stock here: let’s face it, let’s call it: Because Kirk was changing opinions on college campuses, he needed to be killed, for other “ancillary” purposes.
Uygur is an asshole of major proportions, and his whole organization. This is the reality of the real 1890’s young Turks…..
The original Young Turks were Ottoman reformers who overthrew absolutism, promoted modernization and nationalism, but whose later leadership was marked by authoritarianism, war, and atrocities that still shape their historical legacy.
stock here, we knew it was bad, but this shows an absurd level of bad. The US Gov being used and complicit in the largest child trafficking events ever seen in history. Pure evil. And how many “went along with it”?
Let’s hope most of these poor kids can be found and helped, but so far it’s only 22,000 of 470,000 (that we know of). Thats only 4.7%, so I hope they can ramp up the efforts. The intentionally bad and missing paperwork, is itself a crime.
The commentators at American Thinker really get it.
Under Joe Biden, or whoever was running the country between 2021 and 2024, over 470,000 unaccompanied migrant children waltzed into the country. Many of these kids promptly vanished into a bureaucratic black hole. Since then, in a move both heroic and horrifyingly necessary, the Trump administration has located over 22,000 of these kids, arrested 400 traffickers, and uncovered the grim reality that 27 children met tragic ends through murder, overdose, or suicide. Yes, Epstein’s operation was a master class in depravity, but Biden’s border policies might just take the cake, and it’s a moldy, taxpayer-funded one at that.
stock here: h/t Cuttlefish, Kirk was getting a lot of airplay just lately. Its FaF that the shooter left behind cartridge’s with “trans” etched into them. Seems like both misdirection and amplifying of hate to me.
And the Demoncrats double down on hatred “he had it coming to him”. We are at a moment in history.
EXCLUSIVE: This morning my team received an e-mail from officer at ATF.
The email included a screen shot from what appears to be an internal message describing a weapon and cartridges located by an ATF and other law enforcement near the scene of the Charlie Kirk shooting at… pic.twitter.com/UKtOUPY5DC
stock here: I am agast at the Guardian, the Guardian of the Globalists. And they also play the “wedding”card. Shame on them, damn them to hell. Marina Dunbar writes this, or at least they put her name to it.
Elena, who is retired and living in Los Angeles, currently has stage 4 cancer and is on chemotherapy. Though she still qualifies for the vaccine, her 59-year-old husband apparently will not.
“Would my vaccination protect me if the person I live with gets sick? Possibly not,” she said. “And my chemo is incompatible with the only available treatment for Covid. It seems obvious that household members of immune-suppressed patients should also be eligible.”
Tammy Hansen, a 61-year-old librarian from Illinois, shares similar concerns of infecting a vulnerable loved one with the virus. She is about to become the caretaker for her 85-year-old mother following a major cancer surgery and ongoing chemotherapy.
“I want the vaccine so I can double protect her from getting Covid,” Hansen said. “My husband is 79 and I also worry about transmitting Covid to him.”
She added: “I swear if I get Covid and give it to my mom and she dies, I’ll be taking some kind of action. These fuckers are nuts.”
stock here: below is a Gemini created partial transcript summary.
This transcript is a continuation of the Senate hearing with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary. It covers a range of topics including agricultural regulations, drug price transparency, organ transplant reform, the politicization of COVID-19, and the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines. The tone remains highly contentious, with senators from both parties expressing strong opinions and clashing with Secretary Kennedy.
The key points of the latter part of the hearing include:
Senator Grassley questions Kennedy about his past promise not to regulate farming. Kennedy reassures him that HHS is working closely with the agricultural community. Grassley also asks about requiring drug companies to disclose prices in TV ads and expresses concern about reports of “transplant line skipping” and illegal organ harvesting. Kennedy responds that HHS has launched a major investigation and is reorganizing the organ procurement industry.
Senator Cornin questions Kennedy about the high cost and low outcomes of the U.S. healthcare system, arguing that simply spending more money isn’t the solution. Kennedy agrees, stating the U.S. has some of the worst health outcomes despite high spending. He cites rising rates of chronic diseases and infant mortality as evidence of the system’s failure.
Senator Bennett and Senator Cassidy both challenge Kennedy on his appointments to the CDC’s advisory panel on vaccines (ASIP). They accuse him of replacing qualified scientists with “anti-vaxers” and conspiracy theorists. Kennedy denies this, claiming he is de-politicizing the panel and putting “great scientists” on it. The senators quote some of Kennedy’s appointees who have made controversial statements about vaccine safety, which Kennedy either denies or agrees with. The debate becomes heated, with both sides accusing the other of lying and misrepresenting the facts.
Senator Cantwell echoes the concerns about Kennedy’s stance on vaccines, stating that she represents a science-based state. She praises mRNA technology and Operation Warp Speed, questioning why Kennedy canceled $500 million in related research. Kennedy defends the cancellation, saying the research was for upper respiratory infections and that he is focusing on different health priorities. Cantwell also accuses Kennedy of perpetrating hoaxes and undermining the healthcare system.
Senator Warner expresses disbelief at Kennedy’s testimony, particularly his statements that he doesn’t know how many Americans died from COVID-19 or if vaccines prevented deaths. Warner accuses Kennedy of being “ignorant” of basic data and not understanding the real-world impact of his policies, such as the closing of rural hospitals.
Senator Langford offers a brief comment, expressing support for Kennedy’s work on the “one big beautiful bill” and its $50 billion investment in rural hospitals.
Names Supporting Kennedy
Senator Grassley: He expressed gratitude for Kennedy’s work, specifically for having the CMS fill the open slots for the rural community hospital demonstration program. He also thanks Kennedy for addressing the program’s underutilization and for a major investigation into organ harvesting.
President Trump: Mentioned as the leader of the administration and the person who made a “steadfast commitment to make America healthy again.” Kennedy attributes the achievements of HHS to Trump’s leadership and says he “absolutely” deserves a Nobel Prize for Operation Warp Speed.
Senator Cornin: He agrees with Kennedy that throwing money at healthcare is not the answer and provides Kennedy with a platform to explain his alternative approach.
Senator Langford: He expresses support for the “one big beautiful bill” and the $50 billion it allocates for rural hospitals, noting that hospitals in his state of Oklahoma are looking forward to the funding.
Brook Rollins: An individual with whom Kennedy says he is working “very, very closely” to ensure the administration’s agenda is consistent with the agricultural community’s.
Names Attacking Kennedy
Senator Widen: As the ranking member, he was the primary critic, accusing Kennedy of causing a “healthcare calamity,” elevating “conspiracy theorists,” and putting children in harm’s way with anti-vaccine policies. He was also the one who requested to have Kennedy sworn in as a witness, an unusual and public sign of mistrust.
Senator Alsobrook: Mentioned as being in partnership with Senator Widen’s staff to release a report on what they consider the “disaster” of Kennedy’s first 203 days in office.
Susan Monarez: The former CDC director who wrote an op-ed accusing Kennedy of telling her to approve the recommendations of an anti-vaccine advisory panel. Kennedy called her a liar in response.
Senator Canwell: Noted by Senator Widen as having joined his effort to raise alarm about Kennedy’s actions. She accuses Kennedy of being a “charlatan” and undermining science and technology.
Senator Bennett: He challenges Kennedy on his appointments to the ASIP panel and quotes the controversial statements of his new appointees. He accuses Kennedy of putting children’s health at risk and creating confusion.
Dr. Robert Malone: One of the people Kennedy appointed to the ASIP panel. Senator Bennett accuses him of claiming the mRNA vaccine “causes a form of AIDS” and “can damage children’s brains, heart, immune system, and their ability to have children in the future.”
Dr. Levy: Another new member of the ASIP panel, quoted by Senator Bennett as saying “Evidence is mounting and indisputable that mRNA vaccines cause serious harm, including death, especially among young people.” Kennedy agrees with this statement.
Senator Cassidy: He expresses concern about Kennedy’s conflicting statements about Operation Warp Speed and his past lawsuits against vaccine makers. He questions why Kennedy canceled $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts. He also questions Kennedy’s views on conflicts of interest, pointing out that some of his new appointees have been paid witnesses in lawsuits against vaccine makers.
Eric Ericson: A conservative from Atlanta, Georgia, whose email is submitted for the record by Senator Cassidy. The email expresses concern that his wife, who has stage four lung cancer, cannot get the COVID-19 vaccine due to the “mess at HHS.”
Senator Warner: He expressed disbelief and outrage at Kennedy’s lack of knowledge about key health statistics, such as the number of COVID-19 deaths. He accuses Kennedy of being “ignorant” and out of touch with the reality of rural healthcare.
Tom Cotton: Mentioned by Senator Warner in a sarcastic tone, implying that he (Cotton) might be one of the people who trusts Kennedy’s “health advice” over a doctor’s.
Jeffrey Epstein: Mentioned by Senator Widen to imply Kennedy is not a “protector of children,” as Kennedy had reportedly flown on Epstein’s private jet on multiple occasions.
“Based on a Substack by James Lyon-Weller, Dr. KP Stoller delivers a point-by-point, evidence-focused rebuttal to the September 3 HHS “Secretary Kennedy Must” resignation letter, exposing logical fallacies, equivocation, appeal-to-authority, guilt by association, and misuse of tragedy. Aimed at public health professionals, this 8-minute video follows the script verbatim, uses Dr. Stoller’s narration, and includes clean subtitles with an outline for clarity. Watch for detailed critiques of claimed evidence gaps, institutional groupthink, and calls for transparency, scientific rigor, and humility in public health leadership. If this analysis helped you think critically about RFK Jr., HHS, and vaccine policy, please like and share to spread the discussion. #PublicHealth #RFKJr #HHS #ScientificIntegrity #Transparency.”
Here is Lyons-Weiler’s Substack (with Stoller’s video presented here again, below). I hope this clarifies the matter, and thank all those who clued me in.
The Most Dramatic Narrative Shift in Modern History
Originally published at the Brownstone Institute site, written by Jeffrey A. Tucker. February 8, 2025. Republished on Popular Rationalism with permission.
The most dramatic narrative shift in this post-lockdown period has been the flip in the perceptions of government itself. For decades and even centuries, government was seen as the essential bulwark to defend the poor, empower the marginalized, realize justice, even the playing field in commerce, and guarantee rights to all.
Government was the wise manager, curbing the excess of populist enthusiasm, blunting the impact of ferocious market dynamics, guaranteeing the safety of products, breaking up dangerous pockets of wealth accumulation, and protecting the rights of minority populations. That was the ethos and the perception.
Taxation itself was sold to the population for centuries as the price we pay for civilization, a slogan emblazoned in marble at the DC headquarters of the IRS and attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who said this in 1904, ten years before the federal income tax was even legal in the US.
This claim was not just about a method of funding; it was a commentary on the perceived merit of the whole of the public sector.
Yes, this view had challengers on the right and left but their radical critiques rarely took hold of the public mind in a sustained way.
A strange thing happened in 2020.
Most governments at all levels across the globe turned on their people. It was a shock because governments had never before attempted anything this audacious. It claimed to be exercising mastery over the whole of the microbial kingdom, the world over. It would prove this implausible mission as a valid one with the release of a magic potion made and distributed with its industrial partners who were fully indemnified against liability claims.
Suffice it to say that the potion did not work. Everyone got Covid anyway. Most everyone shook it off. Those who died were often denied common therapeutics to make way for a shot that clocked the highest rate of injury and death on public record. A worse fiasco would be hard to invent outside dystopian fiction.
Participating in this grand crusade were all the commanding heights. That included mass media, academia, the medical industry, the information systems, and science itself. After all, the very notion of “public health” itself implies a “whole of government” and a “whole of society” effort. Indeed, science – with its high status earned from many centuries of achievement – led the way.
The politicians – the people for whom the public votes and who form the one real connection that the people have with the regimes under which they live – went along but did not seem to be in the driver’s seat. Nor did the courts seem to have much role. They were closed along with small businesses, schools, and houses of worship.
The controlling forces in every nation traced to something else we did not normally think of as government. It was the administrators who occupied agencies that were deemed independent of public awareness or control. They worked closely with their industrial partners in tech, pharma, banking, and corporate life.
The Constitution did not matter. Neither did the long tradition of rights, liberty, and law. The workforce was divided between essential and nonessential in order to survive the great emergency. The essential people were the ruling class plus the workers who serve them. Everyone else was deemed unessential to social functioning.
It was supposed to be for our health – government merely looking after us – but this claim lost credibility quickly, as mental and physical health plummeted. Desperate loneliness replaced community. Loved ones were forcibly separated. The aged died alone with digital funerals. Weddings and worship were cancelled. Gyms were closed and then opened later only for the masked and the vaxxed. The arts died. Substance abuse skyrocketed because while everything else was closed the liquor stores and pot shops were open for business.
Here was when perceptions dramatically changed. Government was not what we thought. It is something else. It does not serve the public. It serves its own interests. Those interests are deeply woven into the fabric of industry and civil society. The agencies are captured. The largesse flows mainly to the well-connected.
The bills are paid by the people who had been deemed nonessential and who were now being compensated for the troubles with direct payments that were created by a printing press. Within a year, this showed up in the form of inflation that dramatically reduced real income during an economic crisis.
This huge experiment in pharmacological planning ended up flipping the rubrical narrative that had largely covered public affairs for everyone’s lifetimes. The terrible reality was being broadcast to the whole population in ways no one had ever before experienced. Centuries of philosophy and rhetoric were being shredded before our eyes, as whole populations came face-to-face with the unthinkable: government had become a grand scam or even criminal enterprise, a machinery that served only elite plans and elite institutions.
As it turns out, generations of ideological philosophizing had been chasing fictional rabbits. This is true for all the main debates about socialism and capitalism but also the side debates about religion, demographics, climate change, and so much more. Nearly everyone had been distracted from seeing the things that matter by hunting for things that did not actually matter.Subscribe
This realization transversed typical partisan and ideological boundaries. Those who did not like to think about issues of class conflict had to face the ways in which the whole system was serving one class at the expense of everyone else. The cheerleaders of government beneficence faced the unthinkable: their true love had become malevolent. The champions of private enterprise had to deal with the ways in which private corporations participated and benefited from the entire fiasco. All major political parties and their journalistic backers participated.
No one’s ideological priors were confirmed in the course of events, and everyone was forced to realize that the world worked in a very different way from what we had been told. Most governments in the world had come to be controlled by people no one elected and these administrative forces were loyal not to voters but to industrial interests in media and pharma, while the intellectuals we had long trusted to say what is true went along with even the craziest of claims, while condemning dissent.
Making matters more confusing, no one in charge of this disaster would admit error or even explain their thinking. The burning questions were and are so voluminous as to be impossible to list in full. In the US, there was supposed to be a Covid commission but it never formed. Why? Because the critics far outweighed the apologists, and a public commission proved too risky.
Too much truth could get out, and then what would happen? Behind the public health rationale for the destruction, there was a hidden hand: national security interests rooted in the bioweapons industry that has long lived under a classified cover. This is likely what accounts for the strange taboo concerning this whole topic. Those who know cannot say while the rest of us who have been researching this for years are left with more questions than answers.
While we wait for a full accounting of how it is that rights and liberties were crushed worldwide – what Javier Milei has called a “crime against humanity” – there is no denying the reality on the ground. There was certain to be a blowback, the ferocity of which would only intensify the longer justice is delayed.
For several years, the world had awaited the political, economic, cultural, and intellectual fallout, while the perpetrators held on hoping that the whole subject would just go away. Forget about Covid, they kept saying to us, and yet the sheer size and scale of the calamity would not go away.
We live in the midst of that now, with minute-by-minute revelations of where the money went and who precisely was involved. Multiple trillions were squandered as the people’s standard of living took a dive, and now top among the burning questions is: who got the money? Careers are being wrecked as famous anti-corporate crusaders like Bernie Sanders turn out to be the US Senate’s largest single beneficiary of pharma largesse, exposed for the world.
The Sanders story is just one data point of millions. The news of the sheer number of rackets is spilling out like an avalanche minute-by-minute. The newspapers we thought were chronicling public life turned out to be on the take. The fact-checkers were always working for the blob. The censors were only protecting themselves. The inspectors we believed were keeping an eye out were always in on the game. The courts keeping tabs on government overreach were enabling it. The bureaucracies tagged to implement legislation were unchecked and unelected legislatures in themselves.
The shift is beautifully illustrated by USAID, a $50 billion agency that claimed to be doing humanitarian work but which was really a slush fund for regime change, deep-state operations, censorship, and NGO graft on a scale never before seen. Now we have the receipts. The entire agency, lording over the globe like an unchecked colossus for decades, seems destined for the trash heap.
And so on it goes.
Frequently overlooked in all the commentary on our times is how the second Trump administration is Republican in name only but mostly consists of refugees from the other party. Tick through the names (Trump, Vance, Musk, Kennedy, Gabbard, and so on) and you find people who only a few years ago were associated with the Democratic Party.
Which is to say that this aggressive rooting out of the deep state is being achieved by what is a de facto third party aimed at overthrowing the establishments of the legacy ones. And this is not just in the US: the same dynamic is taking shape throughout the industrialized world.
The entire system of government – properly conceived of not as a democratically elected conduit of the peoples’ interest but instead a complicated and unelected network of unfathomable industrial racketeering with a ruling class at the controls – seems to be unraveling before our eyes.
It’s like the old episodes of Scooby-Doo when the scary ghost or mysterious specter has the mask removed and it is the town mayor all along, who then proclaims that he would have gotten away with it but for these meddling kids.
The meddling kids now include vast swaths of the world’s population, burning with a passionate desire to clean up the public sector, expose the industrial scams, unearth all the secrets that have been kept for decades, put power back into the hands of the people as the liberal age promised long ago, while seeking justice for all the wrongdoing of these last hellish five years.
The Covid operation was an audacious global attempt to deploy all the power of government – in all the directions from and to which it flowed – in service of a goal never before attempted in history. To say that it failed is the understatement of the century. What it did was unleash fires of fury the world over, and whole legacy systems are in the process of burning down.
How deep is the corruption? There are no words to describe its breadth and depth.
Who is regretting this? It’s the legacy news media, the legacy academic establishment, the legacy corporate establishment, the legacy public-sector agencies, the legacy everything, and this regret knows no partisan or ideological bounds.
And who is celebrating this or, at least, enjoying the upheaval and cheering it on? It’s the independent media, the genuine grassroots, the deplorables and nonessentials, the pillaged and oppressed, the workers and peasants who were forced to serve the elites for years, those who have been truly marginalized through decades of exclusion from public life.
No one can be sure where this ends up – and no revolution or counterrevolution in history is without cost or complication – but this much is true: public life will never be the same for generations to come.
Popular Rationalism is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Subscribe
This is about two things: New World Order | One World Government
New World Order: Pornography, pedophilia, wickedness, starvation, rape, slavery, pestilence and “vaccines” against them reign supreme. Mankind becomes the playthings of psychopaths
One World Government: All governments, wealth, assets, & property combined into a ‘single administrative unit’ where one entity comprised of a few parasites at the top of the global power structure owns and controls everything on this planet, including you.
This hell-on-earth transformation is already well under way:
—
All of the planet-wide madness we’ve been experiencing was designed and implemented by a hierarchy that resides above the sovereignty of nations, at the very top of the global power structure. One does not simultaneously shut the entire world down over a cold virus – with all administrations using near identical language, policies, and slogans – without first having control of every government on earth. For the sake of simplicity, let’s call this higher power the WEF or the ‘World Economic Forum’.
This ridiculous Ukraine war is simply the next phase of the global enslavement directive that began in earnest with the lockstep lockdowns in 2020. The end-goal from this deliberate destruction and rebirth of everything is a one-world-government where one entity will own and control everything on this planet, including you. In the WEF’s own words: You will own nothing, and you will be happy. Or else.
—
You can learn more about this treason by your governments and how all of the pieces fit together, here:
https://tritorch.com/takeover
& here
https://tritorch.com/treason
Watch every video in both of those links for a greater understanding of the evil that besets us. The powers that should not be are evil incarnate and they are not messing around.
That’s a very good point made by the author, that the US is now being governed by men and women from a de facto third party. ‘Bout freakin’ time we had an option besides (D) and (R).
I’ll have another article on how Nextdoor is used to control the narrative, to keep that Overton Window pretty tight.
Who Funds Vote.org? An Overview of Donors and Contributions
Who Funds Vote.org? An Overview of Donors and Contributions
Vote.org is one of the most prominent nonpartisan voter registration and turnout organizations in the United States.
It operates as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, meaning it is tax-exempt and supported primarily through grants and donations.
Below is a concise overview of known funders, notable amounts, and context around its financial support.
Known Major Funders
Based on recent reporting and public nonprofit profiles, Vote.org received significant foundation support in 2022:
Schmidt Family Foundation — approximately $2 million (2022)
Hopewell Fund — around $1 million (2022)
McKnight Foundation — approximately $200,000 (2022)
Additional Early Support
Vote.org participated in Y Combinator’s Summer 2016 (S16) batch, receiving seed support and mentorship that helped it scale.
Founder Debra Cleaver also received a grant from the Knight Foundation in the organization’s earlier growth phase.
Public sources do not disclose precise amounts for these items.
Transparency and Percentages
As a 501(c)(3), Vote.org files an IRS Form 990 annually. These filings disclose high-level financials and some large contributions,
but not every donor is itemized, and some donors may be anonymous. As a result, a full public breakdown of
percentages of total revenue by donor is not readily available.
Independent evaluators (e.g., Charity Navigator) provide accountability and finance snapshots; readers seeking exact donor
compositions should review the latest Form 990 and audited financial statements.
Summary Table of Known Funders
Funder / Supporter
Approx. Amount
Notes
Schmidt Family Foundation
$2 million (2022)
Major single-year grant
Hopewell Fund
$1 million (2022)
Significant annual contribution
McKnight Foundation
$200,000 (2022)
Six-figure grant
Knight Foundation
Not disclosed
Early grant aid noted in public profiles
Y Combinator (S16)
Not disclosed
Accelerator seed support/mentorship
Other donors
Not disclosed
See IRS Form 990 filings for high-level detail
Bottom Line
Vote.org’s funding reflects a mix of major philanthropic foundations and earlier-stage support from an accelerator and fellowships.
While several large grants are publicly reported, a complete percentage breakdown by donor is not published in one place. For the most
accurate and current view, consult the organization’s latest IRS Form 990 and audited financials.
“Extending the TAT to cruise passengers threatens to deter visitors whose spending fuels this economic engine, risking job losses and eroding the financial stability of businesses dependent on tourism,” CLIA added.
The lawsuit points out that the state’s counties each add their own 3% surcharge on top of the state’s tax – bringing the tax to 14%.
Portions of the newly raised revenue would go into the “Climate Mitigation and Resiliency Special Fund” and the “Economic Development and Revitalization Special Fund,” according to the bill.
stock here: I had no idea who Jeffrey Sachs is. He started this long interview in the dark, and the sunrise occured in the background as it went on. He gives Trump more shit than I do.
I added this video on to another Duran video as an afterthought, but really, this is beyond important. Truth benefits the receiver, in almost all cases. Here is a summary, in my prior article is the full transcript.
———————————-
A New Global Reality
The world has entered a new era, marking the end of Western dominance that began around 1750. This shift is driven by the rise of a multipolar world, led by the rapid growth of countries like China and India, as well as the emergence of groups like the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.
The End of Western Hegemony
The Western world’s share of global population is only around 12%, a stark contrast to its historical dominance.
The idea of a “unipolar” world led by the United States is a dangerous delusion, a clash between arrogance and reality.
Many nations, particularly in the Global South, reject the idea of an “emperor” and unilateral demands from the U.S.
China’s economy is now larger than the U.S.’s when properly measured, and it is a leader in key technologies like electric vehicles and solar power.
The West’s perception of global power is based on a historical mirage, failing to recognize the fundamental changes in economic and technological power.
Europe’s Outdated Mindset
Europe is still operating with a foreign policy based on 19th and 20th-century delusions and fears.
The idea that Russia aims to invade Western Europe is an “insanity” with no basis in historical fact or current reality.
European leaders are making decisions in a vacuum, without communicating with their Russian counterparts.
Europe’s focus on this outdated conflict is a distraction from its own potential and a waste of its valuable resources, such as its great universities and culture.
The Cold War narrative, as taught in the West, is a one-sided story that ignores Russia’s legitimate security concerns stemming from historical invasions.
NATO’s eastward expansion, despite promises not to, is a key driver of current tensions and a direct result of a “block mentality” in the U.S. and U.K.
The U.S. and its allies treated post-Soviet Russia as a “third or fourth rate country,” fueling resentment and a return to primitive Russophobia.
Critiques of U.S. Leadership
The current U.S. presidency is described as having a lack of depth and knowledge regarding global affairs.
The U.S. military-industrial complex is a powerful force that the president is unable to resist.
U.S. foreign policy, as demonstrated by demands on countries like India to stop buying Russian oil, is perceived as stupid, arrogant, and diplomatically inept.
The “buck stops” with the president, and the current administration is seen as failing to perform its job effectively in a changing world.
The U.S. continues to pursue “primacy” and “full spectrum dominance,” a stated policy that is unrealistic and provokes other nations.
The U.S. is the biggest obstacle to global peace because it clings to an outdated notion of being the sole superpower, hindering effective diplomacy.
This video is relevant because it features Professor Jeffrey Sachs discussing U.S. foreign policy and the challenges to global peace, aligning with the core themes of the provided text.
Comment summary
The comment section for this video, featuring Professor Jeffrey Sachs, is overwhelmingly positive and reflects a strong agreement with his analysis of geopolitics. Many viewers praise Sachs as a “brilliant scholar,” a “maestro of geopolitics,” and a “hero of the truth.” The discussion is frequently described as a “masterclass” and an “amazing show” that provides a “breathtaking” and “thorough” history lesson.
Key Themes and Viewer Sentiments
Praise for Professor Sachs: A recurring sentiment is the high regard for Sachs’s intellect and integrity. Comments like “Professor Jeffrey Sacks walks on water” and “I would follow Mr Sachs into battle because I know he would have tried everything to prevent a battle to begin with” highlight the immense respect he commands. One user notes a shift in Sachs’s perspective from a more pro-US view to a more critical one, which they applaud.
Critique of Western Foreign Policy: Many commenters echo Sachs’s analysis that Western policy is based on “delusion” and “arrogance.” The phrase “A clash of reality and arrogance” from the video is frequently quoted. Viewers feel the West’s continued Cold War mentality, particularly the expansion of NATO and the use of sanctions, has been self-defeating and has ironically pushed Russia and China closer together, leading to the formation of BRICS. One commenter notes, “It was the west that created BRICS, by giving BRICS the impetus to unite. To escape sanctions destructive policies.”
Historical Context and Ignorance: There’s a shared sense of frustration that the Western public is largely ignorant of the historical context of the Cold War and post-WWII events. Comments reference the Soviet Union’s immense loss of life in WWII and its subsequent quest for security. One viewer, identifying as a “Boomer,” admits to being “schooled on official US Gov Propaganda” and appreciates Sachs’s alternative perspective. Several comments note the contrast between learning about “the crimes of communism” but never being taught “the crimes of capitalism” or the West’s continuous interference. This is a strong theme, suggesting a desire among viewers for a more balanced and complete historical education that acknowledges Western imperialism and meddling, not just in the Cold War, but throughout history.
Europe’s Predicament: Viewers agree that Europe is caught in a self-destructive loop by following the U.S. and its outdated policies. The phrase, “Europe will learn it the tough way,” captures this sentiment. One particularly poignant comment from a user in Flanders, Belgium, expresses concern that Europe is being “remade” through mass migration, which they tie to a “revenge for the events of WW II,” and urges the hosts to discuss this topic. This comment touches on a sensitive and controversial topic, reflecting a view among some viewers that current events are part of a larger, long-term geopolitical and social engineering strategy.
Humor and Personal Connections: The comments are not all serious. There’s a running joke about the phrase “you such a Lindsey Graham” becoming a new insult, reflecting Sachs’s characterization of the senator. Another commenter playfully suggests that Sachs sounds like an “anti-depressant,” highlighting the calming and reassuring nature of his analysis for those feeling overwhelmed by the news. Some commenters express personal gratitude, with one user stating they are “55 years young” and feel like a student listening to the professor. Another mentions the beautiful sunrise visible from Sachs’s window, showing a personal connection to the interview’s setting.
In summary, the comment section reveals a community of viewers deeply engaged with the geopolitical analysis presented. They see Professor Sachs as a beacon of reason and truth in a world they feel is dominated by propaganda. They agree with his assessment that the West’s policies are based on arrogance and an outdated worldview, and they are hungry for more complete and honest historical narratives.
stock here: If you want truth about Ukraine and Europe Politics, and also how the USA is complicit in this plot
from a comment:
The killer before turning himself in called in various media & made a statement that: #1 A 52yo Ukrainian national NO hasn’t been approached by Russian Intelligence, but was targetting ANY & all Zelenski hunta official as a revenge for his son MIA since 2024 on the front & Zarubii just had bad luck to be easily approached. #2 He hopes that thx to a future prisoner exchange he will be allowed by the Russians to search for his son’s body in order to give him proper burial… My guess other father & mothers will start following his example… soon!
And another well respected guy from Columbia University of all places!!! Like Mr. Mersheimer from University of Chicago, great intellects from the bellies of the liberal / leftists hell holes.
The end of an Era, the end of the Western Dominance, 1750 to around 2000. In 1500 European expansion began.
Here is a cleaned up transcript:
Gemini
All right, we are live with Alexander Mccuris in London, and we are happy and honored to have with us once again on The Duran, Professor Jeffrey Sachs. Professor Sachs, how are you doing today?
Great to be with you guys. Great work you’re doing.
Thank you. Likewise, great to have you on. And I have the links to uh to Jeffrey Sachs’s work in the description box down below. I will also add those links as a pinned comment when the live stream is over. So, a big hello to everyone that is watching us on all the platforms. A big thank you and shout out to our chat moderators. We have a lot of news to get to. So, Alexander, Professor Sachs, let’s jump right into it.
Let’s indeed because as Alex said, an awful lot of news and we’ve had a whole succession of very big summits and meetings in China. And the most important things for me are two. Firstly, India and China starting to get on good terms with each other. To repeat again a point I’ve made in my last program on my channel, I think this is unequivocally a good thing. I don’t understand why we don’t see it in those terms in the West. An unequivocally good thing and it opens up enormous possibilities.
The second which is a commercial agreement is Power of Siberia 2. Gas which was flowing to the west is now going to flow to the east. Now contrast the spirit and atmosphere of the meetings in China, and by the way, Professor Sachs, who is of course with us, was a person whom I remember last year telling us that he thought that India and China were going to start to sort out their differences. I remember that he said it on one of our programs that we did with him. Anyway, contrast the positive forward-looking approaches being taken in these meetings in Tianjin between all of these various Asian leaders, East Asian leaders and Central Asian leaders and the backward-looking views that we have in Europe.
Um, another meeting tomorrow of the coalition of the willing in Paris, moving troops around who we don’t have to fight, whom? To fight the Russians or not to fight the Russians or to deter them to me. I mean, the other thing about this is it is so 20th century in the worst possible sense.
And Professor Sachs has made, I think, some extremely pertinent and important points about Europe needing a new foreign policy, a new foreign policy approach. More than that, actually, I’d say a philosophy and a framework. So, since we always are so keen to have you, Professor Sachs, but we know how busy you are, maybe after that introduction perhaps you can go straight in and make your comments about Europe. What what’s happening now?
Yeah, thank you so much. You know what what is happening now is of course the end of an era. It’s the end of a actually two a sub-era and an era. The end of the era is is the end of the Western dominance over the world system. And this is a dominance that began with the European empires and then transferred to the US empire after World War II. But that dominance essentially lasted from around 1750 to around 2000. So around 250 years, you could add one more 250-year period. Helpfully, starting in 1500, European imperial expansion began.
That’s with the voyages of Columbus and Vasco da Gama. So the voyages both to the west and to the east from Europe led to the beginning of the European global expansion. But Europe had its rivals especially in the old world. In the new world, people succumbed to the old world diseases mainly. But in the old world, Asia didn’t simply succumb to Europe. But over a period of around 250 years, European powers gained their ascendancy and Britain became the dominant of all of the European empires by the 19th century with the defeat of Napoleon.
So we all grew up in the age when it was taken for granted that Europe and then after 1945 Europe and the US quote ran the world. And indeed in 1950 if you looked at the global landscape, the vast wealth, the financial power, the technological power, the new atomic age, everything was in this western world plus the Soviet Union. But China, India, Africa, Latin America had no discernable role. Actually quite interestingly the western world also reached a peak of its share of world population.
Not only power but we should remember that Europe relative to Africa and the Middle East was much more populous then than today in relative terms. Europe was a larger population than Africa and its Middle East neighborhood. Now it’s half the population of those two. So, I was born in 1954 in a European-led world. There was a cold war and a very dangerous one between the Soviet Union and the United States world, but there was absolutely no doubt that this was a western dominated world.
The main point I think we see it in a hundred different ways is that that is over and it ended actually probably a quarter century ago but it wasn’t noticed as such it after the demise of the Soviet Union while a new multipolar world was actually emerging especially with the rise of China but not only the rise of China also the economic growth of India and others.
The United States was asserting something quite different, which is not only is it the western-led world, the US now is the only superpower in the world, it became the unipolar world. And this was a great delusion and a great arrogance and very badly mistimed because people in Washington are not very clever to begin with. I can absolutely assure you it’s not a snide remark. They just absolutely don’t know what they’re doing. But in any event, they asserted their unipolarity at precisely the time that the western led world was coming to an end.
And so we’ve been at a clash of reality and arrogance for a quarter century where the United States and even vestigially Europe and within Europe I have to say Britain which is the craziest of all in terms of the gap between reality and and um and image or delusion thought the west runs the world. We can tell Putin what to do. We can tell Xi Jinping what to do. We can tell Modi what to do.
We can tell Lula what to do. We can tell anyone what to do because we are the West. We are the United States and the reality of a world in fundamental change. Two points about the fundamental change that I think are worth noting. First and I find it stunning and counterintuitive because of the bubble that we live in in the west. But if you add the population of the United States, which is about 340 million people right now, the population of the European Union, the population of the UK, so that North Atlantic world, you come to something around 900 million people, slightly more than 10% of the world population. If you want, and I think it’s wrong, but if you want to say that the US-led world includes Japan and Korea, because I don’t think that will be true for long. If you want to add Australia and New Zealand, and you can add Singapore if you want and a very few other places, you get to around 12% of the world population.
Well, this should tell us something to begin with. How could 12% of the world population in today’s world in which technology is everywhere in which the internet is everywhere in in which capacities nuclear weapons have spread to nine countries in the world and on and on. How could it ever be that 12% of the world thinks that it runs the world anymore? that the others don’t have a view, don’t have power, don’t have capacity to resist unilateral demands.
This is the backdrop for me of everything that we’re seeing that we are in a delusion in our English language, Western media, uh, ignorant, politically ignorant world in which Washington, Brussels, London, Berlin, Paris think that this is the center of the world and honestly 100 years ago it was for good and for bad but it ain’t now not even close and so we have two major groupings uh you discussed them at length yesterday beautifully uh the BRICS which is nearly half the world population and half the world GDP and that is a grouping that includes the original five Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, but now includes Egypt and Ethiopia, Iran, the Emirates, Indonesia, and that’s a worldwide group stretching from Brazil to China.
So, it includes South America, it includes Africa, it includes the Middle East, it includes Russia and Asia. And we have the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which began very much as an Asian Eurasian group but an East Eurasian group of China, India, Russia and the four of the five countries of Central Asia, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, Usbekiststan and Tajikiststan and Belarus added Indonesia and a number of partners. ers, but that’s an Asian grouping. And as you said, these two are very closely related. They each have nearly half the world population, not exactly the same membership, but they have two overriding realities to them.
One is they’re the fast growing part of the world economy, and that itself is worth the saying something about. And second, they don’t want to be told what to do by Donald Trump. And the best phrasing of that was by President Lula of Brazil, who said a few months ago, we don’t need an emperor. And this is the basic point, which is they’re not they’re not even anti-American, by the way. That is a basic fundamental misunderstanding. They’d actually like normal relations.
The point I’ve been making to all of them for years is you can’t trust the United States on this because the US till today in its delusion is aiming for hegemony. Clearly, it’s not a propaganda. It’s the stated policy of the United States to have what they call primacy or what the military calls full spectrum dominance. This is the idea I’m trying to say in Washington for 20 years. You guys are crazy because you’re the US alone. Okay, you’re 4.2% of the world. We are not in 1945 or 1950 or even 1990.
China is bigger than the US economy properly measured. That’s not a myth. That’s a reality. China is far bigger in industrial capacity. And if you go to China, as I do several times a year, China is ahead of the United States on many technologies, not all, but many technologies and notably technologies that the world really needs right now. It will dominate electric vehicles for 20 years to come. It will absolutely dominate solar power production of which it has essentially no rivals in the world.
It will dominate zero emission ocean shipping, something of interest to Greece and interest to to the world. Because it makes the ships. The United States doesn’t make the ships. Europe doesn’t make the ships except in much much smaller numbers and you could go down a long list of technologies like this. So the point is to just realign our understanding and our delusions of grandeur that come understandably from several hundred years of actual power.
Not power nicely wielded, not power responsibly wielded in my view. So I think from a moral point of view, nothing very attractive about it. And as an economist, I have followed Adam Smith all my life because he was an anti-imperialist very explicitly said, “Give up the US colonies and trade with them. You don’t need to own them. You just need to trade with them.” And that’s a very good point of view.
Those who say, “Well, at least Europe spread its knowledge and science and so forth.” Well, yes, Europe did that, but it didn’t have to do that through empire and war and conquest and forced famines and many other things that went along with European Empire. It could have done that through trade, commerce, decent human relations with other countries. So we have the world now much more equal in of course in literacy, in schooling, in technology, in industrial capacity, even overtaking the western world in in many different areas.
And we still have in the west this idea that this is a we’re preserving the western-led world, but that’s over. And then we ha happen to have one of the most sorry to say it but one of one of the least knowledgeable conceivable presidents in the United States who sorry but knows nothing about any of this. He was a real estate developer. He has no training in anything of this sort. I granted he knows how to build golf courses I think in many places in the world but understanding these changes in the world actually requires something more.
Strangely, in Britain, the idea that the British Empire still exists through the US Empire and it’s going to be defended and we can use every means from MI6 and covert operations to global dominance and so forth somehow still persists. I marvel at it. As you say every day, better to take care of the national health system rather than worrying about running the world 80 years after losing the empire. But that mirage still exists and France still has it and God knows what’s in the German mind of Mr. Mertz right now, but none of it makes any sense.
And when you come to Europe, the point of my article is precisely what you said. Europe is still battling its 19th century and 20th century delusions and wars well into the 21st century. And the idea that Russia’s greatest aim in the world is to invade Western Europe is an insanity. and such a violation of any basic knowledge of history that you cannot believe a grown-up could say this, much less a grownup in a position of any responsibility.
Yet Europe is twisting itself into a pretzel that is completely useless because of fears that have no basis in reality whatsoever. And those fears are not dispelled because Europe doesn’t understand anymore. I mean European leaders I should say do not understand anymore. If you want to understand the other side, pick up the phone, take a flight, invite a counterpart to sit down and have a cup of coffee.
They’d actually learn something. So bottom line, the reality is a multi-olar world. You see it in the economics, you see it in the technology, you see it in the military force. The delusions are still western dominance and within that US dominance. That gap between reality and delusion is large and extremely dangerous. Donald Trump illustrates it almost every day by giving orders to the Chinese or to the Brazilians or to the Indians or to the Russians. Literal orders.
You must have a ceasefire unconditional by August 8, he tells Russia. You must stop a court case, he tells Brazil. you must stop buying Russian oil, he tells India. And these are not only not put diplomatically or intelligently, they’re on a social post where he’s demanding of supposed vassels which vastly are outnumber Americans.
He’s telling them what to do every day. And then he has these completely ignorant minions around him, completely ignorant, who blow up any last vestiges of diplomacy. Like this Peter Navaro who is I’m sure I claim it every day. I think he’s the most incompetent person that my economics department at Harvard ever gave a PhD degree to. I do not remember the guy. I’m almost sure he could never have been in my class because of the utter nonsense that’s spouted. But this guy’s trotted out every day to make it worse in breaking up US relations with 1.5 billion people in India. The the only slight thing, Alexander, that I would take I’d quibble with you on a point you made yesterday.
You attributed a lot of this to Lindsey Graham. I agree with that. I call him, by the way, I’m sorry. I hope I don’t upset the show or anything else, but I call him absolutely the stupidest senator in the US Senate because I’ve watched him for a long time and he’s an idiot and he’s just a fool.
Not only a war monger, but an idiot. But in any event, it’s not right to say that this is his doing, not Donald Trump’s doing. Because ultimately, I don’t agree with Truman on many things with our President Truman who needlessly dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and rather blightly did so.
But he was right when he said the buck stops here in the presidency. And we need a presidency that functions that really functions. And we don’t have it right now. and it’s just swinging in the wind every day because they don’t have even the depth of knowledge with inside the White House to know what they’re doing right now. And so, yes, you’re right. Trump is responding to these I mean basically to the military-industrial complex which is you know 80 years built into the US system. He is responding to that, but it’s actually the job of the president to say no. That’s really the president’s job and he doesn’t he he can’t do it.
That is a very good point and I accept it completely.
Just a sec. Yeah. No, it’s just a little a little quibble.
Can can I can I take up on a few of the points that you said because of course I was born in 1961, an interesting year. It was the year of Gagarin’s flight. It was also the year of the Berlin crisis. And of course, the first half of my life was lived through the Cold War. And I think the thing that many people don’t understand about the Cold War is that the Cold War was ultimately a struggle for Europe. It was a contest between two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, with different ideological perspectives about Europe.
Um, now whether the Soviets ever really had any actual ambitious aggressive plans to take over Europe, I personally very very much doubt. But the entire rhetoric of the time was that this was a conflict about Europe. And when we thought about the rest of the world in Europe at that time, it was always seen as part of the game about Europe. In other words, the superpowers maneuvering for advantage in the rest of the world in order ultimately to advance their objectives in Europe. So even the Cuban missile crisis, for example, was often framed by many people, perhaps rightly, perhaps probably wrongly, as being ultimately about Berlin. that Kruev moved his missiles to Cuba so that he could force us to make concessions about Berlin.
Now what that did was that it made us in Europe feel very important. It was very frightening but it also made us feel very important because we seemed to be right at the center of the great events in history. Um, this is where the contest, the great contest for the future was being played out. the cold war ends and suddenly we discover that you know we’re not that important after all and um the rest of the world has moved on and is continuing to move on and that is very very difficult for many people in Europe particularly the political leaders to accept and understand so I get the sense sometimes that what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to take ourselves back to that world of the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s when the conflict was there in Europe.
We continue to be imported in the same way that we were. We trot out all the same rhetoric. We have the same kind of policies and things of that kind because that made us feel important. And of course it is a colossal a disastrous distraction from the realities of the world which you have just described far more aly and with far more knowledge than I can possibly have. And what worries me as a European and I am one I’m a European to my call is that by doing that we are frittering away in Europe those things that we still have which we can bring constructively to the table that will help to shape the future in a way that I think would be positive for all of humanity because we have contributed so much in Europe.
I mean I’m sometimes very critical of what the Europeans done but they’ve done amazing extraordinary things. So we are failing to bring that and of course at the same time we are marginalizing ourselves and your point about the need for a new foreign policy.
It’s not just about breaking with the United States which is absolutely something we have to do. It is also about thinking about Europe, its role, what it could constructively do. And there are so much which we could constructively do. We still have great universities, great science, extraordinary culture, all of that is being frittered away. So anyway, any any I I was just in mind now to make some points about this.
No, no, exactly right. But let let me add a couple of uh points to this because this struggle for Europe itself needs to be unpacked. I as I said was born in 1954. um and so I’m completely a cold war baby. I grew up absolutely in the midst of this and was trained and embued uh the all of the the the legends of the Cold War.
And my wife, by the way, was born in Prague. So she was born in Soviet dominated central and eastern Europe. We know all about that. She shook hands with Gagarin actually after his orbit as a young pioneer in in Prague when he came for a heroic visit. So this was absolutely the millieu now of of my upbringing. The American idea and the European idea and the NATO idea was that we faced a an implacably expansionist ungodly totalitarian communist international movement and that we were defending freedom and democracy against the expansion of the Soviet Union.
I would say that was taken as 99.9% of Americans and and Europeans at the time. And I crossed Checkpoint Charlie twice in Berlin. I saw the Berlin wall with my own eyes as a young person of course on many occasions. Um, so the world seemed to be divided and the foe on the other side seemed to be implacable. And just to translate till today, communism is gone, Soviet Union’s gone, but the rhetoric about Russia is almost identical to the rhetoric of the cold war period. As if there’s no change. Okay. But my point is even that cold war vision if you grow up and spend decades studying learning working on both sides working in Moscow as I have working all over the world but especially in these two sides of Europe.
The whole Cold War narrative is a huge blunder and tragedy in its way because there’s another story to it that’s completely different from the one that you and I grew up with. And that story is the Soviet at the time until today, the Russian search for security. And we don’t give this one moment’s thought. And I can tell you, I didn’t even hear one minute of it growing up or going through university. And I had a good university education at Harvard, undergraduate and graduate school. I didn’t hear one day, not one day in my life as a student that there was another side to the Cold War story. Now, I may have taken the wrong classes, but I’m telling you what the what the atmosphere was, which was an implacable foe. We read Solzhenitsyn we knew about the the crimes of the Soviet Union and so forth.
We never stopped to ask one moment, well, 27 million people in the Soviet Union died at Nazi hands. What is the implication of that for the aftermath of World War II? What might have been done? What were the Soviet or the Russian security concerns at the time? Now, since then, I’ve spent 30 years pretty much in depth in in understanding these issues, and it’s a point that I really want people to understand. when you lose 27 million lives or China by the way with its military victory parade today. China lost a comparable number of lives in its war with Japan which by the way we never discussed one day in my youth.
The fact that China I mean I knew that that China was invaded by Japan but anything about the actual war or the scale of loss not a moment. Okay, coming back to Europe, the Soviets or the Russians said, “How do we protect ourselves against another invasion, against a remilitarized Germany, round three?” Because after all, the first world war was a German war in part on Russia. The second world war was Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union. 27 million dead. And the Soviet side said, “We need a peace agreement that addresses our security interests.” And the United States essentially said no. And Britain said no.
And we know even in the spring of 1945, Mr. Churchill was already asking about the possibility of maybe just the possibility of invading the Soviet Union, our wartime ally, in Operation Unthinkable. It’s pretty much unthinkable that your ally has just lost 27 million people, and you’re asking your war command about maybe we should invade this fall because the implacable hatred of Russia went way back. And in Britain, it went back to the 1840s. And this is part of our story. The United States absolutely rejected a core agreement made in Potsdam at the end of the Second World War for a demilitarized unified Germany. And instead it said, “We’ll take our part, the three occupied zones by Britain, the US, and France, so-called. We’ll build that into a new Federal Republic of Germany or West Germany.
We will remilitarize it and it will join NATO, our new military organization, in 1955.” And all of this time from 45 onward, the Soviet Union rightly is saying, “But excuse me, what what about our security? We just lost 27 million people.” That wasn’t a distant history. That was an immediate reality in which the US was remilitarizing Germany. And if you go back now, as I have for many, many years, and look at choices that were made, we had many diplomats led by George Kennan in the United States who said, “Take the deal. A neutral, demilitarized Germany will end the cold war.” The Soviet Union tried to prove it again and again, including most notably in Austria in 1955 when there was an agreement Austria would become neutral. It would not join NATO.
The Soviet occupying forces left Eastern Austria and never bothered Austria again. They were saying to the US, “Do the same for Germany and the cold war ends.” But the US UK idea was block mentality. And this is why what’s happened in the last 35 years is so poignant because what President Gorbachev at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s was about fundamentally was ending that division by ending the two military blocks. And to do it, he went first and disbanded the Warsaw Pact. And in the US and UK mentality, which is crazed in its way, I have to say, they said, “Oh, that’s not peace. We just won. We won.
Now we can do all that we’ve always wanted.” And so formally, World War II was ended in 1990 because the United States had rejected a treaty to end World War II up until the reunification of Germany. In that reunification, the US and Germany explicitly unambiguously said that NATO would not enlarge. It should have said NATO is ended, but they said NATO will not move one inch eastward. Terribly, Gorbachev did not put it into the 4 plus2 treaty because he said this is a treaty not about NATO but about Germany. So there’s a reason it’s not in there. But the commitment was no more NATO. But the American and British mentality, and I add the British, they had no weight in military terms, but in psychological terms, we were living the British imperial dream.
But just as the American Empire, as soon as Germany was reunified, the United States, without losing a beat, said, “Now NATO goes eastward. We won. We are the military alliance. And we would never listen one moment to the Russians say, “But we’re we’re not at war. We just disbanded. Why are you pushing NATO? Why we’re we’re not supposed to have any NATO enlargement?” And the US attitude was, as you absolutely know, you are a third or fourth rate country. You count for nothing. We’d like to pump your oil for you. So, we want Chevron and Exxon to be there. Other than that, you are a quote gas station with nuclear weapons.
You will listen to us. You have no choice. And the grand puba of that theory in the 1990s was Brzezinski who was by the way to me a very nice man because I was advising Poland and he helped me in the advice you know to get my advice actually implemented and and it worked. But when it came to Russia he was a true Polish patriot. He hated Russia. that goes back to the 17th century. And he hated Russia. So in 1997, he laid it all out as clearly as it can be laid out. Expand NATO, expand Europe, Russia will have nothing to do but to exceed because it could never join with China. That’s unthinkable. He has a whole chapter in his book about why Russia won’t sign up with China.
So we have falsehood and delusion, a complete one-sided story about the cold war itself, which is really wrong historically. And then after 1991, we have the grandiosity of supposed unipolarity. And now we have the idea since that unipolarity didn’t exist and Russia has its security interests. Now we have the return of the most primitive kind of rousophobia imaginable. So Europe meets as as you note every two or three days in terror of Russia with these fools around the table without talking to the Russians at all.
And so it is this self-fulfilling, grandiose, delusional sense of power and vulnerability together and thinking that the United States will you know pull them out of bail them out pull them out of this fire and protect them from the the Russian bearer. And as you said completely rightly this incredibly stupid set of demands for example on India which I think is probably the single stupidest single stupidest moment of foreign policy of modern America that I know of that was promoted by the Europeans. so you were completely right to point out that yes, Lindsey Graham had the idea, quote unquote, Donald Trump implemented it, but the Europeans were desperate for it.
Secondary tariffs, secondary sanctions, stop the Indians. So all of it is such a bad misreading of history, of current events, of tying yourself in knots, of failing to look at a map, of failing to do the most basic arithmetic of world population or technology or industrial production or direction of trade. And you just watch these people, they don’t know anything. and they don’t want to learn anything and they don’t want to hear anything and especially in Euro
Data on the number of foreigners who left the USA this year is currently being reported by multiple sources, but there are significant discrepancies in the figures and the methods used to arrive at them. The numbers you cited are in the same range as some of these reports.
A Yahoo search shows even the NYPost thinking that are 1M gone is pretty rational.
Here’s a breakdown of the available information, including the data and methods from credible organizations:
Key Findings and Reported Numbers
Pew Research Center: A leading non-partisan research organization, Pew analyzed U.S. Census Bureau data and found that the foreign-born population in the U.S. declined by nearly 1.5 million between January and June of this year. This marks the first decline in the immigrant population in decades. The report indicates that the foreign-born population, which includes both legal and unauthorized residents, was 53.3 million in January and fell to 51.9 million by June.
Center for Immigration Studies (CIS): This organization, which advocates for reduced immigration, published an analysis estimating a decline of 2.2 million in the total foreign-born population from January to July. Their report notes that this figure includes a loss of 600,000 non-citizens with legal status.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS): The DHS Secretary announced that 1.6 million illegal aliens had left the country in her first 200 days in office. The DHS attributed this decline to new policies and an ad campaign urging undocumented immigrants to leave.
Methodological Considerations and Discrepancies
It’s crucial to understand the methods behind these numbers, as they explain the variations in the reports:
Reliance on Different Surveys and Data:
Pew Research Center and Center for Immigration Studies both base their analyses on data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of households, and changes in the foreign-born population are estimated from these surveys.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) figure of 1.6 million is based on its own internal data, but specific details on how this estimate was calculated have not been widely released, according to reports from news outlets like CBS News. This figure is specifically for “illegal aliens” and does not necessarily account for legal immigrants who may have left the country.
Challenges with Survey Data:
Experts, including those cited by CBS News, caution that using the CPS to measure short-term changes in the foreign-born population comes with limitations. The sample size for this specific demographic is small, which can lead to wide margins of error.
The Census Bureau itself advises against using the CPS to measure the levels or changes in immigration.
One study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) suggests that the numbers from the CPS are likely flawed. The PIIE analysis argues that a drop of 2.2 million immigrants would lead to an “implausible” drop in the overall U.S. adult population and massive, nonsensical shifts in the labor market. Their projection for net migration in all of 2025 is a much smaller number, ranging from a gain of 115,000 to a loss of 525,000.
Defining “Left the USA”:
The term “foreigners who left the USA” is complex. The reports often use a measure of net migration, which is the difference between the number of immigrants entering and emigrants leaving the country. A decline in the foreign-born population does not necessarily mean a mass exodus, but rather that emigration and deportations have exceeded new arrivals.
The Pew report notes that the decline is an “early indication that President Trump’s hard-line immigration agenda is leading people to depart—whether through deportation or by choice.”
DHS’s figure focuses on “illegal aliens,” while Pew and CIS include both legal and unauthorized immigrants in their total foreign-born population figures.
In conclusion, while multiple reports suggest a significant decline in the foreign-born population this year, the exact number is a subject of debate among researchers. The most commonly cited figure is around 1.5 million, based on analysis from the non-partisan Pew Research Center, but other sources have reported both higher and lower numbers. These discrepancies stem from the different data sources used and the inherent challenges in accurately measuring population changes, particularly for unauthorized immigrants.
stock here: the FLCCC had some great work on early treament, but some of their work grew too long, when a document reaches 12 pages, and it is medically language based, most people will not be able to get through it, it practically ceases to exist. Print all these pages, and tape to inside of medicine cabinet, and order everything that you don’t have on hand.
