be a realistic doctrine; practically, it aspires to solve only the problems which arise historically of themselves and that of themselves find or suggest their own solution. To act among men, as to act in the natural world, it is necessary to enter into the process of reality and to master the already operating forces.

7. Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value,-outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

8. Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; . . .

9. Individuals form classes according to the similarity of their interests, they form syndicates according to differentiated economic activities within these interests; but they form first, and above all, the State, which is not to be thought of numerically as the sum-total of individuals forming the majority of a nation. And consequently Fascism is opposed to Democracy, which equates the nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of that majority; nevertheless it is the purest form of democracy if the nation is conceived, as it should be, qualitatively and not quantitatively, as the most powerful idea (most powerful because most moral, most coherent, most true) which acts within the nation as the conscience and the will of a few, even of One, which ideal tends to become active within the conscience and the will of all — that is to say, of all those who rightly constitute a nation by reason of nature, history or race, and have set out upon the same line of development and spiritual formation as one conscience and one sole will. Not a race, nor a geographically determined region, but as a community historically perpetuating itself a multitude unified by a single idea, which is the will to existence and to power: consciousness of itself, personality.

10. This higher personality is truly the nation in so far as it is the State. It k not the nation that generates the State, as according to the old naturalistic concept which served as the basis of the political theories of the national States of the nineteenth century. Rather the nation is created by the State, which gives to the people, conscious of its own moral unity, a will and therefore an effective existence. The right of a nation to independence derives not from a literary and ideal consciousness of its own being, still less from a more or less unconscious and inert acceptance of a de facto situation, but from an active consciousness, from a political will in action and ready to demonstrate its own rights: that is to say, from a state already coming into being. The State, in fact, as the universal ethical will, is the creator of right.

11. The nation as the State is an ethical reality which exists and lives in so far as it develops. To arrest its development is to kill it. Therefore the State is not only the authority which governs and gives the form of laws and the value of spiritual life to the wills of individuals, but it is also a power that makes its will felt abroad, making it known and respected, in other words demonstrating the fact of its universality in all the necessary directions of its development. It is consequently organization and expansion, at least virtually. Thus it can be likened to the human will which knows no limits to its development and realizes itself in testing its own limitlessness.

12. The Fascist State, the highest and most powerful form of personality, is a force, but a spiritual force, which takes over all the forms of the moral and intellectual life of man. It cannot therefore confine itself simply to the functions of order and supervision as Liberalism desired. It is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual. It is the form, the inner standard and the discipline of the whole person; it saturates the will as well as the intelligence. Its principle, the central inspiration of the human personality living in the civil community, pierces into the depths and makes its home in the heart of the man of action as well as of the thinker, of the artist as well as of the scientist: it is the soul of the soul.

13. Fascism, in short, is not only the giver of laws and the founder of institutions, but the educator and promoter of spiritual life. It wants to remake, not the forms of human life, but its content, man, character, faith. And to this end it requires discipline and authority that can enter into the spirits of men and there govern unopposed. Its sign, therefore, is the Lictors’ rods, the symbol of unity, of strength and justice.

 

On Myth

The following statement is embedded in a speech delivered by Mussolini at Naples, October 24, 1912:

WE HAVE created our myth. The myth is a faith, it is passion. It is not necessary that it shall be a reality. It is a reality by the fact that it is a good, a hope, a faith, that it is courage. Our myth is the Nation, our myth is the greatness of the Nation! And to this myth, to this grandeur, that we wish to translate into a complete reality, we subordinate all the rest.


Unmasking the Influence: Leaked Docs, Censorship, and the U.S. as an Open Field

MKitch3|Oct. 4, 2025


“When a foreign government treats U.S. civil society as its back yard, democracy loses its fences.”

“One struggles to find a parallel in terms of a foreign country’s influence over American political debate.”
— quoted expert in one of the leaks

Introduction

What if I told you there is now substantial evidence that the Israeli government (or its proxies) has been running a multi-pronged influence campaign inside the United States — not just in lobbying Capitol Hill, but in shaping campus debates, social media content, and the very definitions of what counts as “legitimate criticism” of Israel? The three investigations by Lee Fang and colleagues (with support from The Guardian, techinquiry.org, and other outlets) supply that evidence.

These leaks reveal strategy memos, legal opinions, organizational links, and operational schemes. The kind of stuff that’s usually buried behind NDAs, PR spin, and patriotic rhetoric. Below is a guided walk through what those documents actually show — and what it means for discourse, law, and power in the U.S.

1. “Leaked Israeli Docs Reveal Effort to Evade Foreign Agent Lobbying Law”

(Aug 17, 2024) leefang.com

Brief version: Israel was (via clandestine memos and emails) trying to avoid registering under FARA while continuing influence operations in the U.S.

Key revelations:

  • In 2018, legal memos and emails leaked from Israel’s Justice Ministry show internal worry: American nonprofits working with Israel might face registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), which forces transparency. leefang.com

  • One strategy: create a U.S. nonprofit that is nominally independent, but remains under “informal coordination” (oral meetings, grants, supervision) to evade FARA’s disclosure requirements. leefang.com

  • That nonprofit would be a shell, or a buffer, between U.S. advocacy groups and the Israeli government. leefang.com

  • The documents mention the group “Kela Shlomo” (“Solomon’s Sling”), later rebranded as “Concert,” then “Voices of Israel,” which is part of the network. leefang.com

  • Law firm Sandler Reiff (Washington, D.C.) was hired to analyze FARA risk; the engagement was meant to remain undisclosed. leefang.com

  • Some American Jewish organizations balked at funding connected bodies because they feared that registering under FARA would stigmatize them. leefang.com

  • The leaks also tie in people like Brig. Gen. Sima Vaknin-Gill (former Israeli censor, later involved in U.S. nonprofits) and the nonprofit Combat Antisemitism Movement, which publicly claims not to be influenced by Israel yet is intertwined in the documents. leefang.com

Implications / What to watch:

  • If a foreign government can orchestrate influence campaigns while evading legal oversight, U.S. policy and public debate can be steered subtly.

  • FARA might not be as strong a bulwark as we assume.

  • The use of “informal coordination” is clever: it exploits the gray zones in U.S. law.

2. “Israeli Documents Show Expansive Covert U.S. Influence Campaign”

(Jun 24, 2024) leefang.com

This is the macro view: how Israel is (according to the leaks) coordinating with U.S. advocacy groups to tilt campus culture, state laws, Congressional hearings, and public perception.

Major takeaways:

  • After the Gaza war began, Israel revived and retooled “Concert / Voices of Israel” as a central instrument. Minister Amichai Chikli reportedly oversaw tens of millions of shekels (≈ $8–12 million USD) in advocacy spending tied to this network. leefang.com

  • One of the most visible outcomes: ISGAP (Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy) played a key role in the December 2023 congressional hearing where universities were grilled about antisemitism and student protests. The hearing was cited widely in media, and Harvard’s president later resigned amid the backlash. leefang.com

  • The reforms pushing the IHRA (International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance) definition of antisemitism—especially versions that equate certain criticism of Israel with antisemitism—feature prominently in the strategy. Some local state laws now incorporate IHRA wording. leefang.com

  • Covert social media operations were funded: fake accounts, content pushing, pro-Israel messaging. These were sometimes denied by official bodies, but the documents suggest involvement by the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs. leefang.com+1

  • The network includes U.S. and Israel-based NGOs, campus groups like Hillel, “public benefit” corporations, and media teams. Many of these don’t have transparent disclosure of donors. leefang.com

  • These operations aren’t just reactive (defending Israel) but proactive: anticipating protests, framing campus speech rules, and shaping legislative efforts in U.S. states and federal levels. leefang.com

Why this matters:

  • This is not “soft diplomacy.” This is influence engineering.

  • U.S. institutions—universities, state legislators, social media companies—become nodes in a foreign influence network.

  • The line between “civil society” and arm of a foreign state is blurred.

  • When protests over Gaza or Israel-Palestine boil over on campuses, these campaigns are already primed to shape narratives and legal pressure.

3. “Pro-Israel Group Censoring Social Media Led by Former Israeli Intelligence Officers”

(Jul 11, 2024) leefang.com

This piece digs into the digital front: how an organization named CyberWell is attempting to police social media discourse under the banner of fighting antisemitism, while having deep ties to Israeli intelligence networks.

What the leaks show:

  • CyberWell lobbies Meta, TikTok, and X to remove content. It claims that certain criticisms of Israel or use of slogans like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” qualify as hate speech or Holocaust distortion. leefang.com

  • Leaders of CyberWell have backgrounds in private intelligence firms (e.g. Argyle Consulting) and former Israeli intelligence agencies. leefang.com

  • CyberWell shares staff, financial connections, and overseer relationships with entities like Voices of Israel / Concert / Keshet David (an Israeli research/intelligence arm) leefang.com

  • The group pushes to adopt the IHRA definition, not just in content moderation but in law. It pressures platforms to interpret criticism of Zionism as discrimination. leefang.com

  • In practice, it has succeeded in influencing Meta’s and TikTok’s policies, and is listed as a “trusted partner” in content moderation. leefang.com+1

  • In response to exposure, CyberWell has scrubbed executive bios and denied official links to Voices of Israel, insisting on their independence. But the financial, personnel, and operational overlap seems strong. leefang.com

The digital danger:

  • Social media is a public square. If a foreign-aligned group can influence what stays or goes, it changes what millions see and think.

  • The excused namespace of “hate speech / antisemitism” provides a rhetorical lever to suppress dissenting views—even true ones.

  • Transparency is missing. Users have almost no insight into who is curating what they see when it comes to Israel/Palestine content.

Synthesis & Observations:

Networks, not isolated acts.
These leaks point to a concerted ecosystem. Lobbying, content moderation, campus influence, legal structuring — it's all part of one strategy. The same strings connect multiple nodes.

Law as obstacle and target.
FARA is shown here not just as a law to be obeyed, but one to be circumvented. The reliance on “informal coordination” is cunning. Meanwhile, redefining antisemitism (via IHRA) becomes a tool to shrink legal and rhetorical space for critique.

Opaque intermediaries.
Lots of smoke. Nonprofits, shell organizations, “public benefit corporations”—the kind of structural opacity that shields actors from scrutiny. If a U.S. nonprofit takes foreign money, but claims academic status or independence, how do we know how much is true?

Narrative control as power.
If you control campus speech, social media algorithms, and political framing, you shape the Overton Window. Critics become extreme voices; supporters become moderate voices.

Comparisons to other foreign influence.
We worry about Russia or China meddling. Here’s a case where a U.S. ally is doing influence work — and its closest allies in DC and media may look the other way. Hypocrisy isn’t just petty, it’s structural.

Risks & counters:

  • Legal reforms / enforcement: Strengthen FARA enforcement. Close loopholes around “informal coordination.”

  • Transparency demands: Force donor disclosure, organizational link disclosure, government-contract transparency.

  • Platform accountability: Platforms should audit third-party “trusted partners” influencing content moderation, especially those with foreign ties.

  • Campus and civil discourse defense: Universities and student groups must guard editorial and speech independence.

  • Public awareness: The first line of defense is an informed public. Leaks like these are weapons — we need to treat them as such.

Closing Thoughts

When public debate can be quietly rewritten by lawyers, censors, and shell nonprofits serving a foreign ministry, the First Amendment becomes performance art.

America’s institutions—universities, social media, legislatures—aren’t occupied; they’re leased.




Yes, Senate Democrats Have Shut Down the Government Over Giving Health Care to Illegal Aliens

MKitch3|Oct. 4,2025

SUMMARY 

To vote for a continuing resolution (CR), Senate Democrats are demanding in part that Congress resume Medicaid, Medicare, and Affordable Care Act premium subsidy policies that open the door for illegal aliens to receive government benefits. These loopholes were closed in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) that was signed into law this July. The OBBBA limited eligibility for health benefits to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and lawful residents under the Compact of Free Association, thereby stopping eligibility for illegal aliens and other aliens that are here on a temporary basis. The Senate Democrats’ CR bill would repeal these changes made by the OBBBA.


KEY TAKEAWAYS

1. To vote for a continuing resolution, Senate Democrats demand rollback of Medicaid, Medicare, and ACA premium subsidy eligibility restrictions for certain immigrants.

2. Such welfare and other benefits given to illegal aliens facilitate and prolong illegal immigration in the U.S. at great cost to the American taxpayer.

3. The OBBBA properly limited the health benefit eligibility to those who are here lawfully and more permanently. These changes should not be repealed. 

To vote for a continuing resolution (CR), the Senate Democrats are demanding in part that Congress resume Medicaid, Medicare, and Affordable Care Act premium subsidy policies that open the door for illegal aliens to receive government benefits. These loopholes were terminated in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act(OBBBA) that was signed into law this July. The OBBBA limited eligibility for health benefits to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and lawful residents under the Compact of Free Association, thereby stopping eligibility for illegal aliens and other aliens here on a temporary basis. The Senate Democrats’ CR bill would repeal these changes made by the OBBBA.

Key Provisions

Division B, Subtitle E, Sec. 2141 of S.2882, the Democrat CR, would repeal these key sections in Subtitle B of Title VII in the OBBBA that directly curbed access to government health care benefits:

Sec. 71109, Alien Medicaid Eligibility. 

This provision changed immigration terminology that is used to determine whether an individual is eligible for Medicaid benefits. The change narrowed eligibility to U.S citizens, lawful permanent residents, certain Cubans/Haitians in the U.S., and residents via the Compact of Free Association (Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands). Previously, benefits were available to a broader set of “qualified aliens,” including immigration parolees and asylees. 

Sec. 71110, Expansion of Federal Medicaid Match Rate (FMAP) for Emergency Medicaid.

This provision reduced the FMAP for emergency services provided to unlawfully present aliens in states that expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) from a federal enhanced match rate of 90 percent to the standard federal match rate for each state.

Sec. 71201, Limiting Medicare Coverage of Certain Individuals. 

This provision applied the same Medicaid eligibility restrictions to the Medicare program, again narrowing Medicare eligibility to “lawfully permanent residents” rather than the previous, broader category of “qualified aliens.” 

Sec. 71301/71302, Permitting Premium Tax Credit Only for Certain Individuals and Disallowing Premium Tax Credit During Periods of Medicaid Ineligibility Due to Alien Status. 

Similar to the Medicaid and Medicare changes, these provisions narrowed eligibility for the ACA premium tax credits to those who are lawfully present and would prohibit an alien who is found to be ineligible for Medicaid from also qualifying for a premium tax credit.

Other Provisions

Other provisions in OBBA that Democrats want to repeal would strengthen and improve Medicaid’s eligibility and enforcement rules by:

  • Rolling back Biden-era rules that encouraged continuous coverage (Sec. 71101/71102); requiring states to cross-check for duplicative enrollment (Sec. 71103);
  • Requiring states to conduct more frequent eligibility redeterminations (Sec. 71107);
  • Adding work requirements to Medicaid (Sec. 71119);
  • Strengthening income verification for premium tax credits, including immigration status (Sec. 71303); and
  • Disallowing certain special enrollment periods (Sec. 71304).

These provisions, aimed at ensuring that only those who qualify for the program are enrolled, might not be directly linked to immigration status but have the potential to capture ineligible immigration populations as well.

Conclusion

Such welfare and other benefits given to illegal aliens facilitate and prolong illegal immigration in the U.S. at great cost to the American taxpayer. The OBBBA properly limited the health benefit eligibility to those who are here lawfully and more permanently. These changes should not be repealed. 

Freedom vs. Liberty: Two Words America Keeps Confusing

MKitch3|Sept. 22,2025

Every country has its favorite myths. Ours are red, white, blue, and stamped with two words that people swear mean the same thing: freedom and liberty. They don’t. They never did. And the fact we keep pretending otherwise is one of the reasons American law, politics, and daily life have been one long tug-of-war between what we think we’re promised and what we’re actually allowed.

The Bare Bones: Legal and Philosophical Roots

Freedom is the raw condition of being unconstrained. It’s the natural state—what philosophers call a negative right, an absence of interference.

Liberty is freedom that has been recognized, structured, and (inevitably) limited by law. It’s not the absence of restraint but the protection against arbitrary restraint.

Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan (1651), defined liberty as “the absence of external impediments.” John Locke upped the ante, calling liberty a natural right, but one that had to exist under law for civil society to function.

Black’s Law Dictionary draws the line clean:

• Freedom: “The absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint.”

• Liberty: “Freedom from arbitrary restraint, especially by government.”

So freedom is the wild field. Liberty is the fenced pasture the state swears you can run around in.

Founding Era: The Word Choices That Still Haunt Us

• Declaration of Independence (1776): Jefferson wrote “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” He didn’t say “freedom.” Liberty here was a philosophical ideal, imported straight from Locke.

• Constitution (1787): The preamble promised to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” The Bill of Rights mixed the two: freedom of speech, freedom of the press—but framed them as liberties that government couldn’t touch.

• Federalist Papers (1787-88): Madison and Hamilton tossed the words around strategically. Madison warned that liberty without structure dissolves into anarchy. Hamilton argued too much freedom would shred the Union.

The Founders, in short, used both words with purpose. Freedom was a condition; liberty was a principle.

The Timeline: Law, Politics, and the Shrinking (or Expanding) Circle

1798 – The Alien and Sedition Acts

• Congress criminalized criticism of the government. Freedom of speech existed in theory; liberty was mutilated in practice. Jefferson and Madison pushed back in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, claiming liberty was being crushed by federal overreach.

1860s – The Civil War and the 13th Amendment

• Lincoln’s rhetoric danced between liberty and freedom. He said at Gettysburg the war would bring a “new birth of freedom.” The legal system codified liberty for the formerly enslaved—but reality lagged a century behind.

1866 – Civil Rights Act

• Congress declared all persons born in the U.S. citizens with “full and equal benefit of all laws.” Freedom on paper. Liberty in practice? Still throttled by Black Codes and Jim Crow.

1917–1918 – The Espionage and Sedition Acts

• World War I saw dissent criminalized again. Eugene Debs went to prison for anti-war speech. The Supreme Court (in Schenck v. United States, 1919) blessed it, birthing the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” doctrine. Freedom got an asterisk.

1941 – FDR’s Four Freedoms Speech

• Roosevelt reframed freedom globally: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear. Two were classic liberties; two were positive rights requiring massive government action.

1960s – Civil Rights Movement

• Martin Luther King Jr. talked about freedom ringing from every mountainside, but the fight was about liberty—forcing the state to honor rights it had already promised. Civil Rights Act (1964) and Voting Rights Act (1965) tried to close the gap.

2001 – The Patriot Act

• Freedom shrank in the name of security. Liberty was recast as something you have only if you’re not suspected of terrorism. The state’s leash tightened.

2020 – Pandemic Restrictions

• “Freedom” became the battle cry of those resisting mandates. “Liberty” became the lawyered-up justification for state power: public health outweighed personal autonomy.

Quotes That Show the Creep

• Patrick Henry (1775): “Give me liberty, or give me death!” — fiery, but limited to a select class.

• Abraham Lincoln (1864): “The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty.” — still true.

• Benjamin Franklin (1759): “Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — a warning ignored every generation.

• Justice Brandeis (1928, Olmstead v. U.S. dissent): “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

Freedom vs. Liberty in the Real World

• Speech: Freedom means you can say what you want. Liberty means the courts decide if what you said qualifies as “protected.”

• Travel: Freedom suggests you can move wherever. Liberty is why you still need ID at TSA and a passport at borders.

• Property: Freedom says you own your land. Liberty is the zoning board telling you what you can’t build on it.

Why It Still Matters

Freedom is the banner. Liberty is the contract. One fires the imagination, the other locks horns with reality. Every major American conflict—political, social, or cultural—sits in that gap.

• Too much freedom without structure = chaos (see: mob rule).

• Too much liberty without freedom = authoritarianism dressed in legalese.

The Founders knew it, Lincoln knew it, Roosevelt twisted it, and we’re still choking on the difference.

The Punchline

Freedom is what you claim.

Liberty is what survives the lawyers, the judges, and the politicians.

The American project, at its best, is keeping those two words close enough that citizens don’t feel conned. At its worst, it’s watching the distance grow until freedom becomes rhetoric, and liberty becomes permission slips.


Israeli Spying on America: The Cases Washington Can’t Erase

MKitch3|Sept. 21,2025

Allies spy on allies. Everyone in intelligence knows it, but the public hates to admit it. When it comes to Israel and the United States, the espionage trail isn’t rumor—it’s court records, DOJ press releases, and declassified intelligence assessments. For decades, Israel has run some of the most aggressive collection efforts inside America, and Washington has responded with a mix of prosecutions, cover-ups, and shrugs.

Here’s some of the documented history, stripped of spin.

The Pollard Affair

The name Jonathan Jay Pollard still echoes in counterintelligence circles. Pollard was a Navy intelligence analyst who, between 1984 and 1985, passed highly classified documents to Israel’s LAKAM unit. In 1986 he pled guilty to conspiracy to deliver national defense information to a foreign government.

In 1987 he was sentenced to life in prison, one of the stiffest sentences ever handed to an American spying for an ally (D.C. Circuit opinion). His Israeli handler Aviem Sella was indicted but never extradited. The mastermind, Rafi Eitan, headed LAKAM, which was disbanded in the scandal’s aftermath.

Pollard spent three decades in prison, paroled in 2015, and had his restrictions lifted in 2020. Israel later embraced him as a hero, granting him citizenship.

Ben-Ami Kadish: The Quiet Sequel

In 2008, the FBI arrested Ben-Ami Kadish, a retired mechanical engineer who worked at a U.S. Army research center in New Jersey. Between 1980 and 1985, Kadish had passed classified documents on missile systems and nuclear weapons to—astonishingly—the same Israeli official tied to Pollard: Yossi Yagur.

Kadish pled guilty to conspiracy to act as an unregistered agent of Israel. He was fined $50,000 and received no prison time, largely because of his age. It was a quiet echo of Pollard, but it confirmed a pattern: this wasn’t a one-off operation.

Franklin and the AIPAC Collapse

The 2000s brought the Lawrence Franklin case, where a Pentagon analyst leaked classified information on Iran to two senior AIPAC officials—Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman—and to an Israeli diplomat.

Franklin pled guilty in 2005 under the Espionage Act and was sentenced to over 12 years (later reduced). Rosen and Weissman, however, became the center of a sensational trial. The DOJ tried to prosecute them under the Espionage Act—an extraordinary move against lobbyists—but in 2009, prosecutors dropped all charges.

The collapse of the AIPAC case stands as one of the most glaring examples of politics derailing espionage prosecutions.

The Nozette Sting

In 2009, the FBI launched an undercover sting against Stewart Nozette, a scientist with deep ties to U.S. nuclear and space programs. Agents posed as Mossad operatives. Nozette quickly agreed to sell classified secrets for cash.

In 2011 he pled guilty to attempted espionage and was sentenced to 13 years in prison (DOJ press release).

Israel wasn’t actually involved—the “handlers” were FBI agents—but the fact the FBI used Mossad as bait says a lot about credibility.

Procurement and Nuclear Secrets

Espionage isn’t always cloak-and-dagger. Sometimes it’s paperwork and exports.

  • Richard Kelly Smyth, head of a California company, illegally exported krytrons—nuclear triggers—to Israel in the 1980s. He fled, was arrested in 2001, and pled guilty to export violations (Los Angeles Times coverage).
  • Hollywood producer Arnon Milchan later admitted he had been part of Israel’s clandestine procurement network, helping funnel sensitive U.S. technology into Israeli weapons programs.

And before that, in the 1960s, there was NUMEC—a Pennsylvania plant where highly enriched uranium went missing. CIA and Atomic Energy Commission officials long suspected it ended up in Israel. The case was never prosecuted, but declassified memos show the suspicions.

What U.S. Intelligence Really Thinks

For anyone tempted to dismiss these as relics of the Cold War, the U.S. intelligence community has said otherwise.

  • A 2008 NSA memo, revealed by Edward Snowden and published by The Guardian, described Israel as a “good SIGINT partner” but admitted: “they target us to learn our positions” on Middle East issues.
  • A National Intelligence Estimate ranked Israel as the third most aggressive intelligence service against the United States, behind only China and Russia.

This is not internet rumor—it’s the official assessment of American intelligence agencies.

Spyware: The 21st Century Front

Today’s espionage is digital, and Israel’s role continues.

  • In 2021, the U.S. Commerce Department blacklisted NSO Group and Candiru, citing their role in surveillance of U.S. persons (Federal Register notice).
  • In 2024, the Treasury Department sanctioned Intellexa, another Israeli-linked spyware consortium, for targeting Americans, including U.S. officials.

The message was clear: Israeli-linked surveillance firms aren’t just shady—they’re national security threats.

Allegations That Didn’t Stick

Some claims remain “officially” unproven.

  • The “Israeli art students” of 2001: DEA documented suspicious door-to-door visits near federal offices. DOJ said there was no substantiated espionage (DEA memo coverage).
  • Alleged Israeli telecom backdoors (Amdocs, Comverse): heavily reported post-9/11, but no charges or official findings ever confirmed them (Fox News archive).

The Pattern

Put all this together, and the picture is plain:

  • Classic espionage: Pollard, Kadish, Franklin, Nozette.
  • Illegal procurement: Smyth, Milchan, possibly NUMEC.
  • Intelligence assessments: Israel ranked as one of the top collectors against the U.S.
  • Modern cyber: NSO, Candiru, Intellexa sanctioned for targeting Americans.

The U.S. has prosecuted when it could, quietly dropped cases when it couldn’t, and buried scandals when politics demanded it.

Conclusion

Allies spy on allies. That’s the way of the world. But the United States has spent decades pretending Israel doesn’t spy on it. That’s the lie.

From stolen nuclear secrets to aggressive lobbying pipelines, from FBI stings to modern spyware hacks, the history is public and undeniable. Court dockets, declassified documents, and sanctions lists tell the story.

The real scandal isn’t that Israel spies—it’s that the American public is told it doesn’t happen.