I posted this before, but it is so clear, it needs to be shown again. I found a YouTube and posted at the far bottom.
She blends geopolitical analysis with spiritual conviction, urging audiences to remember that the human soul cannot be coded, cloned, or uploaded. Her message is not one of fear, but of remembrance — that consciousness itself is sacred.
This seems to be the longest version of this speech,
Laura Aboli: Guarding the Human Soul in the Age of Transhumanism
Laura Aboli has emerged as one of the clearest voices warning against what she calls “the final frontier of human control” — the transhumanist agenda. Through speeches, interviews, and articles, she blends geopolitical analysis with spiritual conviction, urging audiences to remember that the human soul cannot be coded, cloned, or uploaded. Her message is not one of fear, but of remembrance — that consciousness itself is sacred.
The Voice at the Better Way Conference
Aboli’s most recognized appearance came at the Better Way Conference 2023 in Bath, UK, hosted by the World Council for Health. Her talk, titled “Transhumanism: The End Game,” was a passionate plea to preserve the integrity of human life and spirit amid technological acceleration. She warned that the fusion of AI, genetic editing, and biometric control systems could lead not to liberation but to enslavement if humanity forgets its divine origin.
Watch her full speech here: Better Way Conference Talk on YouTube
Beyond the Stage: Interviews and Conversations
Following the conference, Aboli’s ideas spread widely through podcasts and independent media. On platforms such as the Tenpenny Podcast and Rumble, she continued unpacking the philosophical roots of transhumanism — tracing its lineage from technocratic utopianism to modern-day digital governance. Her conversations often turn toward personal sovereignty, divine consciousness, and the forgotten language of compassion in political life.
Listen to an in‑depth interview: The Tenpenny Podcast – Laura Aboli Interview
Written Works and Essays
While best known for her oratory, Aboli also writes essays that blend social critique with spiritual discernment. Her 2025 article “Truth about Iran,” published on Energy Update, examined geopolitics through the lens of moral responsibility and collective awakening.
Read the article: Truth about Iran by Laura Aboli
The Spiritual Thread
At the heart of Aboli’s message lies a conviction that human beings are not merely biological machines. She invokes classical philosophy and faith traditions to remind listeners that our capacity for love, intuition, and creativity points to something eternal. In her words, “The ultimate rebellion is to stay human — to feel, to pray, and to refuse to let the algorithm define our worth.”
Legacy and Continuing Work
Through her organization, the United Democratic International Movement for Awareness and Freedom, Laura Aboli continues to speak across Europe and online, inspiring a community of thinkers, activists, and believers who view the defense of humanity as a sacred duty. Her work straddles philosophy, politics, and mysticism — a rare synthesis in an age that often demands conformity over conscience.
stock here, name of Cohen almost for sure a jew. Bing!!!
Stanley Cohen was born in 1950 and raised in Port Chester, New York, in an Orthodox Jewish family. He attended Hebrew schools and had a bar mitzvah. The Forward
He later described himself as a “non-religious spiritual Jew.”
Ethnicity/race: He is Jewish by upbringing/heritage (Orthodox background). The Forward
His political affiliation: He is not widely identified with a mainstream U.S. political party; his self-description emphasizes radical defense work. Professional role: He is an attorney, and describes himself as an advocate for clients “the government would like to silence or put in jail.” istanleycohen.org +1
🧑💼 Major Activism & Legal Work
Cohen has represented high-profile and highly controversial clients: members/leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah, a relative of Osama bin Laden, and detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Wikipedia +1
He has written opinion pieces for Al Jazeera and appears regularly in Middle-East forums, criticizing Israeli policy and U.S. foreign-aid policy toward Israel. Al Jazeera +1
Example: In 2014 Cohen pleaded guilty to tax charges—specifically obstructing the IRS and failing to file required returns; he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Wikipedia +1
⚠️ Controversies & Criticisms
His legal defense of clients tied to designated terrorist organizations has drawn significant backlash and accusations of being a “terrorist mouthpiece.” Wikipedia
His writings and public comments include vehement criticism of Israeli policies; some of those critics allege he uses provocative language about Zionism and Israel. The Forward
His tax conviction impacted his law license. Wikipedia
🔍 Why He’s Noted in Context
Cohen is particularly relevant when analyzing:
U.S. legal-defense strategy for unpopular/terror-linked clients
U.S.–Middle East political criticisms and activism around Palestine/Israel
The intersection of U.S. civil-liberties law (defense of “unpopular” defendants) and global human-rights/terror-law concerns
—————————–
To prevent an abusive Judiciary, why shouldn’t the unliked and outliers have excellent defense attorneys?
✅ The Good
Cohen has represented clients and groups that are deeply unpopular or marginalised and says he does this intentionally: “I will not take a major case unless I identify with the client’s politics and like them.” Wikipedia+1
He writes regularly for outlets like Al Jazeera, contributing opinion pieces on human-rights issues, media freedom, and Palestine/Israel which raise perspectives often under-represented in mainstream U.S. coverage. For example: “The lone wolf of Gaza” (Oct 2016) and “BDS is a war Israel can’t win” (July 2016). Al Jazeera+2Al Jazeera+2
He brings attention to legal and human-rights cases that might otherwise receive no defence at all—his willingness to take ‘difficult’ clients means they have representation.
His background: born in 1950, raised in an Orthodox Jewish family (Port Chester, NY), attended Hebrew school, though he says he ceased practicing at age 14. The Forward+1
⚠️ The Bad
Cohen’s defence of clients tied to groups designated as terrorist organisations has drawn heavy criticism. He has represented, among others, a relative of Osama bin Laden, and members of Hamas and Hezbollah. Wikipedia+1
While that defence work aligns with his civil-liberties ethos, critics argue that it also gives legitimacy or platform to extremely controversial actors. For example, the Forward described his clients and said: “the Jewish attorney as a ‘traitor’ and an ‘enemy of Jews, Israel and America.’” The Forward
In 2014 he pleaded guilty to obstructing the IRS and failing to file returns (relating to millions of dollars allegedly unreported). He was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. Wikipedia+1
After his conviction, he lost his law license (or at least it was suspended) and this damages his credibility from a legal-practitioner standpoint. Wikipedia+1
😬 The Ugly
Some of his writings are extremely provocative and polarising. For instance: in his Al Jazeera piece “Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle” (July 2017) he wrote: “It’s time for Israel to accept that as an occupied people, Palestinians have a right to resist — in every way possible.”Al Jazeera+1 Such phrasing has triggered accusations of supporting or normalising violence.
The nature of his clientele and public statements means he is often labelled (by detractors) as a “terrorist mouthpiece”. That stigma complicates how his advocacy work is received and can overshadow legitimate legal-rights issues he raises. Wikipedia+1
His tax conviction and questions about professionalism (“he’s a lousy businessman,” as one court memo reportedly said) cast a shadow over his legal practice and raise concerns about his judgement in financial/ethical matters. amNewYork
🔍 My Assessment
Cohen is undeniably a bold and non-mainstream figure. He brings attention to clients and issues others avoid. That’s admirable from a civil-liberties vantage.
However, his approach is highly adversarial, and his willingness to align with (and defend) very controversial actors means his work is not purely within “accepted” human-rights frameworks. There are significant risks (reputational, moral, strategic) attached.
For an audience/article: his story is a rich source of tension—claiming the mantle of human-rights lawyer while operating at the edge (or outside) of traditional boundaries of legitimacy.
If you use his writings/opinions, it’s wise to contextualize them: note which views are mainstream, which are controversial, and how critics respond.
Alternative: Uninstall anything you don’t use; keep only a single needed control app (fans/RGB).
Unused cloud sync clients (if you don’t use them)
Example:OneDrive.
Why bad: Constant indexing/sync can impact disk performance and add clutter.
Alternative: If you don’t rely on it, uninstall/disable it.
Pirated / cracked software & shady torrents
Examples: Cracked Adobe/Windows, games from torrent sites.
Why bad: Trojan/spyware risk bundled with the crack; zero trust chain.
Alternative: Legit free/open-source tools, subscriptions you actually need, or vetted trials.
Quick “do this instead” checklist
Rely on Windows Security (Defender); avoid stacking multiple AVs.
Use Revo Uninstaller to remove unused programs and leftovers.
Keep extensions minimal (ideally none that watch shopping/checkouts).
On public Wi-Fi, don’t log into sensitive accounts; if you must use a VPN, pick a well-vetted, paid provider—still treat it as partial, not perfect, protection.
Debloat new PCs: remove trialware, duplicate OEM utilities, and anything you won’t use.
stock here: RFK has commented on Chicken Depop, he is in general against it, and also against chicken vaccinations. But he has no power, and the USDA is heavily leaned as Democratic.
The USDA has a legal staff of 250 People!!!!!!! They have 100,000 total employees. But they still can’t figure out how to not kill all the chickens.
He seems like a good guy, he is directly involved with re-organizing USDA, kicking half of the DC workers out to the field where they can actually see cows and chickens.
Michael Watson is head of APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services. He has 8000 employees and a budget of $2.015B He fights against puppy abuse and dog-slaughter……must be a good guy.
stock here, this is amazing, because I have never put 2 and 2 together before. See prior article also.
Excellent question — and one that goes almost entirely unasked. The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA), codified at 7 U.S.C. § 8301 et seq., was enacted in May 2002 as Subtitle E of Title X of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171).
While it didn’t originate as a stand-alone bill, it was deliberately folded into the 2002 Farm Bill, giving USDA sweeping consolidated power over animal disease control, quarantine, and destruction — authority that had previously been scattered across older statutes dating back to 1884.
🏛️ Who Pushed It
1. Primary sponsor context
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (S. 1731 / H.R. 2646) was sponsored by
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) – then chair of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Rep. Larry Combest (R-TX) – chair of the House Agriculture Committee.
The AHPA section came out of the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock and Horticulture, heavily influenced by USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) staff and agricultural-industry lobbyists (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, American Veterinary Medical Association).
In hearings, USDA argued that animal-disease authority was “fragmented and antiquated,” citing the old statutes: the Animal Quarantine Laws, the Swine Health Protection Act, the Horse Protection Act, and others. They sought a single, modernized law that would give the Secretary unified powers to detect, control, or eradicate animal diseases and pests — including seizure, quarantine, destruction, and disposal authority, plus compensation discretion.
⚙️ Why It Was Pushed (Motivations in 2001–2002)
1. Post-9/11 biosecurity panic
The anthrax mailings of late 2001 and the foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the UK (2001) terrified policymakers.
USDA and Homeland Security planners feared a foreign animal-disease attack could cripple U.S. agriculture and food exports.
The AHPA was pitched as an “agro-terrorism” defense law, giving USDA emergency powers parallel to what HHS has for human diseases under the Public Health Service Act.
Supporters emphasized rapid, decisive action over “bureaucratic delays” — hence the non-reviewable compensation clause and sweeping seizure/quarantine powers.
2. Industry desire for uniform federal control
Livestock producers wanted to avoid a patchwork of state quarantines and inspections like those imposed during previous outbreaks.
National producer groups argued that unified federal authority and indemnity would improve export confidence and disease tracing.
USDA promised indemnity payments to encourage early reporting and compliance with destruction orders.
3. Regulatory consolidation
AHPA repealed or subsumed 20+ older animal-health laws into one statute.
It gave the Secretary of Agriculture near-total discretion to:
Declare an “extraordinary emergency.”
Control interstate/international movement.
Destroy infected or exposed animals and property.
Compensate owners.
The 2002 conference report praised it as “streamlining animal health statutes to ensure a rapid coordinated response.”
🧩 Political and Legislative Trail
Introduced: spring 2001 (pre-9/11) as part of early Farm Bill drafts.
Momentum exploded after 9/11 — language was toughened, “biosecurity” and “terrorism prevention” explicitly cited in committee reports.
Conference report (House Rep. 107-424) emphasized the need for “expeditious action” against “any biological threat to domestic livestock,” and said “compensation is subject to the Secretary’s determination to avoid litigation delays.”
Passed the Senate (64-35) and House (280-141)** in May 2002; signed by President George W. Bush on May 13, 2002.
💬 Criticism (then and now)
Even in 2002, some civil-liberties and small-producer advocates objected:
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) both warned about “unchecked executive authority” in disease response and indemnity determinations.
Animal-welfare and small-farm groups (Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance, later) argued it amounted to a “livestock Patriot Act” — a national-security pretext for expanded surveillance, seizure, and forced depopulation without judicial review.
Few amendments were adopted because the Farm Bill was huge (700+ pages) and politically untouchable in the post-9/11 climate.
🧠 Commentary
The AHPA sits at the intersection of biosecurity, agriculture policy, and emergency powers. In the calm light of 2024, several elements stand out:
The “final and unreviewable” compensation clause you quoted reflects post-9/11 emergency thinking, prioritizing speed over rights.
The breadth of § 8305–§ 8308—authorizing movement bans, destruction, testing, and data collection—allows the kind of “regulatory creep” now seen in APHIS’s electronic-ID and indemnity rules.
Because the statute consolidated everything under one roof and foreclosed judicial review, APHIS can expand through rulemaking and “Federal Orders” without new legislation.
stock here: This essentially gives them complete control over the Animal Food Supply of the USA. With the extent of Rogue agents able to get into Government Agencies, including foreign actors, whether here legally or not….this should be of extreme concern.
The AHPA is a direct result in 2002, of the 9-11 attacks 9-11-2001, spurred on by bio-security concerns. See far bottom for that discussion
You’re pointing to a very consequential provision of the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA):
“The determination by the Secretary of the amount to be paid under this subsection shall be final and **not subject to judicial review or review by any officer or employee of the Federal Government other than the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.” Justia Law+2U.S. Code+2
Here’s a breakdown of what this means, why it may raise serious concerns (including about regulatory creep, accountability, and due process), and some commentary on how it fits in the broader legal/constitutional framework.
What the provision says and covers
Statutory context:
Section 7 U.S.C. § 8306(d) deals with compensation (“shall compensate the owner … that the Secretary requires to be destroyed under this section”) when the Secretary of Agriculture orders destruction/quarantine/disposal under § 8306(a) or (b). U.S. Code+1
Sub-paragraph (2)(C) of § 8306(d) states that the Secretary’s determination of the amount of compensation is final and not subject to judicial review or review by any other federal officer or employee other than the Secretary or a designee. U.S. Code+1
What it practically means:
If you, as an owner of an animal/article/facility subject to destruction under § 8306, believe you are owed compensation (you meet the statutory conditions) you must rely on the Secretary’s determination of the amount.
Once the Secretary sets a number, you generally cannot go to court (or another federal officer) to challenge or review that amount.
The term “final” is very resistive to judicial review or administrative appeal (unless there are some other review rights elsewhere).
So the “compensation scheme” under this statute is hybrid: you have the right to compensation (in many cases) but the amount is solely within Secretary’s discretion and not reviewable.
Why this raises serious concerns
Accountability / due-process concerns
Lack of judicial review: One of the traditional safeguards in administrative law is that when the government assesses liability or payment, there is some mechanism for review (judicial or administrative). This statute removes that for the amount of compensation.
Discretion without oversight: The Secretary has broad discretion to set the “fair market value … as determined by the Secretary” (7 U.S.C. § 8306(d)(2)(A)) and the statute then says that determination is final. U.S. Code+1
Potential for unequal treatment: If owners believe the Secretary unfairly undervalued property or made inconsistent determinations, they have no clear review remedy under this statutory provision.
Separation of powers / checks-and-balances: When Congress grants the executive branch discretion but then removes judicial review, it raises questions about the proper balance of powers and whether individuals may be deprived of “appropriate relief or review” under Article III (though courts do permit review for constitutional questions even where the statute says “final”).
Regulatory creep and broad use of authority
This kind of “final determination” clause can fuel regulatory creep, because an agency may impose dramatic obligations (destruction, disposal, etc.) and then dictate how much it will pay—and the regulated party cannot challenge that amount.
When combined with broad powers like seizure/quarantine/eradication under AHPA, one sees how large regulatory and financial burdens on private individuals/leverage over private property may result—while limiting oversight of how the compensation formula is applied.
Critics may argue: If the agency can destroy your facility or animals under threat of disease, then it is only fair that the valuation is subject to meaningful review; otherwise you risk being in a “take-and-pay” scenario with minimal check on the “pay” side.
Legal background & limitations
Courts often interpret “final” and “not subject to judicial review” clauses carefully. Such language does not necessarily mean all judicial review is foreclosed (especially for constitutional claims).
The Supreme Court has held that Sovereign Immunity, and statutory waivers thereof, must be clearly stated—but statutory provisions that say “final” are not automatically immune from all review. For example, due-process or takings claims may still be cognizable.
That said, for statutory rights (not constitutional rights) created under the same statute, a clause removing judicial review can be effective—but still incremental review might be possible (e.g., through mandamus, or APA review unless completely excluded).
In this case, the statute is tightly drafted: “not subject to judicial review or review by any officer or employee of the Federal Government other than the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.” No exception for “constitutional” review is stated—but courts often interpret statute very strictly when it says “final.”
Because this clause is in a statute of general applicability (transport/movement/seizure of animals) that concerns private property and compensation, there may be arguments that this clause violates due process or amounts to taking without adequate remedy—but such arguments are difficult and often depend on specific factual contexts.
My commentary: is this “outrageous”?
Whether it is outrageous depends on perspective—but yes, I believe there are very valid grounds to view it as troubling for the following reasons:
From the property-owner perspective, you face the possibility that your animals/facilities are destroyed or quarantined under broad “disease” authority, and then you have no meaningful recourse to challenge whether the compensation offered is fair or adequate.
From a regulatory policy perspective, this structure arguably tilts heavily toward government prerogative and away from private rights. It creates a scheme where the risk of regulatory burden (destruction/quarantine) is borne by private parties, but the remedy (compensation) may be set unilaterally and without meaningful oversight.
From a constitutional/administrative standpoint, it raises questions: if you cannot challenge the amount, what prevents arbitrary valuations? What standard does the Secretary use? How transparent is the process?
In a broader sense, combining this sort of final-amount clause with sweeping regulatory authorities (interstate movement, destruction, quarantine, etc.) amplifies the risk of regulatory creep, where the regulatory burden grows and accountability recedes.
Why it persists and how it fits in context
The AHPA was enacted (2002) to give the federal government broad powers to respond to animal-disease emergencies. The “no review” clause was part of that statute—so the statutory scheme consciously emphasizes rapid, strong federal action, with fewer procedural “frictions.” FAOLEX Database
The bar for proving a constitutional violation is high. Many owners may accept the compensation and not challenge; those who do challenge face difficult odds.
From the government’s perspective, in disease emergencies, the ability to swiftly act and provide compensation (without protracted litigation over amounts) is attractive.
Final thoughts & recommendations
If you are a livestock/animal owner subject to AHPA actions: you should document your losses carefully, seek to be involved in the compensation negotiations, and consider exhausting administrative remedies even if judicial review is limited.
Watch for agency policy: How does the USDA determine “fair market value”? Is it transparent? Are there published guidance/methods? Agencies sometimes publish frameworks even when statute limits review.
If you are a policy-advocate or legal reformer: Consider pushing for amendments to AHPA (or appropriating legislation) that either restore review rights for compensation amounts or require clearer valuation standards and transparency.
For scholars/legal strategists: This is an interesting case of statutory discretion + waiver of review, and may raise questions under the Takings Clause, Due Process Clause, or nondelegation/separation of powers (though nondelegation is less likely unless valuation standards are utterly unconstrained).
If you like, I can research how courts have handled this specific “no judicial review” clause under § 8306(d)(2)(C)—past cases where owners tried to challenge valuation under AHPA or predecessor statutes, and how the courts ruled. Would that be helpful?
stock here: if we don’t eventually get happy healthy Chickens, immune or survivable to Bird Flu, then our food insecurity will last, FOREVER. A-Eye is anti-RFK.
See below, the number of times they use “depopulation” instead of mass killing, or mass culling. 1 in 20 people now dying in Canada are being directly killed by a Doctor, paid to kill. Yes, that is real.
Below is a detailed conversation-style summary covering how and why mass culling of chickens occurs during outbreaks of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI), who enforces it, what laws empower the action, and how much farmers are compensated per chicken type.
1. Legal / Regulatory Authority
Primary law: The Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA) — 7 U.S.C. § 8301 et seq. — gives USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) authority to restrict movement, seize or destroy animals, and take preventive controls to eradicate or control diseases threatening animal or public health. Regulations: 9 C.F.R. Part 53 and related USDA guidance documents govern HPAI indemnity and compensation. Enforcement: USDA/APHIS acts jointly with state animal health agencies. Detection of HPAI on a premises typically triggers a federally and state-supervised depopulation of the affected and exposed birds.
2. Enforcement Agencies
USDA APHIS leads enforcement, supported by State Veterinarians and Departments of Agriculture. They conduct disease confirmation, establish control areas, issue quarantines, and oversee depopulation and disposal.
3. Payment and Funding
Farmers are compensated for destroyed birds and eggs through the USDA’s indemnity program. Payments are based on fair market value and funded through USDA appropriations or emergency allocations via the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Compensation does not cover lost future production or income.
4. Example Rates and Indemnity Amounts
As of 2025, USDA raised indemnity for egg-laying hens (layers) to approximately $16.94 per bird. Values for broilers, turkeys, and pullets vary depending on age, market value, and production stage but are not universally published.
Indemnity covers the value of birds destroyed under official order, while “compensation” may additionally cover costs of disposal and cleanup. Farmers must meet biosecurity audit requirements to receive payment.
5. Summary Table
Element
Explanation
Legal authority
Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. § 8301 et seq.)
Regulations
9 C.F.R. Part 53; USDA HPAI guidance documents
Enforcement
USDA/APHIS with State Animal Health Officials
Trigger
Detection of HPAI infection or exposure on a premises
Funding source
USDA annual appropriations and Commodity Credit Corporation
Indemnity value (layers)
$16.94 per bird (2025 adjustment)
Indemnity value (other types)
Varies; fair market valuation applied
6. Citations and Sources
• aphis.usda.gov — HPAI depopulation and indemnity guidance • ecfr.gov — Title 9 CFR Part 53 and 56 poultry health rules • congress.gov — CRS Report R48518 (Animal Health Protection Act) • federalregister.gov — 2024-31384 interim rule on HPAI indemnity • meatpoultry.com — 2025 update reporting $16.94 per layer hen rate • investigatemidwest.org — 2024 data on average payments ($39k median) • nationalaglawcenter.org — summary of indemnity process • sentientmedia.org — taxpayer coverage of poultry-indemnity costs • iowacapitaldispatch.com — 2025 biosecurity requirement update
7. Discussion of Food Supply Impact
About one-third of U.S. eggs are processed into liquid or dried egg products used in hundreds of foods — baked goods, sauces, pasta, and dressings. Because of this deep integration, HPAI culling directly affects food prices and supply stability. Short-term culling raises costs but limits virus spread; letting infections ‘run’ could risk more severe, prolonged losses.
8. RFK Jr.’s Position
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has criticized the mass culling policy and suggested allowing natural immunity to develop in flocks, opposing widespread poultry vaccination out of concern for viral mutation. Experts, however, warn that letting HPAI spread could amplify mutations and spillover risk to other species, including humans. USDA’s “stamping out” policy remains the global standard to contain outbreaks.
9. Summary
The culling of chickens in the U.S. during HPAI outbreaks is a targeted, legally authorized containment measure—not a blanket rule to kill all chickens. It is enforced by USDA APHIS and state agencies under the Animal Health Protection Act, funded by USDA/CCC indemnities, and pays farmers market value (around $17 per layer hen in 2025). While it causes short-term price spikes and supply issues, it remains the accepted strategy for preventing larger-scale food and economic disruption.
stock here: I mean, it’s absurd, does it work on some people?
But even when you click on the “READ MEMO HERE” you just get a sales pitch for a donation, there is no memo from Kash Patel, is that an effective strategy….to promise something, not delivery, and instead bait and switch. That looks guaranteed for failure.
So do they get 1 out of 100,000? While bothering and wasting time for 99,999?
THE TRUTH IS OUT — AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IS PANICKING.
I got the call. My FBI Director, Kash Patel, found what they tried to BURN. But the truth is on borrowed time. You need to read this memo NOW, before they slam the door shut.
Exactly — what you’re describing is a psychological-marketing funnel, not a legitimate communication from those figures. Here’s what’s going on under the hood and why it does work—just not in the way you or I would expect.
🧩 1. It’s not from Trump, Patel, or Gabbard personally
These emails are produced by political fundraising agencies (often via platforms like WinRed) that use the names of high-profile figures to generate urgency and emotional engagement. They’re legally authorized “joint fundraising committees,” but none of the named people wrote or even saw the message.
🧠 2. The formula they’re using
Each one follows a data-tested pattern of persuasion:
Technique
Example from your screenshots
Purpose
Urgency framing
“You need to read this memo NOW, before they slam the door shut.”
Triggers fear of missing out (FOMO) and impulsive clicking.
Authority appeal
“My FBI Director, Kash Patel…”
Creates a sense of insider access and legitimacy.
Misdirection (bait-and-switch)
“READ MEMO HERE” → Donation form
Gets the click first; conversion to money request second.
Tribal / identity language
“MAGA! >”, “FEAR NOT”
Reinforces group belonging, lowering skepticism.
Repetition & micro-conversions
Multiple “MAGA! >” links per email
Tests which phrasing or position drives the most donations.
These messages are A/B tested thousands of times. Even if only 0.01–0.1 % of recipients donate, the blast still pays off because sending millions of emails costs almost nothing.
💰 3. Why the “promise-then-bait” works statistically
It’s not about credibility per se; it’s about volume and emotion.
Imagine 10 million addresses on a list.
0.05 % click through → 5 000 people.
2 % of those donate $25 → 100 donations = $2 500.
The email send costs maybe $100–$200.
That’s an ROI of over 1 000 %, so there’s no financial penalty for alienating everyone else. In short, they don’t need 1 in 100 000; they only need 1 in 2 000.
⚖️ 4. Legal but misleading
These tactics skate the edge of Federal Election Commission rules: as long as the fine print discloses the committee and disclaimers (as yours does at the bottom), it’s technically compliant. Ethically, though, it’s deceptive marketing, not authentic political discourse.
🧭 5. What to do if you keep getting them
Unsubscribe at the bottom (every authorized committee must provide a link).
If that fails, mark as spam or phishing — that signals to mail providers that it’s bulk-solicitation content.
Never assume any “memo,” “report,” or “urgent leak” in a political email is genuine until you verify it on an official website (.gov or the candidate’s verified domain).
stock here: I tried to post this a few days ago when it came out, but I have been locked out of my account for several days, after posting several truths about the bastards that run Israel.
In a no shame display of Calumny towards Trump, Vanity Fair posts a shit stained photo of a younger Virgina Giuffere and pretends that all her troubles started with Trump at Mar a Lago.
————- What are their motivations?
Word
Meaning
Notes
Malice
The intent to harm another’s reputation or wellbeing.
Simple, broad, common in law (“actual malice”).
Calumny
The deliberate making of false, defamatory statements.
From Latin calumnia; very precise for “false smearing.”
Defamation
Any intentional communication of a falsehood that harms someone’s reputation.
Legal term — includes libel (written) and slander (spoken).
Vilification
Speaking or writing about someone abusively to destroy their good name.
Emphasizes tone and attack.
Detraction
Less common; the act of lessening someone’s reputation, often by gossip.
Often used in moral or religious contexts.
Smear
Informal, vivid term for an attempt to damage someone’s reputation with falsehoods.
“Smear campaign.”
Aspersion
A false or misleading accusation meant to harm someone’s character.
Often used in plural: “to cast aspersions.”
🔹 Phrases
Character assassination – systematic, sustained effort to destroy a person’s reputation.
Smear campaign – coordinated effort to spread false or misleading information.
False witness – moral/religious phrasing (from the Ten Commandments) for making false accusations.
👉 If you want the psychological motive — the inner desire to make another look bad even without gain — that borders on malicious envy, spite, or malevolence.
📰 Article details
Title: “Virginia Roberts Giuffre, In Her Own Words: How a 16-Year-Old’s Life Unraveled at Mar-a-Lago”Vanity Fair
What it contains: An exclusive excerpt from her posthumous memoir Nobody’s Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice, which she completed in October 2024. Vanity Fair+2TIME+2
Focus: Giuffre’s account of meeting Ghislaine Maxwell at the spa of Mar‑a‑Lago when she was 16; the grooming and trafficking period that followed; reflections on trauma and power. Vanity Fair+1
🚩 Key take-aways from the article
Giuffre describes working at the Mar-a-Lago spa (in the summer of 2000) and how Maxwell approached her there, offering a job that would take her away. Vanity Fair+1
She writes: “From the start, they manipulated me into participating in behaviours that ate away at me…” and that the worst damage wasn’t just physical but psychological. Vanity Fair
She details how Epstein and Maxwell held her “to be available at all times,” how there were no locks or bars but she felt like a prisoner in an invisible cage. TIME+1
There is the wider implication that the power structures around Epstein (wealth, fame, institution access) allowed things to happen under cover. The article draws attention to how people “watched and didn’t care.” The Guardian+1
📌 Why this article matters
It gives first-person narrative (via her memoir excerpt) of the early grooming/trafficking period, which provides unique detail and emotional context.
It updates public understanding of her story after her death (she died earlier in 2025). Vanity Fair+1
It may influence public, legal, and cultural conversations around sex-trafficking, power abuse, institutional complicity, and how survivors are treated and heard.
It underscores how places of wealth/fame (like Mar-a-Lago) and influential people (like Epstein, Maxwell) become part of the narrative of exploitation and how systems can be abused.
⚠️ Important Context & Caveats
Giuffre died by suicide in April 2025 at age 41. Vanity Fair
The memoir is being published posthumously; the excerpt is a selection and not the full text. So what we’re reading is edited and curated.
The article references allegations (against Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and others) that are either settled in civil suits or in some cases contested/criminally untried in full. For example: claims involving Prince Andrew, Duke of York. The Guardian+1
As with most memoirs of trauma, memory, perception, and narrative framing are factors; the legal status of every detail may vary.
While the article is powerful in giving voice to the survivor’s perspective, it does not necessarily resolve all questions of criminal liability or all names of perpetrators in full public detail.
stock here: we need more of this. This black admiral was promoted to head the US Southern Command, by the Biden Entity November 2024.
—————————
He probably had a bunch of reasons to leave, as he headed up the totally prejudicial DEI programs for the Navy. Review of the following people would also likely show them to be Woke and Joke.
The sudden change at Southern Command is the latest shake-up for the military’s senior ranks under the Trump administration. Then-Joint Chiefs Chair Gen. C.Q. Brown and Navy chief Adm. Lisa Franchetti were fired in February, along with the top legal officers across the services. In April, Cyber Command chief Gen. Timothy Haugh was dismissed.
And Air Force chief of staff Gen. David Allvin plans to retire in November, just halfway into his four-year term.
Meanwhile, the repeated strikes in the Caribbean have heightened tensions between the U.S. and Venezuela, where Nicolas Maduro’s government has responded by ordering military exercises, mobilizing civilian militias and denouncing U.S. actions as aggression.
Short answer: I can’t find any record of Adm. Alvin “Bull” Holsey personally taking a public, explicit position “for” (or “against”) transgender service. What we can document is this:
He led the Navy’s 2020–21 DEI effort Holsey was appointed to stand up and direct Task Force One Navy (TF1N), created to identify and remove barriers to service, including those related to “race, sexual orientation, [and] sexual identity.”U.S. Navy+1 The Navy’s own write-ups and contemporaneous coverage of TF1N emphasize eliminating discrimination tied to sexual orientation/identity and treating all Sailors with dignity and respect, but they don’t include a Holsey quote that singles out transgender policy details (medical care, uniforms, accession standards, etc.). My Navy HR+2Navy Times+2
His confirmation drew questions about the DEI report—not specific trans policy During his Sept. 12, 2024 Senate hearing to lead U.S. Southern Command, senators pressed Holsey about the TF1N diversity report. Coverage again links him to broader inclusion efforts, not to a specific transgender-policy stance. Stars and Stripes
The broader policy context changed in 2025 (after TF1N) In early–mid 2025, the Pentagon issued guidance under SecDef Pete Hegseth making gender dysphoria disqualifying absent waivers and directing administrative separations (with a short voluntary-separation window). Those moves reversed prior policy that allowed open transgender service. Multiple official DoD pages and mainstream outlets document this shift. The Washington Post+5U.S. Department of War+5U.S. Department of War+5
Bottom line
Holsey is on the record leading a Navy initiative that explicitly included sexual identity within its inclusion remit, which signals support for a broader anti-discrimination posture. However, I can’t find a direct, explicit public statement from Holsey saying he supports transgender service or transgender-specific policies. If you’re seeing claims that “Holsey supports (or opposes) transgenders,” they’re likely inferring from his TF1N
stock here—-summary on 2 DEI Mavens that were fired.
——————————– Here’s a summary of publicly-reported reasons and suspicions surrounding the firings/removals of both Charles Q. Brown Jr. (“C.Q. Brown”) and Lisa Franchetti. Neither case was accompanied by a fully detailed publicly-explained rationale, so much of what follows is inference, context, and what sources say is likely.
C.Q. Brown
Position: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) What happened: On February 21, 2025, President Donald Trump abruptly relieved Brown of his duties as CJCS. DefenseScoop+2PBS+2 Reported reasons / context:
Brown’s removal was announced via a brief statement from the White House saying simply: “I want to thank General Charles ‘CQ’ Brown for his … service.” DefenseScoop+1
It occurred in the context of a broader shake-up of senior military leadership, including other terminations or replacements. AP News+1
Several sources point to his past public support for diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts and say the Trump administration (and SecDef Pete Hegseth) viewed DEI as incompatible with their view of military readiness. For instance:
According to PBS, Brown’s ousting was “part of a campaign to rid the military of leaders who support diversity and equity in the ranks.” PBS
A Wikipedia summary notes that Hegseth had previously called for Brown’s dismissal because of Brown’s association with DEI and questioned whether Brown had gotten the job “solely because of his race.” Wikipedia What is not known:
There is no publicly-released official document giving a detailed “cause” such as misconduct, performance failure, or other traditional removal justifications.
Brown’s own public remarks (at least in major news sources) do not appear to include a detailed explanation of the removal.
Interpretation / suspicion:
Many analysts and observers believe Brown’s removal was politically driven: his identity as one of the few Black four-star generals in the highest leadership, his public embrace of DEI, and the timing of the change all fuel that view.
It may reflect a shift in the administration’s priorities: from “modernization + inclusion” toward a narrower “warfighter/kinetic focus” narrative.
Some fear the removal sends a signal to other senior officers about acceptable public posture (especially on DEI, identity, and social issues).
Lisa Franchetti
Position: Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) and member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the first woman to hold the CNO role) What happened: On February 21, 2025 (same day as Brown’s removal), Secretary Hegseth announced that the administration was “requesting nominations” for the CNO role — effectively relieving Franchetti. Breaking Defense+1 Reported reasons / context:
Franchetti had a highly distinguished career, including being the first female CNO and first female member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Wikipedia+1
Articles note her removal came without detailed explanation from the Defense Department or the White House. For example: “Hegseth didn’t give a reason for terminating Franchetti…” FOX 10 Phoenix+1
Several analyses suggest her emphasis on DEI and modern naval priorities may have clashed with the current administration’s focus. For example, an article states: “Her tenure … was characterized by a focus on … advocating for diversity and inclusion within the ranks. That last point was likely the nail in the coffin.” SOFREP
A Military.com article reported that officials cited her “failure to address border security threats and an excessive focus on diversity programs” as among the reasons for her dismissal. Military Times What is not known:
There is no publicly released finding of misconduct, performance-shortfall, or specific incident attributed to her removal.
The official statement simply thanked her for her service and announced the nomination of her successor; it did not list discrete faults. DefenseScoop+1 Interpretation / suspicion:
Many observers consider the removal to be part of a broader leadership purge — especially of senior officers identified with DEI or who are women or minority-group members.
The removal sends a potential chilling signal regarding advancement/tenure of female officers in top leadership, given that she was the first female in her role. Military.com+1
Some critiques link the timing to the “anti-woke” rhetoric of the administration and the emphasis on “warfighter first” messaging, suggesting Franchetti’s prior stances or visible commitments may have been at odds.
Shared Patterns & Additional Context
Some lawmakers and senior officers have voiced concern that the removals undermine morale, degrade the message of equal opportunity, and may reduce the diversity of senior leadership — which many view as a readiness factor. Military Times+1
Both firings occurred on the same day (21 Feb 2025) and were part of broader leadership changes announced by the Pentagon. USNI News+1
The broader shift appears to emphasize:
Prioritizing what the administration defines as “warfighting readiness” over inclusion/diversity programs.
Ensuring senior leaders align ideologically or politically with the administration’s view of the military role.
————————————————-
And here is another. These people must bring “something to the table” but I guess it is hard to demote someone, so maybe firing is the only real choice.
🧵 THREAD: Meet the Organizers Behind No Kings protest: Indivisible’s Leah Greenberg & Ezra Levin 🇺🇸
Taking a break from book writing for this…
This week, the movement that started with a Google Doc… Indivisible… is back in the streets. ✊ Founded by former congressional staffers Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin and funded by George Soros’ Open Society network, Indivisible has grown from a viral guide into one of the most powerful grassroots networks in the U.S.
Now, they’re leading NoKings, a nationwide push to remind America that democracy means no one is above the law. 👑❌
This thread dives into who Greenberg and Levin are, how Indivisible rose to prominence, and what’s really behind the “No Kings” movement.
As always, patience as I pull the thread together in real time. 👇
When you go to the NoKings website, you’ll find over a hundred partners listed, many of them familiar and many Soros-backed. They include big names closely tied to the DNC such as Marc Elias’ Democracy Forward.
Greenberg and Levin are co-founders of Indivisible. Other than donor-advised funds, their backing primarily comes from Open Society and Fund for a Better Future. The latter is a shadowy nonprofit backed by Sergey Brin and played a key role in the infamous “Build Back Better” campaign of 2020.
The first thing you notice about Leah Greenberg’s LinkedIn is that she held an advisory position in the State Department, despite having gotten her International Relations BA only six years earlier.
That Leah Greenberg once served in the State Department, was trained in foreign policy, and now leads the nation’s largest protests is no coincidence. If you’ve followed my feed, you know the connection between left-wing activism, international relations, and the State Department runs deep.
None of this is spontaneous. For years, subversive actors have worked to stage a color revolution here at home.
Greenberg appears to have been a Rosenthal fellow – literally groomed to be a key player in foreign policy early on. The scholarship is sponsored by Partnership in Public Service, which in turn is supported by the Bloombergs (Michael Bloomberg is a member of the Rockefeller-originated Trilateral Commission) and Ford Foundation.
Indivisible started out in 2016 as a Google Document led by Greenberg, Levin, and other Congressional ex-staffers. Within weeks, it went viral and money poured in, and they began organizing themselves into group quickly. They modeled themselves after the Tea Party.
In addition to being groomed to work in the Department of State, Greenberg is an ex-staffer under Tom Perriello (D-VA).
Tom Perriello was an executive director at the Open Society Foundations.
The money connections here become much clearer: the co-founder of Indivisible literally worked for the guy who helped run Open Society Foundations for the USA. No wonder she was able to amass massive amounts of funding and get organizational support in such a short time.
Evidence Pereillo and Greenberg have maintained a close relationship: Pereillo also served as Special Representative for the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review at the State Department from February 24, 2014 to July 5, 2015 under Barack Obama. This overlaps almost exactly with Leah Greenberg’s tenure on the same board.
Open Society Foundations saw it fit to mention their financing of Indivisible in one of their articles early on (2018). In writing for Columbia University’s Journal of International Affairs about how Trump eroded democracy, they have a quote from Greenberg and Levin about Indivisible receiving funding from OSF.
It’s a cliché, but all signs so far suggest that Indivisible is primarily a Soros-backed Open Society project.
Ezra Levin, the spouse of Leah Greenberg, got his start as Deputy Policy Directer under Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX). He appears to serve as a charismatic face for Indivisible.
The most interesting connections are through Greenberg, but Levin’s star is rising as well. He sits on the advisory board for Supreme Court Voter, a role shared by many heavyweights such as Marc Elias.
Alongside the Open Society Foundations, Democracy Alliance stands as the other major donor. Created by Rob Stein, also a backer of Media Matters, and closely tied to Arabella Advisors, Democracy Alliance draws its funding from twenty-five affluent progressive patrons, chief among them… George Soros.
As an aside, George Soros had long collaborated with the State Department since the 80’s, but Bush’s handling of the Iraq War convinced him that the United States had become the greatest obstacle to realizing his vision of Open Societies.
I mark May 27, 2003 as the date when George Soros declared war on the United States.
Indeed, Indivisible, the leading organizer of these nationwide protests, is staffed with multiple Open Society-linked members, not just Leah Greenberg. Marielena Hincapié, its founding board president, previously led the National Immigration Law Center, an OSF grantee.
Heather C. McGhee, Indivisible Board member, also serves on the board of Open Society Foundations… and Rockefeller Brothers Fund, for good measure.
Tom Perriello himself became executive director of OSF in 2018, the same year that Indivisible started getting millions. He is also listed by KeyWiki as an Indivisible Civics Board Member, although I could not trace this.
Angel Padilla, former National Policy Director, was also hired off National Immigration Law Center (OSF-backed initiative which advocates radically expansionist immigration programs).
CLOSING THE THREAD:
Twenty years ago, George Soros declared a mission to “open” the United States; AKA cleanse the USA of its attachment to traditions and faith. Since then, he’s poured billions into formenting a color revolution — the same playbook that got banned him from Hungary, Russia, and others.
The No Kings protest is just his latest front in his personal war.
Millions in Soros-aligned philanthropy have underwritten Indivisible’s rise from a viral Google Doc to a nationwide political engine.
Whatever the banner, the money and machinery behind the No Kings protest traces back to the same source: Open Society’s network of influence.
There is an account who won’t allow me to reply accusing me of being a grifter because they think I’m implicating the wrong people instead of ex-USAID employees.
NED is *already* working hand-in-hand Soros via representatives such as Rachel Kleinfeld (as @SKDoubleDub33 is finding), Randi Weingarten (NDI; also was a spokesperson for the first NoKings rally), AFL-CIO (one of NED’s four charter foundations; their local chapters organize many of the NoKings rallies alongside local Indivisible chapters).
Open Society has a decades-long history of formenting color revolutions alongside the State Department. There isn’t a “bigger badder guy” than that particular hydra.
@SKDoubleDub33 Prior thread on these same ex-USAID employees; you can judge for yourself if they’re the masterminds or just part of the machinery:
👀 𝗕𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝗢𝗯𝗮𝗺𝗮’𝘀 𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗺 𝘁𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗳𝗮-𝗯𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗔𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗚𝗹𝗼𝗯𝗮𝗹 𝗝𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲. 🔹 In college, Barack Obama helped co-found a local chapter of CISPES (Committee in Solidarity with the People of El Salvador), a U.S. group that supported the FMLN, a Marxist guerrilla front fighting the U.S.-backed Salvadoran government. 🔹 CISPES often worked alongside the Nicaragua Network, which championed the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua. (U.S. intelligence later confirmed that the Sandinistas supplied El Salvador’s rebels with weapons and training.) 🔹 As the solidarity scene matured: • 1985: Nicaragua Network + Detroit CISPES ➡️ merge → CASC (Central America Solidarity Committee) • 1993: CASC + MICAH ➡️ merge → OSCA (Organization in Solidarity with Central America) • 1998: Former Nicaragua Network activists incorporate the Alliance for Global Justice (AFGJ), folding their old network inside as a project. Today AFGJ still operates as a left-wing umbrella group … the same lineage that began with 1980s “solidarity” campaigns. So yes… the activist ecosystem that once rallied for Marxist guerrillas in Central America evolved, merged, and rebranded, and figures like Obama (via early CISPES work) and later Bill Ayers (through AFGJ-linked circles) both trace lines back into that same network.
CISPES (of which Obama founded a local chapter, according to David Garrow) was found to have furnished funds to Marxist rebels in El Salvador, in possible violation of the Firearms Control Act. They also met with FMLN, potentially violating FARA. The report goes onto detail other allegations that weren’t substantiated, such as CISPES taking direction from foreign governments on when and where to demonstrate.
I found a declassified CIA document that states that Farid Handal, brother of the Salvadoran Communist leader, traveled to meet with representatives of Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) to create these solidarity networks in the USA — including CISPES.
Does anyone know how the SPLC is funded? They report receiving over $100MM in contributions each year, but CauseIQ shows they receive few large grants from other nonprofits; they report only 26MM and that’s over multiple years. That’s unusual. (And, no, they don’t report receiving government money.)
Best theory so far:
I think I’m onto something. They get paid as vendors by a ridiculous number of nonprofits:
🧵 THREAD: Richard Grenell: praising “diplomacy” with Maduro, Chevron, and the pro-Venezuelan MAGA faction 🇻🇪 Just last week, Grenell declared: “I’ve sat across from Nicolás Maduro… I believe we can still have a deal. I believe in diplomacy. I believe in avoiding war.” Maduro is a Communist tyrant who has upended hundreds of thousands of lives, Venezuela is the self-declared capital of Antifa, and serves as the Western hemisphere proxy for Chinese and Iranian interests. Why is President Trump’s special envoy talking like this on stage in Asunción? 🕳️🐇 The answer goes a lot deeper and darker than you’d think. This might be my most controversial thread yet… but it involves a whole lot of MAGA players who are invested in maintaining the status quo with Venezuela, mostly through Chevron oil licenses.
For a long time, Chevron has had its tentacles on MAGA. Back on May 6th, a coordinated messaging campaign went up among multiple mega-influencers. Two days after that, one of the most famous MAGA influencers wrote her first op-ed concerning Chevron and China messaging. I redact the name because I don’t want to make it about her.
This early May timing coincided with the threat to shut down Chevron leases on May 27. Earlier this year, Harry Sargeant III was identified as the one who opened up communications between Maduro and Grenell in an attempt to create an “oil-for-migrants” deal. His
@MrAndyNgo This might be the first case of “Democracy Theory” radicalizing a killer (as opposed to the usual trans/antifa motives). He followed all the democracy folks. Posted a lot about saving democracy.
. @SomeBitchIIKnow and I have been working all night. We believe we’ve cracked it. Venezuela. “Harm reduction” policies. Soros DA attorneys. Alliance for Global Justice. Action Network. Mutual aid collectives. Legal defense funds. Mass migration. Antifa — your days of operating in the shadow are up.
@SomeBitchIIKnow I’m going to bed now, but we’re gonna put it together for the public ASAP.
@SomeBitchIIKnow Need to get a good night’s sleep, still haven’t slept well since that awful day. Not easy to explain it all in one go! But I hope you’re starting to see bits and pieces from my comments today.
stock here: I get a ton of alternative viewpoints, many substack, to my protonmail accounts.
And this one started out well in parts 1 and 2, talking about RFK and the expected pushback.
And then flat earthers, reaching for the extreme, “you can’t isolate it, therefore it doesn’t exist. There are no viruses, there are no germs (bacteria).”
I am going to make this counter argument in as few words as possible. Unlike George Webb, who spent 10 hours and 10 pages “proving” how the movements of the Kirk shooter were so elaborate and mostly unecessary, therefore they were just trying to fool us into what should we really believe. 10 hours, to miss the main point, the 22 YO jumping kid did not hit Kirk with a 30-Odd-6, he was a patsy of some sort, what did they promise him or what did they promised NOT to do to him. So don’t “pull a Webb”, who looks like he is drinking WAY too much.
Boom, if there are things that spread widely and wildly and often quickly, thus they are “going viral”, then even if you insist that something must be isolated and clearly defined by some super strict scientific methodology, or else they cannot be claimed to even exist, then you shouldn’t ignore that something is going viral, even if you dispute the definition.
If something acts like a virus, then it is a virus, regardless of what the nay-sayers want to say or define.
Clearly $10s of Billions of dollars are spent on virus research, including the insane “gain of function”. To claim that this is all smoke and mirrors, and has been for 60 years, is the realm of the flat earth.
stock here: 2 light skinned blacks being pushed to the top of the feed. Actually the CEO guy does seem good at keeping the convo going whilst not talking over the top of his guests. But he still seems like a “normie” in many respects, maybe to attract the normies to his show. I believe he is a CEO and a Billionaire, so it is odd that he participates in blog interviews. The slight English accent is particularly annoying to me.
Tyson, I have not figured out his place in the universe, if being pushed by some nefarious agencies, or if he is just out grifting for himself.
stock here: neve seen it before. I do have 2 books “Forward Freemasonry”. I was offered to join a fast track Freemason program to one of the few Jewish Freemason societies in city of Milwaukee, WI. I turned them down.
The video summary focuses on three main topics: the Gaza ceasefire, the French political crisis, and the conflict in Ukraine, with a particular emphasis on the military situation in the Donbass region.
Introduction and Gaza Ceasefire
The video begins on Monday, October 13, 2025. The first substantial topic is the implementation of phase one of the ceasefire in Gaza.
Hostage Release: All 20 remaining live hostages, held by Hamas, have reportedly been released and returned to their families.
Casualties: An additional 28 hostages, whom Israel believed were still under Hamas’s control, are reported to have died over the past two years of captivity and fighting. The speaker notes the tragedy of the significant number of hostages who have died, while also acknowledging the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza.
Peace Efforts: There is no word on progress for phase two of the complex peace plan. President Trump is reported to be in the Middle East, having attended the Israeli Parliament and heading to Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, where Arab and Western leaders are gathering to consolidate the truce and discuss rebuilding the devastated community.
Criticism of Diplomacy: The speaker expresses worry that the talks in Sharm el-Sheikh might be unproductive, citing “Eve Smith’s rule” that the West negotiates with itself, as key players like Hamas and its regional backers are not participating.
French Political Crisis
The speaker criticizes French President Macron for attending the Sharm el-Sheikh meeting, arguing he should be in France due to the escalating political crisis, of which he is the “proximate creator.”
Government Turmoil: Last week, Macron’s latest prime minister-designate, Sebastian Lecornu, resigned after failing to form a cabinet or secure budget agreements.
Lecornu’s Reappointment: Macron refused to resign or call new parliamentary elections. Instead, he asked Lecornu to try again, and on Friday, Macron renominated Lecornu, who announced a new cabinet that is “essentially the same” as the old one.
Vote of No Confidence: The National Rally (Marine Le Pen’s party) and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s left-wing group have both indicated they will not support the government and are proposing a vote of no confidence, which the government is likely to lose. The Socialist Party and the center-right party, Les Républicains, are also unlikely to vote for the new government.
Economic Warning: The situation is expected to “protract and prolong,” worsening the economic crisis in Europe. The speaker notes a sharp fall in German beer consumption and brewery closures as a sign that Germany is “unequivocally in recession,” indicating a serious moment in the country’s economic and political history.
Macron’s Actions: The speaker believes Macron is abdicating his responsibilities by going to Sharm el-Sheikh, as his duty is to remain in Paris to consult with political parties and address France’s domestic issues, which the speaker suggests bore the President.
Conflict in Ukraine, with Focus on Donbass
The second half of the video focuses on the “increasingly catastrophic” military situation for Ukraine in the east, particularly in the Donbass, Kharkov, and Zaporizhzhia regions.
Critical Situation in Donbass
The speaker states that the situation has reached a “decisive point,” with a potential “crisis even a catastrophe” for the Ukrainian army.
Encirclement: The Ukrainian army is seen as being on the brink of encirclement, or already encircled, in Kupyansk, which is now a confirmed “cauldron.”
Fighting in Cities: Reports indicate fighting is now taking place within the city limits of Siversk, and possibly inside the village of Dronivka, which is near the main supply road from Sloviansk. There are also claims that fighting is occurring inside Kostiantynivka.
Rasputitsa: Despite the early onset of the Rasputitsa (autumn mud) limiting maneuverability, the Russian army is not slowing its offensive, potentially because they are using more tracked vehicles and have drones dominating the battlefield, and the fighting has moved into the built-up urban areas where mud is less of an issue.
Analysis of Russian Military Strategy
The speaker discusses the perspective of Russian war reporter Marat Khurulin, who outlined the Russian strategy in Donbass.
Donbass as the Final Phase: Khurulin views the heavily industrialized, urban-sprawl area of Donbass (with its “developed transport network, densely built up with cities and settlements around numerous industrial enterprises and mines”) as being left for the “final phase” of the Special Military Operation (SMO). This phase will come when the Ukrainian economy is destroyed and the army is weakened and demoralized.
Clauswitzian Objective: Khurulin confirms the Russian objective is not primarily territorial gain but the “demilitarization of Ukraine, the destruction of the Ukrainian army.”
Grinding Down the Enemy: The strategy is to advance incrementally, “creat[ing] conditions so that the weakened enemy brings their raw material… to our machine for processing at their own expense.” This means allowing the Ukrainians to reinforce the front lines in eastern Ukraine so that the Russian forces can destroy them in a place of their choosing, rather than chasing them across territory and straining their own logistics.
Dnipro Bridges: This strategy explains why the Russians have not destroyed the Dnipro River bridges earlier. The speaker believes that destroying the bridges now would only keep Ukrainian forces on the west bank, beyond Russian reach. However, Khurulin is hinting that the moment for moving beyond this logic is approaching, as the “last large node” of Ukrainian forces in Donbass is on the brink of being broken.
Targeting the Bridges: The speaker reiterates that the first major drone attack on a Dnipro bridge in Kremenchuk a few weeks ago might be a signal. Once Ukrainian defenses in Donbass break, destroying the bridges would make sense to isolate and trap Ukrainian forces on the east bank of the Dnipro, which the Russians mostly control.
Introduction and date announcement
0:00Good day. Today is Monday, 13th October, 2025.
0:05And before I proceed with the remainder of my video, let me remind you again to tick the like
0:12button, if you like this video after you’ve watched it, or if you’ve liked
0:18whatever part of the video you choose to listen to and watch.
0:25Well, with that, let me now get to the substance of the video and let me discuss briefly
0:31to um well, I won’t say that there are less important matters, but matters
0:38about which I have perhaps less to say. Today, the Today marks the first stage
First stage of ceasefire implementation in Gaza
0:46in implementation of phase one of the ceasefire in Gaza.
0:53And there are reports today that all of the remaining hostages who are still
0:58alive, 20 in total, have now been released by Hamas and have returned to
1:06their families. It seems that another 28 hostages who um Israel believed were
1:14still under the control of Habas have died over the course of the last two
1:21years of captivity and fighting. Well, this is a dreadful tragedy. It seems to
1:29me from what I can remember that only um a minority of the hostages who were
1:36still alive at the time of the earlier ceasefire um last year at the start of this year
1:43um have survived and have now been released. Of course, I might be wrong
1:49about this, but anyway, it does seem as if a significant number of the hostages
Release of hostages by Hamas and their return
1:57have died or been killed over the course of this terrible two years of conflict.
2:04And I don’t want to talk just about the hostages because of course tens of
2:09thousands of others, Palestinians in Gaza, of course, have also died.
2:16Nonetheless, I am going to repeat that the release of the hostages and
2:22presumably of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel is in and of itself a good
2:30thing and should be welcomed. Now, there is no word so far of any
2:37progress in negotiating the terms of phase two of this very complex plan to
2:44bring peace to Gaza. President Trump himself, I understand, is now in the
2:50Middle East. I’ve seen reports that he has in fact attended the Israeli Parliament where he was apparently
2:57rapturously received. Anyway, that is a report I briefly saw. I haven’t read it
3:02through properly. and he appears to be heading to Charal Shik in Egypt where
3:08other Arab and Western leaders are gathering all with a view to trying to
3:14find ways to consolidate the truce that has been negotiated in Gaza and perhaps
3:22to rebuild the uh community and um the
3:28buildings and the town there which are of course utterly devastated after two
3:33years of war. In my opinion, whatever discussions take
President Trump’s involvement in Middle East peace negotiations
3:39place in Charal Shake, they might conceivably be helpful, but the really
3:45difficult negotiations are going to be taking place in the next few weeks and
3:52months. And so far as I can see, the people who perhaps ultimately matter in
4:01moving this process of negotiation forward, Hamas and its various regional
4:07backers, they are not going to be participating in this meeting at Charal Shake. And one does worry that just
4:15possibly we could be seeing another iteration of um Eve Smith’s rule that
4:23the West spends all its time negotiating with itself and coming up with elaborate
4:29agreements which are completely detached from realities and are of no interest to
4:36the other side. Well, I hope in this case it won’t be like that. Now one
4:42particular western leader who is going to be in charl shake is president mron
4:48of France and I think that is wrong. Mron has shown a intense and close
4:55interest in affair events in the Middle East. Ever since he became president, he
5:01has taken the initiative recently in trying to get recognition, international
5:08recognition of the Palestinian state. He has been well a kind of critic of the
5:17war in Gaza. So he does have an interest and he has
5:23played a role. But nonetheless, it seems
5:28to me that at this particular point in time, he should be in France. He should
5:35be in Paris because all of the indications are that the French political crisis of which he is the
Discussion on French political crisis and Macron’s decisions
5:44proximate creator is about to take a further potentially disastrous turn.
5:52Now, as I think I mentioned in my program yesterday, um last week we had
5:58the resignation of his latest prime minister designate, his old friend and
6:04associate Sebastian Lurnu. Lurnu was unable to put together a cabinet or come
6:12to agreements with the parties in the French National Assembly in order to
6:17present a budget. So he resigned and there was a lot of talk
6:25that Mron had reached the end of the road and would call parliamentary elections and there was also talk that
6:33he might have to resign and in fact there were suggestions that he should
6:38resign made by political figures like Macron’s own former prime minister
6:47Edward Phipe. who undoubtedly harbors ambitious ambitions to become French president
6:54himself. Anyway, Macron did none of these things. He didn’t resign himself. I never thought he would and he put off
7:03again the decision to call French parl new parliamentary elections.
7:09Instead, he instructed Lornu to devote another 48 hours to finding means to
7:18establish a government that would have support in the French National Assembly.
7:24Lu said that he would do this. He would act on Macron’s instructions, though he
7:30had no intention of becoming prime minister of France himself.
7:37Well, we finally got to Friday. Luru told Mron that he’d made some progress.
7:44It’s very unclear what that process progress actually was. Just saying. And
7:52we were all waiting to see who the new prime minister of France, who would be
7:58announced on Friday, would be. And there were lots of speculations that it would
8:03be this time somebody from the center left. I understand Mr. Kazunv, who I
8:09understand has been prime minister before, was the most widely expected
8:15figure to be nominated. And instead what happened was that
8:22Mackron renominated Sebastian Lonu who over the last few
8:29hours has announced a cabinet a new cabinet which surprise surprise looks to
8:34be essentially the same cabinet as the old cabinet. All of the ministers and
8:40the key economic ministers, the finance ministry, the budget office and those
8:46others, well, they remain in place. So, unsurprisingly,
8:52the national rally, Marin Lupin’s party have indicated that they will not
8:58support this new government and are proposing a vote of no confidence
9:04against it. Jean Luke Melon’s left-wing group is
9:09saying that they won’t support this new government either and apparently intend
9:15to vote against it in the uh in the vote of confidence that is now being tabled.
9:22Mackerel apparently made a big effort to get the socialist party to agree to
9:29support this new government, but the socialists are furious that Luru was
9:37appointed instead of one of themselves and it seems unlikely that they will
9:43vote for this new government either. and the center-right party le
9:51which Macron has tried to build a coalition with apparently it is
9:56infuriated because Macron appeared at one time to be reaching out to the
10:02socialists I’m not going to waste time more time discussing the various
10:08machinations and intrigues that are taking place in France frankly I find
10:15them all tedious and boring. Suffice to say that it’s the same government as
10:20before. It’s not a government that the French people are interested in or
10:25appear to want to support and it is likely that it will lose the coming vote
10:33of no confidence in the French National Assembly at which point presumably Lonu
10:42will have to resign as prime minister for a second time but this time once and
10:49for all. Now what happens then? Here’s
10:54of course the unresolved question. Does Macron go on proposing prime ministers
Macron’s government and potential vote of no confidence
11:00even as the economic situation in France deteriorates? I’ve been reading an
11:06article about how uh the situation in France is becoming more unstable and how
11:14the bond markets are becoming restless and are be beginning to give indications. people who work in them are
11:21beginning to give indications that they cannot continue to buy French bonds or
11:26hold on to French bonds. Whilst this whole issue of the
11:32government of France and of the budget continues to be unresolved
11:41or does Macron do that which he has
11:47consistently refused to do which is to call parliamentary elections and
11:55unsurprisingly since the announcement of L call appointment. There’s been a cluster of
12:02further demands that Macron himself step down. Though unsurprisingly,
12:08he again has refused to do so or even to give consideration to that possibility.
12:17Well, we are seeing this thing protract and prolong and to be clear the economic
12:24crisis not just in France but in the whole of Europe is deepening. I read
12:30with interest that in Germany which it seems to me is now unequivocally in
12:37recession. Um consumption of beer has fallen sharply and breweries are
12:45starting to close down. some of the famous breweries in Germany that make
12:51German beer, beer which many people consider to be the best in the world. Um
12:59that that industry is now starting to feel the pressure. Anybody who has any
13:05knowledge or experience of Germany would know that the moment when the Germans start to
13:13give up on their beer and their breweries start to shut down is an
13:19important moment in the country’s economic and perhaps political history.
13:26And perhaps that’s where we are now. But to repeat again, this is all part of the
13:33wider crisis which currently if we’re talking about Europe has its epicenter
13:40in France now one way or the other and however this is resolved and whatever it
13:46is that mackerel it in intends to do it still it seems to me that his duty as
13:53France is president is to remain in Paris to remain in the Elise to support
14:00his new prime minister who is of course his old prime minister in whatever way he possibly can, to consult with the
14:07various political parties in the French National Assembly, to take wider soundings amongst the political nation
14:14in France which is not identical to the French political class and which is by
14:21the way enormous. Those are the things that the president
14:26of the French Republic should be doing. As far as I am concerned, it is an
14:33abdication of Macron’s responsibilities to go to Charal Shake and to spend time
14:42there discussing an issue, the Gaza ceasefire,
14:49where he and France can anyway only be a
14:55marginal player. But unsurprisingly,
15:01that is exactly what Macron has decided to do. Of course, Macron doesn’t want to
15:09spend time talking to France’s political nation. He doesn’t want to talk to the
15:17leaders of the French political parties. He doesn’t want to address the complex
15:23underlying problems of France. Doing all that ultimately bores him. He doesn’t
15:29want to dirty his hands by making compromises which political leaders in
15:35these kind of situations sometimes must do. He’s far happier meeting with these
15:42leaders in far away shalik people that he likes and understands and
15:49amongst whom he feels himself to be amongst friends that he is dealing with
15:54the problems of France and in this mackerel is absolutely
16:03typical. After all, in Britain, people call the prime minister never hear K
16:12because prime minister Karma is so often away. In Germany, they have
16:21c been calling um Chancellor Mertz, Friedri Mertz, the foreign policy
16:28chancellor because he seems to devote so much time to him. So MRO in this in
16:36giving the impression that he’s much more happy and far more com comfortable in this sort of company than he is
16:45amongst the people who he is ultimately responsible to. Well, in that he is no
16:51different. Anyway, this is all I’m going to say about this today. No doubt when
16:56we get a clearer sense of where the crisis in France is going, I will have a lot more to say and no doubt at that
17:03point we will discuss it also on the Juran as well. Now the rest of this
Transition to topics on Ukraine and US-China trade war
17:09program I’m going to devote to two topics. One is the conflict in Ukraine. The second is the trade war between
17:15China and the United States which is now heating up. But I am going to speak
17:21first about the pro program in Ukraine. Yesterday I discussed what it seemed to
Overview of Ukraine’s military situation and potential crisis
17:28me was the increasingly catastrophic military situation that Ukraine is
17:33facing. I said that it seemed to me that the situation has reached a decisive
17:41point that we are looking at a potential
17:48crisis even a catastrophe for the Ukrainian army
17:55in eastern Ukraine in Dombbass and Kharkov and Zaporosia region regions in
18:04Ukraine. Ukraine and that this crisis, if it plays out in the way that all the
18:12indications suggest it will, could be
18:18the breaking point in the war. And I discussed the situation
18:27where it seems to me that the Ukrainian army is now on the brink of being
18:32encircled or perhaps is encircled already u in Kian where I don’t think
18:37there’s any real doubt any longer where a um where a cauldron is underway in
18:46existence. Even the Institute for the Study of War has published a map which
18:52all but confirms the fact and in Civer where by the way over the last 24 hours
18:58there’s been a cascade of reports from Andre Marsko our old friend and by the
19:03way De Dennis Pushilin as well the head of the Donetsk regional government that
19:09fighting is now taking place within the city limits of Civer itself that there
19:16are now battles was going on inside Civars. The Russian general staff hinted that this was already the case some
19:24about a week ago. But now we’re getting a lot more reports about this, though no
19:30video footage so far. There have, by the way, been some reports, if we’re talking
19:36about Civer, that the Russians have entered the village of Dronovka that
19:42lies to the east of Civer. The Dronovka Dron this village Dronovka is on is
19:51close to the main supply road that goes to Civer ultimately from Slavansk
20:00and well all of that if if true if the Russians really are
20:06fighting inside Dronovka as well as Civas well all of that does indeed point
20:12to a battle that is now reaching its um culminating point. Anyway, I said
20:21that it looked to me as if we were now on a point of at a point of crisis.
20:27And well, shortly after I said that,
20:32um two people who I suspect are probably better informed about the situation than
20:40me basically said the same thing. one was the blogger who writes the Substack
20:47blog events in Ukraine. He’s given an overview of the military situation um on
20:54the battle fronts. Perhaps the greatest emphasis has been on the fighting in Pakovsk and in the area northeast of
21:01Pakovsk where the Russians carried out their breakthrough. He provides a
21:07cascade of comments by Ukrainian uh military commentators and reporters, all
21:14of whom confirm that the situation in Pakovsk and in the area northeast of
21:20Pakovsk is turning critical for Ukraine.
21:26and well he did appear to think that the situation for the Ukrainians is
21:33deteriorating on the battle fronts and he provided significant amount of
21:38information that appeared to support that conclusion from the Ukrainian side.
21:44Um, but perhaps an even more interesting discussion of
21:52the situation on the Ukrainian battlefields comes from the Russian war
21:58reporter Marat Kirulin. I have pointed out how back on the 20th
22:04of March, he wrote an article in which he appeared to outline with startling
22:11accuracy the future offensive that the Russians would conduct
22:18over the course of the summer of 2025 and how many of the things that he
22:24predicted would happen over that the course of that offensive
22:31have indeed happened. Well, in his very
22:36latest piece, which you can also find by the way on his Substack blog blog,
22:44translated again by Zinderf, the person who calls himself Zinderf,
22:50you can see that the same he thinks he said he thinks the same thing. He talks
22:56about how um the Russians
23:01um are now basically
23:08poised to achieve decisive outcomes and how these might be um just over the
23:16horizon. So he says things like this and what can be seen about the situation
23:21uh in the special military operation this well fortified area
23:27in the Donets people’s republic with a developed transport network densely
23:33built up with cities and settlements among uh around numerous industrial
23:39enterprises and mines has been left by the Russian command for development in
23:45the final phase. of the SFMO. That that phase will come when Ukraine’s
23:52economy is destroyed and the armed forces of Ukraine are weakened and
23:57demoralized. That favorable condition will form that then favorable conditions will form for
24:05the cracking of this strong nut. He means Donbass with minimal losses. And that moment is
24:14approaching. Preparations are being made and advantageous lines are being
24:20occupied for the elimination of the last large node of the armed forces of
24:29Ukraine on Donbass territory. And then he has he makes a very interesting
24:38comment which requires I think some unpacking. He says this, “Impatient citizens, of
Analysis of Russian military strategy in Donbass
24:45course, he means Russians, incited by hasty bloggers and experts, and he puts
24:50the word experts in quotation, masks, asked the standard provocative question,
24:56why couldn’t it be done earlier? Dear compatriots, war is primarily about
25:02economics, and the general staff is a huge calculator that constantly calculates, striking the enemy’s
25:09territory, especially deep inside with expensive missiles without coordinating
25:15these actions with operational tactical combat areas is self-destructive.
25:22The enemy has many options to compensate for the damage caused by establishing
25:27detours, redirecting flows, etc. We all know perfectly well that the collective
25:35west is trying to damage our country’s economy, weaken their weaken our armed
25:40forces and eventually destroy us. Therefore, it provoke Therefore,
25:48it that’s to say the west provokes expensive but low offensive actions.
25:56The right time has come. The necessary conditions have been created and the
26:02isolation of the areas of direct interest has begun. The main task is the
26:10demilitarization of Ukraine, the destruction of the
26:16Ukrainian army. Now, as I said, this is very typical Russians
26:22um formulation and as I said, it tells us an awful lot,
26:29but it does require some unpacking. What Kulin is saying is that the Russians are
26:34now at that point where they have occupied
26:41so many important positions and their forces are so are properly ex organized that they can
26:50finally break Ukrainian resistance in Donbass.
26:57And notice how he describes Donbass. He describes Donbass as uh this area um
27:05where um uh uh where there is a developed transport network densely built
27:13built up with cities and settlements around numerous industrial enterprises and mines which is of course is what I
27:21have been saying many times. This is essentially a place of urban sprawl
27:28and therefore very very difficult for armies to maneuver through. And I would
27:34add that there is aspects to the u geology of the area that makes it
27:40difficult for armies to maneuver through as well. There are many rivers and streams, small
27:46rivers and streams. And um this area gets particularly badly water logged in
27:54the autumn and spring periods and u the ground is often very soft and it’s
28:03difficult especially for armored vehicles, tanks and such things to move.
28:10And on that note, by the way, I would just make an observation, which is that we are currently entering the period of
28:17the Rasputita, the period of the autumn mud. It’s come apparently rather early
28:23this year. There’s been quite a lot of rain. There’s an awful lot of fog apparently and um this normally
28:33limits the ability for offensive action.
28:38Except it is not quite turning out this time because there is no evidence that
28:44on this particular occasion on this particular autumn the Russian army is
28:51slowing its offensive in any place and to any degree
29:00it is once again using many more track vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles and
29:07tanks. s to move infantry. Um, infantry
29:13are not marching to the battle places as they have perhaps been doing in recent
29:19months, rather a lot in order to avoid the drones. And we see perhaps rather
29:25less of the motorcycles, but the point is that despite the raspit, despite the
29:31autumn mud, the Russian army continues its advance. I suspect this is partly
29:37because the Russians are able to use track vehicles to a much greater extent
29:43than they have been able to recently in the war because they have gradually got
29:48on top of the whole problem of drones on the battlefield. They have swamped out
29:55the Ukrainian drones from the area, the combat area um on the battlefield. Their
30:04drones dominate. The Ukrainian drones don’t.
30:10And they’ve perfected means to shoot down or jam the Ukrainian drones. Just
30:17saying. But I suspect it is also because the
30:23Russians have now reached the builtup areas in the cities, the last line of
30:30defense that the Ukrainians have in Donbass and in urban areas like Pakovsk, Civer,
30:40Kensk, and Constantin. And over the course of the last 24
30:47hours, uh, Russian comment commentators have started to confirm that fighting is
30:55indeed taking place inside Constantinovka itself. Um, again, the Russian general staff
31:03about a week ago suggested that this was the case, but now we’re finally getting
31:09reports from the Russian bloggers and Telegram channels which appear to be
31:16confirming it, though still we haven’t se received any actual video proof that
31:23this is really the case. Anyway, I suspect that a lot of the fighting
31:28because it is taking place in builtup areas, it it means that the Russians
31:37aren’t affected by the mud so much because of course in a city in an urban
31:47landscape the mud is not such a problem.
31:52On the contrary, there are suggestions that in some parts of the battlefronts,
31:59the fact that we are now in autumn, that there is mist and fog and rain and low
32:06cloud cover is actually helping the Russians because apparently their drones
32:12can operate at least to a certain degree in these conditions whereas the
32:18Ukrainian drones perhaps cannot. And with the Russians
32:24continuously advancing, they can use the mist and the fog and
32:31the low cloud cover to cover their advances.
32:38And it is the Ukrainians who are defending, who are at a disadvantage
32:44when this happens. Anyway, so Kyoulin says that the Russians are now very well
32:52positioned to continue this advance to break the last big defense line in
32:59Dombas. But then going back to that very complicated paragraph in which he
33:07appears to rebuke people who um
33:14talk all the time about the need to um
33:19take even more drastic actions deeper inside the lines. What is he actually
33:25referencing here? He says that striking the enemy’s
33:32territory, especially deep inside with expensive missiles without coordinating
33:39these actions with operational tactical combat areas is selfdestructive.
33:46The enemy has many options to compensate for the damage by establishing detours,
33:53redelecting flows, etc. What one has to do is to coordinate
34:01these strikes on positions behind the front lines with your advance on the
34:09actual battlefield. And he says that the right time to do this is now
34:15approaching. And he says that the objective
34:22is to destroy the Ukrainian army. The main task of the
34:30special military operation is the destruction is the
34:36demilitarization of Ukraine i.e. the destruction of the Ukrainian military.
34:43And then of course the answer which I think explains the whole puzzle is in
34:48the next sentence. One can chase them across enemy territory stretching the
34:54contract contact line and one’s own logistics
35:00thus creating difficulties for oneself. Or one can create conditions so that the
35:08weakened enemy brings their raw material to our machine for processing at their
35:14own expense. One can weaken them by def inflicting defeats in operational and
35:21tactical depth on the march and in concentration areas which our armed
35:28forces are successfully creating. So this I think is a very elliptical
35:37reference to the Neper bridges. He’s basically saying look yes we could have
35:43destroyed the Neper bridges a long long time ago. It would have been possible to do that but at that time we were far
35:51away from the Neper. We were not able to approach the Neper. And the Ukrainians,
35:59had we done that, would always have found some means to get their men and machines and supplies across the NEP.
36:07After all, they are assisted by the West in doing it. They could have set up
36:13pontoon bridges or other types of bridges. It would not have been an
36:18insiderable problem for them. not when the west is working for them. Besides,
36:26our objective is to destroy their armed forces. Now,
36:31I’ve been saying this, we’ve been saying this on the Duran since the outset of
36:36the special military operation that Russian military f philosophy. The
36:43guiding principles that the Russian general staff follows are clausitian
36:52that you break the you achieve victory by breaking the enemy’s will and ability
36:59to continue resistance and you do that by destroying the
37:06enemy’s armed forces. And what Kyulin is saying is that in
37:14order to destroy their armed forces, you can do it in all sorts of ways. You can
37:19advance against them. You can chase them across the battle lines. That will cause you heavy losses and it will put immense
37:27stress on your own logistics.
37:32or you can advance incrementally, causing the enemy
37:39to come to you to try to hold you back. And that way, you’re able to destroy the
37:47enemy, to grind the enemy down, peacemeal on the battlefield in a place of your
37:55own choosing. One can chase them across enemy territory, stretching the contact
38:02line and one’s own logistics, thus creating difficulties for oneself. Or
38:08one can create conditions so that the weakened enemy brings their raw materials, he means their army, their
38:16newly mobilized troops to our machine
38:21for processing at their own expense. If your objective is to destroy the
38:29enemy’s army, then let them keep coming to you so that you can use your enormous
38:38advantage in military equipment and training to
38:43destroy and numbers now to destroy them better and more effectively in that way.
38:52And according to Kyuin that point is now well within distance
Discussion on US military aid and Tomahawk missile implications
39:00of being achieved. So according to this logic, it’s better
39:07not to destroy the bridges, the Neper bridges at this time because you want
39:13the Ukrainians to deploy to eastern Ukraine where you
39:18can destroy them there, not to keep their forces on the west bank of Ukraine
39:26where they are in effect beyond your reach. Now,
39:32a couple of months ago, two or three months ago, Larry Johnson, um, former
39:40CIA analyst and intelligence analyst in the United States, had a very interesting discussion with a Russian
39:46general, a retired Russian general, I believe it was in Moscow, and this general told him essentially the same
39:54thing. It’s a strange tactic from a western point of view because in the
40:00west we conduct war in such a profoundly different way from the way that the
40:06Russians conducted. We do tend to measure progress in t in terms of
40:14territory territory captured cities captured
40:19armies defeated. The Russians measure progress in a completely different way
40:26in terms of the destruction of the enemy’s army and thereby the enemy’s
40:32will to resist. So if you see it in that way, you understand better what Kaiin is
40:40saying. But note again that Kulin is hinting that the point when the Russians
40:47are going to move beyond this is now approaching. The obstacle which is Donbass
40:56is on the brink of being taken and I have discussed in many programs that
41:03there is no other area in Ukraine that exactly corresponds to Donbass. no area
41:09that is as heavily built up, that has so many factories, so many railway lines.
41:14And railway lines, by the way, are an important um barrier to advancing
41:22soldiers because they’re built on small embankments. They can be they’re they’re
41:29in a kind of a way natural defense lines in themselves. There is nothing comparable to that
41:36anywhere else in Ukraine. and
41:42destroying the Ukrainian army there in Donbass and breaking the defenses
41:48in Donbass put the Russians in a position where
41:54they have achieved their primary objective, the destruction of the Ukrainian army and would therefore be in
42:02a position to bring the war to an end. I found this one of Huin’s most
42:08interesting articles. Again, you have to perhaps read a little between the lines
42:13to understand what he’s saying, but I think the ultimate meaning, at least to
42:20me, is fairly clear. Now, just to repeat again, about two or three weeks ago, the
42:27Russians conducted their first major drone attack on a railway bridge across
42:34the Neper River. Or it wasn’t a railway, a a road bridge across the Neper River,
42:40one of the Neper bridges. This was in the town, the city of Kchuk, a major
42:45industrial center. And it was explained to me that quite apart from anything
42:53else, there was a specific target on the bridge that the Russians were targeting.
43:02Though I have no idea what that particular target was, whether it was an
43:08individual or some piece of equipment or something of that kind.
43:14The point what the point is it was nonetheless the first major attack on a
43:21neper bridge and well I thought at the time that it
43:30happened that that might be a signal that more such attacks might be coming
43:38and one way of reading Hulu’s article is to suggest that we are indeed close to
43:44that point because the Russians are now advancing close
43:49closer and closer to the Neper. They’re about to break Ukrainian defense in
43:56Donbass itself. And at that point, it might make sense
44:03to isolate Ukrainian forces in various places by destroying the Neper bridges
44:10and basically trapping them on the east bank of the Neper, which the Russians
44:17mostly control. And in an earlier article, the earlier article that he
44:23wrote back in March, Hulu described exactly how this could be done in
44:29connection with the city of Nepro that Nepro could be placed under siege. It
44:35might not even need to be stormed because destroying the bridges, the
44:43Neper bridges in this specific area of Nepal in the in the city of Nepal would
44:52destroy the entire supply system for Ukraine and would in fact neutralize the
45:00Ukrainian forces in who were still trying to control
45:05Nearro itself, the city of Neapro itself. Anyway, I said yesterday that we
45:12are close to a point of catastrophe in Dombas.
45:18Perhaps Huin and the blogger who writes for events in
45:25Ukraine don’t go quite that far.
45:31But you could see that they also think that a decisive moment is being reached.
45:39Now that may explain all of these very complicated and very
45:44strange diplomatic new moves which continue to take place even as the war
45:51itself grinds on. Now we had more comments from the President of the
45:58United States, Donald Trump. Firstly, he seems to be more optimistic
46:04again that he might be able to achieve some kind of agreement with President Putin.
46:12I don’t know what evidence he has for that because as I’ve discussed in many programs, Putin has up to this point in
46:20time, made no concessions at all, none that we know of in connection with the
46:27ending of the war. He has never at any point compromised on any of the issues
46:33relating to um the final terms for
46:39ending the war. He continues to insist that Ukraine must remain outside NATO,
46:46that the four regions plus Crimea must be transferred to Russia, that Ukraine
46:52must denuclearize, demilitarize, that it must change its political system, that it must restore rights to the Russian
47:00speakers in Ukraine and restore the Russian Orthodox Church. There’s never
47:06been any hint from Putin that he is in the least willing to compromise or
47:13retreat on any of that. And why now would he? His armies, as Kyuin
47:22and others are saying, are now in an
47:28obviously dominant position on the battlefields.
47:34It would make no sense for Putin at this time to make compromises
47:41on points like that. But Trump continues to talk about how yes, some kind of deal
47:48with Putin could be likely. And Trump had some
47:54really rather strange comments to make
47:59on this vexed issue of the Tomahawks. He said that um he expects that there
48:06will be a deal with Putin, but that if there isn’t a deal with Putin, well, he
48:11might in that case be minded to supply Ukraine with tomahawks
48:17and Putin won’t like that at all. The implication being that the Tomahawks are
48:22this enormously devastating, worldchanging, gamechanging weapon system which the
48:30Russians presumably are very afraid of and nervous about.
48:37Now again, it’s not always easy to interpret what Trump is doing, but taken at their
48:47face, it seems to me that Trump’s latest comments rather support the idea that the whole
48:54talk about the Tom Hawks is a bluff. It is a poker game that the Americans, the
49:02Trump is playing with Russ, with the Russians and with Putin. If you don’t do
49:09as I want, I will give Ukraine tomahawks, which sort of implies that
49:17he’s not yet made the decision to give Ukraine tomahawks and that the Ukrainians don’t actually have any
49:24tomahawks. Now, that not only seems to signal that this
49:32whole debate about Tomahawks is something of a bluff, but in a kind of a
49:39way, it rose the whole threat back. It
49:44suggests that the decision to supply tomahawks has not actually been made.
49:52But Trump has not yet made a decision about this. And the Ukrainians
49:58themselves, by the way, in various comments that they have made are also
50:04sort of admitting that Trump has not actually made the decision to supply
50:12tomahawks. Now, I’m going to suggest that this may provide some explanation
50:19for Putin’s conduct, his response to this whole
50:25story about Tomahawks. Now, Putin is obviously extremely well informed and he
50:31has presumably been told by his intelligence people about the problems
50:37the United States would have if it did indeed deploy Tomahawk missiles to
50:42Ukraine. Things that I have discussed and others have discussed in many programs. the fact that there is no
50:50ground launcher for these missiles, that the Typhon system is so huge and
50:58expensive and elaborate that it is to all intents and purposes
51:03incapable of being deployed to Ukraine.
51:08that the lighter, much lighter ground launchers, mobile ground
51:15launchers created for the Tomahawks back in the 1970s when the Tomahawk was a
51:22purely nuclear tech weapon. that these ground launchers were dismantled
51:29way back in the 80s and that there is no real means or method to place them back
51:37in production. It could be done in time, but it will
51:42take a long time to do it and that this might be well perhaps several years
51:50away. And also, yes, the US military,
51:56the US Army did um have a program
52:02between 2023 and 2025 for a mobile ground launched Tomahawk
52:11system. The tomogs still housed in their naval canisters, the ones that they have
52:17when they’re launched from the ships of the US Navy,
52:25which is by the way the only launch system
52:30for the Tomahawk, which I understand is still in existence. But this canister system has proved to
52:39be difficult to transfer to mobile um vehicle to to road mobile vehicles.
52:48Attempts to do it have been done, but this has proved
52:54a major technical and logistical challenge which caused the Pentagon to
53:03cancel that entire program in 2025.
53:08Yes, it’s possible that this could be revived also,
53:13but unless there’s all kinds of secret work being done has been all kinds of
53:20secret work being done to revive or develop this system over the last few
53:25years which we don’t know about which is possible but then we can’t speculate on
53:32that which we don’t know but unless there is there has been that secret work
53:38already been done about the system of which there is no hint. Then again
53:45given the complexity of the technical challenges and what we know about the
53:54challenge challenges the US defense industry has
54:02in placing complex systems of this kind into
54:09production. We’re probably looking at at least a year, probably much longer before um
54:18these systems, these lighter systems um
54:23would be able to enter service and would be able to play an actual role on the
54:30battlefields. So anyway, we have all of these problems and Putin knows about those and he
54:37obviously also knows us has undoubtedly been briefed extensively about how um
54:43simply launching a Tomahawk missile is not a simple matter. How it requires
54:48massive inputs from various levels of the US intelligence and command chain.
54:55Though I suspect Putin by this time in the war can be under no illusions that
55:01if necessary the US would greenlight and participate in all of that. After all,
55:09we now know since the Financial Times has told us
55:15that since July, the United States has been assisting Ukraine to conduct drone
55:23strikes on Russian oil refineries. By the way, there have been some claims
55:28that that article at the Financial Times is wrong, that the information it is giving is
55:34untrue. I have no doubt whatsoever that it is true. I have no doubt at all that
55:42the United States has indeed been assisting and indeed guiding the Ukrainian drone strikes on the Russian
55:50oil refineries. The Russians have been repeatedly saying
55:55for weeks that these kind of attacks on their refineries could not take place
56:00without direct input from the United States. So the Financial Times article
56:06tells us nothing which the Russians have not already been saying and anybody who
56:12has any understanding of this issue knows that without the United States
56:19almost certainly it could not be done. So I doubt that Putin has any doubts
56:25about the willingness of the United States to participate to involve itself
56:32in command and guidance decisions where Tomahawk missiles are concerned. But he
56:37probably does know or believe that actual deployment of these systems is
56:46probably at least a year away and perhaps much longer. So given that this
56:53is so he probably realizes that Trump is bluffing that this is all a bluff that
57:00Trump is using the threat of the Tomahawk missile deliveries to Russia in
57:07order to extract concessions. and Putin and the people around him are
57:15saying to themselves, well, the way we deal with this is by
57:22showing to the Americans that we are not in fact intimidated by what the
57:28Americans are threatening to do. So instead of running around and saying
57:33well you know if the Toml missiles are sent to Ukraine this will be a
57:39tremendous disaster it will be a military crisis. Uh we will have to take
57:46extremely strong counter measures. The Russians are perhaps saying or at least
57:51the people around Putin are perhaps saying that the correct way to respond
57:56to this is to play it down. to say, “Well, these systems are old. They are
58:04easy to intercept. Our air defense system will have no trouble dealing with
58:11these missiles. Let’s not give Trump any reason to think
58:22that by threatening us with Tomahawk missiles,
58:27we are rattled and nervous and perhaps
58:35ready to make concessions. I will come to how that approach plays
58:43in Russia in a moment. Now if this is correct
58:50then there is some kind of going ting
58:55and fro there is some ting and froing going on behind the scenes between the Americans and the Russians. The
59:02Russians, the Americans are saying, or at least Trump’s people are saying,
59:09agree to freeze the conflict or we will launch get tomahawks against you. The
59:17Russians saying, “We don’t care. Bring it on. We’re going to press forward with
59:23the war in the meantime.” So all of that might be taking place and
59:32there might be those kind of contexts. But I come back to the wider Russian
59:39response in all of this because though I can understand
59:44why Putin himself might be taking this approach, he might be saying that a
59:50stronger reaction to rumors about Tomahawk deployments will
59:57actually play into the hands of the hardliners in the United States. They
1:00:02will seize on it as evidence that Putin and the Russians are rattled and that
1:00:08will make them even more determined to send the tomahawks in order to escalate the war. But I while I can understand
1:00:17why Putin himself might make that calculation, I doubt that many other
1:00:22people in Russia are making it. I suspect that many people in Russia are
1:00:28saying, “What is the point of all of this?” Trump is already orchestrating
1:00:34attacks on our oil refineries. He wants to supply Ukraine with Tomahawk
1:00:40missiles. He’s talking about doing it. Even if
1:00:47it’s quite true that telling Trump don’t do this or else is more likely to make
1:00:54Trump go ahead and do this. And even if you don’t want to give the impression
1:01:02that you’re rattled by this threat of Tomahawk missiles, does it not make far
1:01:09better sense to say to yourself, also negotiations with the United States of any kind make
1:01:18no sense anymore? Trump really isn’t listening to what we
1:01:25are saying. isn’t listening to us about Istanbul plus our various demands. He
1:01:33doesn’t really want to address our underlying concerns, what we call the
1:01:39root causes of the conflict. And for that reason,
1:01:46further contacts with the Americans are pointless and we should focus
1:01:53instead on the wall. And
1:01:58not only is that debate, I have no doubt at all, taking place in Moscow, but we
1:02:03saw how, as I discussed in my recent program, Putin is having
1:02:11Putin is going along with part of this. I have no doubt that the Russians do
1:02:17have a plan when they reach the Neper to cross the Neper and to move to try to
1:02:25take control of the remainder of Ukraine’s Black Sea coast and Adessa and
1:02:31Nikolai and other places and all of the others those other places
1:02:37as well. And I have no doubt that that plan exists. And I am confident that
1:02:46when he met with the generals in St. Petersburg, Putin did indeed tell them,
1:02:54″You have my green light to work towards it and to go ahead with
1:03:01it.” But I think that Putin at the same time
1:03:08still wants to sort out relations with the United States, still hopes to come
1:03:15to some agreement with the United States in order to secure Russia’s western
1:03:23border. And though it is frustrating to many people in Moscow, he still speaks
1:03:29about an eventually an eventual understanding with Donald
1:03:36Trump and the Americans. And here I’m going to say where again I think the
1:03:42major misunderstanding Putin and the Russians might have comes
1:03:48from. I’ve developed the impression from some of the things that Lavough and
1:03:54other Russians have said about the meeting in Anchorage that Putin and the
1:04:00Russians came away with from that meeting thinking that Trump is prepared
1:04:08to negotiate over the future security architecture in Europe. And I think
1:04:15Putin doesn’t want to jeopardize that negotiation when it eventually happens.
1:04:23But I think again this is a red herring
1:04:28because I don’t think that Donald Trump or anyone else in the West in the United
1:04:34States is in fact interested in holding with that Russians that kind of
1:04:40conversation or that sort of negotiation. Putin almost certainly brought all of
1:04:48that up over the course of the Anchorage meeting.
1:04:54Trump, as he always does, seem to agree. Putin came away with an impression that
1:05:02he’d reached an understanding with Trump on this precise issue, except I don’t
1:05:09think in fact he really did. Now, in the meantime, tensions in Europe
1:05:17continue to be extraordinarily high, but there’s a number of things to say.
1:05:24I’m going to discuss the deterioration of China US relations in a moment. But
1:05:32the key thing to take from what has happened between China and the United States over
1:05:38the last couple of days is that it should bury once and for all any idea
1:05:46that the United States can use China to exert leverage over Russia. The Chinese
1:05:54made a very deliberate step, took a very deliberate step
1:05:59to restrict rare earth exports to the United States. They must have known that
1:06:06this would provoke an extremely strong reaction from the United States. The
1:06:11entire mood in Beijing, as we will see shortly, about a trade war with the
1:06:16United States is bring it on. Now, if that is correct, then
1:06:23any idea that the United States is going to be able to force China to stop
1:06:30imports of energy from Russia or to be buried.
1:06:38Far from the Chinese being intimidated by those kind of
1:06:44tariff threats, we have seen that on the contrary and on a completely different
1:06:51set of reasons, they have preempted what the Americans might do and it is the
1:06:57Americans who are now trying desperately to find a
1:07:04walk back. So that’s one thing I want to say. The sanctions threat has basically melted
1:07:13away. Even the ideas of seizing ships on the high seas, Russian tankers on the
1:07:20high seas, even that idea is apparently encountering massive problems
1:07:28and grave doubts within Europe and is being quietly dropped. I ought to
1:07:37say that apparently there’s been investigations of the various drone
1:07:44incidents over the various airports in Germany, in Denmark, etc.
1:07:51Um, the consensus that appears to be developing amongst
1:07:59Western law enforcement agencies from what I can see is that the Russians were
1:08:05not involved. And well, as for that incident of the
1:08:12Russian of the ship carrying the Russian oil that was seized by the French,
1:08:18there’s been a scathing article about this incident in the Spectator, the
1:08:23British political newspaper. But anyway, the point is that no
1:08:29evidence that this ship was involved in any kind of illicit drone activities was
1:08:36found. So the rhetoric against Russia remains intense,
1:08:41but perhaps because people in Europe are again going
1:08:48through that process of starting to understand that
1:08:54they have really very little leverage and that a clash with the Russians in
1:09:02military terms would be an extremely bad idea. here. It looks to me as if for the
1:09:09moment at least the tension is slightly abating. Now let’s return to the issue of China
1:09:19and the United States. Um we’ve had a long editorial about this issue um in
1:09:26Global Times and Global Times made it very clear that as
1:09:34far as the Chinese are concerned the decision by China on Friday to
1:09:41tighten controls of exports of rare earths
1:09:48they have made that decision. in response to what they see
1:09:55as aggressive moves by the Americans.
1:10:01They say this, the incident stemmed from Washington’s threat to impose tariffs of
1:10:07100% on China and export control on all
1:10:12critical software under the pretext of countering China’s tightening of rare
1:10:19earth export regulations. Viewed from a longer time frame, it is
1:10:26the United States that has persistently used tariffs and expert export controls
1:10:32to interfere with and undermine the normal trade order between China and the
1:10:38United States as well as the atmosphere of bilateral economic and trade talks,
1:10:44seriously harming China’s interests since the China US economic and trade
1:10:53talks in Madrid in September. The United States in just 20 days has
1:11:02introduced a string of new restrictive measures targeting China. The
1:11:09difficulties currently facing China US related trade are entirely the
1:11:17responsibility of the US side.
1:11:22China has repeatedly made it clear that its export control measures on rare
1:11:28earths and related items is a legitimate action by the Chinese government to
1:11:34refine its export control system in accordance with trade with laws and
1:11:41regulations. These actions are not only necessary to safeguard national security
1:11:47but also fully demonstrate China’s steadfast commitment as a responsible
1:11:54major country to pursue world peace. And
1:12:00then the article con continues, “The US has long overextended the concept of
