Connexion
LA NEWSLETTER · GRATUITE
L'essentiel de l'actualité, passé au crible par les cinq plumes du Courrier. Dans votre boîte, chaque jour ouvré.
Gratuit. Vous restez libre de partir quand vous voulez.
JE M'INSCRIS lecourrierdesstrateges.frLe dossier (RG 23/00138) oppose une société à l’URSSAF depuis près de dix ans. Les cotisations en cause portent sur 2014 et 2015, années durant lesquelles un sous-traitant roumain a omis de les verser. Il sera condamné pour travail dissimulé en novembre 2017. Ce n’est pas lui que l’URSSAF a poursuivi, mais son client français, solvable et facile à atteindre.
Si vous voulez voir les vidéos de la manifestation, notamment au coeur des affrontements entre policiers et manifestants, rejoignez notre chaîne Telegram gratuite en cliquant sur ce lien :
Le litige porte sur des cotisations impayées en 2014 et 2015 par un sous-traitant roumain, condamné pour travail illégal en novembre 2017. L’URSSAF de Bretagne a alors invoqué le mécanisme de solidarité financière pour réclamer au donneur d’ordre 98 511 euros de cotisations, auxquels s’ajoutaient 30 117 euros de majorations de retard. Soit un total de 128 628 euros pour une entreprise poursuivie au titre des manquements d’un autre acteur économique.
Pourtant, dès mars 2017, la société avait transmis ses documents de vigilance à l’URSSAF. En juillet 2019, l’organisme lui a ensuite adressé une simple « demande de documents », présentée comme une recherche d’infractions concernant le sous-traitant. Selon les faits rapportés dans l’arrêt, rien ne lui annonçait alors qu’elle risquait elle-même un redressement.
La procédure s’est poursuivie avec une lettre d’observations du 29 novembre 2019, puis une mise en demeure du 4 août 2020. Le contentieux a ensuite pris une tournure coûteuse : le 16 janvier 2023, le pôle social du tribunal judiciaire d’Angers avait condamné l’entreprise à payer les 128 628 euros, ainsi que 1 000 euros de frais.
ABONNEMENT
Deux grands formats par jour. Les cinq plumes du Courrier. La série Sécession, le dimanche.
Le monde commente. Vous, vous comprenez.
S'ABONNER lecourrierdesstrateges.frLa cour d’appel a finalement infirmé ce jugement. En application de l’article R. 243-59 du code de la sécurité sociale, l’avis de contrôle était obligatoire. Or, aucun avis n’avait été envoyé à l’entreprise avant le contrôle litigieux. Pour les magistrats, cette omission suffit à entraîner l’annulation du contrôle et du redressement qui en découle. L’URSSAF est désormais condamnée aux dépens et à verser 3 000 euros à la société au titre des frais de justice.
TELEGRAM · L'INFO EN CONTINU
La newsletter vous donne le matin. Le fil vous donne l'instant.
Gratuit, et en continu.
REJOINDRE LE FIL t.me/resterlibreLa solidarité financière a sa logique, celle de lutter contre la fraude. Cette lutte contre la fraude sociale ne dispense pas l’administration de respecter le droit. Lorsqu’un organisme réclame plus de 128 000 euros à une entreprise, il doit être irréprochable sur la procédure. Car l’autorité publique ne peut exiger des acteurs économiques une vigilance scrupuleuse tout en s’autorisant, elle-même, à négliger les règles qui encadrent ses pouvoirs. Il aura fallu plus de six ans et deux juridictions pour que l’État de droit rappelle à l’administration ses propres règles.
TIPS · SANS ABONNEMENT
Un média libre vit de ses lecteurs. Un pourboire ponctuel, sans compte ni engagement, quand le cœur vous en dit.
Vous donnez ce que vous voulez. Vous restez libre.
LAISSER UN POURBOIRE merci !
LA NEWSLETTER · GRATUITE
L'essentiel de l'actualité, passé au crible par les cinq plumes du Courrier. Dans votre boîte, chaque jour ouvré.
Gratuit. Vous restez libre de partir quand vous voulez.
JE M'INSCRIS lecourrierdesstrateges.frLe débat ne porte pas sur les agents, qui appliquent les consignes. Il porte sur le mécanisme décidé en haut : indexer une part de la rémunération sur les amendes infligées. Les deux entreprises publiques sont financées par le contribuable ; leur politique de contrôle mérite donc un examen précis.
ABONNEMENT
Deux grands formats par jour. Les cinq plumes du Courrier. La série Sécession, le dimanche.
Le monde commente. Vous, vous comprenez.
S'ABONNER lecourrierdesstrateges.frÀ la SNCF, Stéphane Vardon, chef de bord et responsable syndical CGT en poste depuis vingt-sept ans, décrit un dispositif prévoyant une prime comprise entre 4 % et 10 % du montant de l’amende lorsque celle-ci est réglée sur place. En cas de paiement différé, la rémunération serait forfaitaire : 96 centimes par amende, quel que soit son montant.
Des contrôleurs interrogés évoquent des primes mensuelles comprises entre 50 et 600 euros. Ces montants rapportés ne constituent toutefois ni une moyenne nationale ni une mesure représentative de l’ensemble des agents.Même sans instruction explicite de verbaliser davantage, l'existence d'un intérêt financier crée un risque de conflit d'intérêts apparent. Le voyageur pressé, intimidé ou mal informé de ses droits devient la meilleure source de revenus.
L’amende payée immédiatement rapporte davantage à l’agent que l’amende différée. Cependant, il appartient à l'entreprise de prévenir ce risque par des règles transparentes et des procédures de contestation accessibles.
TELEGRAM · L'INFO EN CONTINU
La newsletter vous donne le matin. Le fil vous donne l'instant.
Gratuit, et en continu.
REJOINDRE LE FIL t.me/resterlibreÀ la RATP, la direction annonce une prime mensuelle de 150 euros bruts. Un agent affirme avoir touché jusqu'à 1 000 euros en un mois, mais ce témoignage isolé n'a pas été vérifié : il ne permet donc d'établir ni une moyenne ni un montant habituel. De son côté, un cadre de l'entreprise reconnaît que les agents dont les primes atteignent plusieurs centaines d'euros peuvent recevoir moins de missions de contrôle les mois suivants.
Michel Babut, vice-président de la FNAUT, avance que la prime d'équipe représente 10 % du montant des amendes et estime que certaines pratiques pourraient conduire à des verbalisations trop strictes. Les exemples cités alimentent le malaise : une voyageuse aurait reçu une amende de 150 euros pour avoir transporté une plante jugée trop volumineuse dans le métro ; un jeune homme affirme avoir payé 35 euros alors qu'il possédait un pass. La RATP indique par ailleurs avoir recruté de faux voyageurs pour évaluer le professionnalisme de ses contrôleurs. Cette démarche révèle que la qualité des contrôles constitue déjà un sujet de vigilance interne.
TIPS · SANS ABONNEMENT
Un média libre vit de ses lecteurs. Un pourboire ponctuel, sans compte ni engagement, quand le cœur vous en dit.
Vous donnez ce que vous voulez. Vous restez libre.
LAISSER UN POURBOIRE merci !Selon l'article de Capital, la fraude coûterait 700 millions d'euros par an à la SNCF et à la RATP, qui chercheraient à réduire ce montant de moitié. On comprend l’enjeu financier. Mais indexer la prime sur l’amende déplace la responsabilité : le contrôleur devient comptable d’un rendement répressif, l’usager une source de recette, et le contribuable paie deux fois. Une politique libertarienne exige plutôt de supprimer l’intéressement au PV, la transparence sur les primes, leur mode de calcul et les voies de recours pour les usagers et les contribuables.
Si vous voulez voir les vidéos de la manifestation, notamment au coeur des affrontements entre policiers et manifestants, rejoignez notre chaîne Telegram gratuite en cliquant sur ce lien :
LA NEWSLETTER · GRATUITE
L'essentiel de l'actualité, passé au crible par les cinq plumes du Courrier. Dans votre boîte, chaque jour ouvré.
Gratuit. Vous restez libre de partir quand vous voulez.
JE M'INSCRIS lecourrierdesstrateges.frLe 9 septembre 2026, la cour d'appel de Rennes a mis fin à un contentieux né d'un simple contrôle. Après avoir validé le redressement de l’URSSAF en 2021, la justice l’a finalement annulé en totalité en septembre 2026 : 10 690 euros réclamés au restaurateur, auxquels s’ajoutent des années de frais et de défense.
ABONNEMENT
Deux grands formats par jour. Les cinq plumes du Courrier. La série Sécession, le dimanche.
Le monde commente. Vous, vous comprenez.
S'ABONNER lecourrierdesstrateges.frLe redressement atteint précisément 10 690 euros. Il comprend 5 105 euros de taxation forfaitaire, 3 054 euros correspondant à l’annulation de réductions de cotisations, 2 042 euros de majoration de redressement et 489 euros de majorations de retard. La note est lourde pour une SARL.
Presque la moitié du montant correspond à une estimation forfaitaire, non à une rémunération constatée. Le tribunal de Nantes valide ce redressement en 2021. Le restaurateur fait appel. La procédure se poursuit jusqu'à la cour d'appel de Rennes. Le 9 septembre 2026, la 9e chambre sécurité sociale de la cour d’appel de Rennes, dans l'affaire RG 21/06754, renverse le jugement. Elle annule intégralement le redressement.
TELEGRAM · L'INFO EN CONTINU
La newsletter vous donne le matin. Le fil vous donne l'instant.
Gratuit, et en continu.
REJOINDRE LE FIL t.me/resterlibreLe redressement est annulé en totalité. L'organisme est condamné aux dépens et à 3 000 euros au titre de l'article 700 du code de procédure civile. Son raisonnement est l'irrégularité de la convention de stage ne suffit pas, à elle seule, à caractériser du travail dissimulé. La cour condamne en outre l'URSSAF aux dépens et lui impose 3 000 euros au titre de l'article 700 du Code de procédure civile. Pour caractériser le travail dissimulé, il fallait établir un lien de subordination et une rémunération. L'URSSAF n'a démontré ni l'un ni l'autre.
Dans cette affaire, l'URSSAF a engagé des fonds publics pendant neuf ans, sans que quiconque en réponde. Elle rembourse 3 000 euros, au titre des frais irrépétibles, alors que neuf ans de procédure sur deux niveaux de juridiction coûtent très probablement davantage à l'employeur, sans compter le temps perdu et l'incertitude sur les comptes. Cette indemnité, fixée par le juge, n'est qu'un forfait.
TIPS · SANS ABONNEMENT
Un média libre vit de ses lecteurs. Un pourboire ponctuel, sans compte ni engagement, quand le cœur vous en dit.
Vous donnez ce que vous voulez. Vous restez libre.
LAISSER UN POURBOIRE merci !Le contrôleur qui qualifie sur la seule apparence n'encourt rien. Le chef d'entreprise doit financer sa défense, parfois sur des années, pour obtenir ce que la loi lui garantissait dès le départ : que l'accusateur prouve. Quand l'État peut se tromper sans conséquence, il n'a aucune raison de se montrer prudent.
LA NEWSLETTER · GRATUITE
L'essentiel de l'actualité, passé au crible par les cinq plumes du Courrier. Dans votre boîte, chaque jour ouvré.
Gratuit. Vous restez libre de partir quand vous voulez.
JE M'INSCRIS lecourrierdesstrateges.frAmis libertariens, laissez-moi vous exposer l'arithmétique la plus importante de votre année — celle dont aucun journal télévisé ne vous parlera, parce qu'elle n'a ni visage, ni victime photographiable, ni ministre à interrompre.
Pour bloquer un texte au Conseil de l'Union, il faut quatre États membres représentant plus de 35 % de la population. C'est écrit, c'est mécanique, c'est un tableur. Les neuf gouvernements qui refusent le scan obligatoire des messageries privées (dit chatcontrol) pèsent 32,9 %. Il manque 2,1 points. Trois pays peuvent les fournir : l'Allemagne (18,47 %), le Portugal (2,38 %), la Belgique (2,63 %). Accessoirement, le bloc des neuf ne peut perdre ni l'Italie, ni la Pologne, ni les Pays-Bas, qui pèsent à eux trois 25,5 % : une défection et il n'y a plus d'arithmétique du tout. Les chiffres sont là, et là.
L'Allemagne, elle, a trouvé la formule. En public, elle rejette le scan sans soupçon. Au Conseil, depuis juin, ses négociateurs ne s'y opposent plus. Admirez la manœuvre, elle mérite un cadre : on ne vote pas pour, on ne vote pas contre, on cesse de s'opposer. Voilà le degré zéro du courage politique porté à sa perfection technique — une abstention si bien élevée qu'elle n'a même pas besoin d'être déclarée.
ABONNEMENT
Deux grands formats par jour. Les cinq plumes du Courrier. La série Sécession, le dimanche.
Le monde commente. Vous, vous comprenez.
S'ABONNER lecourrierdesstrateges.frEt mon pays ? Mon pays, mes chers lecteurs sans tableur, est indécis. On le dit avec un mot d'agence de notation, comme s'il s'agissait d'un arbitrage délicat entre deux biens supérieurs. Indécis sur quoi ? Sur la lecture des messages de quatre cent cinquante millions d'Européens. Depuis quand ? Depuis que la Commission a déposé son texte, en mai 2022. Cinquante-deux mois. Miljaardedju — cinquante-deux mois, c'est plus long qu'une grossesse d'éléphante, plus long que la construction d'un pont sur la Dyle, plus long que la carrière moyenne d'un secrétaire d'État belge. Un pays qui n'a pas tranché en cinquante-deux mois n'est pas indécis. Il attend de voir qui gagne.
On me dira que le règlement protège les enfants, et il faut le dire sérieusement : son objet est l'abus sexuel des mineurs, qui n'est pas une abstraction de juriste. Seulement voilà — le Parlement européen, de son côté, ne propose pas de ne rien faire. Il propose la détection ciblée sur ordonnance judiciaire. Le choix n'est donc pas entre protéger et laisser faire. Il est entre scanner les suspects et scanner tout le monde. Et sur ce que coûte la seconde méthode, le texte a une élégance qu'il faut saluer : les plateformes ne publieront leurs taux d'erreur et de faux positifs qu'à partir du 1er février 2027. Soit après. On vous demande de signer avant de connaître le prix, et le prix sera facturé en vies privées de gens qui n'avaient rien fait.
TELEGRAM · L'INFO EN CONTINU
La newsletter vous donne le matin. Le fil vous donne l'instant.
Gratuit, et en continu.
REJOINDRE LE FIL t.me/resterlibreNotez maintenant l'asymétrie, elle est d'une perfection d'horloger. Pour étendre la surveillance, l'urgence suffit : le 9 juillet, le Parlement a prolongé le scan volontaire jusqu'au 3 avril 2028 parce que les 314 députés qui votaient contre n'atteignaient pas les 361 requis — dans cette maison, la majorité qui dit non ne suffit pas ; il faut une majorité qualifiée pour empêcher. Pour restreindre la surveillance, en revanche, il faut quatre États, 35 % de population, et l'accord de trois capitales qui ne décrochent pas. Le dispositif est monté de telle sorte que l'inertie travaille toujours dans le même sens. Ce n'est pas un hasard de procédure. C'est une architecture.
Mardi, si personne ne bouge, les négociateurs acteront le facile — le Centre européen, l'évaluation des risques, les obligations de transparence — et renverront le reste. Sans accord, le dossier passe à la présidence lituanienne en janvier, puis à la grecque en juillet. Il ne meurt pas. Il patiente. C'est sa nature profonde : un texte de surveillance n'a jamais besoin de gagner, il lui suffit de ne pas perdre, pendant que vous avez une vie, un métier, des enfants à récupérer à l'école et aucune raison de savoir ce qu'est un COREPER.
TIPS · SANS ABONNEMENT
Un média libre vit de ses lecteurs. Un pourboire ponctuel, sans compte ni engagement, quand le cœur vous en dit.
Vous donnez ce que vous voulez. Vous restez libre.
LAISSER UN POURBOIRE merci !Alors une dernière question, compagnons d'Absurdistan, à poser à votre député avant mardi soir. Le jour où une machine lira vos messages, elle le fera parce que quatre cent cinquante millions d'Européens l'auront voulu — ou parce que deux virgule un pour cent d'entre eux n'ont pas rappelé ?
Je connais la réponse. Elle tient dans un tableur, et personne n'aura signé.
Il était une fois, dans le Royaume de France, une forêt immense et sombre où les villageois avaient pris la fâcheuse habitude d’aller dire ce qu’ils pensaient. Personne ne les y avait autorisés. Pire : personne ne pouvait les en empêcher.
Fâcheux.
Au Château, on s’inquiéta. Oh, pas de ce qui se disait, bien sûr – le Royaume est libre et l’on y professe la liberté d’expression avec une ferveur qui tire la larme – mais plutôt de la manière dont cela se disait, c’est-à-dire sans modération, sans hiérarchie, et surtout sans ceux du Château.
Il fallait un conte. On en fit un.
Premier acte : Gouvernemaman prépara le panier
Gouvernemaman, qui vous veut du bien et qui compte bien vous le faire savoir, prit donc les choses en main. Le 21 juillet 2026, le Parlement adoptait définitivement la proposition de loi Miller interdisant les réseaux sociaux aux moins de quinze ans, plaçant le Royaume De France comme premier pays d’Europe à se lancer dans cette noble quête avec application au 1er septembre pour les nouveaux comptes et au 1er janvier 2027 pour les anciens.
On applaudit. On se félicita. On protégeait les enfants, ce qui reste l’argument le plus difficile à contredire jamais mis au point par l’espèce humaine, et les députés le savaient parfaitement.
Puis on ouvrit le panier. Zut, il était vide : pas de méthode de vérification de l’âge, pas de sanction sérieuse, pas de dispositif d’exécution.
Voilà un bien étrange texte qui interdit sans dire comment, qui punit sans dire qui, et qui entre en vigueur sans que personne ne sache au juste ce qui entre en vigueur. La Quadrature du Net nota poliment que la loi demeurait floue sur son application, ce qui était une manière très diplomatique de dire qu’il n’y avait rien dedans. Xavier Niel, moins diplomate, parla d’une mesure totalement débile.
Néanmoins, pas démonté pour deux sous, le Petit Chaperon Rouge partit chez sa grand-mère avec une galette imaginaire et un pot de beurre conceptuel.
Deuxième acte : le royaume voisin avait déjà lu la fin
Le hasard voulait qu’un autre royaume ait tenté l’aventure avant le Royaume de France. L’Australie avait ainsi interdit ses réseaux sociaux aux moins de seize ans le 10 décembre 2025 et 4.750.000 comptes avaient été supprimés dans la foulée, chiffre d’ailleurs brandi comme un trophée de chasse.
Las.
Trois mois plus tard, une étude publiée dans le BMJ constatait que plus de 85 % des adolescents concernés fréquentaient toujours les plateformes, les chenapans, et dans leur majorité, depuis leur propre compte, les gredins. Le fameux contournement massif par VPN n’occupait que 3% d’entre eux et les autres n’en eurent pas eu besoin : ils se contentèrent de déclarer qu’ils avaient seize ans, et on les crut. Seulement 5% des 12-13 ans montrèrent un sauf-conduit d’identité, pendant que les autres envoyèrent un selfie (ou rien du tout).
Le loup australien fut vaincu par un formulaire mais ce formulaire fut vaincu par des enfants menteurs.
Et que fit l’Australie devant ce résultat ? Elle abrogea, penaude, en s’excusant du dérangement ?
Que nenni.
Elle porta l’amende maximale à 99 millions de dollars australiens et élargit les pouvoirs de son régulateur.
Troisième acte : la découverte du loup intérieur
Pendant que Gouvernemaman s’occupait des petits enfants, on découvrit aussi que la forêt grouillait de loups : des loups russes, d’abord, ce qui est devenu une catégorie administrative. Des loups chinois ensuite, par souci d’équilibre géographique.
Et puis, le 9 juillet 2026, trois sénateurs (Laurent Lafon pour le centre, Agnès Evren pour la droite, Sylvie Robert pour la gauche, soit l’intégralité du spectre officiellement autorisé) annoncèrent la découverte d’une espèce parfaitement inédite : le loup intérieur.
Ce loup intérieur pouvait être un villageois qui relaie, volontairement ou non, un élément de désinformation d’origine étrangère. Notez, manants, ce « volontairement ou non » : voilà belle trouvaille ! Ainsi, vous n’aviez pas besoin d’être un loup pour être traité comme tel et il suffisait d’être d’accord avec un loup, ou de le paraître vaguement, ou, plus insidieusement, de poser une question qu’un loup aurait pu poser.
Quatrième acte : on organisa une battue
Restait à équiper les bûcherons.
Le rapport sénatorial proposa alors un observatoire indépendant de la désinformation, et, pour les cas sérieux, une solide et ferme commission de censure indépendante présidée par un membre du Conseil d’État qui déciderait de ce qui circulerait et de ce qui ne circulerait pas.
Avec un certain toupet, le terme de shadowban d’État fut même employé. À tort, évidemment ! Tout le monde savait qu’un shadowban est une pratique privée et opaque, alors qu’ici tout serait public, transparent et présidé par un haut fonctionnaire.
Vous voyez bien que ce n’est pas pareil !
Le lendemain, le Conseil des ministres présenta un projet de loi contre les ingérences étrangères portant à trois ans de geôle et 45 000 écus d’amende la diffusion de fausses nouvelles en contexte électoral. Oui, trois ans d’oubliettes pour une publication, le peuple apprécia à sa juste valeur la parfaite sérénité du calendrier, à quelques mois d’une présidentielle.
Cinquième acte : il y a quelqu’un dans le lit
Il subsistait un angle mort.
Les enfants ne vivaient pas dans la forêt mais dans des maisons. Or, dans les maisons il y avait des parents (dispositif notoirement non homologué). Aurore Bergé, ministricule indispensable, régla bien vite la difficulté d’une phrase, prononcée sans trembler : « Ce qui se passe à l’intérieur des maisons regarde l’État ».
Voilà, le loup était dans le lit, portait le bonnet de Gouvernemaman et vous expliquait, avec une douceur infinie, que tout ceci était pour votre bien.
« Gouvernemaman, que vous avez de grands yeux !
_ C’est pour mieux observer la désinformation, mon enfant, depuis un observatoire indépendant !
_ Gouvernemaman, que vous avez de grandes oreilles !
_ C’est pour mieux entendre ce qui se dit à l’intérieur des maisons, mon enfant !
_ Gouvernemaman, que vous avez de grandes dents !
_ heu… »
Et c’est précisément ici que le conte s’interrompit.
Parce que des dents, il n’y en avait pas. Ou disons pas encore : la loi Miller n’a ni griffes ni crocs, et c’est exactement ce qu’on lui demande.
Car l’objet n’a jamais été d’empêcher un collégien d’ouvrir Instagram. Les Australiens en ont administré la démonstration en trois mois, et personne au Palais-Bourbon ne l’ignore.
Non, décidément, l’objet est d’installer une idée, une seule, et de l’installer avant 2027 : qu’un âge peut être vérifié, donc qu’une identité peut être exigée. Qu’une parole peut être classée en désinformation par une autorité qui ne dit pas son nom. Qu’un enfant, un étranger et un dissident, vus depuis le Conseil d’État, présentent d’utiles ressemblances.
La loi sans dents d’aujourd’hui est le précédent juridique de demain. On ne vote pas un texte, on vote une habitude. Et une habitude, cela ne s’abroge jamais : cela se durcit, éventuellement à 99 millions de dollars l’unité.
Il était une fois un Royaume si terrifié par les loups qu’il enferma ses enfants dans la maison de Gouvernemaman et posta un bûcheron devant la porte pour noter ce qu’ils disaient. Dans la forêt, les loups couraient toujours, parfaitement indifférents et absolument hors d’atteinte. Ce n’était pas eux qu’on avait mis en cage.
À la réflexion, ce n’était pas eux qu’on visait.
1BuyJKZLeEG5YkpbGn4QhtNTxhUqtpEGKf
Vous aussi, foutez les banquiers centraux dehors, terrorisez l’État et les banques en utilisant les cryptomonnaies, en les promouvant et pourquoi pas, en faisant un don avec !
La France de Macron, c’est ce fier pays qui accumule les records avec entrain et jarrets pétillants. Tenez, prenez ce nouveau record en 2025 dans lequel le fisc français a notifié 17,1 milliards d’euros de droits et pénalités au titre de la fraude fiscale : eh oui, après 16,7 milliards en 2024, la courbe grimpe sans discontinuer depuis 2021.
Quelle force, quelle vigueur, quel entrain ! Les communiqués triomphants peuvent fuser, la presse peut dûment recopier, et le contribuable moyen pourra s’endormir rassuré : l’État veille, les fraudeurs tremblent, la justice fiscale progresse !
Malheureusement, une facétieuse Cour des comptes a publié en décembre dernier un rapport nettement moins festif dans lequel on découvre que si ces montants notifiés battent effectivement des records, les montants réellement encaissés, eux, font la sieste : les recettes effectivement recouvrées au titre du contrôle fiscal sont passées de 12,2 milliards d’euros en 2015 à 11,4 milliards en 2024, en euros courants, pendant que les recettes fiscales totales de la DGFiP bondissaient de 44 %.
Et plus intéressant encore, le taux de recouvrement des sanctions prononcées s’est effondré de 88 % en 2019 à 60 % en 2022, avec le montant des sanctions fiscales, qui représentait 30 % de l’impôt éludé en 2015 qui n’en représente plus que 15 % dix ans plus tard.
Autrement dit, Bercy détecte comme jamais mais récupère de plus en plus mollement.
Je vois certains ici, habitués de ces colonnes, tentés de sabrer le champagne : voilà enfin une bonne nouvelle ! L’État, ce gouffre insatiable qui ponctionne tout ce qui bouge et taxe tout ce qui ne bouge plus, renoncerait donc à une partie de son butin. Or, chaque euro que le fisc ne parvient pas à extraire est un euro qui reste dans l’économie productive au lieu de financer la prochaine agence de l’innovation du vivre-ensemble numérique ; on devrait donc déjà applaudir des deux mains cette soudaine apathie du bras armé de la prédation fiscale…
Bon en fait non.
Cette victoire est une illusion d’optique et il suffit de gratter le vernis pour découvrir deux réalités autrement moins réjouissantes.
La première, c’est que cette mansuétude n’est pas distribuée au hasard : elle est réservée à une clientèle très particulière.
Le rapport de la Cour détaille ainsi l’explosion des « règlements d’ensemble », ces accords discrets par lesquels l’administration rabote non seulement les pénalités mais aussi les droits eux-mêmes, pratique longtemps dépourvue de toute base légale : on est passé de 116 accords en 2019 à 315 en 2024, pour environ 1,3 milliard d’euros de droits et pénalités minorés chaque année.
Pendant ce temps, la Direction des vérifications nationales et internationales, chargée des 10 000 plus grandes entreprises du pays, n’applique de pénalités que dans 3,2 % des dossiers qui le mériteraient, soit moitié moins que le taux attendu, au nom (tenez-vous bien) de l’attractivité de la France. Oui. Voilà.
Bref, la fiscalité française, c’est une remise commerciale pour la clientèle premium, celle qui dispose d’avocats fiscalistes coûteux et de la capacité de faire durer un contentieux dix ans, et pour la piétaille, le tarif plein, prélevé à la source, contrôlé par croisement automatique de fichiers. Le quidam qui a oublié de déclarer trois cents euros de revenus locatifs recevra sa proposition de rectification générée par algorithme, avec majoration et intérêts de retard, sans la moindre possibilité de « conclusion apaisée ». Le grand groupe qui a optimisé quelques centaines de millions négociera tranquillement son règlement d’ensemble autour d’un café. La loi est la même pour tous, mais certains contribuables sont manifestement plus négociables que d’autres.
(Ici, on comprendra évidemment que s’il devait y avoir évolution, ce serait pour que tout le monde, piétaille incluse, bénéficie des conclusions apaisées, et pas cet inverse mélenchonesque qu’on sent poindre à l’horizon…)
La seconde réalité est plus inquiétante encore, et curieusement absente des gazettes habituelles : ce bradage généralisé des créances fiscales est en réalité le symptôme d’un État en crise de manque.
La Cour note en effet que l’administration justifie elle-même ces arrangements par la nécessité de « sécuriser les rentrées budgétaires ».
Autrement dit, plutôt que d’attendre dix ans un hypothétique jugement pour récupérer la totalité du redressement, Bercy préfère toucher tout de suite une fraction négociée ce qui est très exactement le comportement du drogué en manque qui revend sa télévision à 20 % de sa valeur parce qu’il lui faut du liquide dès à présent pour acheter sa dose tout de suite, et que la notion même de moyen terme a disparu de son horizon mental.
Avec un déficit qui flirte avec les 6 % du PIB et une charge de la dette qui enfle joyeusement, l’État français n’a effectivement plus les moyens d’avoir de la patience : il escompte ses propres créances, il liquide son stock, il fait les soldes sur la fraude.
Ajoutons, pour compléter le tableau, que les effectifs du contrôle fiscal ont fondu de 19 % en dix ans et que la fameuse levée du « verrou de Bercy », qui devait envoyer les gros fraudeurs devant le juge, ne s’est traduite par aucune augmentation des poursuites ou des condamnations, la justice étant elle-même trop exsangue pour absorber le flux.
Bref, un État qui affiche des records de fraude détectée pour la galerie, qui encaisse de moins en moins, qui accorde des ristournes croissantes à ceux qui coûtent trop cher à attraper, qui matraque d’autant plus fort les petits qu’ils ne peuvent pas se défendre, et qui explique lui-même qu’il brade parce qu’il a besoin d’argent frais immédiatement : tout ceci ressemble à l’aveu piteux, rance, d’une machine à la fois obèse et impuissante, trop affaiblie pour faire respecter ses propres règles, trop affamée pour y renoncer, et réduite à monnayer son autorité au guichet des transactions.
Les drogués en manque finissent rarement par se refaire une santé en vendant leurs meubles. Quant aux États qui en sont réduits à solder leurs créances pour boucler les fins de mois, l’Histoire est remarquablement constante sur le sujet : cela ne peut pas bien se terminer.
1BuyJKZLeEG5YkpbGn4QhtNTxhUqtpEGKf
Vous aussi, foutez les banquiers centraux dehors, terrorisez l’État et les banques en utilisant les cryptomonnaies, en les promouvant et pourquoi pas, en faisant un don avec !
Le 9 juillet 2026, le Parlement européen a rétabli Chat Control, le dispositif de surveillance des messageries qui autorise le balayage des communications privées au nom de la lutte contre la pédocriminalité. Revenu par une manœuvre procédurale à la veille des vacances, ce texte inquiète cryptographes, éditeurs de messagerie chiffrée et juristes, qui y voient une porte dérobée menaçant le chiffrement de bout en bout. Pour la Suisse, dont le Conseil fédéral juge le projet contraire à ses droits fondamentaux, l'enjeu touche à la vie privée, à la souveraineté numérique et à l'avenir de services comme Proton et Threema. Décryptage d'un dossier qui refuse de mourir.
L’article Chat Control : quand Bruxelles rallume la surveillance des messageries est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Chat Control veut scanner vos messages privés. Voici comment reprendre le contrôle de vos conversations, de vos données et de vos outils, étape par étape, du débutant au lanceur d'alerte.
L’article EXIT CHAT CONTROL est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Le recueil d’essais du chercheur en intelligence artificielle et investisseur d’origine allemande Leopold Aschenbrenner, Situational Awareness: The Decade Ahead (2024), propose une analyse quant à l’avenir de l’IA, analyse fortement axée sur les intérêts américains.
L’article La guerre de la superintelligence et les investissements est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Hier, le Parlement européen a donc rétabli la lecture automatisée de vos messages privés, sans vergogne.
La méthode employée mérite le détour, en vous rappelant que le D dans Union Européenne vaut pour « Démocratie » : même si une majorité des députés présents a voté contre (314 contre, 276 pour), le texte est passé.
Oui, vous avez bien lu et cela résume bien l’état de fébrilité d’une Union européenne qui ne cherche même plus à dissimuler son projet de fond : pister, tracer et contrôler chacun de ses citoyens, du berceau au cercueil, de la place publique à sa chambre à coucher.
En 2021, l’Union adopte une dérogation temporaire à la directive ePrivacy (mieux connue sous le sobriquet « ChatControl 1.0 », qui autorise les grandes plateformes américaines (Meta, Google, Microsoft et consorts) à scanner les messages privés, sans mandat ni soupçon, pour (prétendument) y détecter de la pédocriminalité.
Cependant, en mars 2026, ô surprise, le Parlement refuse de prolonger le dispositif, à l’issue de scrutins dont l’un s’est joué à une voix près, avec expiration de la dérogation en avril. Les GAFAM se frottent les mains (ils vont pouvoir recommencer à scanner sans se gêner) et Bruxelles s’empresse alors non pas de les rappeler à l’ordre, mais de leur refabriquer une couverture juridique sur mesure.
Avec la finesse d’un bulldozer, le 2 juillet, le Conseil adopte par procédure écrite un texte quasi identique à celui rejeté trois mois plus tôt, simplement recalé jusqu’en avril 2028, en le présentant comme une position du Conseil en première lecture.
Le dossier revient donc au Parlement en seconde lecture, où les règles s’inversent : là où, en mars, une majorité simple suffisait à rejeter, en juillet, il faut une majorité absolue de 361 voix sur 720 pour le faire, et les absents comptent mécaniquement pour le texte. Et histoire de sécuriser le vote, le PPE de Manfred Weber dégaine une procédure d’urgence casant le scrutin le 9 juillet, dernière plénière avant les vacances, période bénie d’absentéisme parlementaire.
La négociatrice du dossier, l’eurodéputée Markéta Gregorová, a bien dénoncé en séance une violation du règlement intérieur du Parlement lui-même (la procédure d’urgence étant prévue pour des premières lectures et certainement pas pour ressusciter un texte déjà enterré), personne d’autre que les opposant – minoritaires au bon moment – n’a bronché et l’affaire a donc été pliée très vite.
Comme ailleurs, France en tête, quand le Parlement vote mal, on le fait revoter vite, en changeant les règles, et hop ! Le tout, bien sûr, pour sauver les enfants. Bah oui, forcément.
Peu importe qu’en réalité, le dispositif soit une mauvaise blague : selon les chiffres de la Commission cités par l’ancien eurodéputé Patrick Breyer, le scan de masse des messageries ne représentait que 36% des signalements en 2024, la police criminelle allemande estime que près de la moitié des alertes ne sont pénalement pas pertinentes, et 40% des enquêtes déclenchées visent… des mineurs eux-mêmes, coupables de s’envoyer des messages coquins entre adolescents.
Au demeurant, nul besoin de statistiques fines pour comprendre l’évidence : le crime ne représente qu’une fraction infinitésimale des milliards de messages échangés chaque jour, et lire l’intégralité du courrier de 450 millions d’Européens pour y pêcher cette fraction est aussi proportionné que raser un quartier pour retrouver un voleur de vélo. Quant à la pente, elle est si glissante qu’on y a déjà installé les remonte-pentes : une infrastructure de lecture généralisée créée pour les pédocriminels servira demain, au choix, pour le terrorisme puis la « haine » en ligne, puis la désinformation et rapidement toute opinion vaguement inconvenante.
De surcroît, ceci n’est que le début : ChatControl 2.0 (le règlement CSAR) mijote toujours en trilogue pour rendre la détection obligatoire par ordres administratifs, y compris sur les messageries chiffrées, ce qui impose mécaniquement le scan côté client, directement sur votre téléphone, avant tout chiffrement. Autrement dit, on va droit vers la fin pure et simple du chiffrement de bout en bout, transformé en décor de théâtre.
Le service juridique du Conseil lui-même a conclu en juin que même le scan « volontaire » constitue une fouille généralisée incompatible avec la Charte des droits fondamentaux ; les négociations reprennent pourtant fin septembre sous présidence irlandaise, car à Bruxelles, un avis juridique gênant est un détail au même titre qu’un vote perdu.
Rassurez-vous, ce n’est pas tout !
Pendant que vous aviez les yeux rivés sur ce feuilleton, les autres barreaux de la cage ont été soudés en silence.
Ainsi, avec l’identité numérique européenne, chaque État membre devra fournir son portefeuille EUDI d’ici décembre 2026, que banques, télécoms et grandes plateformes devront accepter dès 2027, avec un objectif affiché de 80% des citoyens équipés en 2030, l’outil idéal pour la vérification d’âge que ChatControl 2.0 prévoit justement d’imposer. Comme c’est commode.
N’oublions pas la directive DAC8, en vigueur depuis le 1er janvier, qui complète MiCA en obligeant toute plateforme crypto de la planète servant des Européens à livrer au fisc votre identité, vos soldes et vos transactions.
Ajoutons la facturation électronique Peppol/ViDA, obligatoire en France au 1er septembre : dix millions d’entreprises dont chaque facture, chaque paiement, chaque relation commerciale transitera par des plateformes agréées reliées au concentrateur de Bercy.
Au passage, évoquons le règlement GSR2, dont la phase finale est entrée en vigueur le 7 juillet et qui impose à toute voiture neuve une boîte noire, un mouchard de vitesse et une caméra scrutant votre regard au volant, en attendant que les promesses d’anonymisation connaissent le sort habituel des promesses (sans parler d’un hacking de toutes ces données qui n’arrivera jamais, promis juré).
Bien sûr, ce serait dommage d’oublier l’euro numérique, déjà évoqué dans ces colonnes, qui parachèvera l’édifice côté paiements.
Et pour la touche comique, rappelons la récente mise en place du contrôle biométrique EES aux frontières, généralisé en avril, qui tourne au chaos avec des files de cinq heures dans les aéroports, au point que compagnies et aéroports supplient Bruxelles de suspendre le machin foutraque : on fiche donc consciencieusement empreintes et visages des touristes venus dépenser leurs devises, pendant que l’immigration illégale, elle, continue d’entrer sans selfie ni empreintes. Ajoutez le règlement e-Evidence qui permet à un juge de n’importe quel État membre de réclamer directement vos données à n’importe quel fournisseur, et le tableau est complet.
Chaque texte, pris isolément, présente une vertu de façade : les enfants, la fraude, la sécurité routière, les frontières, la lutte contre les vilains, les méchants et les affreux, etc. Sauver les enfants, les conducteurs et les innocents constitue décidément l’excuse universelle pour faire avaler des textes toujours plus liberticides, et plus le prétexte est larmoyant, plus le texte est ignoble.
L’assemblage de ces textes dessine pourtant autre chose : vos conversations lues, votre identité vérifiée, vos flux d’argent tracés, vos affaires radiographiées, votre conduite filmée, vos déplacements fichés, petit à petit, plus aucun recoin de votre existence n’échappe à Big Brother, ou plus exactement à un législateur européen devenu fou.
Enfin, difficile de passer à côté du calendrier frénétique de ces mesures : DAC8 en janvier, EES en avril, GSR2 et ChatControl en juillet, facturation électronique en septembre, portefeuille d’identité en décembre, cela nous fait six verrous en une seule année civile et une pelletée d’autres à venir en 2027. Voilà qui trahit une urgence acharnée à boucler la cage pendant qu’il en est encore temps.
On se demande bien ce que nos décideurs anticipent pour être si pressés. Cela ne peut pas être bon.
1BuyJKZLeEG5YkpbGn4QhtNTxhUqtpEGKf
Vous aussi, foutez les banquiers centraux dehors, terrorisez l’État et les banques en utilisant les cryptomonnaies, en les promouvant et pourquoi pas, en faisant un don avec !
Le rail, en France, c’est plus qu’un poème, c’est une véritable chanson de geste. Et le geste, c’est de plus en plus souvent un bras d’honneur.
Pendant que le Sénat pond de doctes rapports léni(ni)fiants sur la nécessité « d’harmoniser » les tarifs ferroviaires, déplorant avec gravité le « maquis tarifaire » où s’égare le pauvre voyageur, la vraie vie, elle, continue tranquillement son cours sur les quais. Et sur ces quais, c’est une authentique milice tarifaire qui pratique, jour après jour, son petit racket ordinaire.
Eh oui, les choses ont bien changé : le contrôleur n’est plus là pour vérifier que vous avez payé votre dû, mais pour traquer la faille administrative qui fera de vous, voyageur honnête mais surtout parfaitement solvable, un délinquant en puissance.
C’est en tout cas ce qui est récemment arrivé à une voyageuse accompagnée de sa famille et de son chien pour qui le voyage s’est rapidement mué en aventure kafkaïenne qui vaut son pesant de billets compostés. Dans son trajet avec son chien, elle s’apprête à enchaîner métro et train dans une grande gare parisienne. Elle a bien sûr tous les billets nécessaires et a même acquitté le fameux « billet animal » pour son compagnon à quatre pattes, ce sésame à 7€ sans lequel un caniche devient un passager clandestin.
Tout est donc en règle. À ceci près qu’entre la sortie du métro et l’entrée de la gare, sur quelques mètres de couloir souterrain, s’étend une « zone contrôlée SNCF », sous-royaume tarifaire dont les frontières invisibles réclament (paraît-il) un titre spécifique pour l’animal. Quelques pas de trop dans la mauvaise sous-zone, et hop : 35€ d’amende infligée séance tenante par deux agents zélés. La règle est inconnue de tous les passagers, elle n’est affichée nulle part et pour les agents en embuscade, cette ignorance se transforme en rente.
Cette fois-ci, la passagère aura fait un peu de foin sur ses réseaux sociaux et, sommée de s’expliquer, la SNCF a fini par reconnaître une « mauvaise interprétation de la règle », puis décidé d’annuler la prune. En somme, la maison admet elle-même que ses propres agents ne comprennent pas ses propres règles.
Pour une entreprise qui prétend faire rouler des trains à grande vitesse, voilà qui rassure, n’est-ce pas !
Cette histoire paraît lunaire, et le comportement des contrôleurs assez peu amène, mais ce genre d’affaire ne cesse de se multiplier. La presse en relate d’ailleurs suffisamment pour qu’on cesse d’y voir des cas isolés et qu’on y reconnaisse une tendance lourde, une certaine manière qu’ont les services publics du rail de concevoir leur « relation clientèle ».
Ainsi se souviendra-t-on de ce passager verbalisé à hauteur de 270€, au printemps 2024, pour le crime impardonnable d’avoir échangé sa place, d’un commun accord, avec un autre voyageur, histoire de rendre service.
On se souviendra aussi de cet usager délesté de 170€ parce que sa carte d’identité s’affichait sur son smartphone au format PDF et non sur le bristol cartonné officiel, l’administration adorant le numérique partout sauf le jour où un peu de papier lui permet de distribuer des amendes.
On se souviendra, enfin, de cette pluie de prunes à cinquante euros déversée début 2024 sur les familles et les touristes, coupables d’avoir une valise de trop au regard des nouvelles règles drastiques sur les bagages (Capital).
Mais comment peut-on arrive à de pareilles dérives ?
Pour réussir une pareille recette, il faut commencer par une pâte moelleuse d’incompétence et une crème épaisse de système tarifaire incompréhensible : celui de la SNCF et de la RATP est devenu si byzantin qu’il faut désormais faire appel à un avocat spécialisé pour traverser une gare avec son chien ou sa valise en parfaite conformité. Cependant, là où n’importe quelle entreprise normale chercherait à simplifier la vie de son client, la machine ferroviaire s’ingénie à la compliquer, à multiplier les sous-zones, les sous-tarifs et les sous-conditions, autant de chausse-trappes où le voyageur de bonne foi finit immanquablement par tomber. Comme si c’était fait pour…
La seconde catégorie d’ingrédients de notre recette pour l’enfer, c’est le gaspillage et l’expérience soviétique : on arrose ce dinosaure de dizaines de milliards d’euros de subventions chaque année, on réunit de doctes commissions sénatoriales, on pond des rapports mais au bout du compte, le service rendu reste digne de l’URSS finissante. Cher, souvent en grève, en panne ou en retard, sa seule efficacité véritablement redoutable réside dans sa capacité à punir financièrement un citoyen et un contribuable captifs.
Enfin, et c’est l’ingrédient qui fait véritablement lever le résultat final, ne surtout pas oublier la prime.
Car la presse le confirme : les contrôleurs touchent bel et bien 10% sur les amendes réglées immédiatement à bord. De contrôleurs, les voilà donc transformés en chasseurs de primes. Et comme chasseurs, ils sont terriblement sélectifs : le petit shérif bombe le torse devant la mamie étourdie, le père de famille trop poli ou l’étudiante manifestement solvable, mais retrouve une soudaine passion pour la contemplation de ses chaussures lorsque monte, musique à fond, le groupe qui n’a visiblement aucune intention de présenter quoi que ce soit.
L’État punitif et zélé ne s’abat jamais que sur ceux qui se laissent faire.
Cette petite tyrannie ordinaire illustre ce que n’importe quel économiste un peu sérieux connaît par cœur : quand on récompense financièrement des agents pour verbaliser, ils verbalisent. On récolte ici précisément ce que l’on incite.
Si l’on souhaitait, par extraordinaire, que ces mêmes agents renseignent, accompagnent et dépannent les voyageurs perdus dans le maquis tarifaire, il faudrait sans doute calibrer les primes pour cela. Mais cela signifierait que la SNCF transporte des clients et pas des usagés usagers. Parbleu, de fil en aiguille, elle deviendrait même un véritable service public !
Vous n’y pensez pas !
1BuyJKZLeEG5YkpbGn4QhtNTxhUqtpEGKf
Vous aussi, foutez les banquiers centraux dehors, terrorisez l’État et les banques en utilisant les cryptomonnaies, en les promouvant et pourquoi pas, en faisant un don avec !
Executive Summary:
On June 3, 2026, the National Data Administration (NDA) issued its Implementation Plan for Promoting the Construction of High-Quality Industry Datasets (关于推进行业高质量数据集建设行动的实施方案) (NDA, June 8). The plan is focused on building the PRC’s data foundations on which artificial intelligence (AI) systems depend. It directs the construction of sector-specific datasets for AI model training across 19 sectors and five innovation areas, including healthcare, e-commerce, public security, urban governance, and social credit, as well as innovation areas such as the low-altitude economy. [1] As with all aspects of PRC data governance, commercial and administrative incentives coexist with the implementation of the Party’s social control and national security objectives.
High-Quality Datasets
The term “high-quality dataset” (高质量数据集) has a specific official definition that is both technical and political in nature. According to technical standards issued in August 2025 by the “National Technical Committee 609 on Data of Standardization Administration of China” (SAC/TC609; 全国数据标准化技术委员会), a high-quality dataset is defined as a collection of data that has undergone collection, processing, and other data handling, can be directly used for developing and training AI models, and can effectively improve model performance. [2] Dataset quality is reflected across five dimensions: “large” scale, “robust” security, “correct” viewpoint, “good” results, and “wide” application, and can be measured using both static and dynamic quality evaluation methods, which are outlined below (NDA, August 2025). Data security compliance is also defined within a series of quality compliance indicators, which state that data in datasets for AI model development and training shall “not contain illegal content including content that violates socialist core values, discriminatory content, commercial violations, or content that infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of others” (不包含违反社会主义核心价值观的内容、歧视性内容、商业违法违规、侵犯他人合法权益等非法内容) (SAC/TC609, August 2025).
The same standards establish a three-tier classification system for high-quality data, which are arranged by sensitivity. “General knowledge datasets” (通识数据集) contain knowledge accessible to the public without specialist background, sourced from encyclopedias and Internet platforms, and are rated low sensitivity. “Industry general knowledge datasets” (行业通识数据集) contain knowledge requiring professional background, sourced from academic papers, industry reports, and official documents, and are also rated low sensitivity. “Industry professional knowledge datasets” (行业专识数据集) contain knowledge requiring deep professional background and operational experience, sourced from organizations’ internal business systems and management platforms, and are rated as highly sensitive (SAC/TC609, August 29, 2025).
The NDA’s High-Quality Dataset Construction Guidelines (高质量数据集建设指引), a methodology document on building high-quality datasets for AI training issued by the NDA in August 2025, recorded that “more than 35,000 high-quality datasets had been built nationally as of June 2025, with a total volume exceeding 400 [petabytes]” (截至2025年6月，全国建设高质量数据集超3.5万个、总量超400PB) (NDA, August 2025). The guidelines identify three main technical approaches to data collection:
Each reflects a different aspect of the PRC’s existing data infrastructure, as well as their relationship to challenges of building AI training data at scale. Social credit, for example, illustrates the first. It is inherently multi-source and heterogeneous because it is distributed across separate authorities including public security, courts, tax, and market regulators. The National Credit Information Sharing Platform (全国信用信息共享平台) and unified social credit code system have been designed to improve aggregation and information sharing across silos (People’s Daily, April 1, 2025). Progress has been uneven, but the direction and intent are clear and iterative improvements will continue to see those objectives realized.
Physically Distributed but Logically Centralized
The new implementation plan includes dataset management provisions that require full lifecycle oversight covering collection, cleaning, processing, labeling, quality inspection, evaluation, iteration, and audit. The provisions subject data to state management within a system described as “physically distributed but logically centralized” (物理分散、逻辑集中) (NDA, June 8).
This approach is not new: the formulation appeared as the governing principle for cross-departmental data sharing under the 2015 “Big Data Development Action Outline” (促进大数据发展行动纲要) from the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC; 国家发展和改革委员会), and at the time the national e-government extranet connecting 118 central government units and the social credit system’s information sharing infrastructure were among the systems built on that basis (NDRC, September 25, 2015).
The National Dataset Management Service Platform (国家数据集管理服务平台), built and operated by the National Data Development Research Institute (国家数据发展研究院) under NDA guidance, launched for a trial period on April 29, 2026, just before the plan was formally issued, at the Digital China Construction Summit (数字中国建设峰会) (NDA, April 29). The platform provides dataset catalogue management and construction monitoring functions to data management authorities, publication and quality evaluation functions to dataset suppliers, and search and retrieval functions to dataset users.
One of the Party-state’s instruments for addressing structural weaknesses associated with achieving the objective of “physically distributed but logically centralized” (物理分散、逻辑集中) has been the rollout of “data exchanges” (数据交易所). Data exchanges are state-supervised marketplaces designed to make bulk data transactable, fusible, and legible across the departmental and jurisdictional lines that fragmented governance had drawn (National Information Center, February 20, 2024). The first exchange had been established in Guiyang in 2014, but they began proliferating after the 13th Five-Year Plan, which called for implementing a “national big data strategy” (国家大数据战略) and promoting the open sharing of data resources (Study China, November 12, 2015; NPC, March 2016; CAC, May 18, 2021). Relatedly, the new implementation plan’s provisions encourage datasets to be listed and traded through data exchanges and data circulation service institutions, with the objective of existing trading models upgrading from basic data packages to application programming interface (API) calls and full-stack services. [3]
Data exchanges are designed so that transactions are logged, participants verified, and audit trails maintained (State Administration for Market Regulation, March 1, 2020). Data exchanges, as data holders, are also subject to the cooperation obligations of the 2021 Data Security Law, which requires provision of data to public security and state security organs on demand (NPC, June 10, 2021).
Conclusion
The implications of the provisions of the Implementation Plan for Promoting the Construction of High-Quality Industry Datasets are that, in the long term, they are part of a series of regulations, standards, and other measures designed to improve the Party’s ability to both maximize data and technology ecosystems for the purposes of economic development and its own social and political control. The control elements are embedded subtly in the definition of quality data and in the terms governing how that data is ultimately catalogued and shared, traced, and potentially accessed.
The plan is one regulation in a decades-long systems construction project. Where its provisions fit in the bigger puzzle is that they enable the kinds of data sharing and dataset building that will improve not only the quality and accuracy but also the effectiveness of a range of governance systems. This includes the social credit, urban governance platforms (such as smart cities platforms), and public security applications, that the plan refers to specifically.
Notes
[1] According to the NDA Implementation Plan, the full sector list includes: scientific research, industrial manufacturing, agriculture and rural areas, smart energy, transport, financial services, healthcare, education, e-commerce, human resources, culture and tourism, emergency management, meteorological services, green and low-carbon, public security, urban governance, housing construction, natural resources, and social credit. Innovation areas: low-altitude economy, embodied intelligence, autonomous driving, smart ocean, and bio-manufacturing (NDA, June 8).
[2] Key technical standards include:
1. TC609-5-2025-0, Construction Guidelines (高质量数据集 建设指南), which cover full lifecycle construction guidance;
2. TC609-5-2025-02, Format Requirements (高质量数据集 格式要求) which cover metadata format standardization;
3. TC609-5-2025-03, Classification Guidelines (高质量数据集 分类指南) which cover unified classification framework; and
4. TC609-5-2025-04, Specifications for quality evaluation and test (高质量数据集 质量评测规范), which cover unified evaluation indicators covering accuracy, completeness, timeliness, and consistency.
For a summary, see: https://archive.ph/MbWbi.
The full text of TC609-5-2025-03 can be found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260622121303/https://www.tc609.org.cn/tc609/tzgg/202509/6d0f135392ca47dfa28dad22f7bb5f6b/files/3.%20%E6%8A%80%E6%9C%AF%E6%96%87%E4%BB%B6%E3%80%8A%E9%AB%98%E8%B4%A8%E9%87%8F%E6%95%B0%E6%8D%AE%E9%9B%86%20%E5%88%86%E7%B1%BB%E6%8C%87%E5%8D%97%E3%80%8B.pdf.pdf.
The full text of TC609-5-2025-04 can be found at: https://web.archive.org/web/20260624011335/https://sjj.hubei.gov.cn/bmdt/tzgg/202511/P020251110587761615062.pdf.
[3] A basic data model refers to a buyer acquiring a static snapshot copy of a dataset, likely using a database manager or excel, for further applications. An API allows one application to “call” another application to request data, automating the data request process. API-based or full-stack-services provide the buyer with the ability to access real-time data on demand (Cloudflare, accessed June 24).
The post Databases Centralized for AI Development appeared first on Jamestown.
Executive Summary:
At the end of March, Chinese state media announced the establishment of a new global governance institution, the World Data Organization (WDO; 世界数据组织), headquartered in Beijing. The top of the People’s Daily front page reported that Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping had penned a congratulatory letter that Politburo Standing Committee member Ding Xuexiang (丁薛祥) had read out at the organization’s founding conference. Ding called it “a major event” (一件大事) and declared that Xi’s letter, which said the WDO would “provide a valuable platform for … improving global data governance” (为 … 完善全球数据治理提供了有益平台), demonstrated the country’s “high expectations” (殷切期望) for the WDO (People’s Daily, March 31, [a], [b]).
Publicly available information about the WDO currently tells a different story. Although official coverage claimed that around 500 people attended the founding conference, and that the WDO has more than 200 members from over 40 different countries representing 14 major industries, no publicly available evidence supports these claims (CCTV, March 30). [1] Xinhua merely reports that these members are “entities and individuals related to the global data sector” (由全球数据领域相关单位及个人自愿结成的) (Xinhua, March 30). Reporting also notes a founding declaration was released at the event, though this, too, is not yet public (Xinhua, March 30). As of publication, the only acknowledged member of the WDO appears to be Jack Perry, Chairman of the 48 Group Club. The 48 Group Club is a London-based company formed in 1954 by members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Its “mission statement” includes a nod to Zhou Enlai (周恩来), who the group’s website refers to as “China’s much-loved Premier” (48 Group Club, accessed June 12). [2]
WDO Promotes Party Preferences in Cyberspace
The WDO almost immediately cultivated a sense of international imprimatur that looks to be premature. Although it appears to present itself as an international institution, its leadership and characterizations of its intended role in state media show that it is an unusually obvious vehicle for enhancing CCP—rather than purely PRC—influence. In light of this, the decision of the United Nations (UN) Commission on Science and Technology for Development and vice chair of the UN Data Governance Working Group Muhammadou M.O. Kah to deliver remarks at the WDO’s inaugural event likely should be interrogated (Xinhua, March 31).
Attempts to access the WDO’s website (thewdo.org) currently redirects to a “Coming Soon” placeholder (thewdo.org/ComingSoon), but still allows the home page to be briefly visible. A capture of the home page shows that it contains the opening lines of the organization’s “founding declaration” (成立宣言), which includes calls to “strengthen industrial collaboration, jointly build data infrastructure, advance the development of standards and joint innovation, and promote the secure and trustworthy flow of data” (加强产业协同，共建数据基础设施，推进标准研制与联合创新，推动数据安全可信流动与资源开发利用). It also presents the organization’s priorities. These are extensive, but include working on development plans; handling issues among members and mediating disputes; building unified repositories for relevant regulations, technologies, experts, enterprises, tools, and resources; organizing and conducting policy research and data evaluation and testing; setting international standards and providing certification services; driving the construction of critical data service infrastructure and open-source ecosystems, and cultivating data application scenarios, among other far-reaching tasks (WDO, accessed June 12). [3]
The limited information that can be extracted from the WDO website, which is yet to launch, is a sanitized version of what appears in Party media. A recent article by Cheng Haiye (程海烨) of the Institute of International Studies, Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences sees the WDO as primarily supporting the CCP’s core security interests in the international arena. Despite later calling for promoting policy dialogues with the United States and Europe, he says, first of all, that the organization will “uphold the bottom line of security” (坚守安全底线) and support other countries’ data sovereignty. He then lists a number of items that the organization is there to oppose that indicate, implicitly but unequivocally, that the organization is targeted as an anti-Western institution: “data hegemony, bloc confrontation, and ‘long-arm jurisdiction’” (数据霸权、阵营对抗与“长臂管辖”). The article also makes clear that Cheng views the WDO as in line with Xi Jinping’s comprehensive national security concept, his proposed Global Data Security Initiative, and efforts to build a community of common destiny in cyberspace (Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, June 3).
More telling is a commentary that appeared on the theory page of the People’s Daily on June 8. This piece was written by the WDO’s president (理事长), Tan Tieniu (谭铁牛). The piece is steeped in Party rhetoric, quoting Xi Jinping no fewer than seven times and intoning the appropriate Party formulas, referencing Xi’s four global initiatives and the community of common destiny. It also includes the same targeted rejection of the West, decrying “small yards and high fences” (小院高墙), data hegemony (数据霸权), and “data colonialism” (数据殖民主义). In this, he is more explicit than Cheng, despite his executive position in the WDO. He criticizes the United States for its “attempts to maintain digital hegemony under the guise of ‘digital freedom’” (美国以“数字自由”为名试图维持数字霸权地位) and the European Union for its influence on global standards, which he argues exacerbate “the fragmentation and imbalance in the global data governance landscape” (全球数据治理格局的分化与失衡进一步加剧) (People’s Daily, June 8).
Tan’s ambitions for the WDO are also clearly in line with CCP preferences. He writes that the organization will “help to further implement the [four] global governance initiatives” (有助于深入践行全球治理倡议) and “promote the development of the international order in a more just and equitable direction” (推动国际秩序朝着更加公正合理的方向发展), a common refrain that entails making the world safer for autocratic systems like the PRC’s (People’s Daily, June 8).
WDO Led by Senior United Front and Surveillance Tech Champions
Tan Tieniu is both an obvious and a disturbing choice to lead the WDO. An accomplished and internationally recognized scientist, Tan appears eminently capable of running such an organization. His longstanding involvement with the CCP’s united front system, and his extensive and groundbreaking research on surveillance technologies, however, are cause for alarm.
The most detailed account of his background appeared in a long profile published in CCP Members News in 2015. It charts his life’s story, from receiving a government scholarship to study at Imperial College London and taking up a tenured position at Reading University in the United Kingdom, to his rapid rise within the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS). He won multiple prestigious awards and accolades along the way, including being awarded the title of “National Outstanding Communist Party Member” (全国优秀共产党员) by the Central Committee on the Party’s 80th anniversary—one of only 50 recognized nationwide that time. The piece, although no doubt embellished for its propaganda value, conveys a strong sense of Tan’s support for the Party, which he joined in 1983, before he moved to the United Kingdom. Tan’s involvement with the united front system is extensive. His prior positions include
He was also a delegate to the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th Party Congresses. His stature has only risen since then (People’s Daily Online/CCP Member News, July 27, 2015). Before taking on his new role, he was the Party Secretary of Nanjing University (Nanjing University, accessed June 12). While this is all indicative of his stellar CCP credentials, his other activities are much more concerning.
In 2021, the Biden administration in the United States sanctioned Tan Tieniu. At the time, he was one of seven deputy directors of the Liaison Office of the Central People’s Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and so involved in the undermining of the Sino-British Joint Declaration (U.S. State Department, July 16, 2021).
Tan Tieniu’s research history suggests that he may have directly contributed to the state’s technological capabilities that have enabled an unprecedented apparatus of repressive social control. His published research has focused heavily on the ability of digital imaging to identify people via recognizing their gait or analyzing their irises and palmprints. He has received awards and grants for research that explicitly contributes to domestic security work. These include a grant for the years 2012–2016 to study “social perception data processing for public security” (面向公共安全的社会感知数据处理), third prize in the 2008 Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Progress Award for his work on “real-time intelligent video surveillance early warning system and application” (实时智能视频监控预警系统及应用), and second prize in the 2011 National Science and Technology Progress Award for his research into “video content understanding technology and applications for security surveillance” (面向安全监控的视频内容理解技术与应用) (Baidu/谭铁牛; Google Scholar/Tieniu Tan, accessed June 12).
Conclusion
The WDO, according to its vice president and secretary general (秘书长), former Party Secretary and Chairman of the China Mobile Communications Group Yang Jie (杨杰), wants to work closely with the International Telecommunication Union and the World Intellectual Property Organization to “jointly promote global data cooperation from rules discussions to standards alignment, application scenario implementation, and inclusive development” (共同推动全球数据合作从规则讨论走向标准衔接、场景落地和普惠发展) (Xinhua, March 30). If it succeeds in these ambitions, it will be a significant win for the Chinese Communist Party at the expense of the United States and its allies.
The WDO is yet to gain significant ground as a global institution, though it has already received a level of endorsement from the United Nations. The selection of a world-leading expert in human surveillance technologies, who is sanctioned by the U.S. government, and who views the organization as a vehicle to advance the CCP’s interests and explicitly to push back on the United States, however, suggests that the West has an interest in making sure it gains no further ground.
Notes
[1] The 14 industries are: industry, finance, healthcare, public services, e-commerce retail, transportation and logistics, energy, construction, internet, agriculture, education, media, automotive, and law. A webpage on Aiqicha (爱企查) claims that as of mid-May 2026, the organization had received “hundreds of membership applications worldwide, covering a total of 42 countries and regions, with corporate members accounting for over 76 percent” (已收到全球上百份会员申请，会员总数覆盖 42 个国家和地区，企业会员占比超过 76%) (Aiqicha, accessed June 12).
[2] Zhou Enlai was also the founder of CCP intelligence and deeply involved in overseas united front work. See: Mattis, Peter and Matthew Brazil, Chinese Communist Espionage: An Intelligence Primer (Naval Institute Press, 2019). Among his more horrific acts, in 1931 he directly ordered the massacre of the family of a former agent, which included a two-year-old child. See: Chen Jian, Zhou Enlai: A Life (Harvard University Press, 2024).
[3] There is an apparent separate Chinese website for the WDO (sjsjzz.com). This website, however, contains only a brief home page and looks suspiciously like it has been made by an AI model (WDO, accessed June 12).
The post U.S.-Sanctioned United Front Figure Leads World Data Organization appeared first on Jamestown.
Le 26 mars, le Parlement européen a rejeté à 311 voix contre 228 l'extension de la dérogation dite Chat Control 1.0 — vous savez, cette curieuse fiction juridique qui depuis 2021 autorisait Google, Meta, Microsoft et TikTok à scanner volontairement vos messages privés pour votre bien. La dérogation expire le 3 avril. Les principaux journaux européens parlent d'une victoire pour la vie privée. Les principaux journaux européens, mes chers libertariens, sont les hôteliers qui célèbrent le départ du client le matin et préparent la nouvelle chambre l'après-midi.
Le Courrier des StratègesRédaction
Cinq semaines plus tard, le 4 mai, le trilogue a repris sur Chat Control 2.0 — c'est-à-dire la version obligatoire du même dispositif. L'objectif des négociateurs est un accord à juillet 2026. La proposition prévoit que les plateformes de messagerie scannent systématiquement vos conversations pour détecter du matériel pédopornographique, y compris sur les services chiffrés de bout en bout. Imaginez la scène. L'ingénieur de la Commission tire son schéma, ajuste ses lunettes à monture noire, explique. Le chiffrement de bout en bout protège la communication entre les deux extrémités, fait observer le tableau Powerpoint. Nous proposons donc un scan à l'extrémité émettrice, avant chiffrement. C'est-à-dire, en français de Bruxelles, préserver le chiffrement en le contournant. C'est-à-dire, en flamand de Malines : miljaardedju.
Deviens ton propre souverain
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vous croyiez Magritte audacieux quand il peignait Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Vous n'aviez rien vu. La Commission peint Ceci est un chiffrement de bout en bout, et vous montre une porte ouverte. Vous croyiez Kafka tragique quand le procès commençait sans accusation. Vous n'aviez rien vu. Le procès, ici, commence avant le crime — le scan a lieu à toutes fins utiles sur la totalité des conversations, et l'on n'est suspect, comme à Malines au quinzième siècle, qu'à la condition d'être vivant.
Le plus beau, mes amis du Pays-des-Cartésiens, c'est la symétrie. Le banquier qui blanchit deux millions sur une plateforme chiffrée institutionnelle est protégé par le secret des affaires. Le diplomate qui ourdit une connivence sur sa messagerie professionnelle est protégé par le secret d'État. Le journaliste qui rédige une enquête sur sa messagerie professionnelle est protégé par le secret des sources. Seul l'adolescent qui envoie une blague stupide à son meilleur ami sur WhatsApp doit être vérifié à l'extrémité émettrice avant chiffrement. Au cœur du dispositif libéral européen, on ne protège que ceux qui ont quelque chose à protéger ; les autres sont dans la fourchette.
Une dernière question, mes chers libertariens, à méditer devant votre café froid : quand l'Union européenne aura achevé de scanner ce que vous écrivez, sur quelle base lirait-elle ce que vous pensez sans écrire ?
Réfléchissez. À Malines, on a déjà commencé à téléphoner moins.
Dans un système classique, une décision peut être contestée, expliquée, discutée avec un interlocuteur. Dans un système largement automatisé, la décision devient une conséquence technique. Elle s’applique, et c’est ensuite au citoyen de tenter de comprendre pourquoi elle s’est appliquée et à qui s’adresser.
Un piège de l’enfer technologique déshumanisé.
L’article Le crédit social n’existera jamais…officiellement est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Executive Summary:
In April, the State Council of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) issued two consecutive administrative regulations with immediate effect: Order No. 834, the Provisions on the Security of Industrial and Supply Chains (产业链供应链安全管理条例), and Order No. 835, the Regulations on Countering Improper Foreign Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (反外国不当域外管辖条例) (Xinhua, April 7; April 13). Two weeks later, the Office of the Working Mechanism for the Security Review of Foreign Investment of the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) prohibited Meta’s acquisition of Manus, a Chinese-origin artificial intelligence (AI) agent firm, ordering both parties to undo the transaction (NDRC, April 27). The decision arrived after Manus co-founders Xiao Hong (肖弘) and Ji Yichao (季逸超) had been summoned to Beijing in March and placed under exit bans, preventing their departure during the security review (Financial Times, March 24).
Regulatory measures of this nature, such as supply chain regulations, countersanctions instruments, and foreign investment reviews, may appear as a series of isolated incidents, but represent functionally aligned enforcement driven by a single guiding doctrine. Each domain of cross-border outflow has been reclassified as a national security matter, requiring an inter-ministerial review process that can lead to outflows being blocked under an expanding coercive toolkit. The Manus case is only one recent example of this doctrine in action, with a single transaction simultaneously activating controls on persons (exit bans on the founders), capital (the foreign investment security review), technology (the export-review framework applied to model architecture and engineering know-how), and information (the cross-border treatment of training data).
Outbound Mobility Controls Extend From Cadres to Private Citizens
Controlling outbound mobility is foundational to this doctrine. This hinges on ensuring that the persons who control a transaction or asset are inside PRC jurisdiction—even if the transaction or asset is otherwise outside it. The legal basis for this control is dispersed across the Exit and Entry Administration Law (出境入境管理法), the Criminal Procedure Law (刑事诉讼法), and counterespionage legislation, with substantial administrative discretion at each layer. Search results on the official China Judgments Online (中国裁判文书网) database for civil and criminal cases spanning 2016–2025 show that mentions of “exit ban” (限制出境) in verdicts grew rapidly over the latest ten-year period and largely doubled every year between 2021 and 2024. This reflects an expansion in the statutory base: by 2023, 14 laws authorized exit bans, including four enacted between 2018–2022 alone, such as the Supervision Law (监察法), which allows exit bans on individuals merely connected to an investigation (SPP, February 5, 2025; Safeguard Defenders, May 5). Orders No. 834 and 835 sit one tier below, as administrative regulations issued under that statutory authority but adding new operational triggers for exit bans in the supply-chain and countersanctions contexts.
Across the Party-state apparatus, a parallel and longer-standing regime governs civil servants, employees of public institutions (事业单位), and state-owned enterprise (SOE) managers. Its earliest visible form was the early-2010s “naked officials” (裸官) regime, which removed senior cadres whose spouses and children had emigrated abroad on the theory that overseas ties constituted both evidence of disloyalty and a vector of foreign coercion (China Brief, January 14). The instruments built on that doctrine have since been generalized down the rank hierarchy. A sample of internal documents from a national ministry, a provincial organization department, and a university reveal a standardized regime for private foreign travel (Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, December 4, 2015; National Public Complaints and Proposals Administration, April 1, 2016; Hubei Department of Justice, January 3, 2017). Registered personnel surrender passports, Hong Kong and Macao travel permits, and Taiwan travel permits to the personnel department for centralized custody (集中保管); approval is item-by-item (一事一报); itineraries cannot be altered without re-approval; and approval for in-service deputy bureau-level cadres or above is generally not granted absent special circumstances. The situation has tightened further as rank-and-file employees in some units must now sign confidentiality undertakings or provide in-house guarantors before personal travel (Voice of America, October 23, 2023).
The April 2026 regulations expand this doctrine. Article 16 of Order No. 834 and Article 17 of Order No. 835 each explicitly list exit bans among the permissible administrative measures against organizations and individuals—including foreign nationals—that fail to comply with supply chain security obligations or that resist countersanctions enforcement (Xinhua, April 7; April 13). Both routes operate without judicial process and a criminal predicate requirement, reflecting an extension of instruments once reserved for cadres and judicial defendants to the much broader population of foreign business personnel (Safeguard Defenders, May 5). The Manus exit bans, imposed under the Exit and Entry Administration Law during the NDRC’s foreign-investment security review, demonstrate the scope of its application: personal mobility controls extend to private-sector executives and foreigners alike.
Capital Outflow Channels Tighten on Multiple Fronts
In the last two years, the traditional outbound capital channel—the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) quota and approval system administered under the Foreign Exchange Administration Regulation (外汇管理条例)—has tightened asymmetrically, constraining private and individual outflows while leaving state-led channels open. As last amended in April 2024, the regulations cap individual foreign exchange purchases at $50,000 per person per year, require a declared purpose, and prohibit overseas real estate and equity investment, with violators subject to suspension of exchange rights (SAFE, April 30, 2024). For enterprises, outbound direct investment requires sequential NDRC, Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), and SAFE clearances before funds can be remitted; and investments in real estate, hotels, and entertainment are classified as restricted categories subject to discretionary refusal (State Council General Office, August 18, 2017). In 2024, soaring individual demand for offshore assets ran into Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) quota limits, with foreign asset managers rationing access as allocations fell short. [1]
By contrast, state-aligned outbound investment continues to flow on materially easier terms. Deals by central state-owned enterprises (央企), policy-bank-financed vehicles, and projects tied to the One Belt One Road (OBOR) initiative pass through a streamlined approval track. Encouraged-category projects in energy, resources, infrastructure, and advanced manufacturing receive NDRC and MOFCOM clearance on an expedited basis under the 2017 State Council guidance, while the restricted-category sectors that primarily attract private capital, namely real estate, hotels, entertainment, and sports clubs, remain subject to discretionary refusal (State Council General Office, August 18, 2017). The 2024 outbound flow figures reflect the resulting tilt toward state-aligned destinations: of the roughly $144 billion in non-financial outbound direct investment, just over a quarter went to OBOR counterparties alone, with investment in this corridor growing nearly 23 percent year-on-year, more than double the overall non-financial ODI growth rate of 10.5 percent (MOFCOM, September 8, 2025).
More consequential than the calibrated tightening of legal quotas is the closure of one of the principal informal routes that had absorbed unsanctioned outflows. Beijing has now fully prohibited the cryptocurrency leg of the underground-banking architecture, eliminating what was once a legal gray area through which large volumes of unsanctioned capital had moved. Previously, a Chinese resident looking to send money outside the PRC typically would transfer renminbi (RMB) domestically to an “underground banker” (地下钱庄) who would arrange, through cooperating offshore networks holding stablecoins or other digital assets, the corresponding payment in U.S. dollars or another foreign currency to a designated overseas account, thus circumventing the foreign-exchange quota (TRM Labs, February 12, 2024). A 2021 prohibition on cryptocurrency trading and mining got rid of domestic exchanges and miners but left the underground-banking and offshore-stablecoin architecture largely operational, as two recent U.S. government reports have separately documented in the case of cooperation with Mexican drug-trafficking organizations (SAFE, September 24, 2021; U.S. Department of State, March 2025; Government Accountability Office, December 2025).
In response, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC), together with seven other ministries and regulators including NDRC, MOFCOM, and SAFE, on February 6 issued the Notice on Further Preventing and Handling Risks Related to Virtual Currencies (关于进一步防范和处置虚拟货币相关风险的通知) (PBOC, February 6). The notice extends prohibitions in three directions. First, it prohibits the tokenization of real-world asset. Second, it bars any domestic or foreign entity—including overseas branches of domestic firms—from issuing offshore stablecoins pegged to the RMB without regulatory authorization. Third, it asserts extraterritorial application against foreign entities providing virtual currency-related services to PRC residents (Han Kun Law Offices, February 10; Beijing DHH Law Firm, March 20). Enforcement of the measure is helped by the centrally-controlled and fully traceable digital RMB, which started to bear interest on January 1 (People’s Daily, January 1). Sanctioned outbound channels remain regulated and quota-limited, while previous gray-zone channels have formally been prohibited, even if enforcement against underlying peer-to-peer flows remains a separate question.
Technology Export Licensing Expands Around Frontier Sectors
The Catalogue of Technologies Prohibited or Restricted from Export (禁止出口限制出口技术目录), maintained jointly by MOFCOM and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST), is the central instrument governing outbound technology flow under the 2020 Export Control Law (出口管制法) and the Regulations on the Administration of Import and Export of Technologies (技术进出口管理条例). Items on the prohibited list cannot leave the PRC under any circumstances; items on the restricted list require a Letter of Intent on Technology Export Licensing from MOFCOM affiliates at the provincial level before negotiations and a separate export license before transfer (National Database of Laws and Regulations, November 29, 2020).
The catalogue was last comprehensively revised in late 2023 (MOFCOM, December 21, 2023). The single new prohibited item was human cell cloning and gene-editing technology; the three new restricted items were crop heterosis utilization technology, bulk material loading and unloading transportation technology, and LiDAR systems above defined thresholds. A further set of modifications, concerning lithium-extraction and gallium-extraction technologies, was issued on July 15, 2025 (MOFCOM, July 15, 2025). Three months later, MOFCOM announced a separate and more consequential set of measures on rare earth-related items and technologies, asserting extraterritorial jurisdiction over PRC-origin rare earth content above a 0.1 percent value threshold (MOFCOM, October 9, 2025). Separately, on July 31, 2023, MOFCOM and the General Administration of Customs imposed export controls on selected unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) engines, payloads, and counter-UAV systems, including a two-year temporary control on certain consumer-grade UAVs (MOFCOM, July 31, 2023).
The catalogue alone is not the constraint on outbound technology flow. As the Manus case demonstrates, a complementary mechanism exists in which the foreign investment security review framework substitutes for any specific catalogue entry. The case nonetheless turned on the firm’s model architecture, training data, and engineering know-how having been developed inside the PRC and therefore treated as subject to PRC jurisdiction even after Butterfly Effect’s (北京蝴蝶效应科技) mid-2025 change of company domicile and relocation of approximately 40 core technical staff to Singapore (The Paper, December 30, 2025; Xinhua, January 8). [2] No catalogue entry on AI agent architectures was cited; instead, the security review considered the technology, data, and capital aspects of the case under the 2020 Measures for the Security Review of Foreign Investment. The case was the first publicly announced refusal by NDRC under that mechanism since its establishment in 2011 (Institute for National Defense and Security Research, April 30). Precedent matters because it establishes that the instruments of pre-approval, security review, and individual exit ban can be combined to retain a piece of technology even where, formally, no specific catalogue item has been triggered.
Cross-Border Information Channels Close at Both Ends
The state has recently tightened control over both ends of the cross-border information channel: the inbound flow of corporate and academic data to overseas users, and the outbound flow generated through foreign-firm operations and data-handling activities inside the PRC. Beginning in early 2023, the principal databases used by overseas analysts for due diligence on Chinese companies, the corporate registry aggregators Qichacha (企查查) and Tianyancha (天眼查), and the financial data platform Wind Information (万得), began restricting overseas access to filings, ownership structures, and litigation records, requiring mainland Chinese mobile numbers and IP addresses for verification (Bloomberg, May 3, 2023). In March 2023, the operator of the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the country’s largest academic database, suspended access for more than a dozen overseas universities and research institutions, citing compliance with the Cyberspace Administration of China’s (CAC) Measures on Data Cross-Border Transfer Assessment (数据出境安全评估办法) (CAC, July 7, 2022; Nikkei Asia, March 23, 2023). Overseas users were thereby detached from much of the routine corporate, financial, and academic information they had previously accessed from outside the country.
Enforcement has also reached the in-country generation of information by foreign firms. The 2023 amendment to the Counter-Espionage Law (反间谍法) substantially broadened the definition of espionage to include the acquisition of “documents, data, materials, and items concerning national security and interests” (关系国家安全和利益的文件、数据、资料、物品) (SPP, April 26, 2024). Under that umbrella, in 2023, state security and police authorities raided the Beijing office of the U.S. due diligence firm Mintz Group and detained Chinese employees, questioned staff at the Shanghai office of Bain & Company, and conducted multi-jurisdictional actions against the expert-network firm Capvision Partners (凯盛融英) (China Brief, October 20, 2023). The April 2026 supply-chain regulation places this enforcement pattern on a permanent administrative footing. Article 13 of Order No. 834 provides that any organization or individual who, in violation of PRC laws, administrative regulations, departmental rules, and relevant state provisions, “carries out, inside the territory of the PRC, investigations or other information-collection activities related to industrial and supply chains” (在我国境内开展与产业链供应链相关的调查等信息收集活动) shall be subject to handling measures by the relevant authorities. In practice, this captures the audits multinationals must conduct to satisfy the U.S. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) or the European Union Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD). Article 15 authorizes investigations into foreign organizations and individuals whose conduct causes substantial harm to PRC supply-chain security; based on the investigation, authorities may bar the foreign party from PRC-related trade and investment, prohibit Chinese counterparties from transacting with it, deny entry to its personnel, and revoke residence qualifications. Article 16 extends compulsion onshore, by making PRC entities that fail to comply with such measures potentially subject to data-export bans and exit bans (Xinhua, April 7).
The formal data-export regime is exemplified by the 2021 enforcement action against ride-hailing platform Didi Global. Two days after Didi listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) in late June that year, CAC announced a cybersecurity review and ordered the company to suspend new user registrations (CAC, July 2, 2021). One year later, CAC fined Didi $1.2 billion, citing illegal handling of personal information and “data-processing activities seriously affecting national security” (严重影响国家安全的数据处理活动), with the latter withheld from public disclosure on national-security grounds (CAC, July 21, 2022). Didi delisted from the NYSE in mid-2022. The architecture has since been formalized in CAC Order No. 11 of 2022 and CAC Order No. 16 of 2024 (CAC, July 7, 2022, March 22, 2024). Together with database restrictions and supply-chain regulation, this regime converts information itself into the fourth controlled factor, alongside persons, capital, and technology. As a result, what Chinese residents and PRC-domiciled data may convey to the outside world is now subject to discretionary state authorization.
Conclusion
The asymmetric closed-door strategy stands in stark contrast to traditional autarky. Rather than restricting all cross-border flows, the state has bifurcated its approach. The underlying core factors of production are now retained under a single security-driven framework. This diverges from older outbound instruments for tangible resources, such as the critical minerals export-licensing regime, which is calibrated to produce foreign dependence rather than domestic retention.
Under this model, the PRC remains active in pushing manufactured exports and non-sensitive services out of the country to keep earning foreign exchange and bind global supply chains to Chinese producers. At the same time, however, the factors that generate wealth and innovation, elites, highly mobile capital, future-defining frontier technology and intellectual property, and the granular information that reveals an industry’s hand, have without exception been labeled national-security assets. As such, they are subjected to mandatory retention, and required, in the regime’s own logic, to stay home. The downstream effect is a one-directional decoupling. Foreign firms, regulators, and investors retain exposure to PRC markets but lose the people, capital, technology, and granular information needed to assess that exposure accurately. Over time, this asymmetry will raise the cost of any policy response calibrated to conditions inside the PRC, from export controls and investment screening to forced-labor compliance audits, while leaving Beijing’s outbound commercial channels intact.
Notes
[1] Launched in 2006, the Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII, 合格境内机构投资者) scheme allows licensed PRC financial institutions—banks, securities firms and fund managers, insurers, and trusts—to convert onshore funds into foreign currency within an aggregate quota set by the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (SAFE) and invest the proceeds in approved offshore securities on behalf of domestic clients. SAFE has continued to issue new quotas in tranches, including just over $3 billion in June 2025 and a further $5.3 billion across 78 institutions in late March 2026, bringing the cumulative approved quota to more than $176 billion as of the end of April 2026. Pacing, however, remains discretionary and well below market demand, as reflected in persistent onshore premiums and recurring purchase caps on QDII-linked funds (STCN, January 15; SAFE, April 30).
[2] Butterfly Effect is the name of the company that developed Manus (Baidu, accessed May 11).
The post Beijing Entrenches Asymmetric Closed-Door Strategy appeared first on Jamestown.
rendre les contrôles techniques plus stricts garantit que les voitures d’occasion seront, à terme, toutes refoulées, obligeant les automobilistes à changer leur véhicule pour l’un de ceux qui – cela tombe bien – tiendra bien compte de toutes les nouvelles règles dont celles imposant une surveillance permanente et le verrouillage à distance.
L’article Quand l’État transforme votre voiture en prison sur roues est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Executive Summary:
Over the past few years, Beijing has ramped up its legal and regulatory framework to better engage in what it calls a “foreign-related legal struggle” (涉外法律斗争) (MOJ, April 7). To General Secretary Xi Jinping, strengthening rule by law in foreign affairs is “an urgent task for promoting high-level opening up and responding to external risks and challenges” (推进高水平对外开放、应对外部风险挑战的当务之急) (Xinhua, November 28, 2023).
The release of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee’s recommendations for the 15th Five-Year Plan has made this urgency more acute. U.S. export and trade policies have become more unpredictable and costly since President Trump’s return to the White House in early 2025; and as the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has become increasingly reliant on exports as a source of economic growth, more focus has been given to handling economic and other relations with the rest of the world.
The recent spate of regulatory activity suggests a third motivating factor for Beijing. As its own policy environment becomes more hostile for many private sector entities, particularly those with overseas operations and particularly those in critical sectors, it must move quickly to prevent—or at least disincentivize—them from leaving.
This danger is very real. In November 2025, the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China surveyed its membership on the PRC’s export control regime. The headline takeaway was that a third of companies impacted by the controls were looking to divert sourcing away from the PRC (European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, April 14). While Western companies have been considering derisking strategies for several years, some domestic firms are now attempting to decouple, moving their entire businesses beyond the reach of the PRC’s legal and political systems.
In 2025, reports suggested that Chinese authorities sought to prevent PRC nationals employed by electronics manufacturer Foxconn from leaving the country to help establish iPhone factories in India (Rest of World, January 10, 2025). More recently, authorities appear to have prevented the founders of Manus AI from leaving the PRC. Manus, an agentic artificial intelligence startup that made headlines when it was launched in 2025, was acquired by Meta soon after. The Ministry of Commerce has claimed that it is “unaware of the relevant situation” (商务部不了解相关情况), though it has not denied implementing exit bans on the company’s founders (Xinhua, April 2). These rumored actions are now backed by an expanding set of regulatory and legal instruments, making it more likely that they will be deployed in future to prevent the outflow or critical materials, technologies, intellectual property, and talent.
The broader context was set at the most authoritative level by the 20th Party Congress report, which called for “making efforts to enhance the resilience and security of industrial and supply chains” (着力提升产业链供应链韧性和安全水平). This shift was the result of assessments following the first Trump administration that the PRC’s coercive tools were not fit for purpose, and that Beijing needed an updated toolkit of control rules, sanctions, and investment restrictions that it could rely on to foster its centrality in global supply chains and support its own domestic innovation. This led to the buildout of an unreliable entity list, the creation of blocking rules to protect domestic firms from the extraterritorial application of other countries’ laws, the hastily enacted Anti-Foreign Sanctions Law, the Tariff Law, and a whole host of cybersecurity, merger, and export control rules, reviews, and regulations (The Washington Quarterly, April 8).
More recently, the 15th Five-Year Plan, which has raised the importance of expanding opening up compared to previous plans, called for “improving the export control system” (完善出口管制体系) and “strengthening security reviews … and improving monitoring, prevention, and control mechanisms” (加强境外投资安全审查 … 健全 … 监测、防控、处置机制) for outbound investments (Xinhua, March 13; China Brief, April 4).
The last few months have also seen a flurry of more targeted laws and regulations come into force. Explicit in all of these is the emphasis on safeguarding three things: the PRC’s national sovereignty, national security, and development interests (国家主权、安全、发展利益). Many of the instruments supplement other laws beyond those mentioned above, such as the 2015 National Security Law (国家安全法) and 2023 Foreign Relations Law (对外关系法).
On March 1, a revision to the PRC’s Foreign Trade Law (对外贸易法) came into effect. Among other things, the revision bolstered the country’s trade countermeasures. It established a “negative list system for cross-border service trade” (跨境服务贸易负面清单制度), “strengthened the bottom line of security and improved risk prevention and control” (筑牢安全底线，完善风险防控), and added “national security exceptions and trade retaliatory clauses” (国家安全例外和贸易反制条款), authorizing restrictive measures against foreign entities (Hunan Provincial Party Committee Office of Foreign Affairs, March 10).
On April 7, the State Council released the “Regulations on the Security of Industrial and Supply Chains” (关于产业链供应链安全的规定). These are designed to “ensure the security and controllability of core technologies, as well as related information systems and data” (企业、科研机构等应当完善风险防控体系，实现核心技术及相关信息系统、数据的安全可控). To this end, they establish information sharing and data security mechanisms and monitoring and early warning platforms, improve emergency management systems, and develop “physical and capacity reserves” (实物储备和能力储备) in critical sectors. They also empower the government to prohibit research into domestic supply chains, prohibit or restrict the import and export of goods and technologies, and permit investigations into entities suspected of wrongdoing. These investigations can involve “inspecting or copying relevant documents and materials” (查阅或者复制相关文件、资料) and can result in prohibiting or restricting import and export activities, investments, and ingress or egress of relevant personnel from the PRC, among other penalties. They can even target organizations and individuals that only “indirectly participate” (间接参与) in acts that the regulations prohibit (State Council, April 7).
A week later, the State Council followed by releasing the “Regulations on Countering Foreign Improper Extraterritorial Jurisdiction” (反外国不当域外管辖条例). In one sweeping clause, they empower the government to “exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over conduct having an appropriate nexus to China” (有权对与中国存在适当联系的行为实施域外管辖措施), though they leave undefined what counts as an “appropriate nexus.” For those who are judged to be implementing or assisting in implementing foreign improper extraterritorial jurisdiction measures, the regulations provide a number of “countermeasures and restrictive measures” (反制和限制措施). These include visa controls (refusals, revocations, and expulsions), cancellation of residence permits and qualifications, asset seizures, data transaction restrictions, and prohibitions on importing to, exporting from, or investing in the PRC. Key to the operation of these regulations is a new Malicious Entities List (恶意实体清单), that will publicize entities that violate the regulations (State Council Information Office, April 13). Expert commentaries on the regulations, published by the PRC Ministry of Justice (MOJ), frame them as a response to “the containment and suppression by the United States and the West” (美西方围堵遏制), and as aimed at maintaining the stability of the PRC’s external development environment (MOJ, April 7, [a], [b]).
Conclusion
The PRC has been beefing up its legal and regulatory capacity to control and shape both its own and foreign economic activity for several years. Beijing has accelerated these efforts over the last year—and especially in the last several weeks. Now that it has expanded its toolkit on paper, like Chekov’s gun, the toolkit will inevitably be deployed in due course, likely based on purely political incentives. In fact, this has already happened: In January, the PRC restricted the export of rare earth elements to Japan as a response to remarks made by the Japanese prime minister (PRC Ministry of Commerce, January 6). In the end, although Beijing frames its measures as intended to bring stability to the international economic system, these latest regulatory innovations are likely to have the opposite effect.
The post Expanding Tools Control Foreign-Related Economic Activity appeared first on Jamestown.
Le militantisme technocratique porté aujourd’hui par les ambassadeurs milliardaires de la tech s’inscrit donc dans une généalogie, plus longue qu’on ne pourrait l’envisager au premier abord, puisque le projet d’une gouvernance par des experts est en réalité bien antérieur au bond technologique que nous avons connu lors du siècle dernier. Du positivisme d’Auguste Comte à la cité utopique organisée rationnellement par les philosophes-rois de la République fantasmée de Platon, en passant par La Nouvelle Atlantide de Francis Bacon (1627) que cite souvent Peter Thiel, les utopies qu’on pourrait qualifier de scientistes ont revêtu bien des dénominations depuis l’Antiquité, et la remarquable persistance de ces idées à travers les siècles interroge
L’article Technocratie: l’aboutissement imminent d’un projet centenaire? est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Par-delà les crises successives des sociétés occidentales, on compte un mort au tapis : le réel, dont, réseaux sociaux et militarisation de l'information aidant, plus personne ne se soucie...
L’article Oh ! le triste destin du réel dans un Occident fragmenté est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
"L’attaque conjointe des États-Unis et d’Israël montre clairement que rien de ce que l’Iran aurait pu concéder n’aurait dissuadé les États-Unis de poursuivre leur objectif de longue date, qui consiste […]
The post De la négociation à l’explosion appeared first on Investig'action.
Executive Summary:
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer on September 22 to extend the limitations on the strategic nuclear forces set by the Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (New START) between the United States and Russian Federation appeared reasonable and meaningful (U.S. State Department, April 8, 2010; President of Russia, April 8, 2010, September 22). New START is due to expire on February 5, 2026, and even experts in Moscow who are loath to join the ranks of “patriotic” drum-beaters found Putin’s proposition timely and useful (Kommersant, October 7). The Kremlin, however, did not pursue follow-up actions. Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov sourly confirmed the failure of opening a dialogue on that traditional high-priority track, despite Russian media celebrating Putin’s offer and U.S. President Donald Trump saying that extending NEW START sounded like a good idea (TASS, October 5; Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn, December 8).
Putin’s offer has now all but disappeared. The only trace of it is in the leaked memo, known as the “28-point plan,” which was published in all Russian mainstream media (Kommersant, November 21). Russian experts pointed out a mistake in point 17, which confused New START with START I, stating, “The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.” Russian media concluded that the document was an “odd hybrid” of various drafts prepared by incompetent mediators (Rossiiskaya gazeta, November 21). It is unclear whether this point—or the reference to the long-expired treaty—will survive the presumed reduction of the peace plan to 20 points or its division into four separate packages (RBC, December 8). The absence of any mention of strategic arms control in the new U.S. National Security Strategy is clear. Russian commentators appeared to find this omission flabbergasting (Vedomosti, December 5; Kommersant, December 7). Following the document’s publication, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed disappointment at the lack of a U.S. vision for maintaining the balance of strategic forces (Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, December 8).
Nuclear deterrence has traditionally been central to Russian security thinking. The Russian National Security Strategy approved by Putin in July 2021 places great emphasis on maintaining strategic stability. It prescribes maintaining nuclear capabilities at a level sufficient for neutralizing growing threats, which it claims are caused by the U.S. dismantlement of the system of arms control (Russian Security Council, July 2, 2021). The new Russian Nuclear Doctrine, approved in November 2024, elaborates on this priority and defines conditions for a decision on the first use of nuclear weapons (President of Russia, November 19, 2024). The Kremlin’s preoccupation with nuclear matters came into focus when the Russian Security Council convened an emergency meeting on November 5 to deliberate an appropriate response to Trump’s presumed order to resume nuclear testing (see EDM, November 3; President of Russia, November 5). Russian Defense Minister Andrei Belousov omitted Russian violations of various agreements when he claimed that the United States would breach the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (1996) (Kommersant, November 5).
That misunderstanding about nuclear testing has been mostly cleared up. The problem of Russia seeking status as an equal nuclear power to the United States, however, remains. The Kremlin’s desire for a leading role on the world stage is underpinned by sustained efforts at modernizing its nuclear arsenal (Rossiiskaya gazeta, December 8). Much of the new U.S. National Security Strategy denies Russia the status of a major global power in the emerging multipolar world, not least due to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine (Nezavisimaya gazeta, December 7). From this perspective, Russia’s role is reduced, and it is uncertain where a possible end to the hostilities will leave Russia (Vzglyad, December 9).
Putin has sought to counter this challenge by simultaneously narrowing and widening the agenda of the ongoing peace talks (see Jamestown, November 26). The former is achieved by focusing peace negotiations on the demand to award Russia the unconquered part of Ukraine’s Donetsk oblast (Republic.ru, December 3). The latter is attempted by impressing upon Washington, D.C., the importance of discussions on strategic stability, primarily by announcing tests of new weapon systems, such as the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle, both nuclear-powered and capable of carrying nuclear warheads (Profile, November 11). The Kremlin has proposed a range of presumably lucrative joint projects, including constructing a tunnel connecting Alaska and Chukotka, to persuade the United States to look beyond what the Kremlin perceives as pesky details of territorial exchanges (Izvestiya, October 20).
Putin’s offer to stick to the limits set by New START was not as far-fetched as the Bering Sea tunnel, and it probably had a hidden agenda. Putin did not suggest an exchange of data or a resumption of verification procedures, which were affected by his February 2023 decree suspending Russia’s participation in New START (President of Russia, February 21, 2023; Forbes.ru, September 25). Moscow has no reason to suspect that U.S. nuclear arms will exceed the agreed-upon ceilings, but it probably seeks to hide the shrinking of its arsenal to well below the limits. The only part of the hugely expensive modernization program that is on track, with only slight delays, is the construction of Borei-class submarines. Putin inaugurated the eighth one (Knyaz’ Pozharsky, Князь Пожарский) in July, which joined the Northern Fleet without performing the mandatory launch of the Bulava missile (see EDM, May 30; President of Russia, July 24; Korabel.ru, August 3). Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces need to retire all of the old heavy intercontinental missiles (SS-18 and SS-19) and the lighter Topol (SS-25) as well, but the new Sarmat (SS-X-29) missile, which Putin announced as ready for deployment in March 2018, failed one test in September 2024 and exploded early in another one on November 28 (Meduza, September 25, 2024; Verstka.media, November 28). Russia’s Long-Range Aviation, which has performed hard combat missions since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, is currently in an even worse state. Poor maintenance has caused many incidents—including the crash of a Tu-22M3 bomber in the Irkutsk oblast last April—while a dozen planes were destroyed and many more seriously damaged in Ukraine’s Operation Spiderweb on June 1 (Meduza, April 2; The Moscow Times, June 6). Current production levels of the Tu-160 bombers at the Kazan plant reach only a couple of planes a year, while the PAK-DA project for the stealth bomber has been postponed indefinitely (Radio Svoboda, June 28; 1.ru, September 20).
The scarcity of data due to wartime Russian censorship obscures the true scale of these setbacks. Putin is keen to deny the degradation of Russia’s strategic arsenal by both engaging in nuclear posturing and demonstrating readiness to discuss issues pertaining to strategic stability. This performance is aimed not only at the United States and Europe, but also at the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC is building up its deterrence capabilities and presented many new weapon systems during its Victory Day parade on September 3, marking the end of World War II, which Putin attended (see China Brief, October 1; Top War, November 10). The PRC has so far refused to engage in any talks on limiting its nuclear arsenal. Moscow cannot embrace the PRC as a party to a treaty prohibiting the first use of nuclear weapons, but instead hopes that Beijing would approve its intention to preserve the framework of New START (RIAC, July 14).
Putin’s offer to extend New START reflects a deeper struggle to achieve recognition for Russia’s status as a global power and a peer competitor to the United States. The Kremlin cannot, nevertheless, develop any innovative framework to address the rapid progress in aeronautics, space, and information/artificial intelligence technologies, which are increasingly foreign to its defense-industrial base. These constraints make performative gestures an important tool for projecting strength and relevance as “European allies enjoy a significant hard power advantage over Russia by almost every measure, save nuclear weapons” (The White House, December 4). This reality may compel Putin to resort to nuclear brinksmanship even more often.
The post Arms Control Putin-Style Goes Nowhere appeared first on Jamestown.
La proposition controversée « Chat Control 2.0 » de la Commission européenne, qui vise à surveiller les communications numériques privées, suscite plusieurs préoccupations alors que les gouvernements européens s'apprêtent à se prononcer sur le projet de règlement. Présentée comme un moyen d'« atténuer les risques » et de « protéger les enfants », cette proposition révisée a suscité de nouvelles mises en garde de la part de défenseurs des droits numériques, comme le Dr Patrick Breyer, qui affirment qu'elle pourrait menacer la liberté numérique, porter atteinte à l'anonymat et ouvrir la voie à une surveillance de masse dans toute l'Union européenne (UE).
L’article Retour déguisé du projet UE de surveillance des messages privés après son rejet suite à l’indignation publique : le plan de surveillance de masse de l’UE est de retour ; rebaptisé et plus invasif qu’auparavant est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Interviewer: Nima from Dialogue Works
Professor Wolff describes the slavery of Europe. He states that the psychological insight is that the demonization of Russia is the displacement of the rage and anger against the United States. This cannot be expressed so it conflates or becomes conflated in the rage against Russia. The real oppression of Europe is now being carried out by Mr.Trump. Because of the relationship they (Europe) cannot say so. They cannot face it but in reality, they act out the slavery. They have to heap onto Russia all of the hostility that is felt from Trump, but cannot be discussed. It is projection and an evasion of the problem.
While we wait to see what the outcome is of Russia’s counter resolution at the UNSC on a plan for Gaza and the whole of Palestine, here is the US plan fleshed out.
https://russiaun.ru/en/news/comment_gaza_141125
From the Cradle
US planning Gaza ‘green zone’ under Israeli control
——
The Trump administration is reportedly planning a long-term division of Gaza into a “green zone” under Israeli and international military control and a “red zone” left in ruins, according to documents seen by The Guardian. Foreign troops would initially deploy alongside Israeli forces east of Gaza, divided by the current “yellow line.” Officials admit reunification is “aspirational,” raising doubts about Washington’s commitment to an enduring political settlement.
Plans for Gaza’s future have shifted rapidly: first promoting fenced “alternative safe communities” for Palestinians, then dropping the idea entirely. Humanitarian groups say they were not informed of the changes.
The evolving proposal centers on a so-called international stabilization force starting with a few hundred troops and potentially growing to 20,000, though many countries are unwilling to deploy forces to Gaza.
Reconstruction would begin only inside the “green zone,” with the US hoping improved conditions lure Palestinians across Israeli lines, a plan which echoes failed US strategies in Iraq and Afghanistan.
L’activiste et écrivain Cory Doctorow a parlé à Jacobin du déclin constant de l’internet « emmerdifié » et de ce que nous pouvons faire pour le sauver.
Source : Jacobin, Bartolomeo Sala, Cory Doctorow
Traduit par les lecteurs du site Les-Crises
Douglas Macgregor is a retired Colonel and former senior advisor to the U.S. Secretary of Defense. Col. Macgregor argues that the war against Ukraine and the pending war against Venezuela reveal a strategic vacuum and decline.
This week in 1970, Universal Pictures released "Colossus: The Forbin Project" to U.S. audiences. The film imagined what might happen if we let machines make warfighting decisions.
L’article Avant Skynet, il y avait Colossus est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Un exemple de plus de cette "gouvernance agile" où les lois ne régissent plus la société. Qu'on vote ou non un traité pandémie ne change rien au fait que toutes les manoeuvres liberticides sont déjà en place ou s'installent sous couvert de 'prévention' ou 'd'efficacité' grâce aux normes et aux algorithmes. La notion de "pré-crime" ou de "pré-maladie" physique ou mentale est au coeur de la pensée totalitaire. Faut-il rappeler les ghettos juifs créés "pour éviter les infections de typhus"? La technocratie avance inexorablement, que ce soit avec une rhétorique "de gauche" (les menaces liées à la santé ou au climat) ou avec une rhétorique "de droite" (lutter contre les criminels, les terroristes ou les ennemis de l'État).
L’article L’OMS et l’UE lisent toutes nos publications pour « prévenir les épidémies » est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Comment l'Europe met en place une surveillance de masse sous le prétexte de la
protection des enfants
L’article La machine qui voit tout est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Le 10 septembre 2025, lors du traditionnel « discours sur l’état de l’Union », la présidente de la Commission européenne, Ursula von der Leyen, a annoncé la création d’un Centre européen pour la résilience démocratique. A priori, celui-ci devrait être le bras opérationnel du bouclier européen de la démocratie, dont le but est de lutter contre la désinformation et les ingérences étrangères, au nom de la protection de la démocratie en Europe. Derrière ces dispositifs se cache en réalité une volonté de contrôle des médias et de l’opinion qui ne date pas d’hier.
L’article Le Centre européen pour la résilience démocratique: un nouvel outil totalitaire? est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Au contraire de l’avalanche de taxes que nos frétillants parlementaires entendent nous faire tomber dessus, on a assez peu entendu parler de quelques importantes modifications concernant le permis de conduire et le contrôle technique automobile.
C’est dommage, ces modifications sont tout sauf anodines.
Ainsi, le premier janvier prochain, le contrôle technique va se durcir : au-delà de l’inévitable renforcement des normes anti-pollution (qui ne sert assez concrètement à rien de nos jours), notons que ce contrôle va imposer aux centres de vérifier que le véhicule ne fait pas l’objet d’un rappel constructeur. Si c’est le cas, le véhicule sera bon pour une contre-visite.
En somme, on transforme le contrôle technique en officier de liaison du service après-vente.
Or, si l’on peut admettre intéressant d’utiliser ce contrôle pour assurer une certaine sécurité des véhicules sur le principe général, on comprend qu’il ne s’agit que d’un principe. En réalité, cette sécurité dépend surtout du conducteur (la première cause d’accident étant avant tout la vitesse inadaptée à la circulation), la bonne tenue du véhicule n’entrant que dans une part modeste des accidents en général. Du reste, c’est l’amélioration constante des véhicules et notamment leur sécurité passive et active qui a permis une vraie décroissance des accidents routiers et non les (forts modestes) améliorations environnementales – notamment les radars dont la présence n’a, en pratique, absolument pas modifié la trajectoire globale des statistiques routières.
Plus gênant, ce contrôle sera l’occasion de collecter des données (nom, adresse, téléphone, email et donc marque et modèle du véhicule), collecte qui va venir alimenter de nouvelles bases de données qui seront aussi bien protégées que d’habitude : il est toujours rassurant de savoir qu’on va pouvoir trouver une véritable liste de pièces pas encore détachées ou certains modèles spécifiques, avec le nom des propriétaires et leurs adresses, prête à l’emploi. Voilà qui va grandement simplifier le rapprochement entre les modèles les plus luxueux et leurs propriétaires pour un futur cambriolage voire un petit car-jacking artisanal comme notre douce France sait les développer actuellement. À défaut d’État fort, on prépare l’open-bar des appétits mal intentionnés.
Parallèlement, c’est le permis de conduire qui va subir dans les prochaines années la plus forte évolution : récemment adoptée au Parlement européen, la réforme de ce permis instaure des règles plus strictes pour le renouvellement des permis, des exigences accrues pour leur obtention et favorise évidemment la fuite le partage d’informations entre États, pour éviter que les auteurs d’infractions routières graves à l’étranger échappent aux sanctions.
Elle met surtout en place une durée de validité de 15 ans maximum pour les permis voitures et motos, qui peut être ramenée à 10 ans si ce permis sert de pièce d’identité. Enfin, la durée de validité pourra être réduite pour les conducteurs de plus de 65 ans : avec un raisonnement assez vaseux, l’idée est d’éviter que des personnes âgées aux réflexes émoussés ne puissent plus prendre leur voiture, et ce même si toutes les statistiques montrent que le principal des accidents ne provient pas de cette population.
On attend avec gourmandise l’application du même raisonnement sur les accidents domestiques comme les chutes d’escalier qui font, eux, des ravages chez les personnes âgées ; le « Permis de prendre les escaliers » a de beaux jours devant lui.
Cependant, comme pour le contrôle technique, on retrouve là encore les lubies de la collecte d’information (et de leur échange entre États membres) – qui ne fuiteront jamais, ne vous inquiétez pas – et surtout de « dématérialisation » : grâce à un permis totalement numérique, le législateur peut rapidement imposer que le moteur de la voiture vérifie effectivement que tout est en règle pour démarrer. Plus de permis ? Plus de démarrage de votre voiture.
On ne s’étonnera dès lors pas du tout de l’engouement des voitures d’occasion : plus simples à gérer, avec des frais réduits, une voiture un peu âgée garantit qu’elle n’aura pas d’ordinateur de bord capable de couper le sifflet au conducteur.
On le voit ici avec ces deux élémentsn&bsp;: nos élites auto-proclamées ont décidé de transformer la voiture, par trop émancipatrice, en véritable objet de luxe.
Tout est fait pour rendre consciencieusement ces engins extrêmement coûteux, aussi pénibles que possible à gérer au jour le jour – multiplication des alarmes pour faute d’attention, dépassement de vitesse limite, rappels constants, etc. – et dont les caractéristiques techniques sont progressivement rendues de moins en moins attirantes.
L’actuel massacre de la filière automobile en France et en Allemagne, qui aurait pu être le résultat malheureux de politiques débiles, prend alors tout son sens et impose de se demander s’il ne s’agit pas d’un dessein planifié de longue date : eh oui, cela ne sert à rien de produire des véhicules par millions alors qu’on cherche, assez visiblement, à limiter les déplacements des populations, contraindre les options des citoyens et surtout rendre l’objet même aussi dépassé que coûteux.
Ainsi, rendre les contrôles techniques plus stricts garantit que les voitures d’occasion seront, à terme, toutes refoulées, obligeant les automobilistes à changer leur véhicule pour l’un de ceux qui – cela tombe bien – tiendra bien compte de toutes les nouvelles règles dont celles imposant une surveillance permanente et le verrouillage à distance. La suite (la ville de 15 minutes dans laquelle votre véhicule ne pourra pas aller bien loin) est alors triviale une fois que tout le monde dispose de son petit pot de yaourt électrique intégralement piloté et surveillé par les autorités…
Petit bonus dans les crânes d’œuf parlementaires : pour ces derniers, cela devrait pousser les ventes de voitures neuves qui en ont bien besoin actuellement, sans comprendre que cela ne fait qu’ajouter un clou dans le cercueil de l’automobile européenne. Eh oui, remplacer une voiture d’occasion de 3000 € par une neuve à 25 000 € n’est pas à la portée de tout le monde.
Plus vraisemblablement, à mesure que l’élite folle tente, sous l’indépassable couvert de sécurité, de rogner toutes les libertés les plus élémentaires des citoyens, ces derniers vont s’organiser pour rouler sans contrôle ni permis. Il est donc d’ores et déjà garanti que l’objectif de contrôle et de sécurité sera complètement raté.
1BuyJKZLeEG5YkpbGn4QhtNTxhUqtpEGKf
Vous aussi, foutez les banquiers centraux dehors, terrorisez l’État et les banques en utilisant les cryptomonnaies, en les promouvant et pourquoi pas, en faisant un don avec !
BTC : 1BuyJKZLeEG5YkpbGn4QhtNTxhUqtpEGKf
BCH : qqefdljudc7c02jhs87f29yymerxpu0zfupuufgvz6
ETH : 0x8e2827A89419Dbdcc88286f64FED21C3B3dEEcd8
Rare Earth Export Controls, Port Fees on Chinese vessels, Tariffs, Grabbing Nexperia – summary
We have to note that none of this comes out of the blue. China has faced only unwillingness from U.S. trade negotiators and a series of what we can only call unfriendly actions, designed to coerce. The time is over. What is happening here is a slew of actions by China that confirms what I’ve intuited since the beginning of the tariff onslaught. If it gets too difficult to trade, there will not be trade. At this time China seems to be at that point. They don’t care any longer about trade with the U.S.
The Chinese MOFCOM spokesperson remarked:
Rare Earth Export Controls: Directly aimed at military activity and weapons manufacturing, to better defend world peace and regional stability.
These export controls are directly aimed at weapons manufacturing and are intended to reduce military conflicts and support non-proliferation.
They are not export bans. Licenses for eligible applications will be granted.
China announced these controls before implementing them.
These export controls will support the security and stability of global industrial and supply chains-
China’s national security is mentioned and this is easy to see. They won’t sell products to those that manufacture weapons intended to threaten China.
Port Fees on Chinese Vessels: This is a confusing conglomeration of payment for tonnage on Chinese-built vessels, partially Chinese-built vessels, and generally a game of confusion.
MOFCOM states:
Particularly since the China-U.S. economic and trade talks in Madrid in September, the U.S., in just 20 days, has introduced a string of new restrictive measures targeting China. It has put multiple Chinese entities on the Entity List and Special Designated National List; arbitrarily expanded the scope of control over businesses with the Affiliates Rule that affects thousands of Chinese companies; and persisted with the implementation of Section 301 measures targeting China’s maritime, logistics and shipbuilding industries in disregard of China’s concerns and goodwill. The U.S. actions have severely harmed China’s interests and undermined the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks, and China is resolutely opposed to them.
The Spokesperson notes that the U.S. has shown a negative attitude and willfully persists in implementing those measures, issuing a notice on October 3 setting out the specific requirements for imposing fees on Chinese vessels.
In response to U.S. actions, China took countermeasures and decided to charge special port fees on U.S.-linked vessels. China describes these countermeasures as necessary acts of passive defense.
Tariffs: Willful threats of high tariffs are not the right way to get along with China. … If the U.S. insists on going the wrong way, China will surely take resolute measures to protect its legitimate rights and interests.
The MOFCOM Statement: http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/News/SpokesmansRemarks/art/2025/art_c202dcc0433d476db52b1e7f7fe53926.html
Dutch Grab of Nexperia: The Dutch government said on Sunday that it has made a “highly exceptional” decision to intervene in Nexperia, a subsidiary of Chinese company Wingtech, citing concerns that it could “pose a risk to Dutch and European economic security.” On September 30, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs issued an administrative order restricting the business decisions of Nexperia and its affiliated entities, effectively depriving Chinese shareholders of their standard control. Wingtech subsequently issued a statement, expressing a strong protest against such discriminatory treatment targeting Chinese-funded enterprises. It is evident to anyone with clear judgment that the Dutch government is seriously harassing a chip company controlled by Chinese enterprises under the pretext of a fabricated “national security” concern.
In the early stages of capitalism, some countries relied on violence and colonial plunder to accumulate primitive capital, even fostering within their own cultures the misguided historical notion that “plunder brings wealth.” In today’s geopolitical context, the Dutch government, under the pretext of “supply chain security,” has imposed excessive interference on Chinese enterprises and then cloaked its asset seizure under a façade of legality – a seamless sequence of actions that inevitably evokes memories of certain dark chapters in this country’s history. It is no wonder that some have wryly observed that
a few Western countries now treat “national security” as a privateering license, a reflection of “colonial genes” awakening in the 21st century.
Global Times editorial: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202510/1345566.shtml
It is clear from trade numbers that China’s trade is increasing with the rest of the world, while trade with the US is decreasing. Professor Wolff aptly describes the situation, stating that the trade environment in the US does not encourage trade but rather discourages it.
The decrease is not only in trade numbers.
US treasuries held by China are reducing.
De-dollarization is increasing.
So it is a 3 front wall of pressure, epitomized by footage of U.S. soldiers standing in food distribution lines.
China has chosen an optimum moment to rebalance power.
The tweets and twitters are interesting. One person says .. Do Your Chrismas Shopping Now, and here is another illustrating the real effect on U.S. Business.
For those of you who think this tradewar is not serious…. pic.twitter.com/Bz0mhnCw5i
— The key to success is documentation. (@VietVantage) October 13, 2025
I must hold to my point that if trade is made too complicated, it will not happen. As Russia is fighting NATO, China has entered the arena with a view to an economic decapitation strike to put the U.S and the collective West in the place of normal countries without exorbitant privilege. China clearly feels strong enough now, as evidenced by its actions at the WTO, where, for trade advantages, they are no longer insisting that it is a developing country.
Even trade numbers and reported statistics are difficult these days, as the effect of de-dollarization is not easy to measure. How do the IMF and World Bank count that which is not there? Even Africa has now floated its own ratings organization, and Russia and India are doing their business in Yuan. It is not only ‘that which is not there’, it is also new business being done, and the values are not flowing through the usual channels for statistical reporting. For myself, I am watching trends and not specifically numbers. The change in the world is growing massive, and one of those trends is that China is creating its own certification system for commercial aircraft, for example. This period is truly historical, with comprador countries lacking agency, madly spinning between the new large poles being formed. One example is that we are seeing more and more media that Turkey is wavering between west and mulitpolarity.
There are some numbers which on the face of it and standing alone, tells the story. In September alone, China’s exports grew by 8.3%, the fastest pace in months.
Shipments to the US fell by 27%. Exports to the EU rose more than 14%, exports to ASEAN nations were up by almost 16%, and exports to Africa rose by 56%.
Direct shipments to the US now make up barely 10% of China’s total exports. The US is learning a harsh, obvious truth that it should have learned a long time ago. The world is bigger than the United States, and the United States is no longer essential.
Hold onto your hats!
Current events in America gallop towards the dark.
with appreciation to Dr. Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.
Most Gym readers are familiar with Orwell’s 1984 and how he envisioned the role of technology in controlling the masses. Much of what he described is now reality, although some are unaware that your “smart” TV is capable of watching you. We have security cams placed with high densities inside cities, and almost every store starting with banks has a video surveillance system. Facial recognition is now a norm. Cellular phones have tracking devices within them so you can be targeted and bombed. Computer chips have backdoors allowing the so-called security agencies to discover what you’re doing. The GPS system in your car can also be a tracking beacon. I recall what the Supreme Court ruled years ago on the issue of privacy—you essentially have none. Highly tuned “ears” can hear what you say to your partner as you take a walk in the woods. Walls can now be seen and heard through. The eye way up in space can read the license plate on your car. The resolution’s so good that your lips can be read as you talk. With the age of the semiconductor and microchip, Big Brother arrived in ways only imagined by Sci-Fi authors and Mr. Orwell.
All this has become very important because it’s now being made into a threat to what freedom Americans have remaining. It’s not just ICE. It’s the fact that an enemy needed to be invented for ICE to be deployed—the dreaded immigrant, or what the Scorpions called The Alien Nation. Once upon a time it was Communists and Socialists, Labor Union organizers, and the workers themselves, all of which remain to be resurrected when needed. But the main instigator is the intrusion of Zionist control of the federal government and its need to control American public opinion. And here I defer to the awesome work done by the team at The Grayzone—Max Blumenthal and his comrades. What began as an investigation into the clear political assassination of Charlie Kirk has become an investigation into the deep subversive activities of Zionist-American Billionaires aimed at controlling—distorting if you will—American public opinion of Zionism and Occupied Palestine: The state committing Genocide with the active complicity of the US Government beginning with Biden and continuing with Trump that in reality began in 1948 with the first Nakba. The presentation of evidence by Mr. Blumenthal to Judge Napolitano during this 40-minute chat is an absolute must see if you want to know how your freedom and children’s future are threatened. I highly suggest watching it before continuing to read this article.
Now that you’ve seen and understood the insidiousness of what’s planned and grasped the fact that it will be close to impossible to halt, I suggest you stop and take the time to notify your close circle of what you’ve learned and where they can also learn what you now know. This isn’t about immigrants anymore; this is about the ability of Americans to be free from undo influence, to not be propagandized, to be left alone, and certainly not to be goaded into doing something that’s actually very un-Christian. They are trying to get commonfolk to support Genocide; to somehow see benevolence in Zionist actions. They’re going to track you via your phone so they can further harass you with propaganda, and who knows what else they’ll do to you. Look at what they did to innocent Lebanese with their pager and cellphone terrorist devices. And they laughed and applauded. Occupied Palestine is a land populated by a people lacking morals of any sort.
There are other presentations of evidence by other people that have examined the ways and means of the Head Genocidal Zionist Netanyahu. One of them is the retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who revealed a great deal in his chat today with Nima of Dialog Works that complements what Blumenthal revealed. Previous revelations by others have detailed the extent of Big Brother infiltration into American lives and those of the entire planet. Much was provided by Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Indeed, Wikileaks still provides a great deal of information the US government would rather you not know. Reading Snowden’s Saga is highly educational. Now the big issue is AI, which the Zionists employ in their Genocide and assassination programs. Recent US Supreme Court rulings have okayed racial profiling despite the fact that there’s only one Human Race. Given what the Outlaws are doing and getting away with, the Constitution is now what George W. Bush called it: Just A God Damned Piece of Paper. The Enemy Nation must constantly be reinvented. Trump now calls everyone who disagrees with him a terrorist, including members of Congress and judges.
What can citizens do now that they know they’re being targeted? The only real way to defend ourselves is to form community groups based on the neighborhood watch format while making it clear what the aim of the group is—to protect our Civil and Legal Rights from a federal government gone rogue. And it must be made clear that the D Party is just as complicit in this behavior as the R Party since both are controlled by AIPAC and Zionist Billionaire monies—Team Biden supported the Genocide just as much if not more than Team Trump. I’m not advocating going around with firearms. Just being in solidarity with your neighbors and community is enough, while also informing local government what you’re all about. Adopting a name like Citizen Civil & Legal Rights Brigade says what you’re all about to whoever you meet. Read the Second Amendment—being well armed begins with being well informed. Know that the military and almost all government officials at every level of federalism swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Implore those people to obey their oath, local police especially since they’re the ones your Brigade will come into contact with. I did, and I consider what I’m doing part of my neverending duty. One of our oddities here in America is that Naturalized Citizens must also take that oath but not native-born citizens. The Declaration of Independence says the duty of the citizen when confronted by Tyranny is to rebel to secure what were seen as Natural Rights.
IMO, it’s imperative you watch the talk between Max Blumenthal and Judge Napolitano and share the link with everyone you know. The only way to beat the foes we face is to act collectively, and that means everyone as every conceivable group is being targeted except Zionists and Billionaires.
De ChatControl au déménagement de Protonmail: de nouvelles atteintes à la sphère privée qui réaffirment la nécessité d'apprivoiser l'open source
L’article Nouvel acte de la guerre contre la cryptographie est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Exploring the dystopian technofeudalism at heart of the western A.I. race
The unnamed book EMPIRE OF AI is mine, based on 300+ interviews, 7 yrs covering AI, & my time as the first reporter who got extensive access to OpenAI. I sought OpenAI’s perspective throughout. For months they said it was coming. It never did. Pre-order: https://t.co/i5rNJ45fNo. https://t.co/Drr8Gzv7vW pic.twitter.com/0aJpF9P26U
— Karen Hao (@_KarenHao) April 4, 2025
The A.I. Religious Cult: “Just like empires of the past were competing against one another, so are these tech giants. There was this aggressive race of we, the French Empire, are better than the British Empire. We, the British Empire, are better than the Dutch Empire.
And we need to continue to relentlessly race and be number one because we’re the ones that have the right civilizing mission to bring modernity and progress to all of humanity.
And where their missions might have once been about scientific exploration and transparency, they are now about profit, which has resulted in a landscape where they are just scaling at all costs.”
this is about controlling “the civilizational transformation” of the “one global village.” “Our collective attention is their Manifest Destiny.” From Maggie’s “there is no society” to now, “Culture is just what is Next on your phone — and that is A.I.”
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
What part will your country play in World War III?
By Larry Romanoff at Blue Moon of Shanghai.
The true origins of the two World Wars have been deleted from all our history books and replaced with mythology. Neither War was started (or desired) by Germany, but both at the instigation of a group of European Zionist Jews with the stated intent of the total destruction of Germany. The documentation is overwhelming and the evidence undeniable. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
That history is being repeated today in a mass grooming of the Western world’s people (especially Americans) in preparation for World War III – which I believe is now imminent. It is evident that War Clouds are gathering. The signs are everywhere, with media coverage and open talk of war in many countries. The RAND Corporation have for years been preparing military scenarios for World War III, and NATO is reported to be currently doing so. Vast movements of NATO troops and equipment are either in preparation or process to surround Russia. The US is surrounding China with military bases including the world’s largest in Guam. Both China and Russia are surrounded with nearly 400 US biological weapons labs. Iran is entirely vulnerable from the American military build-up in the Middle East.
Through their control of the mass media, the Jews’ Anger Campaign against China (12) (see note 13) is unrelenting, and successful, for at least the past two years filling the pages and airwaves with false atrocity tales against China, barrages of these lies occurring almost daily. These follow the same template used by the same people against Germany to stoke hatred and prepare the populations for World Wars I and II. It is the same – and based on the same kinds of lies – as those used to prepare for the invasions of Iraq, Libya and Syria. These people are utilising every manner of provocation against China, including increasingly outrageous and reckless military challenges in the South China Sea and near Taiwan. The entire world is being taught to hate China, Russia, and Iran. Attempts to convert India to China’s enemy are becoming increasingly desperate.
World War III will consist of the combined forces of the US, NATO and Israel (who considers itself a world military power) provoking a conflict aimed at the final destruction of China, Russia, and Iran, the three countries that must be destroyed to satisfy the dream of building Satan’s Third Temple in Jerusalem and initiating our New World Order. That is the plan. Your belief in it is not material to its execution.
We cannot count on anything from the Americans because they are too stupid; arrogantly and blindly willing to function as the Bankers’ Private Army one more time, having sworn fealty to the same persons who hold ultimate control of both the CIA and Mossad. England served that purpose for a century or more, but was readily sacrificed when the bankers transferred their flag to the US. A World War will leave the US physically and financially in ruins, much as the first two wars destroyed the British Empire and left England bankrupt. These people are ruthless beyond measure; to get what they want, they will fight to the last American. But as Benjamin Netanyahu famously said, “Once we squeeze everything we want from the US, it can dry up and blow away.” And it will. But no matter because the Bankers are already transferring their flag to NATO – a supra-national military that reports to no one and that will be our official oppressor in our Brave New World. And we cannot count on the masses of Western people because they are simply pawns in these geo-political contests, few understanding the tragic pit into which they so willingly leap.
The British Royal Family is 100% onside. If you doubt this, ask Queen Elizabeth for a public statement that England will refuse any part in another world war. She will ignore you, as would Boris Johnson and the UK’s parliamentary cabal, since they are in the forefront of the plans. Ask Canada’s cowardly Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to resolutely state that Canada will refuse to follow the Americans into another world war. He will refuse. We cannot count on Germany; that country today is an American/Jewish colony lacking a will of its own. Much of Eastern Europe, like Australia, has been twisted and turned, stupidly believing they will be held harmless by the power of NATO when in reality they will be among the first sacrificial lambs in this Third War. Italy, France, and Spain will almost certainly be bullied into participation; the remainder of Europe is largely irrelevant. Japan, also being an American/Jewish colony with no will of its own, plus being a major US military-operations base, will have no choice but to sacrifice itself.
There is no way to avoid the conclusion that history is indeed repeating itself, demonising yet another nation, deliberately engendering sufficient hatred and anger to justify another world war. Even confirmed Western ideologues will admit that what I have written here is true. What will be the position of your country’s government when the charge for the war cannon is finally ignited? Are you able to explain why you believe a Third World War is a good idea? If you are a European, haven’t you seen enough of war? If you are an American, hasn’t your government already killed enough innocent people? If you are a Jew, why don’t you speak out against this cabal of 300 or 400 before it’s too late?
Given the source of the push for a Third World War and the planned destruction of China, one is left to consider what, if anything, can be done to prevent a third worldwide holocaust. Even knowing the sources, it is hardly practical to declare war on at most a few thousand individuals scattered among perhaps ten nations.
I know of only one way to prevent the World War Three that is now imminent: make Israel pay for it. If in the final position of authority of one of the targeted nations, I would call in the Israeli ambassador and inform him that if my nation were forced into a war with the US, I would of course respond. However, my first retaliation would be not against the US but against Israel, that I would apply a necessary portion of my arsenal to ensure that Israel would remain uninhabitable for 500 years and that Satan’s Third Temple would never be built. It is my thesis that Israel is too important to these people to be sacrificed, and that faced with such a threat deemed credible, they would back off. With everything I know, I do not believe a third world war can be otherwise prevented.
I will of course be accused of anti-Semitism, but this is not about me; it is about a small handful of Jewish European bankers and industrialists who want a third world war to destroy the old order before the new can be installed. These people must be named and their objectives exposed. In any case, in a judicial debate of offending a few hundred people or starting a third world war, which is the greater crime?
Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 34 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chap. 2 — Dealing with Demons).
His full archive can be seen at https://www.bluemoonofshanghai.com/ + https://www.moonofshanghai.com/
He can be contacted at: 2186604556@qq.com
NOTES
(1) https://hofs.online/david-irving-churchills-war/
(2) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/01/13/germanys-war-chapter-4-the-allied-conspiracy-to-instigate-prolong-wwii/
(3) https://thegreateststorynevertold.tv/the-war-criminal-churchill/
(4) https://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/schul05.htm
(5) “Germany is getting too strong. We’ve got to smash her.” – Winston Churchill speaking during a private lunch in 1936. Reminiscenses in 1961 of General Robert E. Wood. World War II. By Carl J. Schneider, Dorothy Schneider. Page 15.
Free Downlod of this book: https://pt1lib.org/book/728795/c85219?id=728795&secret=c85219
(6) “We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not.” – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast). “This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany.” – Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)
https://www.coursehero.com/file/p1da79e/Following-the-Treaty-of-Versailles-Germany-was-ordered-to-pay-the-war-costs-of/
(7) “You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler of a Jesuit priest.” – Winston Churchill [1940]; Emrys Hughes, Winston Churchill, His Career in War and Peace p. 45); This book was published in Great Britain in 1950 under the title “Winston Churchill in war and peace.” The American version titled “Winston Churchill: British bulldog” https://www.amazon.com/Winston-Churchill-British-bulldog-career/dp/B0006ATSO8
(8) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/jewish-responsibility-for-both-world.html
(9) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/zionism-hidden-tiranny-by-benjamin-h.html
(10) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/the-jewish-declaration-of-war-on.html
(11) https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/10/the-jewish-betrayal-of-germany-and.html
(12) The Anger Campaign against China; https://www.moonofshanghai.com/2020/08/blog-post_49.html
(13) The International Jews have some reason to resent China, which was to be dismembered and turned into a perpetual cash cow, a plan frustrated by Mao and his revolution. It was not “the British” but the International Jewish banking families, the Rothschilds, Sassoons, Kadoories, Hardoons and others that were entirely responsible for China’s 150 years-long opium travesty. Immediately after World War Two, one of Mao’s first acts was to expel all the Jews from China and confiscate all their opium assets – including all of the city of Shanghai and the Mainland Branches of the HSBC. They haven’t forgotten, and they want their money back.
There are auspicious signs on the other side of dystopia. And right here in Russia.
By Pepe Escobar at the Strategic Culture Foundation.
The Global Digital Forum last week in delightful Nizhny Novgorod represented a landmark in the quest for a more equitable media landscape across the whole Global South.
Pride of place was taken by a new ambitious association, the Global Fact-Checking Network (GFCN). The last session of the forum was focused essentially on how to fight all the toxic declinations imposed by the post-truth anti-cultural ambiance – as in fact-checking an avalanche of fake news coming in most cases from states and official institutions.
Guest of honor was superstar Russian Foreign Minister spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, relaxed, in great spirits, who went full Deng Xiaoping by urging everyone to “fight for the truth and seek out the facts”.
By a twist of fate, the timeline left me with only two minutes to somehow wrap up our quite enlightening discussion. So I went hardcore and quoted Nietzsche: “There are no facts, only interpretations”. Later on, I was surprised at how that had struck a nerve especially among African delegates.
The key point is that in the artificially fabricated post-truth environment, not only facts are only facts if we say so; most of all, only one interpretation is allowed – be it from the Empire of Chaos, whoever may be in power, or from a Kafkaesque mechanism such as the European Union (EU)/European Commission (EC).
If you deviate from the official interpretation, they will come after you. That has led, for instance, in Europe, to journalists/EU citizens being prevented even from traveling to their own nation-states, and having their accounts frozen, or EU citizens being prevented from covering a supposedly democratic election (in Romania), and immediately deported (outside of the EU).
A startling essay on Nietzsche amplifies the diagnostic of Europe’s current cultural suicide. Nietzsche was an “untimely” outsider, a steppenwolf, pledging allegiance to no one and nothing, silently grappling with “the flat exhaustion of bourgeois modernity”, and searching, in vain, for “silhouettes among shadows”.
Nietzsche, in the late 19th century, was already a symbol of Resistance. Resistance as we see it today – from the Axis of Resistance in West Asia to Orthodox Christian military batallions fighting for the freedom of Novorossiya. No ceremony ever greeted Nitzsche: he was always alone. He shattered illusion after illusion as his solitude “became liturgy” and “his body turned into protest.” He impersonated “the ghost of nobility”. A species in extinction – indeed.
Tech visionaries want it all
That crystal clear Nietzsche intuition – arguably the best definition of truth in the history of philosophy – may be our guide in the labyrinth of post-truth where, to quote post-modernist masterpiece Twin Peaks, “the owls are not what they seem”.
Errol Musk, Elon’s father, showed up early this week in Moscow for the Future 2050 forum. Daddy Musk effusively showered praise on Russia as Ancient Rome 2.0 and Moscow itself as the “capital of the world”. Quite on point – in both cases.
But what really matters is why Daddy Musk is in Russia. That may align with a strategy of luring powerful sectors of Silicon Valley into doing business with Russia. Main actors/participants would be tech visionaries which used to be part of the notorious PayPal Mafia: Elon Musk and Peter Thiel.
That may pose a series of serious problems. Martin Armstrong has been instrumental in portraying this band of tech visionaries as a ubiquitous new oligarchy: active in social media, biotech, space, the surveillance industry, engineering policies and influencing monetary systems with their hardcore brand of venture capitalism, and not to mention shaping worldwide-interfering narratives.
The new tech elite shines brightly via the Trump-Musk love affair turned staged catfight. But its tentacles reach much further. J.D. Vance is Peter Thiel’s perfectly positioned candidate to become the next POTUS. Palantir, controlled by Thiel and totalitarian Alex Karp, have been awarded a massive contract to design a U.S. federally centralized database using very sophisticated AI models.
Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill is heavy on AI – including a 10-year moratorium during which any U.S. state and local government cannot regulate AI. This will allow free reign for deepfakes and Big Tech doing whatever they feel like to manipulate unsuspecting consumers.
So that’s the key question. How to fact-check the tech elite? How to counterpunch multiple instances of techno-feudalism – when tech companies feed intel to governments, commit unlimited funds to political operations, and set up censorship platforms disguised as “democracy”, drenched in AI-generated fake news?
Go East, to Siberia, young man
At least there are auspicious signs on the other side of dystopia. And right here in Russia. This is a mesmerizing interview by Nora Hoppe and Tariq Marzbaan with legendary Prof. Sergey Karaganov, Honorary Chairman of the Council for Foreign and Defence Policy (Russia’s leading public foreign policy organisation) and academic supervisor at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow.
Welcome to a magic carpet ride through the really deep origins of Russia’s heritage. Starting with the Scythians: “Now we are rediscovering within ourselves these roots that unites us with the peoples of Eurasia.”
All the way to Byzantium: “The Russian princes, who baptized Russia, chose Byzantium ― at that time the richest, the most developed and intellectually flourishing country in Central Eurasia, much more developed than Europe was (…) The Russian princes’ astute choice of Byzantium largely predetermined Russian culture, Russian architecture, and, of course, Russian religion, that is, our Orthodoxy.”
And then reaching Pax Mongolica: “The Mongol Empire left a deep mark on Russian history also, because it was multicultural and very tolerant religiously, and this is where I think (although there is no complete agreement amongst historians on this matter) the Russians ― the dominant people in the former Russian Empire and the USSR ― inherited their unique cultural, religious, and national openness.”
Karaganov forcefully proposes that everything positive about Pax Mongolica should be re-examined to “substantiate the unity of Eurasia.” And “we must rely just as much on the heritage of the Scythians, who were the forefathers of so many peoples in Greater Central Eurasia.”
This is the essence of a true multipolar Russia in action – leading to the fascinating concept of “Siberianization”: a “spiritual, cultural, political, and economic development of Russia in the eastern direction to the Urals and Siberia. The western direction of our policy and economic ties has bleak prospects.”
Karaganov, whose analyses are deeply appreciated by President Putin, is adamant: it all amounts to a “civilizational struggle against techno-barbarism and techno-paganism”, and “against dehumanization”. Against, essentially, techno-feudalism.
“The Trump Method”: Towards the Idea of a Nuclear Consortium on Iranian Territory
[Ed Note Reminder: The strategy of empire, up to now, the denial of world development through chaos creation, is unravelling. Nevertheless, imperialist aspirations still endure. The pattern has changed toward attempts to use dwindling economic rights as a wedge for military insertion to expand the hegemonic stake.]
There are rumors that Mr Putin will be visiting Iran in the near future. Overall we can count on rapid change, even more rapid than current. Next month is the BRICS summit and India is the target here. The US administration is targeting India openly and volubly telling them to leave BRICS and buy weapons from the US. Then after that the most important will be the SCO summit. “Change not seen in a 100 years” and accelerating.
From the Russtrat Institute
Tehran is ready to make a nuclear deal with Washington based on the idea of a regional uranium enrichment consortium if it is located on Iranian territory, Axios reports, citing a senior Iranian official.
The publication notes that such a consortium is a key element of the proposal that White House spokesman Steve Witkoff conveyed to Tehran. This, Axios emphasizes, is an attempt to reconcile Trump’s position that Iran should not be allowed to enrich uranium with Tehran’s insistence that it continue enrichment on its own territory. The consortium is supposed to include, in addition to Iran and the United States, countries such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar, and even Türkiye.
The news is interesting in the sense that it strengthens the “Trump way” of acting. It looks as if the US President comes to the point of some geopolitical dispute, tries to achieve a controlling stake in the subject of the dispute, and then declares – why are you arguing, the money is already mine anyway!
Something similar happened with Ukrainian resources. The White House has repeatedly stated that American economic control over Ukraine is the best guarantee of security for Kyiv. And Russia, they say, has nothing to fear, since Ukraine is under the Americans, and they will come to an agreement directly!
If the deal with the consortium in Iran goes through, then a similar situation will arise in the Middle East – at least in Washington’s understanding. Why would Israel attack the Iranian nuclear program if it is under US control?
It would not be too surprising if Trump offered Taiwan a similar “security guarantee” in the form of handing over control of TSMC and other significant tech assets to Washington.
True, there are nuances. Trump got Ukrainian resources because the Kyiv regime values its own wallet more than all the national wealth. Tehran may have a slightly different opinion. Moreover, Iran’s nuclear program is the guarantee of its independence. Ukraine has not been concerned about such matters for a long time.
All this allows us to conclude that the concept of “sustainable development“ was originally a political project of the globalist oligarchs. But with the current fragmentation and deadlock of globalization, they are trying to present this as an alternative scenario for the universal future. That is, part of their famous “rules–based order.“ So that their operation and control can continue under a plausible pretext.
L’article Sustainable Development Or Sustainable Exploitation? est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
“… the state of Israel … was created by fraud, deception, crime, terrorism and bloodshed and has lived that way since it was created.”
By Professor Dr. Syed Mujahid Kamran at VT Foreign Policy.
“Eran Elhaik, an Israeli geneticist, who served seven years in the Israeli Defense Force, and no critic of Israel, developed genome studies at John Hopkins University. In tracing the geographical positioning of a number of Ashkenazim Jews, he found that their ancestral origins were not from the Middle East or indeed the Mediterranean but from a region that is now north-east Turkey. This scientific evidence underscores the historical findings of Shlomo Sand and others that make nonsense of the claims of an ancestral homeland and the diaspora.”
Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty [1]
“Zionism’s founders had to lie about their real objective because to achieve it, Zionism had to commit a crime – that of ethnic cleansing.”
BBC correspondent Alan Hart [2]
“Israel was founded on lies. The lie that Palestinian land was unoccupied. The lie that 750,000 fled their homes and villages during their ethnic cleansing by Zionist militias in 1948 because they were told to do so by Arab leaders. The lie that it was Arab armies that started the 1948 war that saw Israel seize 78 percent of historic Palestine. The lie that Israel faced annihilation in 1967, forcing it to invade and occupy the remaining 22 percent of Palestine as well as land belonging to Egypt and Syria.
Israel is sustained by lies. The lie that it wants a just and equitable peace and will support a Palestinian state. The lie that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. The lie that Israel is an ‘outpost of Western civilization in a sea of barbarism.’ The lie that Israel respects the rule of law and human rights.”
Chris Hedges[3]
Israel was created by violent and most brutal terroristic occupation of Palestinian territory by Russian and East European Ashkenazi Jews whose ancestors had never lived in Palestine. The original residents of Palestine, who had resided there for thousands of years, were literally expelled from their ancestral home in a bloody Talmudic exercise. Even today the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi Jews.
Ashkenazis are descendants of the pagan Khazars who had tactically converted to Judaism around 740 AD, in an attempt to save the Khazar empire, from the onslaught of Russian Christians and Muslims[4]. The Khazar empire was primarily located north of the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, far from Palestine and the Mediterranean. The Ashkenazi are thus non-Semitic converted Jews. These Jews, descendants of pagan Khazars, hold the Talmud as their book of guidance and pay only lip service to the Torah, the book revealed to prophet Moses. As such their claim to be Abrahamic is also suspect, to say the least. The Mongols destroyed the Khazar empire in the 13th century and Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews were scattered in Russia, East Europe and Germany.
How did Israel materialize and what were the powers that conceived of it and used their money and machinations to create a hostile and utterly illegal state in the heart of the Muslim world? What was the purpose behind its creation? These questions can only be answered properly by looking at books and writings that are not published by mainstream publishers or media, because the Zionist Jews have absolute control of Western media, particularly US media.
The first important thing to understand is that four events of the twentieth century viz., WWI and II, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the creation of Israel are intimately connected. On account of the Zionist control of the Anglo-American Establishment, standard history books deliberately avoid this profound connection[5]. These events involved persistent and ceaseless intrigue and machinations of the usurious international banking families under Rothschild leadership with politically active and violent Jewry as their most loyal arm. Further, both Zionism and Communism, were used by these families to take the Western world in their ruthless grip.
Zionism and Communism were nurtured by these “Judaic”, Freemasonic, Satanic banking families which were referred to as the High Cabal by Winston Churchill. The profound Douglas Reed wrote about the cause of the failing strength of the West and how the Western leaders had become “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect, a slavery that repeatedly manifests itself when Western leaders are compelled to protect apartheid Israel and Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. These days, when even the Jews in America and elsewhere, including Israel, are speaking out passionately against Israeli brutality and savagery, Biden et al and other Western governments are shamelessly and spinelessly defending it!
Reed wrote: “The West has come to this dilemma through the pressure of two millstones, Communism and Zionism, the nation-destroying world revolution and the new, nation-creating ruling class. The one incited the mob; the other has gained mastery over the rulers.” The creators and organizers behind both philosophies are the same. Reed concludes: “Conspiracy bred Communism and Zionism, and these took hold of the West in a pincer-like clutch.”[6]
Moses (Moshe) Hess (1812-1875), one the earliest founders of Zionism, was the mentor of Karl Marx and introduced him to Friedrich Engels. Hess formulated the communist ideology and stressed the abolition of personal property and maintained that Judaism would evolve into a godless socialist ideology. Deanna Spingola writes in The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power: “He felt that Rothschild’s red family banner should signal the struggle of the revolution or, as he implied elsewhere, the struggle of the Judaists… He said that the Jews’ function was to change mankind into a savage animal.”[7] Hess and his Jewish disciple Marx, who became a Freemason, advocated the abolition of personal property [for non-Jews] because the Talmud mandates that the riches of world will be controlled by the Jews. In 1961 Hess’s body was interred from Cologne to the Kinneret Cemetery in Israel.[8]
Another early Zionist Levi Baruch advocated that Jews should pretend to convert to Christianity to gain positions of influence. By occupying high administrative positions these crypto-Jews could enact laws prohibiting private property. Spingola writes: “According to Baruch, Jews would control the world, merge the races, abolish borders, eliminate the royal families, and establish the Zionist state.”[9]
On 17 May 1860 an Alliance Israelite Universelle was established in Paris. It was set up by a Jewish lawyer and diplomat named Adolphe I. Cremieux along with a group of people. Cremieux was funded by James Rothschild [James was Jacob “James” Mayer Rothschild (1792-1868), the youngest son of the founder of the Rothschild dynasty]. In 1862 this Alliance established a network of schools “in order to disseminate a multicultural, humanistic education” to over a million Jewish children. The students in these schools were taught about their Jewish heritage. Further, loyalty to Jewish tradition was inculcated in them, apart from imparting skills on how to engage in Jewish activism and how to build consensus. In the manifesto of the Alliance it is stated: “The union which we shall create will not be a French, English, Irish or German, but a Jewish World Union. Under no circumstances shall a Jew befriend a Christian or a Muslim; not before the moment comes when Judaism, the only true religion, shines over the entire World.”[10]
The Anglo-Jewish association with the Sassoons, Rothschilds, Goldsmids and Montefiores as its prominent members, initiated daily communication with the Alliance Israelite Universelle. A founder member of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and simultaneously a member of the dangerous Freemasonic Grand Orient Lodge, Jean Izoulet (1854-1929), wrote: “The meaning of the history of the last century has been that three hundred Jewish financiers, all masters of the chair, will rule the world.”[11] As early as 1861 his fellow founder of the Alliance, Adolphe Cremieux had written: “Nations must disappear. Religions must cease to exist. Israel alone will continue to exist, since its people have been chosen by God.”[12] Interestingly and most significantly, the disappearance of nations and religion as well as private property are common points between Communism, Illuminism and Zionism.
The first settlement of Jews in Palestine was organized by Hibbat Zion, Jewish pioneers, from Kharkov, Ukraine but was financed by Edmond de Rothschild (1845-1934), the youngest of the three sons of James Rothschild. This first settlement, Rishon LeZion, was founded on July 31, 1882. By 1884 there were seven Jewish settlements in Palestine and four of these were funded by Edmond de Rothschild. By 1887, on account of the heavy handed bureaucracy employed by Edmond de Rothschild, the Jewish settlers were in a state of mutiny against him. There was the Ekron mutiny (1888-1892) against Edmond de Rothschild. He finally ended it by declaring that he owned the settlement and would have the protesting settlers deported![13]
In the meantime, the Ottoman government had become wary of Jewish immigration and tried to stop it. It would only allow Jewish pilgrims to visit Palestine. But some of the pilgrims would stay on and never return. Further the Ottoman government imposed a ban on purchase of land in Palestine by foreigners. But there was no restriction on purchase of land by residents of Palestine. The local Jews simply bought land using the money of rich foreign Jews and had it registered in their own names! Finally, in 1892, the Ottoman government banned the sale of Palestinian land to all Jews, local or foreign.
In 1896 Theodore Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) was published. Its original title was Address to the Rothschilds![14] Herzl had studied law and was living in Vienna though he was born in Budapest. He argued for a socialist Jewish government on territory owned by the Jews. In the book, which was more of a pamphlet or a long essay, he wrote: “Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence.”[15]
Herzl sought to meet Sultan Abdul Hamid II through his contacts in Constantinople (Istanbul). In 1896 he visited Istanbul but the agent of the Sultan told him that a meeting with the Sultan was not possible because Herzl worked for a paper that had published negative reports against the Sultan’s treatment of the Armenians. Through Philip M. Newlinski, his hired diplomat in Constantinople, Herzl offered 20 million pounds to the Sultan in return for an issuance of a charter for Jewish colonization of Palestine.[16]
Newlisnki urged the Sultan to accept Herzl’s offer in view of the serious problems afflicting the Ottoman economy. “Without the help of the Zionists, the Turkish economy would not stand a chance of recovery”, he said. The reply of Sultan Abdul Hamid II reveals that he was not an ignorant sultan. He said: “If Herr Herzl is your friend as you are mine, advise him not to take another step in the matter. I cannot relinquish a square foot of land, for it does not belong to me, but to my people. My people have conquered and fortified this empire with their blood . . . The Jews should save their billions. When my empire is partitioned perhaps they will get Palestine for nothing. But only our dead body will be divided. (As long as we are alive) I will not permit a vivisection.”[17] Prophetic words indeed.
Herzl met Max Nordau, an influential Jew who joined hands with him in their quest for Eretz Israel. He visited London and met a well-known Jewish writer Israel Zangwill. It was Zangwill who introduced Herzl to influential individuals. He had a meeting with Sir Samuel Montagu who was a leading Jewish banker and a member of the British Parliament. In his book Herzl had written that the plan of setting up a Jewish state somewhere will be carried out by two organizations. “The plan simple in design, but complicated in execution, will be carried out by two agencies: The Society of Jews and the Jewish Company. The Society of Jews will do the preparatory work in the domains of science and politics, which the Jewish Company will afterwrds apply practically. The Jewish Company will be the liquidating agent of the business of the departing Jews, and will organize trade and commerce in the new country.”[18] In another chapter of the book he stated: “The Jewish Company is partly modelled on the lines of a great land acquisition company.”[19]
Herzl had told Sir Samuel Montagu that he would appeal to the Sultan for the award of 250,000 acres east of River Jordan. He was however unable to acquire the pounds 100 million he had set as a target for the said company. Lord Walter Rothschild was extremely reluctant at this stage to support him and did not meet him! Later on Walter Rothschild, who always suffered from ill health, was converted to Zionism by Chaim Weizmann, a Russian Jew. By 1899 Edmond de Rothschild withdrew from his direct involvement in the Palestinian settlements. In the words of Deanna Spingola: “Regardless of the continuing controversies, the settlements and Zionism would have totally collapsed without the assistance of Rothschild’s specialists, who helped to establish Israel’ agricultural economy. He transferred the stewardship of the settlements to the Jewish Colonization Association, which spawned the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association.”[20]
Herzl remained unsuccessful in many of his attempts to raise money for the Israel project. He managed to meet Sultan Abdul Hamid II on May 19, 1901 but could not mention his Zionist project because the Sultan was only interested in raising money, on acceptable terms, to meet the deficits of his budget, and also because Jerusalem was extremely sacred for the Sultan. The Sultan needed 1.5 million pounds immediately to meet that year’s deficit. He gave Herzl four weeks to arrange that money. Herzl sought the help of important bankers but they needed the permission of the Rothschilds to give that money. At this point the Rothschilds were opposed to the Zionist project even though they were settling Jews from Russia and East Europe in Palestine. This may have been due to fear of a backlash from the Ottomans.
The Turks offered Herzl “All the mines . . . gold and silver, coal and oil” to Herzl for development but Herzl rejected the restricted colonization offer that came with it. The Sultan had offered Mesopotamia, Syria and Anatolia to the Jews for settling and becoming Ottoman subjects. The Sultan was fully aware that the Zionists had plans for establishing their own government in Palestine. In the mean-time Chaim Weizmann had emerged on the scene and, by 1901, he began a campaign for founding of an institution of higher learning in Palestine. This led to the initiation, in 1912, for work on the Technion, now known as the Israel Institute of Technology. Weizmann first visited Palestine in 1907 and set up the Palestine Land Development Company that helped Jews to buy land. This establishment of Technion and the Company was partially what Herzl had desired.
Lord Jacob Rothschild wrote in the Jewish Chronicle on November 15, 2017: “Walter’s commitment to Zionism was fired by his very first meeting with Weizmann. He became convinced that the future of the Jews lay in Zionism and dedicated himself to the cause. After the [Balfour] Declaration Weizmann wrote to him: ‘May I offer you our heartiest thanks in making this possible — I am sure that when the history of this time will be written it will be justifiably said that the name of the greatest House in Jewry was associated with the granting of the Magna Carta of Jewish liberties….’.” [21]
Walter was the 2nd Baron Rothschild and was the eldest son of Baron “Natty” Rothschild. Weizmann thus managed to bring the most powerful and richest family on the planet to support Zionism, a support that they had hitherto been unwilling to lend. In an interview given to The Jewish Chronicle in 2019 he also mentioned James de Rothschild as a committed Zionist.[22] James de Rothschild was the son of Edmond de Rothschild of France and had, after the Dreyfuss affair, in which a Jew had been accused of spying against France, left France to settle in England.
According to Deanna Spingola, by 1908, the Jewish population in Palestine had reached 80,000, which was thrice their population in 1882. Further, the Jews owned 156 square miles of land in Palestine at that time[23]. The first world war was planned as early as 1890/91 by a small group involving Nathaniel “Natty” Rothschild. The innermost core of Zionists must have been aware of this planned conflagration. In his address to the 6th Zionist Conference held at Basle in 1903, Max Nordau made the following astonishing statement: “Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward; Herzl, the Zionist congress; the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England, a free Jewish Palestine will be created.” How could he know all this unless he was on the inside and it was all an intrigue planned by the secretive Rothschilds. At the same Congress Dr. Nahum Sokoloff completed Nordau’s sequence by stating, “Jerusalem will one day become capital of world peace.”[24]
One of the objects of World War I was the creation of Israel. This may not have been in the mind of the British leaders at the time but was in the mind of the Rothschilds and their Jewish banking brethren. Herbert H. Asquith, the prime minister of Britain from 1908 on till the mid of WWI, almost certainly did not have Israel as an objective in mind. In December 1916 he was quietly replaced by an asset of the planners of WWI, David Lloyd George. Why was the replacement needed right in the middle of WWI which had been going on for a little over two years? This is not the place to discuss the intrigue but it pertained to a demand to divert forces to Palestine.
Douglas Reed writes: “The motive offered to the masses was that Mr. Asquith was ineffective in prosecuting the war. The sincerity of the contention may be tested by what followed; the first act of his successors was to divert forces to Palestine and in the sequence to that Mr. Lloyd George nearly lost the war entirely.”[25] The outstanding General Sir William Robertson, who had resisted the diversion of forces to Palestine, was removed from his position as Chief of Imperial General Staff. Gen. Kitchener, who was also opposed to this diversion, was sent on a mission to Russia and the ship carrying was sunk by explosions on board. The media blamed a German submarine. That Gen. Kitchener was killed by insiders was established by Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty in Prolonging the Agony, published in 2018. Suspicion about his death was expressed by Douglas Reed in his book completed in 1956.
These events simply show the complete and secret grip of the Zionists, rather their patrons, the international bankers, on the British government. The entry of America saved Britain from defeat. But this shows, beyond doubt, that the Middle East was so important for the bankers that they not only effected a dangerous change of the British government right in the middle of a desperate war with Germany to achieve that, but also had the Chief of Imperial General removed, apart from assassinating Gen. Kitchener!
The entry of the US into the war had also been planned by the Zionist bankers. President Wilson was a puppet in the hands of four men, three of who were hard core Zionist Jews (Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Bernard Baruch) and the fourth was a Rothschild agent, a banker named “Col.” Edward Mandell House. His victory was managed by the bankers who split the Republican vote by putting forward a third candidate “Teddy” Roosevelt, a thoroughly corrupt former U.S. president.[26]
Douglas Reed has made a very revealing observation. He writes: “The First World War began in 1914; long-memoried readers may recall that it appeared to be concerned with such matters as the rape of Belgium, ending Prussian militarism, and making the world safe for democracy. At its start Baron Edmond de Rothschild told Dr. Weizmann that it would spread to the Middle East, where things of great significance to Zionism would occur.”[27] It is quite clear from this that the Rothschilds had planned to take important steps towards the establishment of a Zionist state in the Middle East in consequence of WWI. How could Edmond de Rothschild know, right at the start of the war, that it would spread to the Middle East and work to the great advantage of the Zionist cause? He could know this only if it was planned that way and he was one of the leading planners.
Benjamin Freedman, an American Jewish businessman, who was part of the U.S. delegation at Versailles, made some startling revelations in a talk at Willard Hotel, Washington D.C. in 1961. He stated that the Jews were well off in Germany and because Germany was engaged in war against a coalition of Russia, Britain and France, the Jews in America, on account of their dislike of the Czar, supported Germany. He stated: “They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: ‘As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!’ But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.”[28]
Mr. Freedman described the change that took place once the Zionists had made a deal with the British regarding Palestine, in the following words: “Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.”[29]
Winston Churchill confirmed the Zionist involvement in bringing America into war against Germany during a speech in the House of Commons on July 4, 1922: “Pledges and Promises were made during the War, and they were not made only on merits . . . They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the War. It was considered that the support the Jews would give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a palpable advantage.”[30] In 1937 Churchill told the Royal Commission on Palestine: “We did not adopt Zionism entirely out of altruistic love of starting a Zionist colony. It was a matter of great importance to this country. It was a potent factor on public opinion in America and we were bound to honor …”[31] David Lloyd George, during whose tenure the Balfour Declaration was issued also told the same Commission that the promise of a Jewish homeland was the result of an understanding in which the Jews had promised to rally support for Britain throughout the world.[32]
The United States entered the war on April 6, 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution, a coup of the Russian Jewry against the Czar, intensified in October 1917 and it was clear that they were going to control Russia within days or weeks. Finally, the Bolsheviks assumed power on November 7, 1917. The Balfour Declaration, promising the Jews a “national home in Palestine”, was issued on November 2, 1917, at the time when it was quite clear that the Bolsheviks had taken control of Russia. Quite significantly, it was addressed by the Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, the eldest son of Nathaniel (“Natty”) Rothschild who himself had passed away in 1915. It is quite clear that the Rothschilds had a central role in extracting the promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine from the British government at a time when Palestine was a part of the Ottoman empire and Britain had no jurisdiction over it at all.
The Zionists were determined to dismantle the Ottoman empire so that they could get hold of Palestine. For this purpose, the Zionists sabotaged a peace move that could have saved the Ottoman empire. In May 1917, the U.S. Foreign Secretary Robert Lansing received a report that the Ottomans were tired of war and wanted a separate peace with Britain. Zionists got wind of it when President Wilson decided to appoint Henry Morgenthau, a former ambassador to Turkey, to contact the Ottomans. Morgenthau was himself Jewish and decided to take Justice Felix Frankfurter in confidence. Frankfurter was an avowed Zionist. Alison Weir writes: “Felix Frankfurter became part of the delegation and ultimately persuaded the delegation’s leader, former Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, to abandon the effort. U.S. State Department officials considered that Zionists had worked to scuttle this potentially peace-making mission and were unhappy about it. Zionists often construed such displeasure at their actions as evidence of American diplomats’ ‘anti-Semitism’.”[33] They betrayed the U.S. government and when officials expressed displeasure at this betrayal, they called them anti-Semitic. Typical behavior! This one Zionist move, against the interests of the U.S., ensured the end of the Ottoman empire. For as long as the Ottoman empire existed the Jewish home in Palestine could not be set up.
Leon Trotsky, a Russian Ashkenazi Jew, was in the vanguard of the Bolshevik Revolution. Douglas Reed quotes Mrs. Blanche Dugdale (emphasis in Reed): “Years before, in Geneva, Trotsky and Weizmann had night after night expounded from rival cafes in the university quarter their opposed political beliefs. Both of them were Russian born … they had swayed the crowds of Jewish students from one side of the street to the other; Leon Trotsky, apostle of Red revolution; Chaim Weizmann, apostle of a tradition unbroken for two thousand years. Now by a strange coincidence in the same week each of them accomplished the fulfilment of his dream.”[34]
Reed elaborates: “Thus Chaim Weizman’s youthful fellow conspirators from the Talmudic area of Russia triumphed in Russia at the very moment when he triumphed in London and Washington. The only difference between him and them, from the start, was that between ‘revolutionary-Zionism’ and ‘revolutionary-Communism’ …”[35] Reed writes: “In truth, the pincers in which the West was to be gripped had been forged, and each handle was held by one of two groups of revolutionaries ‘Russian-born’ (but not Russian).”[36]
Trotsky had been sent from New York, with $10,000 in cash in his pocket [which led to his arrest by Canadian authorities], by Rockefeller. It has been established by Antony Sutton and others that Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution[37]. The grandson of banker Jacob Schiff (the Schiff’s and Rothschilds shared the same house in Frankfurt in the earliest days) had stated that the “old man” had sunk $20 million in the Russian Revolution (over 554 million i.e. over half a billion dollars in 2023)[38]. Eustace Mullins writes that when the Bolsheviks were failing President Wilson sent “his personal emissary Elihu Root with one hundred million dollars from his Special Emergency War Fund to save the toppling Bolshevik regime.”[39] Elihu Root was J.P. Morgan’s lawyer and a member of the super-secret Pilgrim Society.
The success of the Bolshevik Revolution posed a problem for the Zionists. They had been campaigning for a Jewish homeland in order to save the Russian Jews from the Czarist regime. Through the Bolshevik Revolution the Jews had become absolute masters of entire Russia. The Bolshevik regime was a Jewish regime and “anti-Semitism” was a punishable offence. The Times reporter Robert Wilton reported on the Jewish nature of the regime in Moscow but the Zionists compelled the Times to stop such reporting, lest people in the English speaking world find out, what needed to be concealed in the interest of the Israel project.
In his 1946 book Rabbi Elmer Berger wrote (quoted by Reed – emphasis in Reed): “The Soviet government even privileged Jews as Jews … at a single stroke, the revolution emancipated those very Jews for whom, previously, no solution other than Zionism would be efficacious, according to Zionist spokesmen. Soviet Jews no longer had need of Palestine, or any other refuge. The lever of suffering of Russian Jewry, which Herzl had often used in attempts to prise a charter for Palestine from some power, was gone.”[40] However, after WWII the Russian revolutionary regime was to come to the aid of the Israel project in a different way.
At the end of WWI Britain had troops in Palestine. In June 1922 the US Congress (emphasis in original- Douglas Reed) “passed a joint resolution of both houses, the wording of which was almost identical with that of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.” [41] Reed observes: “[T]hereafter the Zionist halter was firmly reaffixed round the neck of American State policy, and though the American voter only realized this, it became immaterial to him which party prevailed.”[42] On July 24, 1922, the League [of Nations] Council awarded Britain the “mandate” to remain in Palestine. Lord Balfour had introduced the subject of ratification of the “Palestine Mandate”. However, the House of Lords voted for the repeal of the Balfour Declaration by a large majority. This led Arthur Balfour (later to become a Lord himself) to remark to Dr. Weizmann: “What does it matter if a few foolish lords pass a motion?” [43] Thus the Zionist policy as laid down in the Balfour Declaration became something which no Parliament or House could undo! Why? What forces were more powerful than the British Parliament to determine a policy which even the Parliament could not change?
For almost a decade after the Balfour Declaration the British government maintained the deception that the Jewish national home would just be a cultural center, with scientific institutes and farmlands! But the Arabs and the Palestinians were well aware of the Zionist designs. Douglas Reed has put it very well: “The Arabs were never beguiled; they saw that they were the objects of an attempt to reinforce, in the 20th century AD., the Law of violent dispossession set up by the Levites in the 5th century BC. They responded with riotous protest and warlike uprising which have never ceased, so that ‘the war to end war’ started warfare without end.”[44] That warfare continues to date, for a century, with no end in sight. The British “liberated” the Arabs from the Turks and handed them over to subjugation by alien Jews from Russia and East Europe, aided by Anglo-American power, with the Anglo-American leaders utterly subservient to the Zionists.
The subservience of the Western leaders to the Zionists, at whose back stood the High Cabal, the international banking families, led to a step by step and deception by deception advance towards the creation of Israel. President Wilson wrote a letter to Rabi Stephen Wise, one of his four handlers, on August 31, 1918, expressing the “satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist movement I the United States and in the Allied countries since the declaration by Mr. Balfour…” On July 4, 1918 Wilson had issued a direction regarding the territories of the former Ottoman empire: “The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”[45] Lofty principles which Mr. Wilson would never be able to implement. He had been a tool and once used was to be cast aside.
In 1919, Mr. Wilson appointed Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane to “record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted.” Both these individuals were approached by Zionists in America to produce a report favoring Zionism, King and Crane spent forty-two days in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq (then Mesopotamia) and Asia Minor. They interviewed cultural, political and religious leaders of the region and drafted the King-Crane Report. The King-Crane Commission received 11 petitions, all from Jews, favoring the Zionist program and another 08 favoring a partial Zionist program with colonies in Palestine. But it received an astonishing 1,350 petitions rejecting the Zionist program. The population break up was as follows: Muslims 2.365 m, Christian 0.587m, Druses 0.28m, Jews 0.11m, others .045m. The total population was 3.3875 million. Thus 72.3% of the population opposed the Zionist program, while 0.59% favored the Zionist program and 0.40 percent favored a diluted Zionist program[46].
Naturally the King-Crane Commission Report reflected what the population felt. The Zionists wanted complete dispossession and displacement of non-Jewish residents by purchasing their land. Based on its interaction with leaders of Palestine and even Syria, the report stated that establishment of a Jewish state would lead to “the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”[47] The report also stated: “No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program … Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”[48] The Zionist puppet government of the US suppressed this very comprehensive and fair report until 1922 when President Wilson ordered its release. The Zionists later on labeled King and Crane as Nazi sympathizers, even though Hitler was nowhere in sight when the report was submitted!
The King-Crane Commission was followed by several British commissions in view of the unrest that the Balfour Declaration and the veto of elections had produced in Palestine. Each of these teams that the British sent were in favor of Zionist position before they went to Palestine. There was the Haycraft Commission followed by the Shaw and Simpson Commissions. Members of each of these commissions were in favor of the Zionist project before they went to Palestine. But after meeting Palestinians their reports reflected the true picture on the ground. This was not to the liking of Mr. Weizmann at all. He remarked that it was “an almost universal rule” that those who were “favorably inclined” towards the Zionist project “turned against us in a few months.”[49] In 1922 Churchill had proposed that elections be held in Palestine. He was vetoed by Weizmann who knew that in view of the vast majority of Palestinians opposed to the Zionist project, election will produce a government that would kill the project.
In view of this, the strategy adopted by the Zionists was to acquire such control over the British and American leadership that they would not change the policy laid out in the Balfour Declaration, regardless of the actual situation in Palestine. This was ensured by the High Cabal. There was opposition to the Zionist project from the Jews in Britain and the US and that became a serious threat for Weizmann’s target. It became a threat because the Mandate required that any agency purporting to represent Jews must “secure the cooperation of all Jews” in establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. He coined the term non-Zionist and, in 1929, set up his “Enlarged Jewish Agency” claiming that it represented all Jews, Zionist as well as non-Zionist, a claim the British government accepted [50].
The Palestinians reacted strongly to the “Enlarged Jewish Agency” because they could foresee that it would become the government of the homeland the Jewish wished to set up in Palestine. This led the British government to suspend Jewish immigration to Palestine via the Passfield White Paper of 1930, and to limit the authority of the Enlarged Jewish Agency. Weizmann met the British PM Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who not only revoked the White Paper but also asked Mr. Weizmann about his choice of the next High Commissioner in Palestine. Douglas Reed comments: “What these politicians feared, none can confidently say; their memoirs are uniformly silent on this central mystery and their capitulations are unique in history. Mr. MacDonald’s surrender re-established the principle that ‘policy’ in this matter was ‘set’ and immutable, and during the ensuing twenty years this became the paramount principle of all British and American state policy.” [51]
In the mean-time Jewish immigration to Palestine seemed to become sluggish. Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine and immigrants also left Palestine. In 1927 the number of those immigrants who left Palestine exceeded those that arrived by three thousand. Till 1932 the number of annual departures was one third of the number arriving. In 1933 the assumption of power by Hitler in Germany, and of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in the U.S., paved the way for the planned WWII and gave life to the dying Zionist cause. The decision to install Hitler in power was taken at a meeting held on January 4, 1933, at the townhouse of the Jewish banker Kurt von Schroder! [52]
Hitler had been brought to power with the connivance of international bankers. Antony Sutton established that he was funded by some Wall Street firms. Further, in a letter written to Churchill in 1937, Heinrich Bruening, the German Chancellor from 1929-1932, revealed that from October 1928 onwards, two largest regular contributors to the German Nazi party were managers of two major Berlin banks, “both of Jewish faith, and one of them was a leader of Zionism in Germany.” Bruening did not allow Churchill to include the letter in his memoirs on the grounds that it would be too embarrassing for the Jews! He also stopped Life magazine from publishing it in 1948. [53] Max Warburg of the Rothschild connected Jewish banking family, whose brother Paul Warburg had played a key role in the Federal Reserve conspiracy in the U.S., continued to advise Hitler on financial matters till the eve of WWII.
Hitler was used by the international banking families to revive the cause of Zionism. On August 7, 1933, Zionist leaders arrived at a pact with Hitler known as the Transfer Agreement. Under this agreement 60,000 Jews and $100 million ($2.368 trillion in 2023 value) were transferred to Palestine. The Transfer Agreement was kept out of history books and the media until 1983 when the partially Jewish Edwin Black revealed the story in his book The Transfer Agreement [54].
The Transfer Agreement resulted from a Jewish boycott of German goods initiated by Zionists at the end of March 1933, less than two months after Hitler assumed office. The German Jews protested against the boycott as it would, they felt, add to their difficulties. Rabi Stephen Wise has been quoted by Douglas Reed as having recorded that he and his fellow Zionists were not deterred by urgent protests and appeals from Jews in Germany. Wise stated: “… that our Jewish brothers in Germany might feel moved or compelled to accept a peace agreement or pact that might mean some slight amelioration or mitigation of their wrongs. . . that the Nazi regime might decide to prevent some of the evil consequences of its regime by such palliative treatment of Jews that would disarm worldwide Jewish protest.” [55] Thus, as noted by Reed, Rabi Wise preferred that Jews suffer in Germany at the hands of the Nazi regime.
Douglas Reed has devoted an entire chapter of his book to “The Strange Role of the Press”. He refers, in particular to the case of “Jewish persecution” in Hitler’s Germany. He mentions three stages of phases of this coverage. In the first phase the persecution of “political opponents and Jews” was reported. This was then “imperceptibly amended” to “Jews and political opponents”. In the final phase the press spoke only of the “persecution of Jews” [56]. Why was this done? Such partial reporting blotted out of the public mind the sufferings of the vast majority of non-Jews in concentration camps.
Douglas Reed had himself, at much risk to himself, visited concentration camps and talked to the victims. He found that almost 90% of those in concentration camps were non-Jews. “But the manner of reporting in the world’s press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.” What deception and injustice! The world press was controlled by the Zionists with the backing of the international banking families. Reed observes: “The result showed in 1945, when on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and the other hand half of Europe was abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the Jews had shared in their small proportion in populations everywhere.” [57] The usurpation East Europe by Communist dictatorships with the willing acquiescence of the Zionist controlled Western leaders was a great treachery. These were invariably Jewish dictatorships that suppressed Christians because of the deep Jewish hatred for Christianity. Communism was just a cover for suppression of Christians by Jews masquerading as Communists.
The case for Israel was built on repeated and well thought out Zionist lies and deception developed and carried out with the collusion of international banking families, who controlled, not just the narrative, but also the U.S. President Roosevelt. In 1949 Rabi Wise wrote an untrue version of the events meant to justify the brutal and inhuman creation of Israel. Douglas Reed quotes (emphasis in Reed): “The measures against the Jews continued to outstrip in systematic cruelty and planned destruction the terror against other groups. On January 29,1933, Hitler was summoned to be chancellor… at once the reign of terror began with beatings and imprisonment of Jews …” [58] This was a lie, as reported by Douglas Reed, an eye witness to the events. And this was exactly the purpose of the false reporting. Rabi wrote: “We planned a protest march in New York on May 10, the day of the ordered burning of Jewish books in Germany … the brunt of the attacks was borne by Jews . . . concentration camps were established and filled with Jews.” [59]
Was this really so? Douglas Reed, a most impartial and objective eye witness to the events, writes (emphasis in original): “All these statements are false. The measures against Jews did not outstrip the terror against other groups; . . . The reign of terror did not begin on January 29, 1933, but on the night of the Reichstag fire, February 27. No ‘burning of Jewish books’ was ordered. I attended and reported that bonfire and have looked up my report published in The Times, to verify my recollection. A mass of ‘Marxist’ books was burned, including works of many German, English and other non-Jewish writers; . . . the bonfire included some Jewish books, the brunt of terror was not borne by Jews, nor were the concentration camps ‘filled with Jews’. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio in the population.” [60]
While the persecution of the general German populace was transformed through deception into persecution of Jews by the Zionist controlled press, President Roosevelt in the United States was playing a key role in arming and empowering Zion in his own country. He created a new precedent – he had his cabinet sworn in by a Jew, Justice Cardozo, a committed Zionist. Immigration of Jews in massive numbers to the US was managed from behind the scenes – their population rose almost twenty-fold, from 230,000 in 1881 to 4,500,000 in 1926! Though small in number, the Jewry is organized and can tip the balance in an evenly matched election very easily. Further, members of active Jewry had always been involved in political assassinations.
FDR had been brought to power to involve the US into a planned world war. However, in 1935, FDR’s second election had become doubtful because of the emergence of a candidate from the South named Huey Long. Long could not have won the elections but his independent candidature would have split the Democratic vote to the extent that FDR’s re-election chance would have been fatally hurt. FDR’s reelection was ensured when he was shot dead in the Louisiana State Capitol by a young Jew named Dr. Carl Austin Weiss. Weiss himself was shot by the guard and the conspiracy was buried but, significantly, Mr. Long had forewarned of his possible assassination.
FDR had Jewish roots and was a believer in the New World Order. He surrounded himself by a very large number of Zionist and/or Communist Jewish advisors. Gentiles and non-Zionist Jews were not part of his advisory circle. He worked mostly through these “advisors” and many a time ignored those who had official responsibility to deal with a matter. He lied and deceived the American nation to drag it into war against Germany in the interests of Zionist Jews [61]. As Reed correctly assessed: “Historically purveyed, Mr. Roosevelt’s achievement may now be seen to be threefold and in each respect perilous to his country’s future: he helped to arm Zionism, he armed the revolution in the Moscow citadel, and he opened the doors of his American citadel to its agents.” [62] It was FDR who was instrumental in handing over half of Christian Europe to Communist Soviet Union at the end of WWII.
The Zionists had control over the British government which had a “Mandate” over Palestine. If the British government baulked FDR in Washington could bully them. The Zionists desired that the British government expel the Palestinians from their native land and make room for Jews from Russia. This is something that could not be easily done. British leadership had become subservient, not to its electorate, but to a secret and hidden party, which did not care for British interests but wanted to usurp Palestine at all costs through British help and influence. Since Weizmann had vetoed elections in Palestine the Palestinians rioted over the years and the British government, under Zionist pressure, was obliged to suppress these “rebels”.
The Palestinian pressures however put the British government in a difficult situation. On the suggestion of the Peel Commission, the fifth commission sent into Palestine by the British, the idea of a partition of Palestine was floated in 1938. In the bloodiest riots ever in that land 1500 Palestinians were killed [63]. In 1939 Chamberlain called a Palestine Conference in London in which the Arabs were represented for the first time. And that led to a highly important White Paper of March 1939 in which the British government expressed its intention for (emphasis in original) “the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestinian state.” The White Paper also called for “the termination of the Mandate”. [64] This would have led to a multi-religious Palestine with Muslims, Christians and Jews jointly running their land. It would have brought peace to the region.
The White Paper was a blow to the Zionists and any obstruction to the Zionist cause activates the hidden hands of the High Cabal. In December 1916 the Zionists ousted the prime minister Herbert Asquith because he did not wish to commit his troops for the conquest of Palestine. He was replaced by the Zionist agent David Lloyd George. Subsequent to the publication of the White Paper, the highly unpopular Winston Churchill (he had been given a bad press) seemed to come to the fore after being in the wilderness for a decade. From 1929-1939 he was not in the good books of the Zionists on account of his past utterances. In a White Paper of 1922 he had proposed a Legislative Council for Palestine with a majority of elected members [65]. This implied elections, and certainly elections were not what the Zionists wanted in Palestine. Even as s late as 1938 he had stated that the Arabs should be given a “solemn assurance” that the “annual quota of Jewish immigration should not exceed a certain figure for a period of at least ten years.”[66] This went contrary to the Zionist desire. The bad press that had led to his unpopularity had to do with this, it appears.
In his memoirs Weizmann mentions that he met Winston Churchill in October 1939 and Churchill told him that he will speak in the Parliament “against the White Paper” of March 1939. In effect Churchill reversed his earlier stand on being just towards the Arabs. This change of heart must have been promoted by background forces because Mr. Weizmann does not mention Churchill even once in his biography after the year 1922, till 1939 – a gap of seventeen years. According to Weizmann, he had lunch with Churchill on the day of the debate on the White Paper. Weizmann writes that Churchill “read out his speech to us” and asked Weizmann if he had any changes to suggest! Despite Churchill’s speech, the White Paper was approved with a majority of 268 to 179 but there were 110 abstentions indicating something was not right with Mr. Chamberlain’s party [67]. When WWII broke out Chamberlain was an obstruction for the Zionists and was soon ousted and replaced by their now willing agent Winston Churchill. With that, the highest offices in both the US and Britain, were occupied by men supporting the Zionist cause in Palestine.
Winston Churchill became prime minister on May 10, 1940. At that time France had been overrun by the Germans and the British stood alone. On May 23 he directed his Colonial Secretary Lord Lloyd to withdraw British forces from Palestine and instead arm the Jews so that they could “defend” themselves. The arming of Zion was so pressing and important for Mr. Churchill that within two weeks of assuming office he, amid the dire exigencies of war, issued such an instruction. He repeated his instructions twice in the next ten days and at a time when the Dunkirk evacuation was in process. Lord Lloyd saw the dangers in this and his resistance was not liked by Mr. Churchill who wished to arm the Jews. Those opposed to Zion in their own country’s interest, like Lord Kitchener in WWI, and many others, can die unexpectedly. Lord Lloyd died in 1941 at age 62! [68]
In view of the resistance that Weizmann faced in setting up armed brigade of Jews in Palestine he travelled, without difficulty, to the US during the war and, through Rabi Wise, who instructed FDR about helping Zionism, sent FDR a report. He wrote: “The British government ought to be made to understand how enormous would be the shock and how damaging its effect upon the democratic cause, if there should be a general slaughter because of failure adequately to arm the Jews as well as strengthen the defenses of Palestine with guns, tanks and planes.” FDR replied: “I can merely call to the attention of the British our deep interest in the defense of Palestine and our concern for the defense of the Jewish population there; and as best as I can, supply the British forces with the material means by which maximum protection to Palestine will be afforded.” [69] Rabi Stephen Wise was able to say that due to FDR’s intervention the business of parity had been dropped to a large extent.” Parity referred to the insistence of British administrators that if Jews were to be armed, then Arabs ought to equally armed too. Thus, while WWII was going on, the way was paved for arming Russian and other Jews to enter Palestine and kill and expel native Arabs from Palestine.
Men of conscience in Britain and the US however, in the interest of justice and their respective countries, continued to resist the disastrous policy of arming Russian Jews that Churchill, under Zionist influence, was foisting upon the two countries. Dr. Weizmann was to write: “our difficulties were not connected with the first-rank statesmen. These had, for by far the greatest part, always understood our aspirations, and their statements in favor of a Jewish national home really constitute a literature.” This meant that the first rank politicians had bowed completely to the Zionists, because they knew that behind the Zionists stood the High Cabal. Weizmann continues: “It was always behind the scenes, and on the lower levels, that we encountered an obstinate, devious and secretive opposition . . . All the information supplied from the Middle East to the authorities in Washington worked against us.” [70]
The Zionist control of the “first-rank statesmen” in Washington and in London was crucial to the success of the Zionist intrigue. That control was exercised by the invisible High Cabal, for whom the Zionists worked. The Zionists already had gotten Churchill to agree to arm the Jews because they could see that the British government was reluctant to use force against Arabs in Palestine with the object of expelling them to make way for Jews. WWII had been planned by the Zionists and they had expressed the intention of destroying Hitler. Weizmann has stated that Churchill had privately committed to the award of Jewish territory in Palestine but would not do so publicly. Weizmann wanted an amended Balfour Declaration in which, instead of the phrase “a national home” Jews, he desired the award of territory. Churchill delayed by saying that the war must first be finished.
After Yalta FDR met King Ibn e Saud on his ship, the Quincy, and asked him to admit more Jews in Palestine. King Saud said no to this and added that “there was a Palestine army of Jews all armed to the teeth and they did not seem to be fighting the Germans but were aiming at the Arabs.” FDR then agreed not to take any action hostile to the Arabs. FDR was aboard Quincy on February 11, 12, and 13, 1944 and returned to Washington on February 28. On April 5 FDR wrote, in reply to a letter from King Saud, that “no decision will be taken with regard to the basic situation of Palestine without full consultation of both Arabs and Jews.” [71] In writing this he had gone against Weizmann’s desire that “we could not rest the case on Arab consent.” On April 12 he suddenly died. He died at the estate of the influential High Cabal agent, the Jew Bernard Baruch, and there are serious suspicions that he was either assassinated or compelled to commit suicide (he was a 32nd degree Freemason). What was the sitting president of the United States doing at Bernard Baruch’s estate while the war had still not ended? [72]
Since Churchill had baulked at taking the final step of using force against the Palestinians, Zionist propaganda in the British press went full throttle against him and in favor of the Socialists led by Clement Attlee, who had stated: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in”. The Jewish parliamentarians switched en bloc in favor of Attlee and defeated Churchill. This. According to Weizmann, “delighted all liberal elements’” Douglas Reed comments: “This was the requital for Mr. Churchill’s forty years of support for Zionism; he had not actually ordered British troops to clear Palestine of Arabs, and, for a while, was an enemy.”[73] Thus the Zionists instantly switched horses when they found one horse reluctant.
The office of the mysteriously deceased Colonial Secretary, Lord Lloyd, was inherited by a Mr. Hall. As soon as he took office he was visited by a delegation of the World Zionist Congress. What he wrote about the attitude of the Zionist delegation is worth reading. He stated: “I must say the attitude adopted by the members of the deputation was different from anything which I have ever experienced. It was not a request for the consideration by His Majesty’s Government of the decisions of the Zionist conference, but a demand that His Majesty’s Government should do what the Zionist Organization desired them to do.” [74] They must have known that those, on whose behalf, they were acting, owned the British government at the highest levels. The defeat of Hitler had further emboldened them. Weizmann observed that despite Churchill’s support “exactly four years were to pass before, in September 1944, the Jewish Brigade was officially formed.” [75] A most crucial step towards the arming of Zion for the capture of Palestine by those who had never lived there (nor had their ancestors), was thus taken.
By the start of WWI Zionists had already acquired the ability to destroy anyone who stood in their way. Ernest Bevin was a robust man, a labor leader and a politician. He was appointed Foreign Secretary by Attlee. Bevin was blunt with Weizmann and told him that he would not be pressured into doing anything beyond the undertakings of the British government. Weizmann represented the High Cabal and therefore had instant access and influence with the American and British leadership at the highest levels – he was not used to such treatment. The Zionists “fell on him [Bevin] like a pack of wolves”. As a result of Bevin’s courageous understanding of the explosive nature of the issue and of Zionist “intrigue” (he used this word) the Labor government declared that it was not in favor of driving Jews out of Europe and favored their living in European countries “without discrimination”. [76]
A worldwide campaign against Ernest Bevin was conducted by the Zionists for two years. The Zionists added a term “Bevinism’ to their vituperative vocabulary. Still, the steely Bevin stood his ground and would have succeeded in thwarting the Zionist goal in Palestine but for the intervention of President Truman of the United States. He demanded that a hundred thousand Jews be admitted into Palestine. This undid all efforts of Mr. Bevin to maintain justice and avoid a situation that could and did lead to perpetual war.
In the mean-time the World Zionist Congress of 1946 agreed to resume the method of terror and assassination in its quest for a land that belonged to others. The phrases used were “resistance”, “defense”, “activism”, etc. against the British authorities in Palestine. Weizmann explains that these words used by the Congress possessed that same meaning: “[O]ne feature was common to all of them: the conviction of the need for fighting against British authority in Palestine or anywhere else, for that matter.”
The Congress merely gave approval to ongoing terrorism that had always been used by the Talmudic Jews when needed. Lord Moyne, the British minister of state in the Middle East was assassinated by the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun in November 1944. In July 2012, when Yitzak Shamir died, Joanna Saidel wrote in the Times of Israel that in 1993 Shamir told her the following: “He was an anti-Semite, Lord Moyne. And he had a hand in the White Paper, in carrying out the White Paper policy. I don’t say that I would have, if I had to decide, that I would decide that he ought to be shot, but once he was shot there were good reasons for him being shot.” [77] Shamir was referring to the White Paper issued under Ernest Bevin. Irgun had been set up in 1931. In the Zionist vocabulary anyone who does not submit to the Zionist dictates is “anti-Semitic”. However, there is little doubt, despite the carefully crafted language of Yitzhak Shamir, reported by Saidel, that his organization, Irgun, assassinated Lord Moyne. Although Churchill was very unhappy about the assassination, there was little he could do about it because he had been brought to power by the Zionists.
A Colonial Secretary, Mr. Oliver Stanley, told the House of Commons that Zionist terrorism against Britain in the Middle East had impeded “the British war effort” i.e. it had prolonged the war. Two British sergeants were slowly killed in an orchard and their bodies were left hanging. Reed notes: “The choice of Levitical form of butchery (‘hanging on a tree’, the death ‘accursed of God’) signified that things were done under Judaic law.” [78] But the astonishing thing is the total inability of the British government come to the defense of its men. It was shackled by the Zionist controlled press in both Britain and the United States. One disillusioned British soldier wrote a letter to The Times: “What use has the army for the government’s sympathy? It does not avenge who are murdered, nor does it prevent any further killings. Are we no longer a nation with sufficient courage to enforce law and order where it is our responsibility to do so?” [79] The British and the American governments were Zionist captives and did nothing to contain Zionist terrorism.
In the words of Douglas Reed: “From 1946 terrorists took command. They set to work to drive the British from Palestine first, and knew they could not fail in the state of affairs which had been brought about during the Second War. If the British defended either themselves or the semitic Arabs the cry of ‘anti-semitism’ would rise until the politicians in Washington turned on the British; then when the British left the terrorists would drive out the Arabs.” [80] The British administrative offices dealing with the Palestine Mandate were housed in a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. On July 22, 1946 King David Hotel was blown by bombs planted by Irgun agent disguised as Arab workmen and waiters. A total of 91 people were killed in this incident. The reason for bombing had to destroy the documentary evidence implicating the Jewish Agency in acts of terrorism against the British. The British authorities had recovered documents implicating the Jewish Agency in a raid on June 29, 1946 on the offices this agency. The documents directly implicated the Jewish terrorist organization Haganah in acts of terrorism against the British authorities. [81]
Alan Hart had correctly pointed out that during the 26 years of British Mandate, the British set into motion three major conflicts: “One between the indigenous and betrayed Arabs of Palestine and the incoming (extraneous and alien) Zionist Jews; One between the Palestinian nationalists and the forces of occupying British; and One, eventually between the Zionist Jews in Palestine and the British.” [82] The British mandate was, from day one, fraudulent and mala-fide. Lord Islington stated in the House of Lords very clearly: “When one sees in its Article 22… that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the keynote of the Mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path then we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race.” [83]
Finally, one may quote Douglas Reed on the Mandate: “The ‘mandates’ also bestowed on Britain in respect of Iraq and Transjordan, and to France in respect of Syria, were soon relinquished, these territories becoming independent states. Other countries received ‘mandates’ in respect of various colonies and oceanic territories, which in time and in fact became their possessions. These other ‘mandates’ were from the start fictitious and served in the office of chaperones to the dubious ones which needed respectable company. Of the entire bogus arrangement only Palestine ‘mandate’ continued until the Zionists being numerous enough and sufficiently supplied with arms, it was abandoned and the country left to the invaders then able to take and hold it by force.” [84]
In the year 1946 a British military officer, General Stanley Morgan, noticed that the UNRRA was being used, not to rehabilitate displaced persons, but as an umbrella and a cover for transportation of a huge number of East European and Russian Jews to Palestine. These Jews were not displaced persons. The Communist regimes protected Jews through severe laws against anti-Semitism. These Eastern Jews were not displaced from Germany. Their mass-movement to Palestine only had Zionist motives. They were being driven by their Talmudic mentors, the Rabbis, and the bankers behind the Rabbis, to a new land where they, or their ancestors, had never lived. In January and August of 1946 General Morgan stated that there existed “a secret organization to further a mass movement of Jews from Europe, a second Exodus.” [85] He was labelled anti-Semitic (which he was not) and then he was dismissed from his post by the new DG, who was a Zionist Jew from New York. In his place a Mr. Myer Cohen (obviously a Jewish name) was appointed. The British government retired Gen. Morgan to please her Zionist masters and falsely stated that he had been retired at his own request.
In November 1946 a Select Committee on Estimates formed by the British House of Commons reported that a “very large number of Jews, almost amounting to a second Exodus, have been migrating from Eastern Europe to the American zones of Germany and Austria with the intention in majority of cases of finally making their way to Palestine. It is clear that it is a highly organized movement with ample funds and great influence behind it, but the Subcommittee was unable to obtain any real evidence who are the real instigators.” [86] Similarly, a War Investigating Committee of the Senate of the United States concluded that “heavy migration of Jews from Eastern Europe into the American zone of Germany is part of a carefully organized plan financed by special groups in the United States.” [87] Both these reports confirmed the assessment of General Morgan. Further, the Zionists had been armed by communist countries, particularly Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. And most of the Zionist armed group comprised Jews from East Europe and Russia.
Memorial Day Ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. President John F. Kennedy Visits Grave of Lieutenant James Forrestal. 30 May 1963
Thus the Zionists were able to either assassinate, or remove, any high official who stood for justice and truth. Lord Moyne was assassinated and General Morgan was dismissed. Earlier Herbert Asquith and Neville Chamberlain had been removed and replaced by agents of the High Cabal to implement the Zionist bidding. In the United States the Secretary for Defense James Forrestal resisted the Zionist onslaught, foreseeing President Truman’s capitulation, and was assassinated. [88] This kind of influence could be wielded only on account of the backing of the High Cabal, whose interests the Zionists represented.
One may ask as to why was Palestine so important for the Zionists or the international banking families which nurtured and backed them? An American Jewish lawyer Henry H. Klein, who struggled hard against the Zionists, wrote in his 1946 pamphlet (emphasis in original): “Hundreds of millions of dollars have been collected from Jews throughout the world for Palestine during the last fifty years. What has become of this vast sum? Some of it has been spent for land and construction there; some for overhead; some for private purposes; a large part of it for propaganda to keep the agitation alive and the golden stream flowing and some of it went into graft. ‘Back to Zion’ is a magic slogan among Jews and the Dead Sea in Palestine is the magic spot that will produce the Golconda of wealth that will further reinforce the efforts towards world rulership. The value of minerals and chemicals in the Dead Sea is estimated in trillions of dollars and some of it is already being extracted.” [89]
But the international banking families, who already own most the wealth of the world, are striving from a Satanic One World Government under their absolute control, a World Order in which traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. will cease to exist and none other than these families and their cohorts will own private property. The deeper reason for the choice of Palestine for the Israel of the bankers was stated by Nahum Goldman, President World Jewish Congress, in Montreal in 1947. The reason is quoted in the following paragraph.
He stated (emphasis added): “The Jews might have had Uganda, Madagascar, and other places for the establishment of the Jewish Fatherland but they wanted absolutely nothing except Palestine, not because the Dead Sea water by evaporation can produce five trillion dollars of metalloids and powdered metals; not because the subsoil of Palestine contains twenty times more petroleum than the combined reserves of the two Americas; but because Palestine is at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa, because Palestine constitutes the veritable center of world political power, the strategic center for world control.” [90] There you have the real reasons for the forcible, illegal, and criminal occupation of Palestine by Russian and East European Talmudic agents of the High Cabal at the expense of the local population.
As a result of the death of FDR in 1944, President Truman, the then vice president, had automatically assumed the office of president of the country. The next elections were to be held in November 1948 and Truman, a 33rd degree Freemason, desperately wanted to be elected. This allowed the Zionists to manipulate things to their advantage. The nomination contests occurred in June and July of 1948 and the Zionists offered re-election to Truman if he supported the invasion of Palestine by the Jews. In November 1947 the Zionists wanted partition of Palestine and in May 1948, as the nomination contest approached, they desired recognition of their invasion. Both sides in the elections were approached by Zionists. “Thus the election campaign took on the nature of an auction, each candidate being constantly under pressure to outbid the other in supporting the invasion of Palestine.” [91]
In 1947 the President Truman made a demand for the admission of 100,000 Jews to Palestine. In response the British government announced that it will withdraw its forces from Palestine if impartial administration was rendered impossible. Truman was then advised to up the ante and make a demand for the admission for 150,000 Jews to Palestine! This advice was proffered by Mr. Robert Hannegan, ex-chairman of the Democratic Party. The rationale for this advice was that it “would have a very great influence and great effect on the raising of funds for Democratic National Committee.” He pointed out that, depending on what Truman did with the Palestine issue “very large sums … from Jewish contributors” could either be given or withheld! [92]
The Deir Yassin horror of April 9, 1948, in which men, women and children were butchered mercilessly by Jewish terrorists of the Irgun and Stern gangs, could only be carried out by Eastern Jews drenched in Talmudic hatred. The unfortunate Deir Yassin was a village of about 600 residents on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Once the resistance of the village to the attackers ended, those who emerged from their houses were lined up and shot. Those who remained in the houses were “butchered.” One survivor, an eye witness narrated: “I saw a man shoot a bullet into the neck of my sister Salhiyeh, who was nine months pregnant. Then he cut her stomach open with a butcher’s knife.” [93]
Alan Hart has described the dastardly act in some detail. He writes that a Swiss IRC representative named Jacques de Reynier, was the first to arrive on the scene Hart writes: “He [Reyneir] and his German escort found 150 bodies thrown in a cistern. In all they counted 254 dead, including 145 women of whom 35 were pregnant… One of the Irgun attackers told his German escort that they were still ‘cleaning up’. Reyneir wrote: ‘The first thing I saw were people running everywhere, rushing in and out of houses, carrying Sten guns, rifles, pistols and long ornate knives … They seemed half mad.” [94] He saw a young woman stab and elderly couple cowering on the doorstep of their hut.
Douglas Reed’s insight into the Zionist mind may be gauged from the following lines: “The massacre at Deir Yassin was an act of ‘observance’ of the ancient ‘statutes and commandments’, including the relevant passage in Deuteronomy. ‘When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out … seven nations greater and mightier than thou … then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them’, and the related passage, ‘thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them.” [95]
Deir Yassin changed the equation. The savagery, the Talmudic brutality resulted in the Arab population fleeing their villages. The terrorist Menachim Begin, who subsequently became one of a line of terrorist prime ministers of Israel, wrote: “Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel. Kolonia village, which had repulsed every attack of the Haganah, was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting. Beit Iksa was also evacuated… In the rest of the country too Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces…” [96]
On May 14, 1948, within five weeks of the Deir Yassin massacre, Zionists marched into Tel Aviv carrying Czechoslovak rifles, and the state of Israel was proclaimed into existence. It was created by fraud, deception, crime, terrorism and bloodshed and has lived that way since it was created. Yitzhak Shamir, another terrorist turned prime minister of Israel had stated in 1943: “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war… We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle.” [97]
In his memoirs, President Truman mentions the extreme pressures to which he was subjected by the Zionists. Reed quotes (emphasis in Reed): “The facts were that not only were pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage, I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders – actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats – disturbed me and annoyed me. Some were even suggesting that we pressure sovereign states into favorable votes in the General Assembly.” [98] If Mr. Truman was so annoyed why did he succumb?
Author Texe Marrs has pointed out why President Truman issued a declaration recognizing Israel as a new nation on May 14, 1948. He did so despite “virtually unanimous opposition within his own cabinet.” Why did he do so? One reason was that he desired Jewish support in the impending elections. But there was much more to it. Texe Marrs wrote in 2011: “All Zionists were ecstatic, but the Zionist elite knew months in advance that Truman would do this. As I explain and prove in my latest investigative report and in my book Conspiracy of the Six Pointed Star, a Zionist powerbroker, Abraham Feinberg, had, just months before, given the President a two-million dollar bribe – $100 bills packed in suitcases – to recognize Israel. This bribe to Truman, confirmed by recently released FBI archives, means that Israel is today and always has been an illegitimate state established on the basis of a criminal act.” [99]
References
[1] Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty: Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Prolonged WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years, Trine Day 2018, p 394.
[2] Alan Hart: Zionism the Real Enemy of Jews, Vol 1, p 30
[3] Chris Hedges: Israel’s Culture of Deceit, The Unz Review, Oct 19, 2023 https://www.unz.com/article/israels-culture-of-deceit/
[4] Arthur Koestler: The Thirteenth Tribe, Gsg & Assoc, 1976
[5] See for instance: Benton L. Bradberry: The Myth of German Villainy, AuthorHouse, 2012; Antony C. Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Bucaneer Books Inc., 1974; Antony C. Sutton: Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Clairview, 2010, first published 1976 by ’76 Press, California. Jim Marrs: Rule by Secrecy, Perennial, 2004
[6] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, Bridger House Publishing, 2012, p 134
[7] Deanna Spingola: The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power, Trafford Publishing, 2012, p 23.
[8] Ibid, p 24
[9] Ibid, p 23
[10] Ibid, p 22
[11] Ibid, pp 22, 23
[12] Ibid, p 24
[13] Ibid, p 32
[14] Ibid, p 35
[15] Theodore Herzl: The Jewish State
[16] Deanna Spingola: op cit p 37
[17] Ibid, p 37
[18] Theodore Herzl: op cit
[19] Ibid
[20] Deanna Spingola: op cit, p 34
[21] Lord Rothschild: “A Family That Helped Build a Nation”, The Jewish Chronicle, November 15, 2017 https://www.thejc.com/author/lord-rothschild-lord.rothschild
[22] Nicola Loftus: “Lord Rothschild My Jewish Roots”, The Jewish Chronicle, June 20, 2019, https://www.thejc.com/life-and-culture/all/lord-rothschild-my-jewish-roots-1.485601
[23] Deanna Spingola: op cit, p 44
[24] Douglas Reed: op cit, p 207
[25] Ibid, p 250
[26] Eustace Mullins: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Bridger House Publishing, 1991, p 18
[27] Douglas Reed: Far and Wide, CPA Books, 1950, p 285
[28] Benjamin H. Freedman: An American Warns His Countrymen, 1961, posted on rense.com https://rense.com/general91/amd.htm
[29] Ibid
[30] Quoted in Laurent Guyenot: From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, translated from French and edited by Kevin J. Barrett, Sifting and Winnowing Publications, 2018, p 226
[31] Ibid p 226
[32] Ibid p 226
[33] Alison Weir: Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the US was Used to Create Israel, self-published 2014, pp 21, 22
[34] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 281
[35] Ibid, p 281
[36] Ibid, p 281
[37] Antony C. Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, mentioned in [5]
[38] Gerard Menuhin: Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, Castel Hill Publishers, 2016, pp 220, 221
[39] Eustace Mullins op cit, p 85
[40] Douglas Reed: Controversy of Zion, pp 281, 282
[41] Ibid, p 301
[42] Ibid, pp 301, 302
[43] Ibid, p 301
[44] Ibid p 303
[45] Deanna Spingola: op cit, p 696
[46] Ibid, p 698
[47] The King-Crane Report, World War I Document Archive, https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_King-Crane_Report
[48] Ibid
[49] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 304
[50] Ibid, p 305
[51] Ibid, p 306
[52] Eustace Mullins: The World Order: Our Secret Rulers. Omni Veritas 1985 &1991, p 198
[53] David Irving: Hitler’s War and the Warpath, Parforce, UK, 2000, p xxv
[54] Edwin Black: The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich Jewish Palestine, Dialog Press 2009, p xxi (first self-published 1983)
[55] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 321
[56] Ibid, p 309
[57] Ibid, p 309
[58] Ibid, p 309
[59] Ibid, pp 309, 310
[60] Ibid, p 310
[61] See, for example, Mark Weber: President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents, The Journal of Historical Review, No 4, Vol 2, 1983; https://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/4/2/Weber135-172.html
Mark Weber: Collusion: Franklin Roosevelt, British Intelligence and the Secret Campaign to Push the U.S. Into War, Institute of Historical Review, February 2020, https://www.ihr.org/other/RooseveltBritishCollusion
[62] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 339
[63] Ibid, p 329
[64] Ibid, p 329
[65] Ibid, p 330
[66] Ibid, p 330
[67] Ibid, p 331
[68] Ibid, p 335
[69] Ibid, p 336
[70] Ibid, p 337
[71] Ibid, p 428
[72] It is difficult to locate articles related to the suspicious death of FDR – the search engines seem to repress such searches and websites posting such material seem not to survive for long. One may see
https://patriots4truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/did-fdr-commit-suicide-or-was-he-assassinated.pdf
or
https://drvenkatrsingh.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-fdr-commit-suicide-or-was-he.html
[73] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 430
[74] Ibid, p 430
[75] Ibid, p 335
[76] Ibid, pp 431, 432
[77] Joanna Saidel: Yitzhak Shamir: Why we killed Lord Moyne, Times of Israel, 5 July 2012, https://www.timesofisrael.com/yitzhak-shamir-why-we-killed-lord-moyne/
[78] Douglas Reed: op cit, p 436
[79] Ibid, p 436
[80] Ibid, p 301
[81] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
[82] Alan Hart: op cit, p 150
[83] Ibid, pp 149, 150
[84] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 301
[85] Ibid, p 437
[86] Ibid, p 438
[87] Ibid, p 438
[88] For a quick review see https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/13-Apr-2023/the-assassination-of-usdefensesecretary-jamesforrestal
[89] Henry H. Klein: “Sanhedrin Produced World Destruction”, pamphlet 1946, published by Liberty Bell Publications, p 9. In the same pamphlet he defines the Sanhedrin as “a body of self appointed and self anointed Jews who presume to run all Jewish affairs and control all Jews.”
[90] Quoted in Gerard Menuhin: Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, Castle Hill Publishers, 2016, p 103
[91] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 439
[92] Ibid, p 438
[93] Alan Hart: op cit, p 228
[94] Ibid, p 228
[95] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 449
[96] Alan Hart: op cit, p 231
[97] Quoted in the Preface of Zahir Ebrahim: NAKBA 2020: World Order/Zionism, Palestinian-Goyim Studies, p xv https://tinyurl.com/Nakba
[98] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 451
[99] Texe Marrs: “President Harry S. Truman and the Jews”, For a thorough analysis of the assassination see David Martin: The Assassination of James Forrestal, David Martin/McCabe Publishing Co, 2019
https://www.texemarrs.com/092011/truman_and_the_jews_article.htm
Source : francais.rt.com – 28 avril 2025 https://francais.rt.com/france/120050-telegram-contraint-collaborer-davantage-avec-les-autorites- francaises-sur-les-donnees-utilisateurs bonnez-vous au canal Telegram Strategika pour ne rien rater de notre actualité Pour
L’article Telegram contraint de collaborer davantage avec les autorités françaises est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
ChroniqueLa cyberattaque qui a ciblé la CNSS, suivie de la divulgation massive des données personnelles, n’était probablement pas une classique action de piratage informatique. Elle a en effet tous les attributs d’une «Psyop», une opération psychologique consistant à créer une dissonance cognitive au sein de la population et un sentiment généralisé de colère, de frustration ou de peur, dont la finalité est de déstabiliser le pays politiquement et socialement.
L’article CNSS: simple cyberattaque ou «Psyop» contre le Maroc? est apparu en premier sur Strategika.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)