Every weekend (almost) I share five articles/essays/reports with you. I select these over the course of the week because they are either insightful, informative, interesting, important, or a combination of the above.

Share

The long-held “nightmare scenario” of US foreign policy is a Russian-German (the latter meaning ‘Europe’) alliance. The war in Ukraine has effectively put this nightmare to bed for the time being, but at the cost of pushing Russia into the embrace of China. This de facto alliance, one borne of necessity and reaction to US moves on the global chessboard, is now the main challenge for America for the short to medium term. It was manageable during the early phase of the Cold War, but the equation has changed quite a bit then, as Russia is much less powerful an opponent than the Soviet Union was, but China is a much stronger force due to the very rapid development of its economy and society. Where once Mao’s China was the junior partner to Stalin’s USSR, the roles have reversed as Beijing is now senior to Moscow.

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. By this decade, China was already supposed to have opened up its political system via liberalization driven by the creation of a new class of Chinese millionaires and billionaires…a class created by trade with the USA. Americans worked under the assumption (or hope) that this new class would challenge the CCP’s grip on power in China, permitting the USA to play one side against the other for its own benefit. Instead, the Chinese saw what happened to the USSR when it permitted both political and economic liberalization at the same time, and took the lesson that Perestroika (economic liberalization) was necessary, but that Glasnost was a death sentence for the party and country.

In 2010, all the talk was about ‘Chimerica’:

Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski sees a geopolitical shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific. He calls China and the US “the Group of Two that could change the world,” while economic historian Niall Ferguson coined the term “Chimerica” to describe his view that the two countries are so closely joined, they have long since formed “one economy.”

Obama made a go of it:

Now Clinton’s successor and fellow Democrat Barack Obama is looking for ways to work more closely with the giant nation, with its 1.3 billion people. Obama believes that cooperation with China is essential in the coming years. “The major challenges of the 21st century, from climate change to nuclear proliferation to economic recovery, are challenges that touch both our nations, and challenges that neither of our nations can solve by acting alone,” the US president said during his recent visit to China.

One decade later and the dream of Chimerica was all but a distant memory:

By this point in time, the USA was already supposed to have closed up shop in the Middle East and moved many of its assets to the Far East in order to contain/strangle China. Events got in the way, whether they be Russia extending the life of the Ba’athist regime in Syria, or Hamas/Hezbollah/Iran’s conflict with Israel. Something always seems to get in the way of the infamous ‘Pivot to East Asia’.

At present, the Trump regime is working overtime to create an ad hoc anti-China trade alliance, using both carrot and stick with its allies and with neutrals. Simultaneously, the Chinese are prolonging Russia’s ability to sustain a notable amount of casualties in its war in Ukraine through various ways, one of which includes supplying it much-needed parts for its war machine.

Make no mistake about it: the de facto anti-American alliance between Russia and China (and North Korea as well) is one borne of necessity and existential interests, but it is not one without its own gaps and internal inconsistencies. It is within these gaps that the Americans hope to drive a Mack Truck through in order to strengthen its hegemonic ambition, as Patricia M. Kim advises:

No moment captured the shifting global balance of power more vividly than when Chinese leader Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un walked in lockstep on the red carpet at China’s military parade in early September. The three autocrats, despite a long history of mutual suspicion, projected a show of unity against Washington. The message behind the carefully managed scene was unmistakable: China is at the center of a rising anti-Western bloc, while the United States is adrift—divided at home, faltering abroad, and rebuffed by its rivals.

U.S. President Donald Trump has made no secret of what he wants from each of the three leaders: a peace deal with Putin to end the war in Ukraine, a trade pact with Xi to rebalance the U.S.-Chinese economic relationship, and a summit with Kim to revive stalled diplomacy on the Korean Peninsula. But all three have spurned his overtures. Instead of engaging on Washington’s terms, Kim, Putin, and Xi are now linking arms in Beijing, flaunting not only their growing willingness to challenge U.S. leadership but also their ability to do so in concert.

But beneath this show of solidarity, China, North Korea, and Russia remain uneasy partners. What the three countries have is a tactical alignment rooted not in trust or shared values but in overlapping grievances and necessity. History demonstrates that they are not natural allies. Each state remains wary of entrapment and is unwilling to subordinate its national interests to those of the others. And crucially, each still seeks something from the United States—leverage that Washington must wield wisely.

Imperial management. But can it be managed in light of this challenge?

Some history:

The last time China, North Korea, and Russia aligned this closely was during the Korean War, which ended badly for all. Kim Il Sung, the grandfather of the current North Korean leader, invaded South Korea with Soviet and Chinese support. The gamble failed. North Korea became the isolated, impoverished pariah state it is today, while its southern rival, backed by the United States, flourished. For China, the intervention was costly, in both blood and treasure. Hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers were killed or wounded, and scarce resources were drained from its economy, which was already battered by years of civil war and World War II. Worse, the war entrenched a permanent U.S. military presence on its doorstep and upended Beijing’s plans for Taiwan. Fearing a broader communist advance, the Truman administration reversed its hands-off approach and signed a mutual defense treaty with Taipei, indefinitely forestalling China’s goal of annexing the island, which remains unfinished business for China’s leaders to this day. For Beijing, the Korean War offered a sobering lesson: aligning with volatile partners, such as Pyongyang, out of ideological solidarity can incur enormous costs and generate long-term liabilities.

“Common cause masking old divisions and simmering mistrust”:

Today, more than 30 years after the end of the Cold War, the three countries have found common cause again in seeking to erode Washington’s power and influence. But the carefully choreographed display of unity masks old divisions and simmering distrust. Unlike Pyongyang and Moscow, Beijing seeks to reshape the global order without setting it ablaze. It aims to weaken U.S. influence without fully severing its profitable ties with the West. China has extended Moscow a critical economic lifeline and supplied dual-use goods that have helped sustain the Kremlin’s war in Ukraine. But it has done so because the costs have been manageable, limited to reputational damage among Western states. Crucially, the war between Russia and Ukraine has not yet posed a direct threat to China’s own security or economic stability. If that changed, Beijing’s calculus could shift quickly.

The cracks in the Chinese-Russian relationship are especially evident on the Korean Peninsula. China is deeply uneasy about Russia’s expanding ties with North Korea. Moscow has turned to Pyongyang for munitions and troops to sustain its war in Ukraine and the two countries have signed a mutual defense pact. Putin has now eclipsed Xi as Kim’s most important partner—frustrating Beijing’s effort to be the dominant player on the Korean Peninsula. Over the past two years, Russia has added to China’s concerns by transferring sensitive military technology, including air defense missile systems and drone capabilities, to North Korea. In private, Chinese analysts express concerns about the limited visibility over these transfers and their destabilizing potential.

China as most risk-adverse of the three:

What Beijing fears is a lack of control. In flash points such as the Taiwan Strait or the South China Sea, China can calibrate the pace of escalation. But North Korean adventurism, backed by Russia, could create volatility on China’s doorstep that it cannot easily manage. As in the Korean War, China risks being dragged into a crisis by a reckless junior partner supported by Moscow. Russia, for its part, is less concerned about the consequences of instability in Asia. Putin’s focus is squarely on reasserting Russian influence in eastern Europe. Should tensions escalate on the Korean Peninsula or in the Taiwan Strait, it is far from certain that Moscow would be willing to shoulder serious costs to support either of its partners.

The cards in America’s hand:

The uneasy convergence of China, North Korea, and Russia may not give the United States a sweeping strategic opening, but it still leaves Washington room to maneuver if it engages each adversary with purpose and discipline. The United States still holds meaningful leverage with China because Beijing seeks economic stability. It wants to avoid any direct confrontation with the United States that would jeopardize its rise. Beijing also shares, at least in principle, several U.S. objectives: preserving regional stability, preventing a nuclear cascade in northeast Asia, and witnessing a peaceful resolution to the war in Ukraine. Chinese officials have repeatedly emphasized their support for cease-fire negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, portraying dialogue as the only way to resolve the conflict.

But overlapping interests alone are insufficient to spur cooperation. If Washington wants to translate these shared goals into tangible outcomes, it must proceed deliberately. The United States should make clear that progress on a trade deal and a possible Trump-Xi summit are contingent on China demonstrating its willingness to cooperate on areas of mutual concern—particularly curbing North Korea’s unchecked nuclear and missile expansion and ending the war in Ukraine.

A very notable concession from this Brookings fellow:

The United States does not need to engineer a split between China and Russia, nor could it anytime soon.

Kim argues that China is the best venue to disrupt this alliance:

Beijing will resist overt pressure to publicly break ranks with Moscow or Pyongyang. But private pressure might work to sway China, especially when its larger priorities are on the line. Despite its defiant tone, Beijing still seeks a trade deal with Washington that lowers tariffs and preserves a degree of stability in the U.S.-Chinese relationship. Failure to secure a deal may not be catastrophic for China’s economy. But it would add unwanted volatility, compounding existing economic strains and increasing discontent among the Chinese public. By raising the stakes and conditioning Chinese cooperation on Ukraine and North Korea as integral to a broader bilateral agreement, Washington could force Beijing to make modest but meaningful adjustments, such as slowing purchases of Russian oil, curbing dual-use exports to Moscow, and signaling to Pyongyang that denuclearization must remain a long-term goal.

A “diplomatic off-ramp” as the opening with Russia:

With Russia, Putin has shown little interest in peace talks that would require him to abandon his maximalist demands in Ukraine. He remains committed to outlasting U.S. and European support for Ukraine. But over time, Russia will need an off-ramp as troop losses mount, economic strains deepen, and public fatigue grows. Neither China nor North Korea can give Putin the diplomatic exit he needs. Only Ukraine and its partners can. Washington should not rush into negotiations; rather, it should use this leverage to carefully shape the conditions for a just and sustainable resolution to the war. The United States should coordinate with European allies to enhance Ukraine’s capacity for self-defense, provide credible security guarantees, and apply mounting economic pressure on Moscow. A key part of that strategy must involve pressuring China and India to scale back their support for Russia’s wartime economy—not through public ultimatums, which often provoke defiance, but through forceful backchannel diplomacy—allowing Beijing and New Delhi to change course without appearing to capitulate to U.S. pressure.

A concluding statement:

The red carpet moment in Beijing was meant to unsettle Washington—and it should. It underscored how far the United States’ rivals have come in teaming up, even if their interests do not completely align. Yet China, Russia, and North Korea each still have reasons to deal with the United States. If Washington can resist the urge for improvised, optics-driven diplomacy; recognize its sources of leverage; and lean into its comparative strengths—its alliances, military power, economic influence, and diplomatic reach—it can shape the strategic environment instead of just reacting to it.

To paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt: “Speak softly, and carry a lot of sticks and carrots.”

Leave a comment

This past 9/11 was the 24th anniversary of the terrorist attack that killed some 3,000 Americans, and was also the first to be commemorated after the USA handed over control of Syria to the Syrian branch of that very same terrorist organization.

You’d think that there would be some protest in the USA over this ugly fact, at least a minor revolt somewhere in the diplomatic ranks, but no…….memories are short and subjective, and Americans are fatigued from the constant onslaught of of news sensationalism that is a form of psychological terror in its own right. Al-Qaida has dropped down in the rankings of “things that I should worry about”, it seems.

At the very second that I am typing this, al-Qaida in Syria chief al-Jolani (now styling himself as Ahmed al-Sharaa, President of Syria), is meeting with his former boss, the former CIA Director David Petraeus at some event:

“The gang’s all here.”

al-Sharaa, the new darling of the wide-spanning US-Turkish-Israeli-Saudi-Qatari anti-Ba’athist alliance, recently met with CENTCOM head Admiral Charles Bradley Cooper in Damascus. They waited a whole day so that their appearance together would not fall on 9/11. This is a short report, so I’ll repost it in its entirety:

Self-appointed Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa met with the head of US Central Command (CENTCOM), Admiral Charles Bradley Cooper, on 12 September to discuss regional security and cooperation, the Syrian Presidency’s office announced.

US Special Envoy to Syria, Tom Barrack, also attended the meeting with Sharaa in the People’s Palace in Damascus.

“The meeting discussed prospects for cooperation in the political and military fields, in a way that serves common interests and consolidates the foundations of security and stability in Syria and the region,” the Syrian presidency said in a statement.

The meeting between top US officials and Sharaa, a former Al-Qaeda and Islamic State in Iraq commander, occurred one day after the 24th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

“The meeting reflected the positive atmosphere and shared commitment to strengthening the strategic partnership and expanding channels of communication between Damascus and Washington at various levels,” the statement issued by Sharaa’s office said.

US President Donald Trump met with the Syrian president on 13 May in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

During the meeting, Trump announced the lifting of sanctions on Syria, praised Sharaa, and informed him of the need to take several measures, most notably normalizing relations with Israel.

On al-Jolani/al-Sharaa:

Formerly known as Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, Sharaa became known in Iraq for dispatching suicide bombers to kill US troops and Shia civilians after the 2003 US invasion.

After his detention at the US-run Bucca Prison in Basra, Sharaa was released by US officials and became the leader of the Islamic State in Mosul.

In 2011, he traveled to Syria under the direct orders of ISIS founder Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and established the Nusra Front, which became the official Al-Qaeda affiliate in the country.

US, Israeli, and UK intelligence supported Sharaa and the Nusra Front for over a decade as part of the operation to topple the government of former Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, starting in 2011.

The CIA spent $1 billion per year on the operation to topple Assad, known as Timber Sycamore, which involved flooding Syria with weapons to arm the Nusra Front and other extremist Salafist armed groups.

Nusra, which later rebranded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), took power in Damascus in December 2024.

Syrian forces loyal to Sharaa carried out the massacre of Alawite civilians in the coastal region of the country in March, followed by the massacre of Druze civilians in Suwayda governorate in July.

Al-Jolani knows that he is in power in Damascus thanks especially to the USA. He must also realize that he is disposable. Much of the Arab and Islamic world is up in arms because he is not confronting the Israelis, whose forces are creeping ever closer to the southern suburbs of Damascus. al-Jolani knows that in doing so he would quickly lose his head in a US-led decapitation strike. He has struck a deal with “the devil you know” in order to make a sizable tactical gain for extremist Sunni Islam in the Middle East.

From my perspective, I cannot but conclude that al-Qaida has been rewarded for 9/11. Sometimes terrorism does seem to pay off.

(Please note that the USA had a $10 million bounty on al-Jolani’s head up until December of last year when his forces took power in Damascus.)

Share

The assassination of Charlie Kirk opens up an opportunity for the Trump regime to finally deal with radical and violent left wing organizations in the USA. There has been some tough talk about doing this, particularly from Stephen Miller, but the jury is still out as to whether anything will actually be attempted to quash these groups.

Constitutionalists fear increased state power, particularly surveillance of US citizens, would be one result of such an effort. They raise a fair point. On the other hand, if this trend is not nipped in the bud, these groups will see it as a license to continue, and their influence will grow simultaneously. In my opinion, an all-out effort should be made to quash these groups, but that an overall plan must be put into place to assure civil libertarians that this would be intended to work as a reset of the system, to return to the status quo ante (tall order, I will concede).

Political violence is not limited to the left in the USA, but they are way more organized, and their networks run deep, especially their support networks, many of whom receive taxpayer money (think of the teams of lawyers always on hand to bail leftist demonstrators out of jail). Absent any effort to eliminate these violent groups, they will conclude that they continue to raise the temperature in the USA to a setting that best suits their goals.

Kyle Shideler has provided a “how to” w/r/t dismantling these networks. On legal obstacles:

The biggest initial problem the Trump Administration faces in confronting the radical Left is a refusal by the national security, federal law enforcement, and intelligence apparatuses to even recognize whom the president has identified as a threat.

Currently, the U.S. government refers to domestic terrorist threats in only the broadest possible categories, such as Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremist (REMVE), Anti-Government/Anti-Authority Violent Extremist (AGAAVE), Animal Rights/Environmentalist Violent Extremist (AREVE), and Abortion-Related Violent Extremist (ARVE). In every case, these categories are deliberately constructed to appear content-neutral, which allows the bureaucracy to appear even-handed while selectively emphasizing preferred political targets and ignoring others.

So, for example, while REMVE theoretically includes both white and black supremacist groups, in practice the USG spends its efforts targeting groups that are perceived as white supremacist and underemphasizes black supremacist groups. Similarly, while the bureaucracy might claim to target Antifa and similar radical Left actors under the AGAAVE category, in practice it has emphasized investigating parents at school board meetings, J6ers, Catholic church attendees, and the like.

The “need” to create a special “far left category” of domestic terrorist:

The president must direct the creation of the Far-Left Violent Extremist category and implement its immediate use across all departments and agencies. While the actual name is up for debate, it must explicitly include “anti-fascist” (Antifa), anarchist, autonomous Marxist, socialist, Marxist-Leninist, Maoist, and Communist extremists, and ensure that these distinctions are accurately and correctly defined.

Such an approach is not radical—in fact it is used by American allies abroad. The German Ministry of the Interior’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution defines Far-Left Extremism in precisely this way and meticulously categorizes each sub-category every year in reports that are openly available to the public.

A Far-Left Extremist category should also include individuals, groups, networks, and movements based on these ideologies that utilize single-issue activism on topics like animal/environmentalist extremism and abortion as cover for their efforts. Often these apparently single-issue organizations are used as a recruiting tool to activate individuals who may be interested in a specific political topic and bring them further into a movement whose true objective is revolution. This simple tactic alone shows the uselessness of the present set of federal categorizations.

Name-swapping and single-issue naming as a cloak for the network(s):

For too long the government, media, and academia have minimized the extensive threat posed by Far-Left Extremism, treating it as merely examples of single-issue activism. But cases like the BLM riots, Defend Atlanta Forest, Jane’s Revenge, and the Palestinian campus encampments have all demonstrated that for Far-Left Extremists, changing names and logos before taking action on behalf of a changing cause is standard operating procedure. By siloing these cases in different categories, federal law enforcement fails to document—and fails to understand—the danger posed by the far-left at the strategic level.

Two types of groupings:

Anarchist and Autonomist Marxists

Anarchist and autonomist Marxist networks dominate what are considered “anti-fascist” or Antifa activities. These include direct action and violent direct action such as sabotage, vandalism, doxxing, and preplanned violence, which encompasses both rioting and terrorism. They label all of American society, both mainstream conservatism and liberalism and all our public, constitutional institutions, as fascist.

Anarchist and autonomous Marxist groups are typically funded by direct crowdsourced funding, mutual aid, and local community-based fundraising. (This is taken from Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin’s theory of organizing, which is used by anarchist/socialist groups to describe how voluntary organizing provides unofficial quasi-governmental services.) In some cases, Antifa groups have fundraised by engaging in illegal activities, including the sale of drugs and prostitution. Senior members of the network may serve as protest training consultants or union organizers as part of their “day jobs.”

These groups are decentralized and non-hierarchical, but heavily networked through local “affinity groups,” collectives, or chapters, which are linked to similar groups primarily by ideological ties. They are not necessarily linked by financing. They also share ideological connections with similar groups and organizations that operate abroad, predominantly but not exclusively in Western Europe and Latin America.

and

Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Maoist

Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, and other Communist organizations typically create and proliferate structures as mass movement organizations. They think and act with greater strategic purpose than the anarchists and autonomous Marxists, and maintain systems of command and control. Their networks predominate in the indoctrination and organizational space, creating overlapping networks of community organizations, front groups, and other structures.

Additionally, they co-opt independent entities. Through their controlled organizations and those they infiltrate, they organize large-scale protests and disruptions under a variety of issues and labels. Whether controlled outright or dominated through disciplined infiltrators in key positions of authority, they can range from small, local, and niche to broad-based and national mass organizations. These groups are the most likely of all Far-Left Extremists to have access to fiscal sponsorship organizations through which they can access significant amounts of donor funds from progressive tax-free foundations.

These vertically integrated organizations and networks are also more likely to have operational ties to foreign governments and foreign Communist parties. Examples include the much-discussed Party for Socialism and Liberation’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party and groups like the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, which is extensively networked with other Communist parties such as those in China and Cuba. They may also have ties to Communist organizations designated as terrorist groups, including the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), Hamas, and the Communist Party of the Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA). Others may have ties to sanctioned governments, including Russia, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea.

Like the anarchists and autonomous Marxists, these groups have ideological and doctrinal differences. They compete with each other for attention, funds, and recruits. Nonetheless, they effectively interact and coordinate through the use of the concepts of “diversity of tactics” and “popular fronts.” Like an orchestra, these groups play their own separate parts, but they have the effect of coming together as a functioning, cohesive whole. They generally accomplish this despite lacking a single entity that directs and coordinates the operation or campaign.

What is to be done:

Because these movements are made up of multiple entities that utilize different tactics and are organized in diverse ways, there is no silver bullet for defeating the Far-Left Extremist movement. Only a whole-of-government—and ultimately a whole-of-society—approach will be successful. Anyone who insists there is a single, easy method for stopping this threat is at best ill-informed.

Department of Justice

The DOJ would presumably serve as the lead agency in any effort. Federal counterterrorism authorities may be needed to address one element of the Far-Left Extremist network. Counterintelligence authorities, working through an entirely different set of statutes, may be necessary to pursue those individuals and groups linked to foreign entities that are facilitating subversion and those advocating, but not actually committing, violent crimes or terrorism. Legal authorities addressing racketeering, money laundering, charity fraud, and other white-collar crimes may be the best legal instruments in other cases. (Charity fraud investigations against Far-Left Extremist organizations have already played a key role in Georgia and Virginia.) Civil rights enforcement is likely necessary in different situations.

and

Office of the Director of National Intelligence

ODNI should produce classified and unclassified national intelligence products on Far-Left Extremism, at both the national and international levels, that highlight extensive evidence of transnational cooperation. Intelligence authorities need to coordinate to identify foreign ties to domestic Far-Left Extremist groups. ODNI should also investigate, and include in its reporting, the role played by foreign adversaries in supporting U.S.-based Far-Left Extremist groups. The Director of National Intelligence should authorize a “Team B” competitive analytical exercise composed of independent, outside experts on Far-Left Extremism to allow independent review of materials and methodology and provide alternative analysis. This approach would force competition within the Intelligence Community and assist it in reassessing and ameliorating its own shortcomings.

State Department/Treasury Department

The State Department should instruct consular officials to thoroughly investigate visa applicants and strictly enforce inadmissibility under Title 8, Chapter 12, §1182 (a)(3)(B) or (3)(D) of the U.S. Code (overthrow of the U.S. government, terrorist activities, or membership in totalitarian parties). Participation in any anarchist or Marxist party or organization should be considered de facto grounds for permanent inadmissibility. Current visa holders involved with any Far-Left Extremist group or who demonstrate support for such groups should have their visas revoked.

There are more suggestions for the DHS, IRS, and other gov’t agencies such as the Department of Labor. Click here to read the rest.

Leave a comment

We’re close to 5,000 words already, so I’ll keep this segment brief. The following is a wild report about Charlie Kirk’s recent visit to Bill Ackman’s home in the Hamptons, where supposedly he was read the Riot Act about not supporting Israel enough.

It’s from The Grayzone, so take it with a shovel of salt, as they are doing their very best to attack Israel from all angles and do not mind crossing the thin line between truth and propaganda in their activism:

The Grayzone

Billionaire Bill Ackman convened stormy Israel ‘intervention’ with Charlie Kirk, sources say

A month before Charlie Kirk’s killing, billionaire pro-Israel moneyman Bill Ackman arranged an intervention in the Hamptons during which sources say he and others “hammered” Kirk for the conservative leader’s growing criticism of Israeli influence in Washington. Kirk came away fretting about Israeli “blackmail,” sources say, as he contemplated a Catholi…

Read more

7 days ago · 1206 likes · 20 comments · The Grayzone

An excerpt:

When his hosts presented him with a detailed list of every offense he supposedly committed against Israel, Kirk was “horrified,” said one person. At one point, according to another source, Ackman angrily chastised Kirk for his disobedience. The Zionist billionaire also allegedly demanded Kirk rescind his invitation for Tucker Carlson to speak at his upcoming America Fest 2025 in December.

The Grayzone reported on September 12, citing an associate of Kirk, that Netanyahu had offered to organize a massive infusion of pro-Israel money into TPUSA, and that Kirk refused. Another longtime friend of Kirk has told The Grayzone that the conservative activist also rejected an offer Netanyahu delivered two weeks before his death to meet with him in Jerusalem.

Kirk, according to one person with inside knowledge of the meeting with Ackman, said he left feeling as though he’d been subjected to “blackmail.”

In a series of text messages with The Grayzone, Ackman described these account of his meeting with Kirk as “totally false.” He pledged to release a public statement providing his own account of the event, but refused The Grayzone’s request for clarification or further details. He would not accept phone calls from this reporter.

“I think I can easily put this to bed,” Ackman promised, “I have receipts as they say.” He did not abide when asked to provide the so-called “receipts.”

In an apparent bid to reinforce the pro-Israel tone at the Hamptons meeting, Ackman hosted a coterie of pro-Israel operatives and conservative influencers at the off-the-record engagement. One was Instagram influencer Xaviaer DuRousseau of Prager U.

Reached by phone by The Grayzone, DuRousseau sounded flustered when asked about his presence at the meeting. He repeatedly demanded to know how this reporter obtained his number, and eventually hung up, refusing to answer questions about the event.

Click here to read it in its entirety.

Share

Is Autism really just vaccine-induced brain damage?

argues that it could be the case:

While the extent classic “linguistic determination” like Orwell’s affects the population remains hotly debated, it is generally agreed to significantly influence certain key aspects of cognition. Likewise, I believe it has a significant impact, but it is much smaller in critically thinking individuals who also have significant creativity (as they are much more likely to move beyond the unsatisfactory frameworks in front of them).

However, what’s much less appreciated is that other (more effective) forms of linguistic determination are used to manipulate the public. One of the most common ones is to use an ambiguous term which is not clearly defined, so that depending on the needs of the situation, the audience can be steered towards the desired interpretation of it, even if those interpretations sometimes overtly contradict each other (effectively allowing the PR firm’s client to “have their cake and eat it).

Similarly, in a previous article, I highlighted how Fauci was a master of using slippery language to constantly get whatever he wanted with no accountability by implying but never explicitly stating his desired conclusion (which the media would then run with). One of the best examples of this tactic is having everyone in lockstep assert vaccines are “safe and effective” without ever defining what that actually means, thereby allowing the meaningless statement to be treated as “vaccines are 100% safe and effective,” yet simultaneously, having no accountability for lying as those who repeat it never actually said “100% safe and effective”. This was best demonstrated when Fauci (who continually told us the vaccine would prevent us from getting COVID) was grilled at a recent Congressional hearing, where in response to:

But we knew from the trials that people that got vaccinated still were subject to getting covid so was the covid vaccine 100% effective?

Fauci stated:

I don’t believe any vaccine is 100% effective.

Note: in a recent article, I also highlighted how the ambiguous phrase “brain death” was created to make people believe unresponsive individuals were in fact dead, thereby both removing the societal cost of perpetually caring for them and securing a reliable supply of donor organs.

One of the most widely recognized side effects of vaccination is neurological damage (particularly to the cranial nerve and brain), and prior to the censorship which took over our medical journals, as I showed in this article, reports of vaccine brain and nerve injuries (e.g., encephalitis) were extensively reported throughout the medical literature—including many identical to what are seen in modern day autism.

Click here to read the whole thing.

Please note that we’ve already started a new entry in the FbF Book Club:

FbF Book Club

Introduction: “Healing the Mutilated Victory” – Italy “Cheated” by Woodrow Wilson

Niccolo Soldo

·

Sep 19

My historical interests work in cycles; I’ll pick some subject up and get thoroughly engrossed by it, then put it down, and then re-visit it in a year or two when newer material becomes available, giving me the opportunity to view it through a new lens. This is how I don’t burn out on key subjects of interest. It is not intentional on my part, but instead became a natural process over time.

Read full story

It’s a great read and the next entry will be up most likely this evening. Do me the honour and join us by subscribing to it and participating in the discussion.

Thank you once again for checking out my Substack. Hit the like button at the top or the bottom of this page to like this entry, and use the share and/or res-stack buttons to share this across social media. Leave a comment below if the mood strikes you to do so. And don’t forget to subscribe if you haven’t done so already.

And don’t forget to join me on Substack Notes!

Share

Leave a comment