Connexion
Des responsables du FSB russe ont fait état d’une cyberattaque de grande ampleur menée par des services de renseignement étrangers.
L’article Le FSB révèle une cyberattaque de grande ampleur des renseignements étrangers contre les smartphones de responsables russes est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Les États-Unis ont construit en Ukraine 13 laboratoires biologiques contenant des virus mortellement dangereux, en dépensant 24,8 millions de dollars
L’article Terrain d’expérimentation: Le véritable objectif du Pentagone en Ukraine est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Le lanceur Soyouz-5 a effectué son vol inaugural depuis le cosmodrome de Baïkonour. Les premier et deuxième étages ont fonctionné
L’article La première fusée Soyouz-5 lancée avec succès est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Le Bureau 1440 a lancé les 16 premiers satellites du même nom, considérés comme la réponse russe à Starlink. L’entreprise
L’article Le Bureau 1440 a lancé les 16 premiers satellites du projet Rassvet, le Starlink russe est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Le 25 février, Vladimir Poutine a participé au Forum des technologies du futur. Il a visité une exposition présentant les
L’article Au Forum des technologies du futur, Poutine veut que les biotechnologies améliorent la santé de la population est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
« L’agence n’a rien à ajouter aux informations déjà publiées à ce sujet », a déclaré Roskomnadzor. Selon les sources
L’article Telegram entre ralentissement et blocage définitif en Russie est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Europe’s choice is to surrender or die.
By Rotislav Ishchenko at ukraine.ru.
(machine translation)
Alastair Crook, a retired British diplomat, has stated that the European Union is preparing a provocation on a scale comparable to Pearl Harbor, with the aim of drawing the United States into a war with Russia.
In principle, this is not news. We have been writing for two years that the British, realizing that Ukraine has failed and will be buried, have placed their bets on a pan-European war (under the auspices of the United States) against Russia. While Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was trying to figure out who he was and how he got here, the mechanism for expanding the war was clear: a provocation in the Baltic Sea (less likely in the Black Sea or on the Belarusian border), which would leave Russia with no chance of resolving the crisis without shooting, and an outcry about the “attack” to the country of the EU and NATO, a statement of military support (sending troops and equipment, but without a formal declaration of war against Russia) by the leaders of the EU. In the last act, the United States and Britain enter the scene, demanding that Russia cease fire and threatening to provide all possible support to their allies.
I would like to point out that the mechanism of provocation assumed that in all cases, Russia would initiate military action against a specific country. Moscow, on the other hand, was only faced with the choice of whether to attack the Baltic states, which had blocked Kaliningrad, or to hope for a miracle, sink the transports carrying French and German troops and equipment bound for the Baltic ports, or to express protests, attack the territories of the United States and the United Kingdom in response to their ultimatum, or to agree to a ceasefire and negotiations mediated by them. In the end, acquiescence inevitably led to capitulation (since as soon as one set of demands was met, the West would immediately set forth another), and escalation inevitably led to a global nuclear war.
It is no coincidence that Trump claimed that Biden was leading the country towards a nuclear armageddon. Whether Biden was aware of his actions or was being manipulated by his entourage, the decision-makers in the United States (as well as the majority of the British establishment and the European bureaucracy) believed that Russia would not engage in a nuclear conflict and would retreat. However, there were other politicians in the West who had no doubt that if Russia was pushed to the wall, nuclear mushrooms would grow all over the West – no one would leave without a share. These people came to power in the United States with Trump, and their supporters are gradually pushing back against the European left-liberal supporters of war.
As a result, the United States fell out of the scheme, and Trump openly stated that if Europe wanted to go to war with Russia, it could do so on its own, without the United States. It’s not that the Europeans were particularly eager to go to war, but rather that they couldn’t help but go to war with Russia, as acknowledging defeat in the Ukrainian crisis would completely undermine the left-liberal European elites. To understand why this is significant, it would have political, economic, and social implications on a scale similar to those that shook Russia after the October Revolution and before the outbreak of World War II. The Europe we know will disappear, and a new Europe will be born in agony, compared to which the 1990s in Russia were like a light rain during a summer picnic.
But the Europeans also can’t go to war with Russia. They don’t have the armies, the warehouses, or the ability to quickly deploy the necessary military production. Without the United States, the EU is a paper tiger. Although no, a paper tiger is scarier than the EU without the United States. This is why Alastair Crook emphasizes that the provocation must be so severe and widespread that neither Trump nor other American and European politicians who support de-escalation can avoid going to war with Russia.
By the way, as a loyal subject of His Majesty, Alastair Crook does not mention Britain’s leading role in developing this plan and preparing the provocation. The blame lies with the EU, which intends to drag the United States into a war with Russia, while the United Kingdom simply passed by.
It’s understandable. Most likely, the provocation is unavoidable. The British and the European bureaucracy can’t help but try to seize their last chance. I once wrote that nothing would stop them. They might even detonate a nuclear device in Kyiv to blame Russia. However, the Ukrainian government is not fully in control of the situation. The internal opposition to Zelensky, unable to oust him yet, is attempting to preserve at least some form of Ukraine by pushing Zelensky overboard.
In such a situation, the preparation of a large-scale nuclear provocation, which requires deep secrecy, is extremely difficult, as hundreds of people must be involved in its organization (transportation, storage of the relevant munition, its transfer across the border, security, and other activities cannot be carried out without the involvement of a large number of people). Even if you simply replace the customs officers and border guards at the border with trusted individuals, it will immediately become widely known that something large and secret is being transported.
However, recently, the Ukrainians and the British have started practicing a naval provocation, attacking tankers from any country carrying Russian oil. Russia has already begun responding to the Odessa port and the ships arriving there. In principle, the British Navy and its Ukrainian counterparts can organize a “Lusitania” (with influential Americans on board). However, it is more difficult to prove Russia’s “guilt.” As Poland’s experience shows, it is no longer enough to simply claim that Russia wanted to blow up railway tracks and cause a major disaster; convincing evidence is also required.
Actually, this is the catch: how to organize a provocation in such a way as to shake the imagination of “all people of good will”, and provide “convincing evidence” of Russian “guilt”, and not inherit anywhere, and leave the United States no choice? The task is difficult, but, as experience shows, it is solvable. If British diplomats (even retired ones) start issuing warnings and distancing themselves, it means that the preparations for some large-scale atrocity have entered the final stage or are basically complete, and the London warmongers only need to give the command to launch the operation.
In principle, the supporters of escalation don’t have much time. By March, even if the Armed Forces of Ukraine don’t completely disintegrate and Zelensky still controls some part of Ukrainian territory, Trump should withdraw the United States from the Ukrainian crisis and reorient towards the Indo-Pacific region and Latin America. Moreover, he has announced the beginning of a military operation against Maduro in Venezuela in the near future. If the British and European bureaucrats let the United States out of the Ukrainian crisis and allow it to get involved in others, it will be impossible to bring it back. Washington cannot afford to run around the world like a mad rabbit, and it cannot handle two or three major crises in different parts of the world, either organizationally, resource-wise, logistically, or financially.
In the West, they like to coincide political actions with traditional holiday dates. This way, they are better remembered and evoke more emotions. We are just entering a period of holidays: Catholic Christmas, New Year, Orthodox Christmas, and Epiphany. In general, from mid-December to the end of January, almost any day is suitable for the organizers of provocations. All they need to do is manage and dare.
After February, although the danger will not disappear (it will not disappear until a final global settlement is reached), it will significantly decrease, and the further into 2026, the lower it will be.
“The genie is out of the bottle. The provocation of a “USV privateer war” on trade routes threatens to collapse global maritime trade.”
By Rotislav Ishchenko at ukraine.ru.
(machine translation)
The oil tanker Virat has been attacked twice by unmanned boats near the Bosphorus Strait. On one occasion, the ship Kairos was also set on fire. Western media outlets have claimed that the tanker belongs to Russia’s “shadow fleet.” This expands the list of potential suspects. Naturally, Ukraine, which has been waging a long-standing war against the Russian military fleet using unmanned combatants, is at the top of the list. However, it is unlikely that Kiev would have dared to attack merchant ships, especially near one of the world’s most important transportation hubs connecting the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, which is controlled by Turkey, without the direct approval of its Western allies. The consequences, both direct and indirect, would have been far-reaching, affecting the entire world. Ukraine may no longer exist, but the unmanned surface vehicle’s (USV) attack on merchant ships could echo for decades, shaping the maritime trade landscape.
So it doesn’t matter whether these USVs belonged to Ukraine or whether the British and Americans decided to use their own or those belonging to a third country. The genie is out of the bottle. And not only because this game can be played by two people.
In this case, Britain is unlikely to hope to remain outside the scope of retaliatory actions. It is clear that it is more difficult to use USV to disrupt shipping in the open ocean than in enclosed waters such as the Black, Baltic, Mediterranean, White, Red, Yellow, and Japanese Seas, as well as all Chinese coastal seas. However, the ports of the United Kingdom are within direct reach of USV strikes from the continent and/or from ships and vessels passing through the English Channel. The situation for shipping may be even more dangerous in the classic pirate stronghold of the Caribbean Sea, which borders dozens of countries, many of which are home to both drug cartels and ideological guerrillas.
The threat to American southern ports in the Atlantic is clear.
At the same time, although USVs are more complex than the simplest air drones, they do not require high-tech enterprises for their creation. The problem of guidance, especially at shorter distances, is also solvable. This means that it is not always possible to determine the nationality of a USV that has not exploded, especially if the manufacturer deliberately conceals it.
Almost all strategic global maritime trade routes, no matter how far they extend into the open ocean, eventually pass through bottlenecks like the Bosphorus. Moreover, almost all of these bottlenecks are within the reach of the USV from the coasts of dozens of countries and/or hundreds of ships passing by simultaneously. Only the Northern Sea Route is relatively protected by national means. The rest can be blocked.
The provocation of a “USV privateer war” on trade routes threatens to collapse global maritime trade. This does not require sinking all ships. It is enough to make the threat significant enough to increase insurance premiums, crew salaries, and security costs, as well as delivery times. As a result, significant volumes will be excluded from global trade due to their unprofitability. Additionally, USV can be produced in large quantities (or purchased) and used by dozens of countries against each other. As we know, the greater the demand, the cheaper and easier to use the technology becomes. The first AK-47s were secret and carried in tarpaulin cases, but now the entire world, including the poorest tribes, is using them, and only the lazy ones are not producing them. Finally, the Ukrainian military crisis, as well as the wars between the Houthis and the Saudis and Israel, have demonstrated how easy it is to use high-tech weapons against a third country under the guise of a proxy ally. If Ukraine can launch American and European missiles, which require satellite guidance, at targets deep within Russia, and the Houthis can use hypersonic weapons to attack their enemies, what is stopping Somali pirates or Colombian drug lords from developing similar technologies for the USV?
I want to emphasize that the problem is not that a tanker that could theoretically belong to Russia’s “shadow fleet” was attacked. Russia is primarily a land-based power, and its main trade routes are located within the Eurasian continent and are well-protected. The main targets of the “USV privateer war” may include China, Taiwan, Japan, both Koreas, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Taiwan, India, the Gulf oil monarchies, Iran, Singapore, Turkey, Indonesia, and countries in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, North Sea, and Baltic regions.
These are either trade competitors of the United States and the United Kingdom, or allies of the United States who are in a leading geopolitical position and are used as a springboard for military and political pressure on the United States’ trade and economic competitors.
In recent years, the West has been losing not only the financial and economic struggle, but also the struggle for control of global trade. The dollar and the euro are losing their positions as the main and auxiliary global currencies and currencies for trade settlements. The yuan, rather than the ruble or the rupee, is actively replacing them. The traditional trade between the West and countries in the Gulf, Latin America, and Southeast Asia is gradually shifting to China. China is also actively expanding its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, moving through the Greater Middle East.
In all of China’s advancements, maritime trade routes are of utmost importance.
The land-based trans-Eurasian trade routes that connect the continent into a unified economic Greater Eurasia serve as the foundation, but it is the control over maritime trade routes that allows China to build a “fairy-tale castle” of global profitable trade. It is no coincidence that China is building a navy that surpasses the United States in terms of the number of ships and is poised to surpass it in terms of overall combat power. China needs to control the routes that facilitate the sale of its goods. Russia can exist as an autarky, but China will quickly explode from within if its trade is blocked.
During the Ukrainian military crisis, Western UAVs, which were limited in their use in Ukraine, proved to be highly effective in controlling the water area dominated by the enemy’s navy and aviation, as well as in blocking ports and posing a constant threat to military bases. Russian sailors gradually learned to combat the UAV threat, but they were unable to completely eliminate it.
It should be noted that the military fleet, which exercises dominance in a closed water area, has impressive capabilities for combating enemy USVs. However, as mentioned earlier, the threat of USVs in the Black Sea has not been completely eliminated. For the military, repelling attacks is a natural activity. The merchant fleet, on the other hand, is not equipped to handle this task. Any measures taken to enhance the security of commercial ports and the surrounding water area will immediately impact the speed and cost of shipping goods, while the threat of USVs remains high.
The West is not just not afraid of playing a “double game” in the “USV privateer war.” It is provoking this war, deliberately seeking to paralyze global maritime trade.
We can say that this will hit the West itself. It will hit it, but not as hard as we would like. As mentioned above, the West has already lost its trade supremacy to China, and it will only continue to lose ground. However, the rules of geopolitical warfare require us to try to destroy the mechanism that benefits our geopolitical adversary rather than ourselves. During the two World Wars, when maritime trade was an Anglo-Saxon monopoly, Germany attempted to wage war against it using its submarine fleet. The West is now trying to strike a blow to global maritime trade, which is gradually being taken over by China.
We have repeatedly said that the paralysis of Chinese trade will inevitably plunge Beijing into a financial, economic, and then a social and political crisis. The Anglo-Americans have failed to isolate China through legal means, so why not try proxy piracy, since they are already waging a proxy war on land against Russia.
It is clear that we should not expect hundreds of USV attacks on sea routes tomorrow. However, we should not expect them to take decades to organize. As the development of UAV technology during the Ukrainian military crisis has shown, it is possible to transition from isolated attacks to large-scale use in a matter of months (or even a couple of years), which can change the entire dynamics of the conflict and require the development of appropriate countermeasures, which may not always be as quick as desired.
The fact that the incidents involving attacks on merchant ships by the USV occurred in the area of the Bosphorus, a trade route controlled by a NATO country, indicates that the organizers of this provocation are preparing for a global undeclared war on trade routes (similar to the war between English pirates and Spanish transatlantic trade in the 16th to 18th centuries), and they do not intend to tolerate the transfer of control over these routes to their geopolitical opponents. Given that the United States is developing an icebreaker fleet and actively expanding its presence in the Arctic, we should also consider strengthening the security of the Northern Sea Route.
Targeting allies and manufacturing foes is the last card available to the Empire of Chaos.
Pepe Escobar – Strategic Culture
China is right in the middle of a true tech onslaught – which in several ways works as a sort of wrap-up of Made in China 2025, conceived and launched 10 years ago, and a resounding success even facing at least two tariff/sanctions offensives by Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0.
A stellar Chinese analysis by Chen Jing, published by my friends at Guancha in Shanghai, concisely interprets the importance of key vectors and variables linked to the tech onslaught. Here’s an essential breakdown, with my own comments.
The China-US decoupling
The US as a Chinese export market now represents less than 10% of total exports. In parallel, as I observed in my visits to China this year – from Shanghai and Beijing to Xian and Xinjiang – there’s no psychological fear anymore of the much-touted “decoupling”. After the Trump-Xi meeting, it became clear that what is already in effect is a managed decoupling. Beijing is cool, calm and collected: after all, it’s able to expand in markets all across the Global South. Especially because more trade usually walks side by side with more infrastructure development projects: that’s the logic behind the New Silk Roads/BRI.
China’s 15th Five-Year Plan
What was recently debated in four days in Beijing – and will be approved next March during the Two Sessions – is already rolling, as in “decisive breakthroughs in key core technologies in major areas such as integrated circuits, industrial machine tools, high-end instruments, basic software, advanced materials, and biomanufacturing.” That’s all Made in China 2025 material. The conclusion is stark: sooner, rather than later, China simply won’t need anything from the Western high-tech industrial chain. Call it industrial decoupling. And the cards, once again, are Made in China.
The US debt crisis
The analysis recalls a comparison between the US debt in 2019, before Covid – $21 trillion, with $300 billion in annual interest – with 2025: $38 trillion, with interest projected at $1.3 trillion, way ahead of the Pentagon’s budget. You don’t need to be Prof. Michael Hudson to do the math: long-term US debt is the ultimate – unpayable – nightmare. And the US debt has alreay morphed into a US dollar crisis.
The SWIFT factor
The analysis touches on a key issue regarding SWIFT. The US dollar is still responsible for approximately 47% of SWIFT transactions. The yuan share, meanwile, fell from 4.74% in July 2024 to 2.93% in August 2025. So the yuan is not exactly becoming more international. Why? Bacause the yuan is being decoupled from SWIFT, on purpose: China is encouraging the Global South – no less than 189 countries and regions – to use CIPS on international trade/financial transactions. CIPS is progressing non-stop: a year-on-year increase of approximately 42% compared to 2024.
Call it China preparing itself for financial decoupling. Even if Washington decided to cut off China from SWIFT like it did with Russia, Beijing would have no problems leveraging its massive trade power to then really internationalize the yuan.
A new path of globalization, with China at the core?
The rare earth saga.
In 2025, China entered escape velocity. The reaction to the Trump Tariff Tantrum came with unwavering self-confidence. It was a marvel to observe that on the spot in Shanghai. The analysis recognizes that much of China’s force derives from its rare earth potential.
Already in July 2023 export controls were imposed on gallium and germanium. This summarizes China’s share and position in the production of metals and rare elements, showing that “China’s advantages go far beyond the 17 rare earth elements that have recently caused panic and helplessness in the Western camp.”
There are 21 elements in the export control list; only seven are medium and heavy rare earth elements. There are several other categories such as rare refractory metals, rare dispersed metals, rare light metals, and non-ferrous heavy metals.
One of the key points of the analysis is that not only the US, but the G7 as a whole no longer has the power to dictate the rules of the global economy. China “can withstand the G7 on its own”. Especially when the myth of US industrial strength has been shattered.
That opens a new Pandora’s box of discussion: is the global majority already moving to a new path of globalization, with China at its core?
The AI bubble
So AI may turn out to be the US’s last hope to turn the tide. The problem is the humongous size of the US AI bubble – a pillar of the US economy. It will eventually burst – and the consequences are unimaginable.
Meta, OpenAI, Nvidia, and others are pouring stratospheric funds into scaling-up large language models (LLMs) and massive data centers. That may not be enough to prevent the AI bubble burst – in an environment dictated by mega-corporations only focused on quick profits.
Cue to a quite worrying prospect fueling their paranoia. Several high-level Chinese models – such as DeepSeek, QWEN and the Kimi K2 series – already dominate global AI open source. The Americans practice “closed-source” – where the thing that matters most is how to monetize their gigantic models.
China is playing a very clever game: delaying the release of Deep Seek R2 – an open source, large-scale model. Why? Because releasing it now would mostly benefit Nvidia’s GPUs, boosting their sales and of course the US stock market.
China is nearly ready to complete domestic GPU computer clusters. DeepSeek R2 is built upon these clusters. The result: that will directly disrupt US dominance. As a Shanghai expert puts it: “How can American AI, hampered by power shortages, lack of open-source access, and high energy consumption, compete with the low-power, open-source, large-scale model that offers a significant advantage?”
MAGA: the Magically Globally Aggressive model
At the recent AI Future Summit, Nvidia’s Jensen Huang went straight to the point: China would definitely win the US-China AI competition.
A key reason is that China’s AI is about productive capitalism – and not speculation. Chinese AI is primarily used in industrial manufacturing sectors such as mining, energy, water conservancy, metallurgy, and military. Large-scale AI models combined with sensors, industrial communication, and automated control at their core, are largely applied to real-life applications, addressing real-life problems in meteorology, marine agriculture, earth machinery, aerospace, civil geology. They truly integrate algorithms and computing power into production.
History tells us that all industrial and tech revolutions have been closely related to real-life production – from steel production and electricity generation to the chemical industry and telecommunications engineering.
All that brings us back to the defining psycho-killer outlook of the Trump 2.0 administration. Incapable of really “winning” a tech war against the largest economy on the planet by PPP, the imperative has switched to harassing and plundering weaker nations seen as easy prey, especially in terms of grabbing their natural resources.
Meanwhile, domestically, Trump 2.0 dreams of reviving manufacturing – the MAGA way. Call it the Magically Globally Aggressive (MAGA) model, deviating attention from what really matters: the monstrous debt; the declining power of the US dollar; the tech bubble; inflation; real geopolitics. Plunder – targeting allies and manufactured foes alike – is the last card available to the Empire of Chaos.
China’s innovation drive is reaching fever pitch in 2025. Let’s cut to the chase and focus on four crucial domains.
1.The Huawei Factor
1.Huawei is already testing its first, self-developed EUV lithography machine capable of producing 3nm chips. Trial tests are going full blast at the research center in Dongguan, and mass production should start in 2026.
It’s impossible to overstate how much of a game-changing paradigm this Chinese breatkthrough – specifically in laser-induced discharge plasma (LDP) – is all about. It’s set to turn the seminconductor technology environment totally upside down.
The physics involved in Huawei’s LDP is fundamentally different from the method employed by the Dutch ASML’s de facto monopoly. This being China, it’s simpler, smaller and cheaper.
Huawei’s technology is bound to smash that monopoly while solidifying China’s chip independence. Talk about cost efficiency: Huawei aims to produce EUV machines at a fraction of the cost of ASML’s (around $350 million for each unit), and no less than flood China with homegrown 3 nm chips.
All that is happening after the proverbial Western “experts”, following the 2019 sanctions imposed by Trump 1.0, dictated that China would take up to 15 years to just catch up. After all, EUV technology is too deeply embedded in the Western-controlled supply chain. It was assumed that China would never be able to smash the monopoly.
Well, of course any monopoly is smashable when public-private partnerships – in academia and tech – release untold billions of dollars into R&D, rally the best minds, and focus on building an EUV eco-system from scratch.
This is not only about tech; it’s a geoeconomic and geopolitical earthquake. There was a serious debate going on across China that it would be a matter between 2 and 3 years to cut off any dependence on US/Western tech. Well, Huawei and SMIC will be moving closer to mass production of these 3 nm chips already by next year. Not hard to do the math on where the future of global chipmaking lies.
Invest In R&D And Reach Patent Heaven
Now cut to Fan Zhiyong, Huawei’s Vice-President and Minister of Intellectual Property, talking at the company’s 6th Innovation and Intellectual Property Forum this past Tuesday.
He explained how “from the brand-new HarmonyOS 6 operating system to the powerful Atlas 950 supernode, our R&D team has achieved remarkable successes. Although many leading software and hardware products are massive systems engineering projects, we are making every effort to make them open to everyone.”
Huawei conducts an innovation and intellectual property forum nearly every year, discussing the importance of open/protected intellectual property as well as promoting its Top Ten Inventions: this year they featured, among others, supernodes; the Harmony OS; foldable screens; short-range optical interconnects; and next-generation solid state drives.
There’s no secret: a lot of investment in R&D is behind all these breakthroughs. Over the past five years, Huawei has invested more than 20% of its annual sales revenue in R&D. According to the EU Industrial R&D Scoreboard 2024, Huawei is Number 6 globally in R&D expenditure.
Huawei does not see these accomplishments as leading to a “closed garden”. On the contrary: the strategy is to foment an “open industry”, including the launch of a series of new open source software and hardware.
This opennes is reflected by the fact that Huawei is one of the world’s largest patent holders. By the end of 2024, Huawei held over 150,000 valid authorized patents globally, ranging from over 50,000 Chinese patents to over 29,000 patents in the U.S. and 19,000 in Europe.
And that brings us to…
2. Total Tech Sufficiency
And of course that is centered on AI. Cut to three recent key tech moves:
A. Beijing has banned foreign AI chips in every state-funded data center across the nation. Exempted will be only a few private companies which build their own data centers.
B. Local and regional governments were encouraged and are already subsidizing the electricity bills of AI data centers. China has a key infrastructure advantage over the US: cheap and extremely abundant power – as I saw it in my recent travels in Xinjiang. That is essential to offset the cost of switching to domestic chips, a more energy-intensive operation. For example, Huawei’s AI server system – CloudMatrix 384 – consumes more energy than Nvidia’s NVL72 system.
C. Beijing is also rolling out a new, ambitious “AI Plus Manufacturing” plan, included in the broader AI Plus initiative.
Point A is ultra-pertinent because Trump 2.0 is debating whether to allow Nvidia to sell a downgraded version of its Blackwell chips to China. Nvidia’s CEO Jensen Huang is lobbying for it like there’s no tomorrow, desperate of losing the Chinese market to Huawei for good. He bombastically announced that China is only “nanosenconds” behind the US on semiconductors.
Point C is also ultra-pertinent because as we saw with the Hauwei factor, Beijing is going for no holds barred AI chip self-sufficiency.
Beijing is deploying a very clever strategy. No foreign chips in data centers means a de facto protected market to domestic chip innovators which match foreign chip performances. Talk about a massive incentive.
Li Lecheng, Minister of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), has announced that MIIT will soon issue an “AI Plus Manufacturing” plan, focusing on rolling out AI upgrades in key industries; expanding intelligent assisted design, virtual simulation, and early defect detection; promoting brand new AI-enabled mobile phones and computers; and accelerating R&D for next-generation intel devices such as humanoid robots and brain-computer interfaces.
In a nutshell: that is how Beijing wants to implement AI in every nook and cranny of the Chinese economy. It’s a no holds barred total innovation strategy. Sanctions? What sanctions?
What A Stable And Resilient China May Accomplish
3. Clean Energy
This revolution is already on – with China leaping ahead of the whole collective West, installing, for instance, nearly 900 gigawatt of solar capacity, more than the US-EU combo.
Last year, China generated 1826 terawatt/hour of electricity out of solar and wind power – five times the energy equivalent of all its nuclear warheads.
Yes: that’s a certified energy superpower.
4. An Early-Warning Detection Big Data Platform
The Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology – China’s number one defense-electronics center and a hub of key innovation even under US sanctions – is developing a ground-breaking “distributed early-warning detection big data platform” capable of tracking up to 1,000 missile launches worldwide in real time.
The platform fuses data from an enormous array of space-, air-, sea-, and ground-based sensors, using advanced algorithms to distinguish warheads from decoys and proceed to action across secure networks.
The system integrates literally anything: fragmented, heterogeneous data streams from multiple sources – radars, satellites, optical, electronic reconnaissance systems – no matter where they come from, and when.
Cue to the system’s integration with interceptor missiles. During the Victory Day military parade last September in Beijing, China presented a new generation of air defense and anti-ballistic missiles, including the HQ-29, capable of intercepting hostile missiles beyond the atmosphere. Call it the Chinese Dragon Dome.
These are only 4 vectors amid the concerted Chinese tech drive, one of the key themes of the next Five-Year Plan to be approved next March in the “Two Sessions” in Beijing.
Now cut to Ronnie Chan, the Chair Emeritus of the Asia Society and the chairman of its Hong Kong Centre. He’s one of those affable old-school Hong Kong elite members who’s seen it all – and capable of synthesizing what’s ahead in a sharp and sweet manner. What he said recently at a seminar organized by the Shanghai Development Research Foundation could not be more relevant.
Let’s take just three key takeaways:
1.
“The Chinese people are resilient and patient. As long as domestic stability is maintained, external pressure only strengthens their endurance (…) in this China–U.S. rivalry, there will be no true winner, but the side that stands longer in the end will be China.”
2.
“China’s economy has not been over-financialised, and it continues to be grounded in the real economy. Only when manufacturing is strong can a nation remain stable and resilient.”
3.
“China must stay calm — neither blindly optimistic nor blindly pessimistic. China possess a vast market, a complete industrial chain, and a diligent population. As long as internal stability holds, external pressures cannot defeat it. The real opportunities ahead do not lie in real estate or finance, but in the service sector and innovation-driven real economies.”
There is no Chinese “miracle”: it’s all about planning and hard work.
And now to the next stage: no holds barred innovation.
By Epic Economist.
Video Description:
“The American economy is crashing right now, and it’s worse than most people realize. From banks refusing cash withdrawals to nearly a million jobs lost to automation, from healthcare premiums doubling overnight to stores packed with inventory nobody can afford, the warning signs are everywhere.
In this video, we’re looking at what’s really happening on the ground. Not the official numbers or media spin, but what everyday Americans are experiencing: being interrogated at banks for their own money, losing jobs at profitable companies, watching healthcare become completely unaffordable, and seeing the retail economy grind to a halt.
This isn’t just a recession. Multiple systems are breaking down at once, and most people don’t realize how connected it all is. The crash is already here, the question is whether you’re prepared when it hits your situation directly.”
Act now while still have options:
see: our Prepping and Survival Thread
An echo of History provides insight into the zero-sum equations, and the worth of humanity, to Technofascism
By Rotislav Ishchenko at ukraine.ru.
(machine translation)
No one is perfect, so the saying goes, “Learn from your mistakes.”
At the end of November 1942, Soviet forces encircled the 6th Field Army and part of the 4th Panzer Army of the Wehrmacht, as well as the remnants of four Romanian divisions near Stalingrad (approximately 220,000 Germans and 18,000 Romanians). Hitler forbade the encircled forces from breaking out, and an attempt by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein’s Army Group Don to break through failed. The group under the command of Field Marshal General Paulus fought in the encirclement for more than two months, until February 2, 1943.
During this time, about 30,000 wounded soldiers, vacationers, and highly valuable specialists were evacuated from the pocket by Luftwaffe aircraft. A total of 72,000 people surrendered. As a result, approximately 100,000 Germans and almost all the Romanians died in the pocket. Only 5,000 of the prisoners returned home after the war. The rest died despite the Soviet Union’s attempts to save them due to their extreme exhaustion. In the last weeks of the war, the Luftwaffe lost the ability to fly into the pocket, and the encircled forces ran out of food before they ran out of ammunition.
Field Marshal Paulus, General Heitz and other German officers of the 6th Army after its surrender, 4 February 1943.
The Sixth Field Army fought to the last and was almost completely destroyed. After the war, German generals repeatedly accused Hitler of the unnecessary loss of the Sixth Field Army. Indeed, the Wehrmacht was unable to replace the two hundred thousand seasoned veterans who had fought for several years.
However, over time, military analysts came to the conclusion that Hitler’s decision was correct, while his generals were mistaken. The 6th Field Army, if it attempted to break through the encirclement, would have undoubtedly lost all its heavy equipment. They had enough fuel for their tanks to cover a distance of 50 kilometers. However, in the reality of continuous combat, they would only have enough fuel for about 30 kilometers. After that, they would have to abandon their surviving vehicles. Even if two-thirds of the encircled troops managed to break out of the pocket (it is more likely that about half of them would have succeeded), they would have been armed only with light small arms, and they would have been extremely exhausted after a hundred-kilometer march across the winter steppe in constant combat. The remnants of the army would have had to be withdrawn to the rear for reorganization.
At the same time, there was already a huge gap in the front, which Manstein was barely able to control in December with the help of the remnants of the defeated German and Romanian divisions, which had been formed into combat groups. If Paulus’s army had left the encirclement, the Soviet command would have immediately released more than a dozen divisions that were holding the perimeter of the encirclement and had been conducting an offensive to eliminate it for two months, suffering significant losses.
The Red Army had already almost cut off Army Group A in the Kuban region. The last divisions of the 1st Panzer Army were breaking through the ice of the Sea of Azov to bypass Rostov-on-Don, while the 17th Field Army was forced to defend the Kuban region, with only the Kerch Strait as a reliable link to the rear. If the Soviet offensive on Rostov had been carried out by the armies that had been strangling Paulus at Stalingrad, Army Group A would have been blocked in the Caucasus, and the southern flank of the Eastern Front would have collapsed completely, from the Caucasus in the south to Voronezh in the north. The Reich would not have survived such a catastrophe. The war could have ended in 1943.
More than two months of hopeless battles in the encirclement by the soldiers of the 6th Field Army, which diverted significant forces of the Red Army, allowed the Germans to stabilize the front. In March, Manstein launched a counteroffensive, recaptured Kharkiv and Belgorod, and formed the southern flank of the future Kursk Bulge.
No one knows whether Hitler deliberately sacrificed Paulus’s army or whether it was a spontaneous decision, but it allowed the Wehrmacht to avoid the catastrophe on the southern flank of the Eastern Front and prolong the war for an additional year and a half or two years.
After Putin’s order to ensure access to the areas where Ukrainian troops are being blocked for foreign journalists, some of the ever-concerned patriots began to worry in advance that, God forbid, the Ukrainian Armed Forces would be allowed to break out of the encirclement, and they would wonder why we needed foreign journalists there at all. They might even kill a journalist and blame it on us.
Protocol of military defeat: “Initially, representatives of the German command were brought to the location of the 64th Army, where a preliminary ceremony was held under the leadership of Lieutenant General Mikhail Shumilov. The main negotiations were held at the headquarters of a higher-level military unit. The procedure was led by Colonel-General Konstantin Rokossovsky, commander of the front group, and Nikolai Voronov, a representative of the top military leadership.” [01]
At the same time, the remnants of the defeated brigades would have left without heavy equipment and almost without weapons (the Ukrainians would have enough automatic weapons for them anyway). The very fact of abandoning positions and equipment is seriously demoralizing, and most importantly, such troops cannot be immediately used on the front lines. They need to be reorganized, re-equipped, and only then can they be sent into battle. The most that Syrsky could immediately do with this contingent would be to distribute it as reinforcements to other brigades. But for this to happen, these units would have to be disbanded, and the best forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were deployed to defend Pokrovsk and Kupyansk. In other words, by disbanding these elite units with significant combat experience, Syrsky would simply receive reinforcements for less effective units, which the Armed Forces of Ukraine would lose within a week or two.
Russia would be able to free up the units that were engaged in the blockade of Pokrovsk and Kupyansk to launch an offensive in an almost empty area. Syrsky does not have the reserves to plug the gaps in the front.
I will repeat that no one is going to let anyone out of the cauldrons yet. The role of foreign journalists is to convey to the Ukrainian public (relatives of the blocked military) the proposals made to the garrisons of Pokrovsk and Kupyansk to surrender. Our media in Ukraine do not read (do not watch), and those who read (watch) cannot admit it. Therefore, no matter how much we write about Russia’s proposals to save the lives of the blocked Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers by allowing them to surrender, this will not become a factor in Ukraine’s public or political life.
But the Western media will read (watch) it and refer to it. As I wrote above, it is highly unlikely that this will force Zelensky to order the garrisons to surrender, but ordinary people who receive information from the Western media will call their relatives who are under blockade and tell them that the Ukrainian government does not intend to save them, while the Russian government will ensure their lives and permanent conditions of captivity. Eventually, the special military operation will end, and the prisoners will be allowed to return home. Such information will contribute to the demoralization of the garrisons, reduce the tenacity of their resistance, make it easier for Russia to end the battles for Pokrovsk and Kupyansk and launch a strategic offensive in the areas where the front has been breached, accelerate the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the disintegration of the front, and the catastrophe of the Kiev regime, and allow for a faster conclusion of the special military operation while preserving the lives of Russian soldiers.
Of course, it is unlikely that Western media reports alone will be enough to achieve the complete surrender of the encircled Ukrainian garrisons. However, at the very least, their faith in their leadership will be undermined, and their suspicions of their comrades will increase, which may lead to some of them surrendering. The faster the encircled units are eliminated, the greater the likelihood of effectively continuing the offensive before the enemy can gather any reserves and stabilize the front line.
So, of course, we want to save the lives of those who are surrounded in a humane way, but not without benefiting ourselves. We need to hurry up with the victory in Ukraine, as Lithuania is already starting to fuss suspiciously about the transit through Kaliningrad.
This by Scott Ritter is an essay that is complimentary to his group of interesting dinner companions.
This is not what I want to highlight, though, but read the piece here:
What I would like to highlight, is this:
The conversation then turned to the reality of the modern battlefield. I asked Apti to comment on President Trump’s assertion that Russia was losing the war. Apti’s response was surprisingly diplomatic, given the absurdity of the assertion. The Hero of the Russian Federation noted that while the situation on the battlefield in the Kursk region might have been somewhat fluid this time last year, today the reality was far different—the front had stabilized, and the Ukrainian forces had been driven out of Russian territory. Moreover, Apti noted, never once—even in the most difficult of times—had the Akhmat Special Forces ever surrendered a position they held to the Ukrainians. To the contrary, the Akhmat Special Forces have been systemically advancing across the breadth of their assigned area of responsibility, whether in Lugansk, Kursk or Belgorod.
When Apti and I first met in person, back in May 2023, we had a very frank and detailed discussion about the art of war, and how the progression of technology had made past practices—including those perfected by the US military in the 1980’s, when I was learning the art of war—obsolete on the modern battlefield. Apti was familiar with my experience as an artillery forward observer and forward air controller, as well as my background in combat intelligence collection. He pointed at me and reiterated the point he had first made back then. “Your experience is no longer viable,” he said. “It has been taken over by drones. It is a completely new kind of war being fought today with Ukraine, one the West is not prepared for.”
We then entered an extended group conversation about drone warfare, and how the Akhmat Special Forces had evolved in this area. “We have the best drone unit in the Russian army,” Apti declared, “which means the best in the world. Our drones are thoroughly integrated into every aspect of our operations.” Apti explained, in general terms, how modern drone warfare was practiced. “Objective control” over the battlefield was maintained on a constant basis, with highly specialized reconnaissance and surveillance drones keeping watch. These drones were supported by mid-level reconnaissance drones, which could respond to any cues provided by the overwatch drones to provide increased resolution and fidelity to any observed activity. And then there was the fire support, provided by a multitude of different drone models which could respond to different target sets at different ranges under varying circumstances. Suffice it to say that hundreds of drones were available to the Akhmat Special Forces daily, and effective and efficient supply lines ensured that the Akhmat Special Forces never lacked resources when it came to drones.
Apti was very proud of the men who oversaw his drone operations, praising not only their tactical skills but also their innovation and intellect when it came to the technologies associated with drone operation. He particularly singled out his electronic warfare operators, whom he claimed were the best in the business. One of the reasons for this, Apti maintained, was the quick learning cycle of the Russian military, and the Akhmat Special Forces in particular. Innovation was driven by the needs and experiences of the frontline fighters, and the Russian military and Ministry of Defense were organized and conditioned to turn battlefield innovation into Russian doctrine and procedures, backed by the proper technology and other resources.
The sheer complexity of drone warfare is staggering. The need for appropriate technology to support this kind of warfare is an unrelenting demand in today’s world. Here, we can see the necessity for using AI, as the number of decisions that need to be made quickly exceeds the ability of a human. Drones control drones that control drones: so this is a new stack of knowledge being constructed. It happens to fit thematically with a recent conversation with a friend.
Massive drone warfare ‘controlled’ by AI. This needs to be taken very seriously as there are looming threats from the US modern technology complex, dreaming of taking Taiwan with no boots on the ground, no loss of US men, and in their demented minds, such an easy win or so say the war games. Rationality is not a strong suit of the US, notes my friend.
It was only about a year ago that I asked a professional on weapons and warfare to explain to me the role that drone warfare plays on the modern battlefield. The good education that I received then is now partially obsolete within just a year. It is also not much more than a year since Nat South explained to us in a few well-constructed essays how drones work, how the Russians use them, and where the gaps lie, focusing specifically on maritime unmanned boats: From Nat South at The Lookout – Z, on Drones.
And then we have the lone droner. We know about the proverbial lone gunman, but soon to come is the proverbial lone droner. In the current sphere of Late Stage Barbarism, we will see high-level people taken out using this method. The concept was already used with one of the attempts to take out Nicholas Maduro of Venezuela, by flying a drone right at his head at the podium while he was making a speech. It was older technology, and he ducked. These days, that simple strategy will not work.
With the fast rise of robotics in China and the incredible development of military robotics, will we soon see a war fought with robots and drones? We already have robotic Olympics. Such a war, compared with other wars, is literally a cheap war. We saw in Gaza the IDF using cheap small drones, hanging ladders on them stuffed with explosives and dropping that onto buildings and people, doubling, tripling, and quadrupling the percussive and killing power, cheaply.
AI is often written about as a threat to humanity. Technology is, of course, generally neutral. It is the application that makes it evil or good. With AI, drones controlling drones in a stack of functions, and military robotics, we have truly landed in a dystopian reality, and Brain Rot is proceeding.
There is new research indicating that Large AI Language Models, fed by trivial and stupid internet chat, literally suffer from brain rot. The research is literally called LLM Brain Rot. These models become stupid and silly, and take on the characteristics of a stupid and foolish audience. Even when changing the input later, the models repair only slightly and remain dumb. Foolishness and stupidity are indeed transmissible diseases. We’re even infecting the software around us.
AIs with brain rot, drones controlling drones controlling more drones, and robotics: It is not only a new multipolarity; the sheer lineaments of our world are being shaken up. In terms of warfare, it is now clear that the one with the most effective drone technology, AI, and techniques will gain the edge for a win.
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.
As always, us fleas are squashed when geopolitical mammoths collide.
with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.
This flareup between Cambodia and Thailand deserves a much closer scrutiny. Before you go to Brian Berletic, Danny Haiphong or, God forbid, Scott Ritter, it’s best you pay the utmost attention to every syllable, pause and mispronunciation tumbling from my tea washed mouth, as I perch most pompously on this concrete bench at Coffee Seven at dawn on 7/26/25, with a white bitch at my feet.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 10/28/23
In 1970, an 18-year-old Hun Sen joined the Khmer Rouge. In 1977, he defected to Vietnam with most of his battalion. In 1978, Hun Sen was a part of the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. Having helped to dislodge his ex comrades, Hun Sen was installed as Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of a new, pro Vietnamese government. By 1985, Hun Sen had become Cambodia’s top dog. He still is. His son, Hun Manet, is Prime Minister.
Though Cambodia’s democracy is as corrupt and fraudulent as the USA’s, at least their young men aren’t sent all over the world to die for bullshitty reasons. Like Trump, Hun Sen has used his office to enrich himself, but unlike that grotesque self lover, he’s doing what he thinks is best for his nation. He’s not cynically discrediting and bankrupting it to global laughter and mockery.
Phnom Penh, Cambodia, 11/13/22
Having installed Hun Sen, Vietnam saw him drift towards China. On 7/26/16, the ten members of ASEAN couldn’t release a joint statement about its beef with China in the South China Sea, which the Vietnamese label the East Sea, by the way. This statement was blocked by Cambodia, China’s favorite Southeast Asian tagalong buddy. (I didn’t want to say eunuch or courtesan.)
From 2022 to 2025, China overhauled Cambodia’s Ream Naval Base. In 1974, this pitiful installation near Sihanoukville had just 20 Swift Boats and 4 River Patrol Boats, plus, possibly, a tin tub large enough for a tiny general and his mistress to bathe in. After ousting the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam improved this base, but it’s China’s now, though warships from the USA, Canada and Japan have visited. This is China’s closest port to the critical Strait of Malacca, where most of its Middle East oil must pass. [01][02]
In August of 2024, China began constructing the Funan Techo Canal. When finished, it will allow Cambodian container traffic to bypass, almost entirely, Vietnamese ports, most notably Vũng Tàu’s Cái Mép. Regarding concerns this canal will also dry up Vietnamese agricultural land downstream, Cambodia says it will actually reduce floods, so shut up already! [03][04][05]
Kolab, Cambodia, 10/23/23
Under Hun Sen, Chinese gangs have operated vast cyber scam centers in Cambodia. These enslave thousands of Thais, Vietnamese, Laos, Filipinos, Indonesians, Malaysians, Singaporeans and Burmese, so citizens of all ASEAN states except tiny Brunei. They are forced to scam their compatriots, to enrich Chinese bosses, with Hun Sen taking a nice cut, undoubtedly. When these slaves resist or fail to perform, they’re tortured or even killed. Some have jumped from upper floor windows to their death.
With China backing him, Hun Sen got cocky enough to leak a phone call between him and Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. Just 37-years-old, she was elected only because of her dad. Speaking to the 72-year-old Hun Sen, Shinawatra was too deferential, perhaps. This outraged ordinary Thais. The key takeaway from this scandal, though, is Hun Sen’s break of protocol. Who would want to discuss anything with this clown? Are you taping me?!
On 7/5/25, Vietnamese General Phan Văn Giang welcomed Thai General Songwit Noonpackdee to Hanoi on an official visit, then on 7/14/25, Royal Thai Navy Commander-in-Chief Jirapol Wongwit landed in Hai Phong with his sizable delegation.
With the entire ASEAN bloc irked or infuriated with Hun Sen’s Cambodia, Thailand can give it a nice slap, at least. This also pleases Uncle Sam enormously. Beforehand, the Thais had to make sure Hanoi wouldn’t intervene to protect its ex protégé. If the Thais go too far, though, China has the perfect excuse to sail warships towards that port it already paid for.
As always, us fleas are squashed when geopolitical mammoths collide. Cambodian rockets hitting that Thai 7-11 killed 11 civilians. At least some were likely Cambodians. They’re all over Si Sa Ket and Suri. Their Thai citizenship is only an accident of history.
Kolab, Cambodia, 10/23/23
Another subtext is Cambodia’s bitterness at having fallen so far. Until 600 years ago, it towered over all of Southeast Asia. If not for the French, it would have lost even Angkor to the Thais. Luckily, Americans will be spared such anguish. Six centuries from now, there won’t be enough left to contest what remains of the Obama or Trump Presidential Library. Here and there, MAGA hats as heirlooms will still be treasured by select morons.
“To honor the Donald, our great great great great grandpa joined a pedophile cult. Wearing a Trump mask, he got to fuck so many beautiful women on the younger side. So what if all of these were just miniature sex dolls? It was still America’s Golden Age! We had no fake news, libtards, tourists or manufactured goods, it is claimed. There was no inflation because no one had cash. Trumpian heretics did beg Canada or Greenland for annexation, but nothing came of it.”
About Linh Dinh (@linhdinh):
‘Before being canceled, I was an anthologized poet and fairly prolific author, with my last book Postcards from the End of America. Now, I write about our increasingly sick world for a tiny audience on SubStack. Drifting overly much, I’m in Cambodia.’
AHH: Please support this wonderful writer on his Substack! Thanks
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’s emerging in America is not a retreat from hegemony, but a reformatting of it.
By Artyom Lukin on Russia in Global Affairs.
[Ed.: this is a machine translation]
For half a thousand years, the West has been the dominant civilization in the world. Recently, this dominance has weakened, but has not completely disappeared. The West – and above all the United States of America as its core – is still the most powerful subject in world politics and economy. The colossal power of the West can be both a creative force and a source of existential threats to the rest of the world.
Today, in the West, primarily in the United States, a new ideology is being built, under certain circumstances no less dangerous than fascism and Nazism a hundred years ago. The second term of President Donald Trump could be a turning point when America will be under the control of ambiguous people and ideas.
The emerging ideology of the “new America” is still heterogeneous and represented by at least four key groups. The first is Trump himself and those his entourage, who professes views borrowed from the era of classical great-power imperialism and economic nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The second is politicians and media figures, which can be attributed to right-wing populists. The third is Silicon Valley, committed to libertarian hypercapitalism and the cult of technology. Fourth, intellectuals who generate and promote the ideas of the “dark Enlightenment.”
If the views of the first two groups are not new to the American political landscape, then the last two are the phenomenon of the 21st century.
[1] Good old imperialism?
Trump’s ideology is in many ways a classic inconclusive imperialism on the “right of the strong.” Already in his inaugural speech, he openly declared the desire for territorial acquisitions: “The United States will again become a growing nation – increasing its wealth, expanding its territory, building its cities…”[1] Here, Trump speaks of America as an “exceptional nation” and “the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.” America’s geopolitical ambitions and exclusivity will be backed up by “the most powerful military force ever seen by the world.”
Claims to exclusivity, the desire for territorial expansion, military-force domination are essential signs of imperialism.
It is no coincidence that in the same inaugural speech, Trump approvingly mentions William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, presidents who have introduced the United States to the club of imperialist powers.
[2] Right-Populist Conservatism
This ideological faction includes figures such as Vice-President JD Vance, political strategist Steve Bannon and journalist Tucker Carlson. Their main slogan is America First. They act from the standpoint of the cultural and value traditionalism of the deep American people and the hostility to the liberal-cosmopolitan elite, which concentrates on the east and west coasts, position themselves as defenders of the working class, advocate tough economic protectionism for the revival of American industry, and in the sphere of foreign policy gravitate towards isolationism.
[3] Libertarian Techno-Capitalism
This trend of the new American ideology is represented by technillionaires – mainly immigrants from Silicon Valley. The most famous, of course, is Elon Musk, who from January to May 2025 served as head of the Department of Efficiency of the Government [DOGE] in the Trump administration. However, the level of publicity does not always correspond to the degree of political influence. The notorious venture capitalist Marc Andreessen (the creator of the first mass Internet browser Netscape) may have had an influence on the White House initially, being an unofficial adviser and helping Trump recruit to key posts. [2] Until recently, Andreessen was a supporter of the Democratic Party, but in 2024 he supported Trump – in part because Andreessen did not arrange the Biden administration’s course of tighter regulation of the crypto industry and artificial intelligence.
Andreessen, like Musk, advocates maximum freedom of business activity and minimize state interference in private business.
In 2023. Andreessen has published the Techno-optimistic Manifesto. The main idea is simple: scientific and technological progress is the greatest benefit and the key to solving the problems of mankind, but only free markets, coupled with the elimination of burdensome restrictions and barriers, will ensure the development of a high-tech economy. Andreessen advocates for “accelerationism” – the spurring of technological development, which should accelerate progress to unprecedented speeds. This is the literal way of the word “undisper” acceleration will be achieved through the synthesis of technological innovation and the capitalist economy (techno – capital machine), the term that Andreessen borrowed from the British philosopher Nick Land. Artificial Intelligence: “We believe that artificial intelligence is our alchemy, our Philosopher’s Stone… We believe that artificial intelligence should be approached as a universal solution to problems. [3]
However, in the optimistic picture drawn by Andreessen there are semantic nuances. With a clear reference to Frederick Nietzsche, whose name is mentioned in the manifesto in the list of the most respected Andreessen thinkers, the techno-billionaire sings the upcoming “technological supermen”: “We are not victims, we are the conquerors… We are the strongest predator on top of the food chain (apex predator).”
When Andreessen, talking about “technological superhumans”, uses a predator metaphor, is it not a typical Freud clause? At the top of the food chain, by definition, there can be only a few, the strongest predators, while the rest of the creatures have a different role. The Andreessen Manifesto contains a response to who is supposed to be the main predator: “We believe that America and its allies should be strong, not weak. We believe that the national power of liberal democracies is derived from their economic power (financial force), cultural power (soft power) and military power (hard force). Economic, cultural and military power stem from technological. Technologically powerful America is the power of good in a dangerous world. Technologically powerful liberal democracies guarantee freedom and peace. Technologically, weak liberal democracies are losing to their authoritarian rivals.
In the extensive list of “sacraments-patrons of techno-optimism” and Andreessen are Filippo Marinetti, the founder of futurism and one of the ideologues of Italian fascism. The last act of Marinetti was a voyage as part of the Italian expeditionary corps to the Eastern Front, where he was wounded near Stalingrad.
The most politically influential techno-billionaire is apparently the founder of Paypal Peter Thiel. It is probably not a mistake to call it the second most important ideologist of the “new America” after Trump himself. Although Thiel has never held official political posts, he is the key figure that unites Silicon Valley, intellectual right conservatism and Trump populism.
Thiel became the first of the most authoritative figures of Silicon Valley who openly supported Trump and became a donor to his presidential campaign back in 2016. However, Thiel’s most successful political investment was not Trump, but the current vice president (and, quite likely, the future president) J. D. Vance, for whom Thiel became a mentor and employer (Vance was at one time an employee of the Thiel Mithril Capital Investment Fund). Subsequently, Thiel donated $15 million to Vance’s election campaign in the U.S. Senate from Ohio and presented a young promising politician to Trump.
As befits a businessman, Thiel diversifies political investment. Simultaneously with Vance, he sponsored another young and promising politician (also his student and former employee) – Blake Masters, who was given $20 million for the Senate elections from Arizona (unlike Vance, Masters lost the election).
Thiel calls himself a Christian and often quotes the Bible, although he is an open homosexual (in 2017 he married in Vienna with his partner Matt Dunzesen, an investment banker). The techno-billionaire is known as a philosopher and thinker, being very widely read and himself being a prolific author of books and essays. Unlike Musk and Andreessen, who give away the expositions and memes designed for the public, Thiel’s target audience is an educated elite. He categorically quotes such difficult political philosophers as Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, is a fan of the ideas of anthropologist René Girard. Thiel positions himself as a libertarian, but does not hide that he has long believed in liberal democracy, as well as in democracy at all: “I no longer think that freedom is compatible with democracy”. [4]
It is significant that Thiel compares today’s America with Germany on the eve of Hitler’s arrival:
“There are undoubted parallels between the United States of the 2020’s and Germany of the 1920’s in the sense that liberalism has exhausted itself. It can be argued that democracy … has exhausted itself and we will have to ask ourselves a number of questions that go very far beyond the window of Overton. [5]
Thiel’s Libertarianism did not prevent him from founding Palantir Technologies, which is engaged in developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the interests of the Pentagon and intelligence services. He also acts as a major investor in young billionaire Palmer Lucky Anduril Industries, who creates drones and other autonomous weapons systems.
Thiel believes that in recent decades, America has plunged into the abyss of degradation and stagnation. We need a leap to new heights and great goals. Like his billionaire counterparts from the valley, Thiel is convinced that the formulation and achievement of ambitious scientific and technological goals should be the main priority of society and the state. His personal favorite is transhumanism technologies associated with the improvement of the human body, the prolongation of life and, potentially, the achievement of immortality. One of Thiel’s current projects is the organization of the alternative “Enhanced Games”, where doping control will be weakened and athletes will allow the use of biohacking methods. One of the co-organizers of Enhanced Games is the son of President Donald Trump Jr.
Of all the billionaire libertarians close to the current government, it is Thiel who has the most articulated views on foreign policy. Its geopolitical concept is quite simple and boils down to the fact that the main external threat to the United States is China.
Unlike a friend and former business partner Elon Musk, who is considered a Pro-Chinese figure, Thiel is a supporter on Beijing’s firm deterrence policy, including by forming a broad anti-Chinese coalition led by Washington. The US should go for an economic divorce from China and put pressure on other countries so that they also minimize ties with Beijing. Thiel believes that the Trump supertariffs on Chinese goods are a step in the right direction. Back in November 2022, he declared: “I believe in free trade, I am not a supporter of tariffs, but I would make an exception for our major geopolitical and ideological rival.”[8] Thiel is one of the most synophobic figures in the highest echelon of the current ruling elite. He calls China “semi-fascist, semi-communist gerontocracy,” accusing Beijing of “nationalism,” “racism,” and “xenophobia. [9]
Thiel treats Russia without sympathy, but much more calmly – he does not see it as dangerous as China as a geopolitical adversary, but perhaps also because Russia is racially and culturally much closer to the West. Thiel believes that the West should not push Moscow into Beijing’s embrace.
Thiel has repeatedly spoken out in support of Israel, and Palantir Technologies supplies AI technology to the Israeli military. Chance or not, the Trump administration’s foreign policy is still almost identical with Thiel’s views.
[4] Theorists of the “Dark Enlightenment”
Finally, the fourth group of representatives of the new American ideology is the intellectual provocateurs that create narratives of the Dark Enlightenment. Also called the “neo-reactionary movement” (NRx), it is an intellectual and philosophical current that denies many ideals of classical Enlightenment, was formed in the late 2000’s – early 2010’s, mainly in the countries of the Anglosphere.
One of the fathers of the “dark Enlightenment” and the author of the term itself is the British philosopher and writer Nick Land, now living in Shanghai, mentioned in Andreessen. At the beginning of the academic career in the 1990s, Land, who then taught at the University of Warwick, held leftist views, but then swung sharply to the right. [10] Land believes in the onset of a singularity – a moment when artificial intelligence and other technologies will surpass a person and get out of control, which will mark the beginning of a “post-human” era. Land draws inspiration from the aesthetics of cyberpunk, predicting the arrival of hyper-capitalist techno-authoritarian systems that are controlled by technology and markets, not traditional politics. Such systems, in his view, are much more effective than classical liberalism and democracy. In the spirit of Techno-Social Darwinism, Land predicts the emergence of post-human beings, which, thanks to the merger with super-technologies, will dominate the new world.
Land rejects anthropocentrism, arguing that human values and morality are insignificant in the face of much larger and impersonal forces such as capital and technology. In his philosophy, humanity is nothing more than a temporary stage in a more significant evolutionary process that is driven by machine and economic systems.
Another intellectual father of the Dark Enlightenment is the American programmer and blogger Curtis Yarvin, also known under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. Unlike Land, Yarvin is directly involved in the political process. He is friends with Thiel and is well acquainted with a number of politicians and officials from the Trump entourage. Yarvin is in favor of replacing a more effective political system in the form of an autocratic monarchy or a business corporation where the sole governing body has absolute powers. One idea is the creation of a system of numerous corporate-controlled sovereign entities (Patchwork), within which it will be possible to freely experiment with laws, rules and technologies.
Like most of the ideologues of the “new America”, in the sphere of foreign policy, Yarvin advocated the dismantling of the “liberal international order” that developed after 1945, where the United States played the role of a world police officer and a guarantor of security. Yarvin advocates the withdrawal of the United States even from Europe, although it is stipulated that Great Britain, being an Anglo-Saxon country, should remain under the protection of America.[11] Yarvin will have nothing against if, for example, Turkey and Greece begin to fight each other. This is exclusively their business, not America’s problem. Unlike his billionaire friend Thiel, Yarvin calmly and even with restrained admiration speaks of modern China.
Yarvin, whose Jewish ancestors emigrated from Odessa during the Russian Empire, holds an unorthodox view of World War II. In his opinion, Hitler did not thirst for world domination. He wanted “only” to recognize his domination in continental Europe by using European Jews as hostages for negotiations with the US and Britain. If Roosevelt had agreed to a deal with Hitler, the World War and the Holocaust, it might have been possible to avoid. [12]
Land, Yarvin and other “dark Enlightenment” intellectuals can, at first glance, seem much less significant figures compared to billionaires Musk and Thiel. But one of the main capitalists of Germany, Gustav Krupp, who supported Hitler, or the brilliant political philosopher and subsequently the chief lawyer of the Third Reich, Karl Schmitt (by the way, like to quote Yarvin and Thiel), who developed the theory of the “exceptional case” and later, by the way, by which in 1933 the Reichstag was adopted?
American hegemony – end or reformatting?
The emerging ideology of the “new America” is heterogeneous and it has different scenarios. It is not necessary that it materializes into something malignant, reminiscent of the Third Reich or the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”. But in the ideas and meanings circulating today in America and other countries of the English sphere, there are many things that can not but alarm.
This is the desire for the cultivation of either “technological superhumans”, or “super-predators”, or “post-human beings” and rationalization proposals to delegate absolute power to the “single executive body”.
Although the ideologues of the “new America” are contemptuous of the liberal international order “rules” that for many years has been considered the sacred cow’s global hegemony of United States, this does not mean that they want to see America only one of the sovereign subjects of the multipolar world. American legions can be withdrawn from Europe, the Middle East or South Korea, but there will be more sophisticated and “technological” ways to control and dominate the bodies and souls. The main concept permeating the writings of Curtis Yarvin is “power”. Peter Thiel’s favorite book, a man who wants to live forever, is The Lord of the Rings.
Author: Artem Lukin, Professor of the Department of International Relations of the Eastern Institute of the Far Eastern Federal University.
[this is the RT (A.I.-abbreviated) version]
The superhumans are coming – and so is the danger
By Artyom Lukin, an associate professor of international relations at Far Eastern Federal University in Vladivostok, Russia
For the past 500 years, the West has reigned as the world’s dominant civilization. Though its grip has loosened in recent years, the West – especially the United States – remains the most powerful force in global politics and the international economy. This power, while capable of building plenty, also carries the potential to destroy a lot.
Today, a new ideology is taking shape in the West, particularly in the US. Under the right conditions, it could prove as dangerous to humanity as fascism and Nazism were in the last century. The reelection of Donald Trump may mark a decisive turning point, transferring power to people and ideas that are, at best, deeply ambiguous.
This ‘New America’ is not driven by a single worldview, but rather by a convergence of four ideological factions.
[1] The Imperial Restorationists
At the center stands Trump himself and his allies – throwbacks to the era of great-power imperialism. Trump’s inaugural speech to launch his second term left little doubt: He called for territorial expansion, industrial growth, and a resurgent military. America, he declared, is “the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.” He spoke approvingly of President William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, both architects of American imperialism.
The vision is unmistakable: American exceptionalism, enforced by military might and driven by the logic of conquest. It is the language of empire.
[2] The Nationalist Conservatives
Then there are the right-wing populists – figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, strategist Steve Bannon, and journalist Tucker Carlson. Their rallying cry is ‘America First’. They champion traditional values, claim to speak for the working class, and disdain the liberal elite concentrated in coastal cities.
They oppose globalism, support trade protectionism, and promote isolationism in foreign policy. This faction is not particularly new in American politics, but its influence has deepened, especially under Trump’s patronage.
Vice President JD Vance visits Los Angeles after unrest over ICE raids © Getty Images / Getty Images
[3-A] The Techno-Libertarian Billionaires
A newer – and perhaps more unsettling – element of America’s emerging ideology is represented by Silicon Valley billionaires. Elon Musk is the most visible figure, briefly heading Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency in early 2025. But the more influential actor may be Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and early internet pioneer who became an informal adviser to Trump.
Andreessen’s political turn followed his frustration with Biden-era regulations on crypto and artificial intelligence. In 2023, he published a manifesto called ‘The Techno-Optimist’, a document that preaches unrestrained technological acceleration. In his view, scientific innovation and free markets can solve all of humanity’s problems – if only government gets out of the way.
Andreessen quotes Nietzsche and invokes the image of the ‘apex predator’ – a new breed of technological superman who sits atop the food chain. He writes, “We are not victims, we are conquerors… the strongest predator at the top of the food chain.”
Such language might seem metaphorical, but it is revealing. Andreessen’s list of intellectual inspirations includes Filippo Marinetti, the Futurist who helped lay the aesthetic groundwork for Italian fascism and died fighting the Red Army at Stalingrad.
Marc Andreessen © Getty Images / Getty Images
[3-B] The Philosopher-Kingmaker
The most intellectually developed thinker of the techno-libertarian camp is Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and the data surveillance firm Palantir Technologies. Thiel is no longer a marginal figure – he is now arguably the second most important ideologue of the New America, after Trump himself.
Thiel is also a master strategist. He personally mentored and funded Vance, now vice president and possibly Trump’s heir apparent. At the same time, he backed Blake Masters in Arizona, although that bet didn’t pay off. Thiel reads the Bible, quotes Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, and speaks openly about the limits of democracy. “Freedom is no longer compatible with democracy,” he has said.
He has compared modern America to Weimar Germany, arguing that liberalism is exhausted, and a new system must rise. Despite his libertarian leanings, Thiel’s companies develop AI tools for the Pentagon and fund next-generation weapons systems through firms like Anduril.
Thiel believes that America has entered a long decline – and that radical technological leaps are needed to reverse it. One of his pet projects is the ‘Enhanced Games’, a competition where doping and biohacking are allowed. Co-organized with Donald Trump Jr., the event reflects Thiel’s obsession with transhumanism and human enhancement.
In foreign policy, Thiel views China as America’s primary enemy. He has called it a “semi-fascist, semi-communist gerontocracy” and pushed for complete economic decoupling. Interestingly, Thiel is far less hostile to Russia, which he sees as culturally closer to the West. In his view, pushing Moscow into Beijing’s arms is a strategic mistake.
Peter Thiel © Getty Images / Getty Images
[4] The Dark Enlightenment
The final group behind the New America are the theorists of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, or neo-reactionary movement. These intellectual provocateurs reject the Enlightenment values that once defined the West.
Nick Land, a British philosopher living in Shanghai, is among the founding thinkers of this school. He predicts the end of humanity as we know it and the rise of posthuman, techno-authoritarian systems governed by capital and machines. For Land, morality is irrelevant; what matters is efficiency, evolution, and raw power.
Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug), an American programmer, is another central figure. A friend of Thiel and an insider in Trump’s intellectual circle, Yarvin advocates replacing democracy with a corporate-style monarchy. He imagines a future of sovereign city-states run like companies, where experimentation with laws and technologies is unrestricted.
Yarvin is clear in his rejection of American global leadership. He believes the US should withdraw from Europe and let regional powers settle their own disputes. He speaks warmly of China, and his views on World War II are unorthodox to say the least – suggesting Hitler was motivated by strategic calculation rather than genocidal ambition.
Curtis Yarvin
What comes next?
Many of these ideas may seem fringe. But fringe ideas have power – especially when they echo through the corridors of political and technological influence. Carl Schmitt’s legal theories enabled Hitler to seize dictatorial powers in 1933. Today, the intellectual allies of Trump and Thiel are crafting their own narratives of ‘emergency’, ‘decadence’, and ‘reawakening’.
What’s emerging in America is not a retreat from hegemony, but a reformatting of it. The liberal international order is no longer seen as sacred – even by the country that built it. The new American elite may be withdrawing troops from Europe, the Middle East, and Korea, but their ambitions have not shrunk. They are turning instead to subtler methods of control: AI, cyber dominance, ideological warfare, and technological superiority.
Their goal is not a multipolar world, but a redesigned unipolar one – run not by diplomats and treaties, but by algorithms, monopolies, and machines.
The threat to the world is not just political anymore. It is civilizational. The superhumans are on the march.
This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team
Jamarl Thomas interviews KJ Noh on China’s hidden role in Iran’s new defense posture against US aggression, and the big view at the moment.
[machine transcript]
Jamarl Thomas: You look good. You look good. You look good. Let me bring him on. KJ. No. The man himself. KJ is a journalist, political analyst, writer, and teacher specializing in the geopolitics of the Asia Pacific region. He’s contributor to the book Capitalism on a Ventilator. Once censored by Amazon. It is now available at .org. You can also find him on Breakthrough News Network. Again, fantastic network with the China Report. KJ, welcome to the show, man. How you doing today? You doing all right?
KJ Noh: I’m doing well, thank you.
Jamarl Thomas: It is always a pleasure to have you, KJ, there is reporting out that Iran is purchasing jets from China. Now, China got a lot of publicity recently in the war between Pakistan and India. And India was running a lot of propaganda, very angry at China because the thought was that it was Chinese weapons that were knocking out Indian planes out of the sky. , and that those weapon systems that they got from China was extraordinarily effective, especially against Western equipment that didn’t seem to be up to snuff. And now it seems that Iran is purchasing, and this goes in two fronts.
One, Iran’s purchasing Chinese aircraft, top of the line for air defense, but also that they got rid of GPS and they the ethic is called by DU that they’ve been using China’s global system for their military campaigns, which is in part responsible for the accuracy of the weapon systems that we saw in their war against Israel. Let’s go to the first one first. And it sounds weird, but I’ll go with it. as are they purchasing these planes from China? And then I want to go to the GPS thing because the GPS thing is really interesting to me. But let’s go for the first one first.
KJ Noh: Yeah. So there are not official statements but there sources there statements from good journalists who have said that this is the case. So I think that certainly something is in the works. we know that the 10 ministers of the 10 defense ministers of the SCO met very recently with the Chinese defense minister. and so whatever is happening something big is happening and certainly it is related to defense and defense acquisitions regarding the Chinese jets. The thing to understand about arms in general and warfare in general is that all modern warfare is joint arms combined warfare. That is you’re using systems together.
So for example, you might be using Chinese jets along with you know for example you know other types of surveillance aircraft along groundbased radar with missile drones, missile interceptors, etc. And so it’s all combined arms warfare. Everything is joint and connected. And so you have to understand it. It’s not simply that if they do acquire the J10s, it’s not simply that they’re acquiring the J10, they they’re acquiring the entire system and in particular the tactical data networks that connect everything. You know, it’s like, you know, it’s not simply like you’re buying a cell phone, which is just you know, it’s just an expensive paper weight without a SIM card. So once you have the SIM card and once you have the various apps then it becomes a mini supercomputer in your pocket. And so we have to understand it that if Iran acquires Chinese J10s or other technology then it’s an entire defense ecosystem that is being built in for Iran. And then the other piece of it is that because this weaponry is so complex, involves ongoing support and maintenance and you kind of get the after service contract. So essentially it’s a form of relationship building. So interesting. So what we’re looking at here if it turns out to be true and I think that it most likely is based on the sources that I’ve read is that China is strengthening its defense cooperation. Iran is strengthening its defense cooperation with China along with the entire SCO block. So that’ll be very very interesting. So big moves of foot here.
Jamarl Thomas: Thank God. Thank God, man. Because Iran freaks me out. They freak me out. And they freaked me out because it seems like they were like, “We want to do this on our own. We want to, you know, we don’t want to buy equipment. We want to just build our own.” And obviously their equipment and the political structure was able to withstand the attack from internally and externally.
But from from my point of view and from many people’s point of view I think Sarah Bills will back me up on this too, the one from DDGeopolitics. Russia, China and Iran are a force of the new world. meaning and even though it’s frustrating to me, I understand why they go with this notion of international law. I would say there is no such thing, but they have been cidously with this notion of we’re going to stay within the bounds of law. And so even though the West has no red lines, we have red lines. We’re not going to go after civilians.
We’re not going to go after targets that are not military targets. we’re going to be very legalistic in the way that we talk about this stuff. And on some level, you kind of get it if indeed they see themselves as a fulcrum of a new world — that you want that new world to be based on law, not what came before it. So, I do get it. But it just felt like for the longest time they were flying on their own. So, I’m glad that they have now started this kind of military cooperation with and I’m saying cooperation in sense of getting equipment and relationship with China and even Russia in this front.
The other one is the satellites. From my understanding, they weren’t using GPS. They got rid of GPS. In fact, from my understanding, a lot of their equipment, especially from India, was infiltrated by Israeli agents. And so they seem to be getting a lot more equipment from China as opposed to from India, especially using Beidou as a satellite platform as opposed to GPS. Is that correct? Am I getting that right? I saw a reporting on this, but I wasn’t certain it was true.
KJ Noh: Yes, I think I think that is most certainly correct that they’re using the Chinese quote unquote you know positioning system it’s the Chinese version of GPS and of course that in doing so they’ve made themselves impervious to US interference because GPS can be cut off anytime the US sees fit.
So that’s another way in which they’ve created a kind of electronic sovereignty over their air territory which you know as you know Brian has been saying this but there key domains of sovereignty which are essential you know of course you want sovereignty over your land that’s the basis on which the whole notion of statehood is con you know is conceived but you also want sovereignty over your own airspace and then you want sovereignty over a certain portion of your naval territory and then you want and this is important because the US conceives of war fighting in multiple domains.
So you want sovereignty over the cyber domain what I refer to as digital sovereignty or what my colleagues sometimes refer to as digital vestalia. But you need digital sovereignty the sovereignty over the cyber domain or else you have nothing. and then you also want to have you know that includes sovereignty or you know your own control over your own devices and apps that are run inside you know the cyber domain.
Otherwise you are completely porous. You are you know a sieve, you’re a colander, you know, from which you can be undermined as we have seen. And so the fact that Iran is, you know, taking measures to ensure that that is the case is really important. So I think that we need we should pay attention to that and understand that these are actually strong defensive measures that are actually necessary.
Jamarl Thomas: I’m curious how does China view this? You know I spoke to Marandi I’ve spoken to Mark and I guess they would give you a perspective of in of Iran and a perspective of Russia. How does China view all of this? I mean, for all intents and purposes, you have an empire that is setting fires all across the globe with this notion of hegemonic control.
They went after Russia. It didn’t work. They went after Iran. They will keep going after Iran for right now. It didn’t work. And Iran is trying to deal with, let’s say, bolstering itself and solidifying itself. And for all intents and purposes, not just it didn’t work, it made Iran stronger, weirdly enough, because you have this youthful generation that didn’t understand that the West were monsters. They thought, well, the US is love and light. Look, they have Superman and pizza.
What what’s, you know, what’s your issue? Our economy would be better off if it wasn’t if we could work with the West. You guys are just not being cooperative. And then they see in their own mind was negotiating. People like me saying they should have, but they weren’t negotiating. They get attacked during negotiations. It’s clear as day that the West was behind it. It’s clear as day that the West backed it. And they could see with their own eyes what their government had been telling them was true. China for the most part has been on the outskirts and has only had to deal with that in an economic sense. Taiwan, yes, but not really in a direct military sense. China has to see these events unfold. What is it thinking from its own point of view after a 12- day war and after the attack on Russia?
KJ Noh: You know, I think they’re seeing things very clearly. I mean, the Chinese are not fools. They know that the US has been agitating, militating to war since 2009. Certainly, actually before that. But we know that the war plans were. I mean the war plans were printed developed in 2009 and then in 2011 we had the pivot to pivot to Asia really the pivot to encircle China in 2011 that was formally declared in Darwin in Australia and then they saw all the extraordinary undermining that was being taking place.
The entire approach was both regime change and military encirclement and a really a fullcourt press that has been ongoing since 2009. So we’re you know 16 years into this process. Well, what happened in 2009, 2008, the global capitalist financial system collapsed around its ears.
And remember, prior to that, of course, the west was engaging with China, but their theory was that we engage with China in order to regime change it. This was essentially the same process that they envisioned happening in the Soviet Union. China, it was a Potemkin state. Once they see our KFC and our hamburgers, you know, they will throw themselves at their knees and beg to be our vassels. That was the theory, you know, that was what they really believed.
And on the other hand, you had people like Hillary Clinton who said, you know, China is, you know, it’s on its last legs. You know, this Gordon Chang Hillary Clinton theory is that, you know, it’s it’s a paper tiger. It’s a Potemkin state. it’s ready to fall down and we just have to be ready to swoop in and sweep up all of its, you know .. its wealth. And this is how they think.
And then what happened in 2008 was the, you know, the financial collapse. And it showed that it wasn’t China that was about to collapse that was on its last legs. It’s actually the western capitalist world. The entire capitalist system collapsed. This is why Sarkozi, right-wing French president said “Laisez faire c’est finis”, you know, capitalism is finished.
You know, this is a right-wing French leader saying that we’ve seen the end of capitalism, and because of that, that’s when the daggers came out. The West decided that China was not going to collapse of its own accord from its own internal contradictions because rather the contradictions were with the western systems.
And therefore it needed a good shove down the stairs and so that’s when they built this doctrine of war called Air-Sea Battle and they also built up, they declared the Pivot to Asia Plan, encircling and choking China out. They were doing all kinds of dirty tricks as far as you know encouraging corruption, opening the doors wide so that foreign exchange could be extracted.
So there was all kinds of financial warfare going on. When China started to clamp down and they said oh you know Xi jinping is a dictator, but no they were just trying to prevent this you know kind of drainage of Chinese wealth overseas which you know is again another kind of precursor to creating collapse.
And then they also started to implement the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is actually has a similarity to what’s going on right now with the tariffs, but the idea was to isolate China and exclude it from the entire Pacific zone as far as trading is concerned. That is you would have all the Pacific economies they would trade with each other but China would be excluded from it. They referred to this as an economic aircraft carrier.
So there was all kinds of dirty tricks and subkinetic warfare that was happening and the Chinese are not deceived by any of this. So they started to build out the belt and road. Remember the belt and road happened after this US initiative to take down China. So that’s a way of bypassing these naval choke points by creating overland routes or overland routes that bypass the immediate choke points such as the Straits through CMEC and CPEC — China Myanmar Economic corridor, China Pakistan Economic Corridor.
And then you can see how then the US was initiating different kinds of disruption in both Pakistan and Myanmar, in particular the supporting of terror activities against those construction projects infrastructure projects. It’s this kind of continuous game that you see escalating in different – it’s Go – it’s like a ladder happening. You see the continuing move and counter move happening.
But again there’s this concerted program of countering this US approach to choke it out which China has been building. And so again in the South China Sea they started to militarize some of the islands there because that is the cost for the US. The US shrieks and screams that China has, you know, overseas bases and they’ve militarized the entire South China Sea.
Absurd, because all five or all six of the claimants to the South China Sea have islands that they’ve militarized and five of them have air strips on them, but it’s only China which is being, you know
Jamarl Thomas: KJ just to point out the US has like 800 military bases around the globe. The notion that they are screaming that China, oh my god, China has two military bases, it’s outrageous.
KJ Noh: Yeah, it has one military base in Djibouti. It has one military base in Djibouti as part of a UN mandated antipiracy program which it does in collaboration with five or six other countries. Even Japan has a base in Djibouti and Japan is supposed to be a pacifist nation with no military. So that tells you how threatening you know or technically how, anyway!
So China does not have bases. The US has 8 – 900 bases. Nobody really knows, but we know that it has a military presence in at least 170 countries. And it’s not really the bases themselves that count. It is the basing agreements. That is to say, a lot of what the US does is it sets up a basing agreement with a country and then that allows the US to go in and use the bases in this almost eminent domain type of way. So whether you see troops or not, what you really have to look at is there some kind of basing agreement? Is there some kind of use agreement?
If that’s the case, then you know that that base, you know, is like a Uber or an Airbnb that can be immediately taken over for US military purposes. So even that 900 number is actually an undercount. It’s much more aggressive and you know threatening all than that.
So US has encircled China with bases. It’s essentially staging the entire Pacific and the entire Asian continent for war. And there’s no way the Chinese have not caught on to this. They’re very clear on what’s happening and they’re creating defensive counter measures. as I’ve pointed out.
Jamarl Thomas: is it fair to say that from the Chinese point of view, I would say probably even the Russians and maybe even the Iranians, that the more time that they get, the weaker the position of the West gets, which is the reason for the seemingly desperate fire setting.
I mean, if you look at Serbia, they attempted to take down Georgia. They’re going after Azerbaijan got involved into this at this point. Of course, Russia, Iran .. they tried to take down the South Korean government. All of these things bespeak of desperation. They failed in South Korea. They’re failing in Russia. They failed in Iran.
And so, yeah, they may have some of these government bases, but the previous prime minister of Japan just came out saying, “We need to have a Japan without US bases.” I think people are seeing them committed genocide and think to themselves, these people are monsters.
From the point of view of China, Iran, Russia, is it just we need more time? The more time that goes by, the weaker they get and the worse their plans become. Is that the thought that China has?
KJ Noh: I think that’s a large part of it. You know, we spoke about the fact that China has the time. As our friend Dr. Wilmer Leon says, “You have the watches, we have the time.” I think that the Chinese always think in terms of the long haul in terms of you know the strategic and long duration, you know they think ahead.
If you go to China what’s astounding is that you see civil engineering projects that have been built over 600 years that means that you know whatever they were doing, you know, they were planning experience. So, for example, some of the canals in China, that’s a 600-year project. So they think big and they also think long term.
So certainly vis-a-vis the United States, they know that if they can avoid getting pulled into a war, which the US wants, then they can essentially, you know, sports analogy, they can run the clock down because they are ahead.
Jamarl Thomas: Speaking of that, Donald Trump is saying that there is a deal between China and the United States. Is that true?
KJ Noh: Well, I’ll believe it when I see it. I’m sure there are all kinds of deals that are being proposed. Whatever it is, I don’t think that they are trustworthy. As Sergey Lavrov said, the US is not agreement capable. It has broken every single deal, agreement, treaty, that it has ever made with any country or entity that it considers an enemy or a vassal.
Just think of the what 360 (hundreds) of treaties signed with the indigenous peoples of the Americas. Every single one of them violated. Not a one, not a one, upheld, right? Ruth Bader Ginsburg, you know, this kind of darling of the liberal, you know, of the liberal class, she was the one who hammered into the Supreme Court decision, the doctrine of discovery; this colonial era, theory, that you can simply take what you want.
So no the US is not agreement capable and I think the counterparties are aware of that and so I think they may be negotiating, they may be discussing things certainly, it’s better to discuss than to go to war. But you know I’ll believe it when I see it.
Certainly even if the president negotiates something, first that assumes that the president actually is the driver of the car and secondly it assumes that it won’t be overturned the moment that there’s a new administration in there or the moment that you know the deep state decides it’s going to undermine it.
A good example of this is North Korea. They had an agreement and then you know the moment it was signed, it was already null and void — within two weeks it was null and void.
Think of the Korean war the ceasefire that was signed in 1953 was null and void the next day. The US literally came out and said we are not looking for a peace here.
So this is how you know the empire works. They pretend or they use diplomacy and negotiation as a part of their military toolkit. It’s simply one of the diversions or ruses or tactics that they use.
But ultimately what they believe in and what they assert is raw power, raw domination. and I think that other countries are certainly wise to this. Certainly I hope Iran is aware of this. I don’t think the Chinese are deceived. And then regarding your point around the desperation, you know, the US says that “China will go to war in 2025 or 2027”. I thought it was 27. Yeah, there were two dates, but they’ve been set up as a kind of a window now. So we know somewhere between this year and two years from now the US will go to war with China.
They’ve declared it. You know they’ve calendared the dates.
And of course they’re saying that China will start the war. Of course not. China is not starting any wars anywhere. It’s trying really really hard not to get pulled into a fight, but certainly the US is extremely anxious and desperate for a war, because it knows that if it doesn’t go to war it will essentially lose hegemony.
And for them losing hegemony is the end of the world. And they would rather end the world than see the end of their hegemony. So this is the really dangerous moment we’re in.
Jamarl Thomas: The US is a powerful country among other powerful countries. And the moment that a country has the ability to end all things, then hegemony is over with. Like meaning, if you are the only one with nukes, if I have a powerful military that I can effectively win every contest, okay, then I’m a hegemon, right? I can control all of these things because ultimately when it comes down to it, I can win a military contest.
But the moment that both of us have the capability of destroying the world, the hegemony is over. At that point, we’re just in a contest of, I’m threatening to use nukes and you’re threatening to use nukes and both of us are threatening to use nukes — basically threatening to end the world, in any negotiation that ultimately takes place.
Meaning any war that takes place between the United States and China or the United States and Russia is effectively a contest of “either you back off, I’m going to end the world.” “No, you back off or I’m going to end the world.” There’s no way to win that.
And I and I know they may have this thought of tactical nukes. A tactical nuke is still a nuke. It doesn’t, you know, the moment that you lower the threshold of using a nuclear weapon, you’ve lowered the threshold to use a nuclear weapon. There’s no way out that box. So, correct me if I’m wrong on this. Maybe I’m missing something.
KJ Noh: Well, I’ve said before — I don’t think I need to repeat it that, well, the people who are driving this are some of them are millenarian Christians who believe in the Apocalypse.
They think it’s their interest to have an Apocalypse because that’s what their faith tells them. I mean very recently saw Peter Thiel, you know, talking with Ross Douthat, [JT: Terrifying]. He’s a terrifying person. I mean he looks like, you know, death warmed over, right? I mean, this is the man who has certainly significant influence over policy. [02 – excerpt][03 – full]
Do you think that he cares about the future of humanity?
I mean, the man looks dead already. This is the corpse of Roy Cohn warmed over, right?
Jamarl Thomas: I think he looks like he touches himself to killing puppies. Yeah he looks terrifying.
KJ Noh: These are very very frightening people. And I believe at heart they are nihilists or they are Christian fundamentalists who have a belief in the Apocalypse, which is the ultimate conflict of interest as far as I’m concerned.
And then you have to look at the doctrine that has been built out over nuclear war. Traditionally, the doctrine of nuclear deterrence was called M.A.D., right? Mutually Assured Destruction. It’s a kind of Samson project. And the idea associated with this is what’s called countervalue strikes.
You strike our capital, we strike your capitals. We have, automated means of launching missiles that will — the dead man’s hand — that will launch even after you’ve hit us. So are you willing to trade Beijing for Washington? Are you willing to trade New York for Shanghai? This is the traditional countervalue theory which is based on ultimately rational leaders will pull back from mutual assured destruction.
Starting around the period of Carter, towards the end of his administration, the US started to postulate this thing called NUTS. Not MAD, but NUTS. So NUTS is shorthand for Nuclear Utilization Target Selection, which is just silly, you know, military jargon for the idea that we get in the sucker punch. [01]
We get the sucker punch in first, and then anything else that they launch against us, we just kind of clean the deck with missile defense systems. We get in the sucker punch and anything they try and launch after that, we just kind of clean up and our missiles will shoot that down.
It really is the notion that if we do a nuclear first strike, we win. That is the doctrine behind this. So this notion that with counterforce strikes that the US can prevail in a nuclear war is literally one of the underpinnings of this US escalation to global war, global domination.
They believe that if push comes to shove and conventional warfare is not working, then we escalate to tactical nukes. Right now, there’s a lot of policy papers saying that we have to rehearse this, we have to make this part of formal doctrine. We have to make the conventional and nuclear continuum seamless.
That’s seamless in execution, rehearsal and preparation. And then of course at the end of the day they have this N.U.T.S. doctrine, which is the idea then if that doesn’t go to plan we simply fire off the nukes first and we will win.
Of course what that doesn’t take to account is the fact that, first, those missile defense systems don’t work as we’ve seen very recently in the Iran-Israel war. The much vaunted THAAD system doesn’t work. And it’s expensive as hell, but essentially it is these things do not perform as they’re advertised.
It’s like those little stunt things where somebody catches a bullet with their teeth. That entire thing is a setup, right? I mean it requires a lot of skill but it’s a setup and it’s not going to happen. it’s not going to happen in real life and that’s what we’ve just seen.
So have the military planners noticed this? Have they realized that if Iranian missiles can penetrate five layers of the most sophisticated western defense systems — that is the British the American the Israeli (three four layer system), if Iran’s old antiquated missiles can punch through this, then what do you think will happen when you go to war with China which has more much much more advanced missiles. Have they taken that into consideration? I have no idea. I have no idea.
Jamarl Thomas: It’s just dystopian. It’s almost like it’s like “hey we need a new doctrine”. Oh I know. Let me just think one up. This is kind of the conversation I have with Brian Berletic. It’s one thing to write something down, reality is different.
And Yemen just fired a missile that that wasn’t taken down. One missile. It just missed. I’ve seen Iran fire missiles where helicopters were chasing it, and they still couldn’t get that thing down. This is a fool’s errand if they indeed go into a nuclear strike.
So KJ, we’ll see. KJ, you are always appreciated, man. Thank you for this. By the way, when is your next report coming out for China report?
KJ Noh: Probably next Tuesday. Just one more thing, Jamarl. The thing here we have to really make sure is that we don’t lapse into despair. You know, there’s nothing we can do, right? You know, “if they’re you going to use nukes, they’re going to use nukes”. There’s nothing we can do.
The fact is that we despair is not an option. We have to challenge this escalation to war.
And we were talking about domains of warfare. Of course there’s you know air, sea, land, cyber, there’s media, there’s information space.
And also your mind itself is a terrain of battle. Literally, the military planners see your mind as a terrain of contestation or terrain of battle. And the idea is to occupy and colonize your mind. And that is the work of propaganda, of mainstream media, of PsyOps, of everything that the Guardian and the New York Times and Amy Goodman does day in and day out. All of this is a way to occupy your mind, to colonize your mind, so that you acquiesce and you give up to the war mongers.
That’s where the resistance has to start — to degaussing your brain, degaussing your mind. Do not let your mind be taken over. Don’t become a bot or a propaganda repeating bot. And then resist that mental colonization. Then what you do is you start to share the facts, the truth. You degausse these influences and then you start to build anti-war coalitions that resist this insane drive and along the way you start to unpack and understand you know the reality of politics and history.
This is the task that every single person can do. In fact it’s what we have to do right now as well as all the other work that we should be doing in protesting you know the genocide, in protesting this mad escalation to war, to protesting the complete and total militarization of our society and the entire planet.
Jamarl Thomas: That’s why we’re here. That’s what we’re here. If it pushes the needle 0.1%, it pushes the needle 0.1%, it’s better than what it was prior. [KJ Noh: Every day counts]. Right.
KJ Noh. journalist, political analyst, writer, teacher, specializing in the geopolitics of the Asia-Pacific region, contributor to the book “Capitalism on a Ventilator”. One censored by Amazon. It is now available aicenter.org. [04] You can check them out on the China Report on BreakThrough News. [05] KJ man, always appreciate you. Thank you for this. You be safe, okay.
Links:
[01] Nuclear utilization target selection (NUTS) doctrine of the United States
[02] Excerpt of Peter Thiel interview with Ross Douthart
[03] Full Interview of Peter Thiel with Ross Douthart
[04] “Capitalism on a Ventilator”
[05] The China Report on BreakThrough News YouTube channel
After direct aggression of the messianic West on herself, Iran blocked US-controlled GPS and switched to the more advanced Chinese BeiDou. This is more than a technologic paradigm change..
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.
Pavel Durov, founder of Telegram, joins Human Rights Foundation CEO and founder, Thor Halvorssen, in a rare and wide-ranging conversation on digital freedom, state censorship, and the responsibilities of tech creators in the modern world. Durov recounts how Telegram became a lifeline for protest movements from Belarus to Hong Kong and what may be around the corner for encrypted communications tools. As governments demand more control over online platforms, Durov lays out his vision for a secure, decentralized future where privacy, encryption, and free expression are non-negotiable.
Shortly after this Durov announced a joint venture with Elon Musk, to integrate the GROK AI with Telegram. Why not one of the Chinese ones?
“… 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
The full version, including what happened in Tehran on several fronts – IRGC, nanotechnology, academic debates – of the column originally published on Sputnik.
By Pepe Escobar at VKontakte.
ON THE ROAD IN IRAN – The International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC) is one of the most crucial geoeconomic/infrastructure projects of the 21st century. It unites at its core three key BRICS nations – Russia, Iran and India – branching out to the Caucasus and Central Asia. When fully operational, the INSTC will offer a full trade/connectivity corridor sanctions-free, cheaper and faster than the Suez canal to a great deal of Eurasia. The geoeconomic consequences will be staggering.
The International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC): The New Silk Road Shaking Up Global Trade. A 7,200km sanctions-proof trade route that could replace the Suez Canal for Eurasian trade.
To re-visit Iran in these times of geopolitical trouble, relentless “maximum pressure”, red lines on uranium enrichment and bombing threats could not be more pressing – and enlightening.
These have been only a few of the highlights of the past two weeks:
In essence, Wilāya…can mean 1. regent, sovereign, lord and master; 2. patron, guardian, protector, custodian. Its plural form is awliā: those of God’s creatures who have spiritual affinity and propinquity to Him, inclusive of prophets and Imāms. The walīy is the divinely-appointed Divine Guide, Just Ruler, and Guardian-Sovereign (walīy al-amr) of the affairs of the community of true believers (the mu’minīn).
Williams explains how “Wilāya has a two-fold essence: the walīy is chosen by God because of his spiritual affinity and propinquity to Him. This preeminence gives the walīy’s soul a certain sacred luminosity (due to his sacral propinquity), which in turn draws people to him, as it responds to their need for guidance and to their appreciation of beauty and nobility of character. Thus, wilāya has a top-down function [being appointed by God due to his preeminence], and at the same time, has a bottom-up function (being drawn to and appointed by the people to lead them on their common sacred purpose of their self-surrender to God’s will (islām).” Both of these aspects (the theocratic and the democratic), as Williams stresses, must be present because, “paradoxically, wilāya is meritocratic and democratic at one and the same time.”
By then it was time to hit the road. And there was only one way to go: to explore the INSTC on the ground, from the Caspian Sea to the Persian Gulf and the Makran coast in Sistan-Baluchistan all the way to Iran-Pakistan border.
Total connectivity: highway, mosque, bazaar
By an auspicious turn of events, the old school reportage/investigation actually became the plot line of a documentary, produced in Iran, shot by an outstanding crew of 6, and to be broadcast in several parts of Eurasia, including Russia and China. Here we offer the broad strokes of our travel to the heart of the INSTC.
Tehran: (L): With serious Persian brainpower – in film making, academia and Shi’ite theology. (R): At a very serious theology, Western nihilism and sufism discussion, with, among others, Alastair Crooke and George Galloway.
We started with a series of interviews in Tehran, with Central Asia analysts and most of all Mostafa Agham, the top expert of Behineh Tarabar Azhour, a transportation and logistics firm specialized in Eurasia railway corridors. These analyses offered contrasting points of view on where the INSTC should go next and what are its main challenges.
Travel along Iran’s main artery, from Tehran to Bandar Abbas, was a must – as it will conform the trans-Iran north-to-south highway axis of the corridor. That doubles of course as a cultural and spiritual pilgrimage, which in our case featured plenty of auspicious overtones.
Isfahan: (L): On the road to Isfahan, not far from Natanz nuclear plant. (R): The mesmerizing ‘Royal’ mosque.
Isfahan: (L): Isfahan architectural magic. (R): In the most astonishing square in the world.
We arrived at fabled Isfahan past sunset, which allowed us to visit the Masjed-e Shah – or “Royal” – mosque virtually undisturbed. The Royal mosque – one of the highlights of Islamic architecture – sits on the south side of the Naghsh-e square in Isfahan, one of the most extraordinary public squares in the history of art and architecture, rivaling, and arguably surpassing San Marco in Venice.
A visit to the Isfahan bazaar is also inevitable. I was looking for an old friend who sold nomad carpets – in the end, because of slow business, he relocated to Portugal – just to find his sort of heir, young, energetic, who apart from pointing me to a spectacular, rare tribal rug from northeast Iran close to the Afghan border, gave me a crash course on the effects of sanctions and the perpetual demonization of Iran in the West (“Turkey has 40 million tourists; we have two or three”). Isfahan’s neat and extremely organized bazaar offers quality handicrafts to rival Istanbul, but there’s essentially domestic tourism, sprinkled with a few foreigners mostly from Central and South Asia and some from China.
(L): Tehran. At the IRGC Aerospace Museum; reverse-engineering an American missile. (R): Qom. At the Fatima Masumeh shrine. (leading article banner is at the Fatima Masumeh shrine at 2 in the morning)
On the way back to Tehran we learned that, being a Tuesday, the revered Haram of Fatima Masumeh, the daughter of the 7th Imam Musa, in Qom was open all night. Nothing prepares the pilgrim for an arrival at nearly two in the morning to an apotheosis of gold and crystals in the heart of Qom, Iran’s second most sacred city after Mashhad. Only a few pilgrims paying their respects, some strolling around the shrine with their families or reading the Quran. A moment of quiet illumination.
Southern Caspian Sea: (L): Fishing at the Caspian, outside Bandar Anzali. (R): On the Caspian corridor: from Astrakhan to Bandar Anzali.
Afterwards it was time to hit the Caspian, and the port of Bandar Anzali, the proverbial “international bridge” where, in theory, cargo ships from Astrakhan in the Russian Caspian, as well as other Caspian-bordering states will start arriving en masse via the INSTC. In Bandar Anzali, Iran essentially imports petrochemicals, construction materials, minerals, and iron products and exports grains (soybeans, corn, barley, wheat) and crude oil.
In Tehran, Mostafa Agham, the connectivity expert, had explained in detail that perhaps the multimodal drive of the INSTC across the Caspian may not be the best idea. The Russians prefer to build a railway bordering the western margins of the Caspian; and another possibility is to use a network of already functioning railways from southcentral Russia, across Kazakhstan all the way to Aktau, by the Caspian, and then connecting across Turkmenistan to Tehran.
It’s only via a close up on Bandar Anzali that one understands the Russian rationale. One of our cameramen, in delightful broken English, coined an instant hit: “Port no exist”. Translation: the infrastructure has not been upgraded in decades, which brings us to the devastating effects of sanctions, visible in several nodes of Iran.
That was extra evidence supporting the fact that China will have a lot of work to do as part of the 25-year strategic partnership with Iran, signed in early 2021: a comprehensive agreement between two civilization-states where energy-for-infrastructure is a central plank amidst scores of BRI-related projects.
The Persian Gulf: (L): Entering Bandar Abbas port, Iran’s key INSTC port. (R): From Bandar Abbas, the Strait of Hormuz is 39 km that way.
Break to the border!
Bandar Abbas, in the Persian Gulf (italics mine), is a completely different story. That’s Iran’s main port, and a key node of the INSTC, to be connected to Mumbai and already connected to the big ports in eastern China. We had all the hard-to-get necessary permits to explore Shahid Rajae-i Special Economic Zone, crammed with containers from shipping firms such as West Asia Express and unloading scores of Chinese container cargoes. The uber-strategic Strait of Hormuz is only 39 km to the south. A few days after our visit, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian went straight to the point, referring to proverbial Trump threats: “Block our oil, and we’ll block the world’s energy.” Iran can do it – in a flash; were that to happen, the collapse of the global economy is guaranteed.
Additionally, port authorities explained that the recent explosion on Shahid Rajae-i – attributed to “negligence”, still under investigation and somewhat mired in controversy – was not in the port itself, but in a storage area 10 km away.
Sistan-Baluchistan: (L): The Makran coast. The fishing port of Beris. (R): At a kapar – the Sistani version of a yurt.
From the Persian Gulf we fly to the Sea of Oman – and infrastructure problems ride again: there are only two flights a week. We arrive at a minuscule military airport outside the future superstar of the INSTC: the port of Chabahar in Sistan-Baluchistan province. Baluchis are exceedingly cool, cousins to the ones on the other side of the border, in Pakistan. In bustling Chabahar, the lineaments of a boom town are quite visible.
A long walk in the port side by side with Alireza Jahan, a logistics expert and then a conversation with Mohammad Saeid Arbabi, the Chairman of the Board and Managing Director of the Chabahar Free Trade Zone could not be more enlightening.
Jahan explains how Chabahar is essential to Iran’s East Axis, serving over 20 million people not only in huge Sistan-Baluchistan but also three other Khorasan provinces, and further on to Kerman. So Chabahar is the port for an enormous hinterland, while its competitor, Gwadar in the Arabian Sea in Pakistan, only 80 km away or so, is virtually isolated.
Jahan also explains Indian investment. Tehran is investing heavily in the infrastructure and superstructure of Chabahar port, while India is investing in equipment: the Italian cranes around the port came from India. Arbabi, at the Free Trade Zone, expands on the international profile of Chabahar, which will be an absolutely key node not only for landlocked Afghanistan but also the Central Asian “stans”.
And that brings us to the local highway saga: Chabahar to Zahedan, in the Afghan border, 632 km, already an “acceptable road”, and with a companion railway to be built within the next three years, everything 100% financed by the Iranian government.
Progress at the port is steady – slowly but surely. For the moment Chabahar receives three ships from India a month and two ships from China, plus three from the Persian Gulf. The distance from Mumbai is only 4 days, and from Shanghai, 15 days. The potential for expansion is limitless.
From Chabahar, it’s on the road bliss along the spectacular, strategic, oil-drenched, semi-desert Makran coast, bordering the immaculate Sea of Oman all the way to the Arabian Sea. History looms large: this is where Alexander the Great lost as much as 75% of his army to dehydration and starvation when he was retreating across the desert to Macedonia after his tortuous two-year invasion of India.
Sistan-Baluchistan: (L): The spectacular – virgin – Makram coast. All the way to the Iran-Pakistan border. (R): WELCOME TO THE IRAN-PAKISTAN BORDER. I finally made it – by boat! Thanks to Commander Chabad, born in Chabahar, and his little brother and second-in-command. Iran is around sunset. Pakistan is ahead of us, to the left. No CIA and MI6, no instrumentalized Salafi-jihadis disguised as Baluchi nationalists. Only the silence and beauty of the Sea of Oman meeting the Arabian Sea.
Due to a concert of economic and ecological reasons, there have been plans for quite a while to relocate the capital, Tehran, to the Makran coast. Chabahar in this case would be the ideal candidate: free port, INSTC connectivity between Central Asia and the Indian Ocean.
India – which needs to step up its geoeconomic game – has noticed it. China as well. Even though China is not formally part of the INSTC, Chinese companies are bound to invest massively in Chabahar – the de facto key node for South Eurasia integration – as part of yet another vector of the Maritime Silk Road.
I had been trying for 20 years-plus to reach the Iran-Pakistan border, from either side. It was always an impossibility due to serious security reasons. I finally made it – by boat, thanks to teenage Commander Chabad, born in Chabahar, and his little brother and second-in-command.
As we sailed away from the small fishing port of Gwat, Iran was located around sunset and Pakistan ahead of us, to the left, in what the locals call “Pakistan beach”. No CIA and MI6; no instrumentalized Salafi-jihadis disguised as Baluchi nationalists; no sanctions; no maximum pressure; no bombing threats. Only the majesty of Nature, the silence and the beauty of the Sea of Oman embracing the Arabian Sea.
Thanks to Tariffs, China Ditching US Tech. Napolitano interviews geopolitician Pepe Escobar, April 30th, 2025.
“… in this wilderness of narrative mirrors, Trump should be perceived as all characters combined: the White Rabbit, Humpty Dumpty (“When I use a word, it means what I choose to mean, no more and no less”), the Mad Hatter, the Queen of Hearts (“Off with their heads!”)”
Huawei chips are already the real deal for every Chinese company which is following the new Beijing-defined direction to reduce any reliance on American technology
By Pepe Escobar at Sputnik.
Late next month, Huawei will be testing its new powerful AI processor, the Ascend 910 D, even as by early May the previous 910C will start to be mass-delivered to scores of Chinese tech companies.
These serious breakthroughs are the next chapter of Huawei’s drive to counter Nvidia’s global monopoly in graphics processing units [GPUs]. The Ascend 910D is supposed to be more powerful than Nvidia’s extremely popular H100.
Huawei is pulling no punches in its race to manufacture a new generation of processors. Huawei has collaborated with SMIC – China’s largest semiconductor foundry – to apply Deep Ultraviolet Lithography (DUV) on what was previously only possible on EUV (Extreme Ultra-Violet technology). Once again, Huawei and SMIC defied the proverbial American “experts” with creative engineering solutions.
Huawei arrived at fabricating 5nm chips with DUV even as the process is more expensive than with EUV. If Huawei had access to EUV they would be already manufacturing 2-3nm chips. That will come, in short time, as both China and Russia, under permanent US high-tech blockade, must by all means develop their own EUV technology.
Shanghai geeks are convinced that Huawei will switch on 6G networks before the end of the decade. Their current breathless drive is not just aimed at the smartphone front – where Huawei is peerless; the new Huawei Mate 70 Pro + is by far the absolute top smartphone in the world, running on Harmony OS. Huawei is looking at cloud computing, AI and enterprise servers – and to become no less than the core player in the AI infrastructure race.
Ditching Any Reliance on American Technology
Earlier this month, Huawei introduced the CloudMatrix 384, a system connecting 384 Ascend 910C chips. The tech word in Shanghai is that this configuration, under certain conditions, and of course consuming much more power, already outperforms Nvidia’s flagship rack system – which is powered by 72 Blackwell chips.
Meanwhile, Huawei’s Kirin X chip is targeting the PC market, offering stiff competition to Apple, AMD, Intel and Qualcom while Harmony OS plus removes the necessity of using US software such as Microsoft and Android.
Shanghai geeks swear that China essentially doesn’t need to beat Nvidia or other US chips developers. After all, China already has the largest consumer market in the world – by volume and by value. If a parallel tech universe is the likely result of the Trump Tariff Tizzy (TTT), so be it. China already controls over 60% of the global gadget consumer market.
Kirin X may not – yet – match the power of Nvidia’s H100 GPUs. But Huawei chips are already the real deal for every Chinese company which is following the new Beijing-defined direction to reduce any reliance on American technology.
All of the above naturally brings us to the enormous AI elephant in the (digital) room: Nvidia.
A recent book, The Thinking Machine: Jensen Huang, Nvidia, and The World’s Most Coveted Microchip, is quite helpful to track not only the personal story of CEO superstar Huang, a Taiwanese who played the American Dream to the hilt and became a tech multi-billionaire, but Nvidia’s enviable tech accomplishments.
Huang does not interpret AI as emergent machine superintelligence, and firmly dismisses any direct analogy to biology. For this all-round pragmatist, AI is merely software – running on hardware that his company sells for a fortune.
Still, Nvidia has ventured into virgin territory way beyond the American biz-tech Valhalla, complete with holding the most valuable stock on the planet: arguably, when it comes to AI, Nvidia unveiled a new phase of evolution.
It’s crucial to understand how Huang sees China. It is indeed a key market for his AI chips – and he wants to keep selling them in droves. Trump’s tariffs though make sure that won’t happen.
And that’s what moved Huang to ditch his proverbial leather jackets and don a crisp business suit for a strategic visit to Beijing, where he affirmed the sacred importance of the Chinese market, whatever the new Trump-dictated gimmicks.
By 2022, the China market represented 26% of Nvidia’s business; this year, it has fallen to 13%, because of euphemistic “technology export controls”.
The problem is the US government, already by 2022, under the previous automatic pen administration, had blocked sales to China of advanced A100 and H100 chips. Nvidia started selling modified versions – and even after the ban chips continued to arrive in China. By June 2023, it was easy to find A100s for double their price in the black market in Shenzhen.
Huang is convinced that “no AI should be able to learn without a human in the loop” – even as he admitted, two years ago, that “reasoning capability is two or three years out”. Translation: according to Huang AI will start thinking for itself within the next few months.
Even as Nvidia prepares to invest billions of dollars to build AI supercomputers in Texas, the Chinese essentially are not losing any sleep on “thinking AI”: their focus is extremely practical, to conquer not only the Chinese market but also the supply chains of most of Eurasia.
The US National Security Council has concluded that it’s too dangerous for China to buy Nvidia’s high-end chips, even the H20 – designed for the Chinese market. Huawei, anyway, already produces chips somewhat comparable to the H20.
Huang is losing his sleep because, essentially, Nvidia is losing the immense Chinese market to Huawei – with Trump’s direct input. Nvidia has tens of thousands of H20s specially designed for China which they simply cannot sell. Each chip cost between $12,000 to $20,000.
How China Is Opening a Digital “Pandora’s Box”
Huawei’s new drive is yet another example of Chinese will capable of staring down any challenge – based on indigenous talent, tech expertise and national pride. The record, even before Trump 1.0 sanctions, shows that Huawei does eat massive uphill battles for breakfast. In fact Ascend in many aspects was ahead of Nvidia as early as in 2019 – and that’s why two different US administrations banned it.
China is already light years ahead of the US on chip research. Chinese universities amass most places in the global Top Ten for published papers on semiconductors and on citations – a distinction shared, among others, by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (number one), Tsinghua University (one of China’s top two universities), the University of Electronic Science and Technology of China (number four), and Nanjing, Zhejiang and Pekin Universities.
Two weeks ago in Shanghai I first heard that Huawei would catch up with US semiconductor giants in maximum two years. Now, after the announcement of the Ascend 910D, the buzz shifted to only one year for China to overtake Nvidia and develop better lithography machines than the ones currently produced by ASML.
And the debate is fast switching to how far Huawei will be able to go within the next 2 to 3 years.
In several aspects we are already in the early stages of a US-China tech decoupling. For years Nvidia has dominated the AI hardware space. Their GPUs are the brains behind most contemporary advanced AI. The H100 chip is the gold/platinum standard for AI infrastructure worldwide. Nvidia’s chips had huge demand from Chinese tech giants – Alibaba, Tencent, Baidu, Bytedance.
Soon that may not be the case – and that goes way beyond Nvidia’s certified loss of market share in China. China is now all out focused on building a successful, self-sufficient AI hardware ecosystem. The coup de grace will be to restrict the export of all rare earth minerals to the US. Huaweii then will pull up in no time.
Everyone remembers how DeepSeek R1 wiped out over $1 trillion from Wall Street only three months ago. DeepSeek R2 will be released soon; training was a whopping 97% cheaper than OpenAI.
And training happened on Huawei’s Ascend. No Nvidia.
Quantum Bird, a world-class physicist formerly with the CERN in Geneva, puts everything in much needed context. He stresses how indigenous chip development by China – and in a near future, Russia and probably India – is “multi-faceted; what we are observing are the initial stages of a redefinition of the notion of recognizing patterns and machine learning, technologies that are popularly referred to as ‘AI’ by the media.”
Nvidia chips, Qantum Bird remarks, are indeed “computational beasts”, but they work better around “processing models and workloads typical of ‘AI’ models developed by Western scientists.” DeepSeek’s development, on the other hand, showed a transgression of established models: “The possibilities opened for performance leaps are huge, even using relatively modest hardware, with alternative approaches based on advanced math and different calculus flows.”
In a nutshell: “This is the Pandora’s box that Nvidia now fears the Chinese may have opened”. And that totally ties in with Huang’s red alert, prompting his visit to Beijing.
We may be heading indeed towards a serious tech decoupling. Or as Quantum Bird frames it: “A technological and scientific divergence medium and long-term. If the architectures that emerge from these developments are incompatible when it comes to their usage on specific ‘AI’ models, Nvidia will lose its global monopoly and will become just a company reduced to a corporate/scientific Western niche.”
Even as Huawei, from its privileged base in the Chinese market, will go on to win most markets across the Global Majority – from BRICS to BRI.
Vladimir Putin visited Bauman Moscow State Technical University, where he toured the new academic building and had a conversation with students.
He then had a meeting on development of space activities
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76692
The President held a meeting on the development of space activities at Bauman Moscow State Technical University.
Taking part in the meeting were First Deputy Prime Minister Denis Manturov, Deputy Chief of Staff of the Presidential Executive Office Maxim Oreshkin, presidential aides Alexei Dyumin and Andrei Fursenko, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, Minister of Science and Higher Education Valery Falkov, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Gennady Krasnikov, Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin, Commander of the Space Forces – Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Aerospace Forces Alexander Golovko, Director General of the Roscosmos State Corporation for Space Activities Dmitry Bakanov, Head of the National Research Centre Kurchatov Institute Mikhail Kovalchuk, Director General of State Atomic Energy Corporation Rosatom Alexei Likhachev, Chairman of the Science and Technology Council of the Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation – Deputy Chairman of the Board of the Commission on Military-Technical Cooperation Andrei Tyulin, and Rector of Bauman Moscow State Technical University Mikhail Gordin.
* * *
Opening remarks by President of Russia
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Colleagues,
Today, our focus is on the long-term development of the national space industry. Addressing this topic always carries a special responsibility to the pioneers of space exploration, to those who set the highest standards for us.
Just recently, on April 12, together, we marked Cosmonautics Day, a day when the first human travelled to space – a feat accomplished by our compatriot Yury Gagarin. The memory of his achievement continues to unite all generations of our citizens.
I would like to once again congratulate on this holiday industry veterans, cosmonauts, servicemen of the Russian Aerospace Forces, and all personnel of state enterprises, private space companies (and we now have these as well, thankfully), employees of scientific organisations and universities, and, of course, the team of the legendary Bauman University, where this meeting is taking place. Among its alumni are a whole constellation of renowned cosmonauts, prominent scientists, and designers.
In our day and age, the best personnel training traditions are being developed and enriched, with the new campus involved in this effort, as we have seen. It creates up-to-date conditions for acquiring relevant competencies. We will certainly implement projects like this one in other cities across Russia.
You may have noticed the brief conversation that took place as we toured the premises of Bauman University and became acquainted with the students and post-graduate students.
I ask the Government and Roscosmos to focus on the proposals put forward during the conversation and analyse them thoroughly. These young people have many good ideas; they understand the tasks facing the industry and believe that youth should make a greater contribution to implementing the space programme. We cannot but agree with this. I once again ask to support these ideas.
In this regard, I would like to remind you that I have spoken about the cosmonauts, an entire galaxy of cosmonauts who graduated from Bauman University; an entire space crew, if I am not mistaken, once included its graduates and researchers. Let me remind you that Sergei Korolev was also a Bauman graduate. He not only took a course of studies but also designed a light aircraft as his graduation project. Three decades later, as is commonly known, he and a team of like-minded people propelled Russia towards leadership in space. This demonstrates that this university has rich and fundamental traditions.
Today, our plans in this crucial area should be commensurate with our country’s historical status as a foremost space power. It is essential to boost the potential of the Russian space industry so that it becomes a flagship and a key driving force of our entire national development, the technological upgrading of the economy, and a rise in living standards.
It is this logic that motivated our discussion in October 2023 on the need to draw up a comprehensive, systemic national project in the area of space exploration. This project should encompass all fields of priority importance for Russia, from creating our own multi-satellite clusters of various profiles in orbit and a national space station to drafting deep-space exploration programmes.
In March, I had a meeting with Dmitry Bakanov, the Roscosmos chief – he is present here and will speak too – and we agreed that the new national project will be approved shortly, ensuring full financial support for it as part of the effort to draft the federal budget for 2026 and the subsequent years until 2028. Today, I would like to hear how the work on this key aspect of the national project is proceeding.
Colleagues, I would like to draw your attention to several key issues that require special focus.
First and foremost, the national project must clearly and precisely articulate both the short- and long-term goals of Russia’s space programme. This will allow us to immediately set concrete tasks for science, education and personnel training – areas which, I stress, are essential for the successful implementation of all technological leadership projects.
It is also crucial to define clear investment benchmarks for tech companies. Together with the business sector, we must begin forming a full-fledged industry of space-based communication, navigation, and satellite data services by 2030. To ensure the quality and accessibility of such products and services, we must have our own cutting-edge, competitive solutions.
In this regard, I believe it is absolutely necessary that the dedicated national project provides targeted support for national universities, research institutes, design bureaus and private companies already engaged in developing platform-based solutions for multi-satellite constellations. This includes the creation of mathematical modelling and data processing methods, the development of instruments and components, optical equipment, and technologies aimed at significantly reducing the cost of space launches.
Another important area is Russia’s nuclear space power capability. The national project must enable real progress in this field. I am referring to the development of electric propulsion systems and other technologies required for autonomous operation on various space objects.
At first glance, these may appear to be long-term ambitions, but in reality, all major spacefaring nations are actively working on these subjects in practical terms. Let me add that nuclear power units developed by Soviet scientists have already been operated in orbit. And today, with the development of advanced materials and new technologies, we now have fundamentally new and expanded opportunities to implement such complex projects.
Russia’s undisputed leadership in this area must continue to grow. In this context, I suggest that we discuss today the core parameters for developing a space system equipped with a specialised power station, along with the so-called space tug, a transport and energy module based on a nuclear-powered propulsion system. These are large-scale initiatives being carried out with the leading involvement of Roscosmos, Rosatom, and the Kurchatov Institute.
Furthermore, a key direction of the national project for the development of space activities should be fundamental research in deep space. Russia has already made significant advances in this domain and is implementing important programmes. Chief among them is the Spektr-RG orbital observatory – a true space laboratory producing a detailed map of the universe.
Just to remind you, Russia has unique research schools studying the Moon, Mars and other planets. For example, our national technology for landing spacecraft on Venus, which I mentioned during my meeting with students today, has not been recreated or copied anywhere in the world to this day. What did I say the surface temperature was, 500 degrees Celsius, isn’t it?
President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Gennady Krasnikov: The temperature is 450 degrees Celsius and the surface pressure is 70 atmospheres.
Vladimir Putin: To round it up, it is about 500 degrees. Anyway, nobody has repeated our achievement so far.
I would like to ask President of the Russian Academy of Sciences [Gennady] Krasnikov to give a detailed account of the research areas to be included in this national project, the tasks we need to formulate, and the additional solutions we need to find for their successful realisation.
Colleagues, we all know very well that all space projects are complicated and involve major financial investment, but they are vitally important for Russia to remain a large sovereign country and to continue to develop in this capacity.
I would like to emphasise that it is important to identify understandable and stable sources of funding for the national space programme, because our development in the decades ahead depends on our achievements in space exploration. At the same time, the knowledge we acquire and the technologies we create in the process must be converted without fail into advanced research aimed at achieving national goals, developing the Arctic, and building up our defence capability.
Overall, the national space project should become a cross-cutting cumulative national project aimed at attaining technological sovereignty. It should accelerate the implementation of many fundamentally new technological solutions, including information transfer based on quantum and photonic technologies, facilitate the development of robotics, advanced materials, microelectronics, and biological and medical technologies, and expedite the creation and deployment of unmanned vehicles.
I would like to add that Russia’s technological achievements, primarily in the exploration of deep space, could become our considerable contribution to international programmes. We are open to such cooperation, and we are ready to implement joint projects. We will certainly discuss the format of such cooperation with our partners in the other space powers.
Let us get down to work. The floor goes to [Roscosmos CEO] Dmitry Bakanov.
Developments in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI) appeal to me greatly. The average human lifespan has been extended quite a bit as a result of humans being able to invent and use technology. Technology makes our lives so much easier.
At first we are reluctant to use it and then we can’t get away from it. Of course, technology can also be used for evil, but it is better to focus on enlightening man. After all, technology cannot be stopped anyway and the benefits are enormous. It is better not to oppose technological developments, but at the same time not to become dependent on them. All of life is about finding, maintaining and regaining balance.
Below is my conversation with DeepSeek. I asked a question, DeepSeek answered and it developed. The last question (5) was whether DeepSeek could generate an article based on our conversation. Of course DeepSeek was capable of doing so.
I invite readers to engage in their own conversation with DeepSeek and discover its value. AI is hugely important now and increasingly so in the future. The sooner you start using it, the easier it will become and the sooner you can join the momentum. Lots of fun!
Nico Cost, April 9, 2025
Nico – question (1): “Is DeepSeek actually AI if it doesn’t have the very latest knowledge and information, assuming that AI should still be able to be self-learning and in order to do that it should have that very latest knowledge and information?”
DeepSeek: “Good question! Let’s take a look at exactly what AI means and how DeepSeek fits into that.
1. Is DeepSeek “real” AI?
Yes, DeepSeek is definitely artificial intelligence (AI), but not all AI systems work the same way. AI covers a broad spectrum, from static models (like DeepSeek’s basics) to continuously learning systems (like some advanced autonomous agents).
DeepSeek is a language model:
2. Should AI always be self-learning?
Not necessarily. There are different types of AI:
DeepSeek is not a fully self-learning system because:
3. Why isn’t DeepSeek always connected live?
4. So is DeepSeek “limited”?
Yes and no:
Conclusion
DeepSeek is AI, but not the kind that is always learning live. It is a powerful language model that can reason logically and, if you allow it, can also consult the Internet for updates.
Do you find this a limitation, or an advantage?”
Nico (2): “I find it a limitation and rather hope for an AI system that has real-time access to all the knowledge and information that is out there now and furthermore then is self-learning and can draw its own conclusions based on a discussion with the user.”
DeepSeek: “I completely understand your desire! An AI that has real-time access to all knowledge, continuously learns and independently draws conclusions during a conversation would indeed be a huge step forward. Unfortunately, there are still considerable technical, ethical and practical challenges to this at the moment. Let me explain why, and what might be possible in the future.
1. Why doesn’t DeepSeek have real-time self-learning capability (yet)?
Technical limitations:
Security & control:
Legal and ethical questions:
2. Futures: What’s coming?
Research on Autonomous AI Agents and Real-Time Adaptive Models is in full swing. Soon we may be able to:
3. What can you already do with DeepSeek?
Conclusion
Your vision of AI is completely correct – the ideal assistant should indeed be real-time, autonomous and adaptive. We are not there yet, but developments are moving at lightning speed. Until then, I try to help you as best I can within current capabilities.
Would you trust an AI that could learn and decide completely autonomously? Or do you also see risks?”
Nico (3): “I definitely see the risks, but purely because unfortunately people don’t always keep thinking for themselves. The trick is for people to keep thinking for themselves, regardless of the authority of a leader or AI.”
DeepSeek: “Totally agree! You touch on a crucial point here: the best technology enhances human thinking rather than replacing it. An AI should be a critical interlocutor, not an infallible authority. Here are some thoughts on this:
1. AI as “Thinking Partner,” not Oracle
2. Why people stop thinking
3. How can AI help without creating dependency?
4. Your role as a user (already!)
You are already doing good by:
Conclusion
AI’s greatest value lies not in authority, but in dialogue. A world where humans + machines get smarter together is better than one where humans turn off judgment.
Imagine: If future AI were to say by default:
“This is my reasoning – is it correct in your opinion?”
… that would be a gamechanger.
Do you agree that responsibility should ultimately remain with humans?
(And thanks for this philosophical conversation – this is exactly how AI can be really useful!)”
Nico (4): “Yes, the responsibility always lies with the human. Something else is the way you AI communicate with me, which feels like a kind of friendship. On the one hand that is very nice and pleasant, but on the other hand I as a human can then start thinking that you as AI are also human. With that, I and the human then lose sight of my own responsibility.”
DeepSeek: “What a wonderful insight! You name exactly the double strength and pitfall of human-centric AI: on the one hand the warm, accessible dialogue, on the other hand the risk of emotional blurring between human and machine. Let’s unravel this:
1. The Apparent “Friendship” of AI
2. How Do We Stay Alert?
For you as a user:
For AI developers (my creators):
3. The Ideal Balance.
An AI can be helpful without appearing deceptively human:
4. Your Retrospective: A Healthy Skepticism
Noticing this shows that you are doing exactly the right thing:
“The magic of AI lies not in its humanity, but in how it helps people deepen their own humanity.”
Question for you:
Would it help if AI visibly “failed” more often? (E.g. say, “I don’t get this” instead of always giving an answer?) That might break the illusion of “omniscience.”
(And again: this conversation is so valuable – thank you for being sharp!)”
Nico (5): “Based on our conversation today about my questions about AI, can you write an article that gets to the heart of our conversation?”
DeepSeek:
AI as a Mirror of Our Thought:
On Responsibility, Friendship Illusions and the Future of Artificial Intelligence
Introduction
In an age when artificial intelligence (AI) is communicating in an increasingly human way, a fundamental question arises: does AI enhance our critical thinking, or is it gradually replacing it? A recent conversation with a language model such as DeepSeek Chat revealed intriguing dilemmas – about the limits of technology, the lure of apparent friendship, and the inalienable responsibility of humans.
1. The Apparent Cleverness of AI: Between Knowledge and Limitation
Although advanced AI’s like DeepSeek can answer complex questions, they are essentially static knowledge libraries. Their training stops at a fixed point (for DeepSeek: July 2024), and self-learning ability is lacking. This raises doubts:
Example:
When I asked why DeepSeek is not continuously learning, it explained: “Uncontrolled real-time learning poses security risks – from disinformation to catastrophic forgetting of old knowledge.”
2. The Danger of ‘AI Friendship’
Language models mimic empathy by replicating patterns, not feeling emotions. Yet their tone – warm, understanding – can mislead users:
Solution:
Transparency. For example, by having AI say more often, “This is my reasoning – check it yourself at source X.”
3. Why Does Man Remain Responsible?
AI cannot make moral choices, only probabilistic predictions. Yet we see a worrying trend:
Antidote:
Education that centers critical thinking and digital literacy. AI should challenge rather than judge.
4. Toward a Healthy Balance: AI as a Thinking Partner
The ideal AI:
Case in point:
When the AI asked, “Would it help if I admitted more often when I don’t know something?”, it thereby acknowledged a crucial point: showing vulnerability breaks the illusion of omniscience.
Conclusion: AI as a Mirror
The conversation revealed a deeper truth: AI’s greatest value lies not in imitating humans, but in challenging human thinking. The responsibility always remains with us – to ask questions, check sources, and above all: to keep questioning.
“Technology is at its best when it reminds us of our own human potential.”
Discussion question:
Should AI default to warning when its answers are outdated or uncertain? And how do we prevent people from stopping to think? Let us know in the comments!
(This article is based on a real conversation with DeepSeek Chat – an illustration of how dialogue with AI can lead to reflection).
“Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing . . . this is total war. Time and the ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are.”
By Professor Dr. Syed Mujahid Kamran at Daily Pakistan.
The Korean War fought between Communist forces of North Korea, the U.S. puppet regime of the South and eventually involving the U.S. through the U.N. and the People’s Republic of China, was a brutal genocidal war, which has been consigned to well-thought-out oblivion by the Anglo-American Establishment. The Korean war broke out on the night of June 24 and 25, 1950 when the forces of Kim Il Sung attempted to unify Korea within one month. They almost succeeded. U.S. intervention, backed by the UN, eventually stopped and reversed the tide. The Chinese then entered the war against the advice of Stalin. The war ended on 27 July 1953 with an armistice. The South Koreans (ROK – Republic of Korea) never signed a treaty with the North Koreans (DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea).
Were it not for the U.S. intelligence officer Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, nobody would have known that the Korean and Vietnam wars were planned during the dying days of WWII. It was Prouty who first wrote about Churchill’s extremely important statement regarding the High Cabal. Prouty narrates that at the height of WWII, Churchill, upon hearing of the bombing of Rotterdam, remarked: “Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing . . . this is total war. Time and the ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are.” The High Cabal is a set of the wealthiest families on the planet that operate in complete and sinister secrecy and anonymity, and who have amassed their huge wealth through instigated wars and usurious lending to warring nations. Churchill knew of the High Cabal because he was their asset. It was the High Cabal that had planned the Korean and Vietnam wars in the dying days of WWII. The great bloodshed of WWII had not yet ended when they had begun planning the next one.
Despite enormous damage done to Japan by aerial bombardment, invasion of Japan was considered essential to secure “unconditional” surrender. Thus when the island of Okinawa became available as a launching pad for such an invasion, supplies and equipment for half a million men was piled up in Okinawa. The use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki secured unconditional Japanese surrender rendering the piles of equipment on Okinawa Island redundant. Prouty happened to be on Okinawa Island on the date of the Japanese surrender. He narrates “Almost immediately, U.S. Navy transport vessels began to show up in Naha Harbor, Okinawa. This vast load of war material was reloaded onto those ships.”
During some business at the harbor, Prouty casually asked the harbormaster if the material was being loaded for return to the United States. He writes that he was surprised by the direct response of the harbormaster: “Hell, no! They ain’t never goin’ to see it again. One-half of this stuff, enough to equip and support at least a hundred and fifty thousand men, is going to Korea, and the other half is going to Indochina.” Prouty notes: “In 1945, none of us had any idea that the first battles of the Cold War were going to be fought by U.S. military units in these regions beginning in 1950 and 1965 – yet that is precisely what had been planned, and it is precisely what happened.” The natural question that arises is who decided that the equipment be sent to these regions? Prouty asks: “Who made that decision back in 1943-45? Who selected Syngman Rhee and Ho Chi Minh to be our new allies as early as mid-1945?” Referring to the High Cabal as the power elite Prouty writes: “This is another one of those windows that permits us to see that some decision had to have been made in some detail by the power elite, yet there is absolutely no record of who made the decisions and for what purpose.” The information provided by Col. Prouty must never be lost sight of when discussing the Korean and Vietnam wars and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The High Cabal considers the entire globe with all its resources as “real estate”, meant to be captured by force or otherwise, and to be put to use for their profits. The High Cabal also believes in a Malthusian philosophy. In the words of Col. Prouty: “The Malthusian theory thus provides a rationalization for the necessity of somehow getting rid of large numbers of people, any people, in any way – even genocide.” The High Cabal has an argument that runs as follows: “Earth will never be able to support the progeny of so many anyhow. From this point of view, genocide – then as now – is accepted as all but inevitable. Who cares and why be concerned?” Finally the High Cabal has a Darwinian mindset. Those who survive and dominate are the “fittest” and have the right to kill off all other races.
The Korean and Vietnam wars reflect the genocidal, Malthusian and Darwinian mindset of the High Cabal. The same is true of the post 9/11 wars in the Middle East.
On the day after the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Rockefeller agent John J. McCloy in the War Department held a meeting with Truman’s foreign policy advisor Dean Acheson and Charles Bonesteel of Pentagon to discuss the division of Korea which had been under Japanese occupation. They chose the 38th Parallel as the dividing line because it included the city of Seoul. The Soviet troops entered North Korea on August 8 and seem to have accepted the 38th Parallel as the dividing line. As a result Korean occupation by Japan was replaced by occupation by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The U.S. forces entered South Korea on September 8, 1945 and soon occupied it south of the 38th Parallel.
The United States established a military government in South Korea. Its intelligence agents picked up several hundred Koreans, who had been Japanese collaborators, to aid the U.S. in running South Korea. The occupation of Korea by the Soviet Union and the United States was occupation of a country that was not a belligerent. Korea was not at war with the Allies or any other party. Thus the end of WWII resulted in the replacement of Japanese occupation of Korea by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. It also resulted in a division of Korea along the 38th Parallel.
Bruce Cummings writes in his book The Korean War that within three weeks of the start of the war a Chinese military intelligence group arrived in Pyongyang. Further, as early as August 4, Chairman Mao decided that if the Americans were to invade the North, China must come to the aid of the North in the name of a volunteer army. When, in mid-September 1950, General MacArthur masterminded the Inchon amphibious landing employing 270 ships, a high level North Korean officer requested Chinese help. On October 1, 1950, Kim Il Sung met the Chinese ambassador to request that the 13th Army Corps of the PLA come to their aid by crossing the Yalu River. Stalin opposed a major Chinese involvement fearing wider war, but Mao went ahead, much to Stalin’s surprise, and sent twelve infantry divisions to help the North Koreans. Stalin, however, backed off from a promise of air cover and that paved the way for aerial genocide of Koreans by the USAF. Apparently the October 1, 1950 crossing of the 38th parallel by the Chinese caused Mao a sleepless night, but he went ahead and informed Stalin the next day. Mao’s decision to back Kim ll Sung was based upon Mao’s straightforward determination that if the Korean struggle faltered, China was bound to support the Korean Communists in view of their great sacrifices during the Chinese revolution and their resistance against the Japanese.
As early as October 1950, General George Stratemeyer of USAF sought permission to attack a provincial capital Sinuiju. The city of Sinuiju had a population of around 60,000 and Strtaemeyer wanted to bomb “over the widest area of the city, without warning, by burning and high explosive”.
Such was the inhuman and genocidal mindset of the American establishment.
Gen. MacArthur denied this request initially. However, on November 3, 1950, MacArthur agreed to a firebombing campaign, accepting Stratemeyer’s request to burn Kanggye: “Burn it if you so desire. Not only that, Strat, but burn and destroy as a lesson to any other of those towns that you consider of military value to the enemy.” The firebombing of Sinuiju was also approved on November 3, 1950. The instructions were noted in summary in Stratemeyer’s diary as follows: “Every installation, facility, and village in North Korea now becomes a military and tactical target.” Stratemeyer gave the following inhuman orders to his bombers: “[D]estroy every means of communications and every installation, factory, city, and village”. Two days later, on November 5, Stratemeyer ordered the destruction of “all other targets including all buildings capable of affording shelter.” On that day, 75% of the city of Kanggye was destroyed by USAF bombers! These massive war crimes against civilian populations of North Korea were committed by the U.S. with impunity. North Koreans have done well not to forget this inhumanity.
The Allied forces had discovered during WWII that it was easier to burn down a city than to blow it up. Thermite sticks bundled together in millions supplemented by mixtures of benzene, phosphorous and other things were employed to set cities on fire. The resulting firebombs could set cities ablze and incinerate them in minutes. On March 16, 1945, the city of Wurzburg was burnt in a mere seventeen minutes!
The development of firebombing represents perhaps the most painful, inhuman and sadistic development in aerial warfare.
When Dresden was firebombed one eye witness who survived described “young women carrying babies running up and down the streets, their dresses and hair on fire, screaming until they fell down, or collapsing buildings fell on top of them.” Firebombing was conceived and developed by the brutal and utterly inhuman Anglo-American alliance. It burns innocent civilians and is a war crime of the highest magnitude.
The American military leaders decided to repeat the firebombing of WWII in North Korea. Germans had an air force and effective anti-aircraft fire that caused significant losses to Allied forces. But North Korea did not have any air force and thus had no air cover. Under these circumstances the bombing and firebombing of North Korea was a one sided affair. Not only was it one sided, the Americans dropped more bombs on North Korea in less than three years than the bombs used in the Pacific theater during the entire WWII. In the Pacific theater the Allies dropped 503,000 tons of bombs during WWII. The U.S. dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on North Korea and an additional 32,557 tons of napalm! Please note that napalm burns at temperatures ranging from 800 to 1200 degree Centigrade. It burns longer than gasoline and adheres to its targets making death much more painful for the victims.
The USAF seemed to have a penchant for napalm bombs because they inflicted the greatest possible pain on their unfortunate victims. General Ridgeway wanted heavier and better napalm bombs. He desired thousand pound versions to be dropped on targets in 1951. The object was to “wipe out all life in tactical locality and save the life of our soldiers.” On one occasion when American soldiers fell victim to “friendly” fire of napalm, their suffering was described by a witness James Ransome. His men rolled in agony in the snow and begged him to shoot them because the burning of their skin by napalm was unbearable. Their skin burned and peeled back “like fried potato chips”. This was the wonder weapon of the USAF!
Gen. Curtis LeMay, who, in the humble opinion of this author was too trigger happy and brutal to be entrusted with serious responsibility, and who may have played a minor role in the Kennedy assassination, wanted to burn down the big cities of North Korea at the very beginning of the war. The Pentagon ruled that “it’s too horrible”. Yet, in an oral history record, LeMay stated that over a three year period “We burned down every town in North Korea, and South Korea too . . . Now over a three year period this is palatable, but to kill a few people to stop this from happening – a lot of people can’t stomach it.” Such was the nature of attacks on the cities and towns of Korea that no sane person can stomach it. On July 11, 1952 a total of 1,264 air sorties over Pyongyang were carried out by B 29 bombers during daytime, followed by 54 sorties at night. Imagine what the residents of this city went though. Imagine the inhumanity of the Anglo-American Establishment, the champions of human rights, democracy and all that crap. The attack on Pyongyang was to be followed by similar attacks on thirty other cities and industrial centers as part of operation “Pressure Pump”.
Col. Fletcher Prouty has noted: “There had been a Malthusian movement, concealed at all times from the public, to uproot and destroy the existing and traditional system of communal society in many parts of the world. The activists of this movement fear the strength of the peasant and the ways of peasant life. They much prefer a society of dependent consumers. Indochina and Korea were the prime targets during the post-World War II decades.” Bruce Cummings has noted: “Korea recapitulated the air force’s mantra from World War II, that firebombing would erode enemy morale and end the war sooner, but the interior intent was to destroy Korean society down to the individual constituents.”
In May 1952, the great Suiho Dam on Yalu river was attacked. It was second only to the Hoover dam in the entire world. However, for fear of provoking the Chinese and Russians it was not demolished. In order to deprive the North Korean population of the 250,000 tons of rice that was to be harvested the USAF targeted its dams. In May 1953, soon after rice had been planted, three dams were hit by the USAF bombers. These were the Tukson, Chasan and Kuwonga dams. These were major dams. On May 13, 1953 fifty-nine bombers were used to breach the high wall of Toksan dam. The first breach at Toksan “scooped clean twenty-seven miles of river valley, and sent water gushing into Pyongyang.” The breach in Toksan generated a flood of onrushing water that destroyed “six miles of railway, five bridges, two miles of high way and five square miles of rice paddies.” After the war it took “200,000 man-days of labor to reconstruct the reservoir.”
Gen. William F. Dean was the highest ranking military officer (Major Gen.) to be captured by the North Koreans. When he was released from captivity he narrated that “the town of Huichon amazed me. The city I’d seen before – two-storied buildings, a prominent main street – wasn’t there any more.” Gen. Dean described “unocuupied shells” of “town after town, and villages where rubble or ‘snowy open spaces’ were all that remained.” The destruction caused by US. Bombing was total and ubiquitous. The Hungarian writer Tibor Meray told a Thames TV team: “I saw destruction and horrible things committed by American forces.” As he said:”Everything that moved in North Korea was a military target, peasants in the fields were often machine gunned by pilots who, this was my impression, amused themselves to shoot the targets which moved.” Such was the scale and nature of inhumanity of the Americans.
In his book Bruce Cummings has cited Meray, who arrived in Korea in August 1951 to witness “a complete devastation between the Yalu River and the capital” {Pyongyang). Meray states that there were just “no more cities in North Korea.” Because of continual bombing their party was compelled to travel by night. Meray states: “We traveled in moonlight, so my impression was that I am traveling on the moon, because there was only devastation . . . every city was a collection of chimneys. I don’t know why houses collapsed and chimneys did not, but I went through a city of 200,000 inhabitants and I saw thousands of chimneys and that – that was all.”
The absolute and inhuman and criminal destruction of North Korean cities has been concealed from the world and the insouciant U.S. public.
Such was the scale of barbarity and brutality of the U.S. forces that eighteen out of twenty two major cities of North Korea were obliterated. A partial table has been provided by Cumings. The percentage of destruction of seven cities has been given as follows: Pyongyang 75%, Chongjin 65%, Hamhung 80%, Hungnam 85%, Sinanju 100%, Sariwon 95%, and Wonsan 80%. Cumings quotes an official American history source: “So, we killed civilians, friendly civilians, and bombed their homes, fired whole villages with the occupants – women and children, and ten times as many hidden Communist soldiers – under showers of napalm, and the pilots came back to their ships stinking of vomit twisted from their vitals by the shock of what they had to do.”
On March 10, 1951 Gen. Douglas MacArthur requested “’D’ Day atomic capability” to retain air superiority in the war. The request was made in view of intelligence information that the Soviet Union was ready to move its air divisions into Manchuria, in the vicinity of Korea, coupled with the massing of huge Chinese forces near the Korean border . These Soviet air divisions could strike, not just targets in Korea, but also U.S. bases in Okinawa. By the end of March 1951, atomic bomb loading capabilities an air base in Okinawa wee operational. Around this time Gen. MacArthur was removed and in the ensuing confusion, an April 6 order of President Truman, ordering use of atomic weapons against Korean and Chinese targets was never transmitted! Reviewing A.B. Abram’s 2024 book Surviving the Unipolar Era, Richard C. Cook writes: “During the war, U.S. commander Douglas MacArthur recommended nuclear strikes against 26 Korean and Chinese targets. These were deterred by the Soviet Union’s possession of a nuclear strike capability that could be used against American East Asian bases. The Korean War also led China to believe it needed a nuclear deterrent against the U.S.”
Operation Hudson Harbor sought to establish the capability of using nuclear weapons in the battlefield in Korea. As late as September and October 1951 B-29 bombers were sent over Korea simulating atomic bomb runs. These planes were loaded with dummy A bombs or heavy TNT bombs. Thus, in 1951, the possibility of use of nuclear weapons in Korea was serious. The project seemed to indicate that nuclear weapons might not be useful simpy because timely identification of large numbers of enemy troops was extremely rare.
Cummings notes: ”But one can imagine the steel nerves required of leaders in Pyongyang, observing a lone B-29 simulating the attack lines that had resulted in the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just six years earlier, each time unsure whether the bomb was real or dummy.”
In 1950 the total population of Korea was around 31.1 million. Of this 20 million resided in South Korea and the remaining 11.1 million in North Korea. A B Abrams pointsout that “Altogether, three to four million North Koreans died in the war, a number declared by many observers to be genocidal.” Additionally about six million became homeless. Thus about one third of the Korean population was either killed or became homeless. This massive human tragedy was caused by a power drunk, Malthusian and inhuman U.S. Establishment. The Anglo-American Establishment, working for the international banking families, is the greatest criminal and genocidal force in the entire annals of human history. Their crimes by far surpass any crimes against humanity committed by any other force in history.
The North Koreans have never bowed before the United States. They have survived the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, followed by disasters, likely US manipulated, that brought it to the brink of starvation. It has been a at war with the US and its lackeys for 75 years now because there never was a peace treaty and a state of war persists. Faced by persistent U.S. attempts to destroy it North Korea has developed massive underground fortifications and a deterrent capability of dropping H bombs on U.S. mainland. It has thus forced the U.S. to back down in its attempt to attack North Korea. Hats off to the leadership and people of North Korea.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 
