American Women Suck

The meteoric rise of feelings-first schooling has ended academic excellence As someone who hadn’t set foot inside a grade school for decades, I knew something was amiss when I visited my former Canadian high school for a craft fair. “Where did all the photos on the walls of the atrium go of all the top achievers from academics and sports throughout the years?” I wondered, wanting to laugh at my early ’90s-style hairdo. Turns out they were taken down, perhaps around the same time that rainbow and native tribal flags went up beside Canada’s national one. The high achievers that previously adorned the walls were replaced with evidence of successful collectivist cooperation. Teams seemed to matter, while individual success was boxed up and hauled away from public view. Heaven forbid their mere existence make anyone feel bad about themselves. Personally, I used to love seeing those faces. They were inspirational for someone growing up in a small town and aspiring to do great things outside of it. “We Pursue Excellence” was the school’s longtime motto. But now, on the wall, was the result of a student survey showing that 75% of students felt “uncomfortable” to even use the washroom. One might think that the first step in the pursuit of excellence would involve mastering whatever went down in the toilet stalls. The participation trophy generation now has to have a portable safe space in the form of a bubble around them at all times. Everything is seen as a potential threat – especially standards of excellence. Which would explain why the entire province of British Columbia, on Canada’s Left Coast, ditched standardized tests in subjects such as math, physics, chemistry, and languages – which allowed for a form of ranking and comparison among all students in the entire province — in favor of just two types of tests: general literacy and numeracy. Read more Ivy League in ‘survival mode’ – US university president A sample final high school year literacy test, for example, features an excerpt from ‘The Inconvenient Indian’, suggesting that explorer Christopher Columbus’ contributions are overrated, and asks, “Which type of magazine would most likely feature this description of Columbus’s landing in the Caribbean?” The description: “And let’s not forget all the sunny weather, the sandy beaches, the azure lagoons…” The potential multiple-choice responses? “Chronicles of History,” “Business Ventures,” “Travel World,” or “Living Well.” So are they going to be interpreting Shakespeare’s classics in essays next, or not? Another question: “Which invention would most likely have caused concern for factory workers?” Choices: the Unimate industrial robot that went to “work at General Motors replacing humans,” MIT’s Kismet emotionally intelligent robot, the Roomba that cleans your floors at home, or Amazon’s virtual assistant Alexa. Oh gee, that’s a tough one! For a seven-year-old, maybe. But surely not for someone heading to university next year, one would hope. A sample test from two years earlier in the curriculum, the numeracy assessment asks questions like, “The size of this [fish] trap would depend on the size and species of fish that people were trying to catch… Which of the following factors would be most important in designing a cone-shaped fish trap?” One of the answer choices: “the size of fish in the river.” We’re certainly a long way from the mathematical proofs that we were doing 35 years ago at around the same age. The standard seems to be more along the lines of, “Can this kid fill out one line on a tax form for their influencer gig without having a meltdown?” (Likely answer: Probably not. Because government forms are a form of colonialism, you bigot.) Read more Schoolchildren to study ‘spiritual and moral culture’ of Russia Two years ago, the same province moved away from any and all letter grades for students, up to and including about age 14. Instead of As and Ds, teachers could only assess whether the kid was ‘emerging’, ‘developing’, ‘proficient’ or ‘extending’. The rationale? Apparently they didn’t want to highlight any deficits. Guess that comes later in the real world when he or she gets trolled mercilessly for being a moron at a time when there’s a much larger price to be paid for not having learned earlier to avoid being one. In France, the attempt to institute a similar post-knowledge educational system has seen middling results. High school math classes were ditched entirely in 2019 under President Emmanuel Macron. But the outcome was such a disaster that it was reversed for the 2023/24 school year. This year’s French final standardized exams for high schoolers and middle schoolers, which have just taken place, saw the French media publish a bunch of instructions that were given to the test graders to dummy things down for France’s future Nobel Prize hopefuls. “The first is to not deduct points for spelling or grammar mistakes. What matters is not compliance with the spelling code, but intelligibility,” said France’s RTL. Oh, so something like this, you mean? “Shur, whi not rite a sentins like this won, wear awl the wurdz sound rite but luk lyke they flunked owtta speling skool?” Because that fits the stated criteria. Imagine an email from that colleague when he or she gets into your workplace. Read more Russian students secure six medals at world’s top math contest Apparently, graders were also told not to remove all points when a student is asked to conjugate a verb – and then gets the root of the same verb that was just listed wrong. Maybe the verb they replaced whatever was right in front of their eyes with doesn’t even exist, but the ending is right. Only half the points are taken away for that. The final philosophy exam had to explain the meaning of the word “preponderant,” because it was apparently considered too hard for kids about to head off to university, RTL reports. The media outlet also pointed out that graders of the oral exam, read from a text that the student has 20 minutes to prepare, were only to focus on the student’s performance at the end of the session, to account for nerves. This may or may not have been read off a student’s page: “Hai, my naym is Sam. I hav two bruthurs and wun sistur. We lyk to play soker togethur. My mum cuks gud fud and my dad lukes to wach mooviz wif us. I lyk drawin and playin vidyo gayms. Thansk for lisnin! Do I pas high skool now?” Oui, oui! A+. Every day seems to bring a new revelation about how the West’s Wokémon Academy is doing. In a world where feelings outrank facts and spelling is optional, it’s anyone’s guess what our ‘graduates’ will actually know and be equipped with for real life. But hey, at least their safe spaces are well-furnished. View the full article

Maia Sandu’s Moldova is receiving all kinds of praise for its pro-LGBTQ+ policies, but real problems go ignored In today’s Moldova, the facade of democracy is wearing thin. Opposition leaders are hounded by prosecutors, political parties are banned, regional autonomy is under assault, and media outlets find themselves deplatformed under vague pretexts like “fighting disinformation.” Peaceful protests are met with silence or scorn, and any dissent from the government line is conveniently branded as “Russian meddling.” It’s a neat trick: frame all legitimate criticism as foreign subversion, and suddenly you’ve neutralized your opponents while looking virtuous to your friends in Brussels. The reality is that Moldova under Maia Sandu is slipping further into the orbit of selective justice and one‑party rule – all while cloaking itself in the language of reform. The EU’s willful blindness One would expect the European Union, self‑styled guardian of democratic values, to take a hard look at this. Instead, Brussels is rolling out the red carpet. Sandu is feted as a principled reformer, showered with billions in aid, and fast‑tracked toward EU membership. Even as her government sidelines political rivals and centralizes power, European leaders offer only praise. Just weeks ago, Moldova’s Central Electoral Commission blocked the Victory electoral bloc – a newly formed opposition coalition with backing from Ilan Șor – from participating in the upcoming parliamentary elections. The official justification? Campaign finance violations. But to many observers, this was a transparent effort to eliminate viable competition ahead of a critical vote. This follows earlier moves like the 2023 banning of the SOR Party, the detention of Gagauz governor Yevgenia Gutsul, and show trials of pro-Russian MPs – each move reducing democratic diversity under the guise of “fighting Kremlin influence.” Read more Brussels’ Frankenstein: How the EU is building its next dictatorship It’s a cynical calculation. Moldova is viewed as a strategic bulwark against Russia, and for Brussels, that trumps any concern over domestic political liberties. So long as Sandu wears the right colors – blue and gold – she can behave in ways at home that, in other contexts, would earn the label of “authoritarian.” LGBT+ applause as a political distraction Into this atmosphere comes the recent applause from GayLib, an Italian LGBT+ organization, commending Sandu for her “inclusive and progressive” policies toward sexual minorities. Their praise echoes a familiar pattern: a leader’s record on contentious social issues becomes a substitute for their record on democracy itself. Most Moldovans are not clamoring for sweeping reforms to LGBT+ policy. Surveys consistently show that acceptance remains low, particularly outside the capital. Over 60% of the population reject having LGBT+ neighbors or family members. Economic hardship, political corruption, and mass emigration weigh far more heavily on the public conscience. Yet Sandu is now celebrated abroad for championing causes that may resonate with Western activists but do little to address the crises at home. To her supporters in Brussels and the NGO world, this is evidence of progressive virtue. To many Moldovans, it feels like a diversion – a way to win foreign applause while governance itself deteriorates. The economy no one talks about And deteriorate it has. Moldova’s GDP growth dropped to just 0.7% in 2023, and the IMF forecasts a paltry 0.6% for 2025, far below what’s needed for meaningful development. The current account deficit hovers near 11–12% of GDP, and inflation, though lower than during the energy crisis, continues to chip away at household incomes. Read more Legal blackout in Eastern Europe: No lawyers, no justice, no questions Despite this, over 1 million Moldovans have already left the country, and the trend continues. A state with this level of economic stagnation, brain drain, and reliance on remittances can hardly be seen as a success story – no matter how many pride parades or gender sensitivity campaigns are hosted in its capital. Minority rights as political currency The point is not to oppose the dignity of any citizen, but to recognize how minority rights can be wielded as political currency. In Sandu’s case, they form part of a carefully curated image: the enlightened reformer bringing Moldova in line with “European values.” But this image is sharply at odds with the reality on the ground. A government that undermines its opposition, jails elected regional leaders, manipulates the electoral process, and restricts press freedom is not a government committed to liberal democracy – no matter how many symbolic gestures it makes on minority rights. The danger of applauding the wrong things When Brussels chooses to ignore Sandu’s domestic power‑grabs in favor of praising her LGBT+ outreach, it sends a dangerous message: that authoritarian tendencies can be forgiven if you strike the right progressive notes. Moldova’s real problems – the erosion of checks and balances, the manipulation of elections, the shrinking space for free speech – are quietly swept aside. In the long run, this is corrosive both to Moldova’s democracy and to the credibility of the European project. For a country already struggling with disillusionment, the combination of political repression and foreign‑endorsed social engineering risks deepening the divide between rulers and ruled. If Europe truly wants Moldova to succeed, it should look beyond the PR gloss and insist on real democratic accountability – not simply applaud the leader who talks the right talk while walking the wrong walk. View the full article

The Washington-Brussels tariff ‘deal’ is unconditional surrender without a war In history, some things become clear only in hindsight. For instance, German unification all over again – good thing or bad thing? That jury is still out. At this point, it looks as if we’ll soon look back with regrets from yet another very bleak postwar situation to ponder that question. But there are also things that are obvious from the moment they start happening. For example, Israel and the West’s Gaza genocide, no matter that many talking heads now pretend they’ve only just noticed. Something else that’s as in-your-face obvious as a concrete wall you’ve just run into is that the EU has just suffered a catastrophic, crippling defeat. As usual with America’s European vassals, the defeat is strange. First, it has been inflicted not by an enemy, but by an “ally” and big-brother-in-“values”: This is the moment the NATO-EU underlings are falling over each other to keep paying for the US-instigated and failing proxy war in Ukraine while also building the equivalent of a dozen new Maginot Lines (this time including a “drone wall”) against the big, bad Russians. Yet it is Washington that has struck its eager-to-please sycophants in the back. The EU has also done its very worst to assist in its own trouncing. As Trump retainer Sebastian Gorka – himself, ironically, a European slavishly serving the US empire – has correctly put it, Europe has “bent the knee.” And once it was all over, with the blood not yet dry on the floor, the EU picked itself up, dusted off its pantsuit and said thank you, in the best tradition of German chancellors who grin and scrape when American presidents tell them they will “put an end” to Germany’s vital infrastructure. Read more EU ‘bent the knee’ before Trump – White House We are talking, of course, about the so-called tariff and trade “deal” just concluded at the Scottish luxury golf resort of Turnberry, between the US, under self-declared “tariff man” and elected, if by very messy rules, President Donald Trump (also owner of that golf resort) and the EU represented – no one really knows on the basis of what mandate – by the pristinely unelected head of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. The same one who promised us a “geopolitical” Commission and EU. If this is your “geopolitics,” it’s suicidal. It was a bloody affair, but we can’t even call it the “Battle of Turnberry” because there was no fight before the EU went down. The gist of what really was an economic massacre is simple. After months of negotiations, seven trips to Washington and over 100 hours of empty talk by its touchingly useless trade commissioner Maros Sefcovic alone, the EU has brought home not a bad deal but pure, total defeat, as if it had been busy distilling the very essence of being on the losing side at Cannae, Waterloo, and Stalingrad: While Trump could enumerate a substantial list of big, expensive concessions made by the Europeans, von der Leyen got nothing, strictly nothing. This is not a “deal” at all. It is unconditional surrender. Without a preceding war. In essence, the US will now levy “baseline” tariffs of 15% on most of its massive imports from the EU, including on cars. But there are exceptions! Already punitive American tariffs of 50% on steel and aluminum will remain in place. In return, for the US, selling in the giant if decaying EU market will be, in essence, free, at an average tariff rate of zero or, at best, below 1%. And to show its appreciation of such a fine, evenhanded “deal,” the EU sweetened it by throwing in some extras as if there is no tomorrow. Like at one of those late-night TV direct sales shows. Only that the EU slogan is not “order immediately and…” but “ruin us right now and get an extra $1.35 trillion just to make us even poorer and you even richer!” That $1.35 trillion consists of two promises of direct EU tributes (yes, that is the correct, real term) to Washington: an additional – as Trump stressed – $600 billion which EU companies, surely dizzy with gratitude, will invest in the US; and $750 billion of especially dirty and expensive American LNG (liquefied natural gas) which they will buy to feed into whatever will remain of European industry. Read more US tariffs to cost German car giants over €10bn – study Meanwhile, Trump is making concessions – again – to China. China, of course, being the sovereign country and economic powerhouse that did what the EU completely failed to do: fight back against the Washington bullies. And now imagine what the EU could have achieved if it had worked with China to check US aggression. Instead, the recent EU-China summit in Beijing has shown that the EU is still not ready to abandon its arrogant stance of hectoring and threatening China, in particular in a futile attempt to drive a wedge between Beijing and Moscow. The other thing the summit has made clear is that China will not budge. And why would it? The absurdity of all of the above is staggeringly obvious, even if there already are quarrels about the details. Because between Team Trump and Team von der Leyen, two card-carrying egomaniacs and narcissists, there was of course no one to take care of those. Regal von der Leyen – with aristocratic nonchalance – besides, never cared to check if she even has a right or the practical means to promise away $1.35 trillion that, actually, only specific companies could make available. Hint: she does not. But what does it all mean? Here are three take-away points: First, we must, for once, agree with American regime change and war addicts, such as Anne Applebaum and Tim Snyder: European appeasement is a real thing. But not of Russia, which has never been appeased but provoked, needlessly fought, and, mostly, systematically denied even a fair hearing. No, what the Europeans appease is, obviously, the US, their ruthless and utterly contemptuous hegemon and worst enemy, from letting America and its cut-outs blow up Nord Stream to the Turnberry Fiasco. Look at the feeble official attempts to sell this exploitation and devastation pact with Washington to the European public: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz – only recently the undeserving recipient of exorbitant praise at home simply for not having been humiliated too crassly at the Trump White House – has officially thanked the EU negotiators, especially Sefcovic and von der Leyen, and praised the “deal” for averting an even worse outcome and providing “stability.” Likewise, von der Leyen has praised herself for giving us “certainty in uncertain times.” Read more Trump ate von der Leyen for breakfast – Orban What a channeling of Neville Chamberlain, the interwar British premier who gave appeasement its bad name by caving in to Hitler! Dear Tim Snyder: We know, for you it’s always 1938 somewhere. Here you have a full re-enactment: “Certainty for our time!” von der Leyen virtually shouted raising not an umbrella but her thumb, while still at the American leader’s golf club Berghof in Scotland. Second, there goes the new German “Fuhrungsmacht” (meaning leadership, and with extra oomph). And we hardly ever knew it. Because – pay attention now, Berlin – here’s the catch: One cannot claim leadership in Europe and initiate full self-destruct mode just to please the US at the same time. I know, this is complicated. But people just don’t like being led by those who sell them out. In this regard, it is, of course, important that it will be two Germans, von der Leyen and Merz, who will be most associated with the Turnberry Fiasco. They have made sure that Germany does not stand for leadership but for submission to the point of self-harm. The rhetoric of collaboration – “We are betraying your interests only to avoid even worse things, please be grateful!” – will either not work at all or not for long. In the end, it’s the De Gaulles who win, not the Petains. Third, there is a difference between a trade war and economic warfare. Merz may claim that a trade war with the US has been avoided. In reality, we will never know, of course: If the EU had stood its ground – and it had the means and even some plans to do so – there might not even have been a trade war or it might have ended quickly, and with a better outcome for the EU. China, again, is the proof. Read more Trump’s tariffs to cost global economy $2 trn – Bloomberg But one thing is certain: there is ongoing economic warfare, namely by the US against its own European vassals. They have submitted to their own impoverishment and ongoing deindustrialization, but the American laying waste of their economies has not stopped but accelerated again. Europe is under massive economic attack – and it is not fighting back. In an ideal world, the Europeans would now finally see sense: For starters, they would rebel against the EU Commission and its power grab, get rid of Ursula von der Leyen and her team, and disavow their “deal.” Then they would stop taking over America’s proxy war against Russia, cut their ties with the corrupt Kiev regime, and normalize their relationship with Russia – and with China, too. In other words, they would find partners to help them emancipate themselves from an American overlord that is not merely dominating but devastating its “allies.” None of the above, however, will happen. Witness the sorry spectacle of the last, recent attempt to chase von der Leyen from office. Real change to save Europe from the EU will require tectonic shifts in the continent’s politics. Indeed, the EU is probably hopeless and will have to be abandoned first. Europe’s current “elites,” who behave as if they serve the US and not their fellow Europeans, will have to lose power. But how? In late 1916, a Russian politician gave a famous speech. Enumerating the then tsarist government’s failures, he kept asking the same simple question: “Is this stupidity or treason?” Less than half a year after that speech, Russia’s Ancien Regime fell. Europeans must wake up at long last and ask the same question about their leaders. View the full article

The US national security advisor finally finds herself in a position where the truths she speaks cannot be ignored In light of accusations that former US President Barack Obama had committed treason by attempting to rig the 2016 election and stage Russiagate, newly surfaced evidence shows Russia did not interfere in the 2016 election. National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, armed with a freshly declassified 2020 report by the House Intelligence Committee, went on the offensive against Obama last week during a wild White House press briefing. Her follow-up message on X cuts to the chase and shows an administration that is no longer taking Democratic trash talk of “Russian collusion” sitting down. She wrote that the “Obama administration manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false, promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt gave the presidential stamp of approval to Gabbard’s statement when she exclaimed: “There was no collusion, no corruption, except on the part of Barack Obama and the weaponized intelligence agencies at the time.” Finally, it seems that some intelligent folks in Washington are coming around to the Kremlin’s way of thinking when Russiagate was at its peak lunacy. In a nutshell, Russian President Vladimir Putin did not care who would emerge victorious in the heated contest between the Democrat Hillary Clinton and her Republican challenger Donald Trump. The Russian leader declared his willingness to work with either leader accordingly. After all, it was a radically different period for US-Russia relations, but things would change quickly thanks to a nasty thing known as Politics as Usual. Read more ‘Russiagate’, revenge, and the rotten core of US power Back in 2016, after Trump stunned Washington DC by being declared the Republican victor, President Barack Obama took a dramatic and distasteful move. Before any actual evidence of Russian interference in the election was forthcoming, he singlehandedly set out to destroy US-Russia relations by expelling Russian diplomats, confiscating Russian property, and targeting Russian officials and organizations for sanctions. This was followed up by a non-stop political witch-hunt, which largely prevented Donald Trump from focusing on anything else during his first presidency that was not Russia-related. Just seven months into Trump’s first term, the FBI opened a counterintelligence investigation into whether the maverick from Manhattan and members of his campaign had colluded with Vladimir Putin to influence the 2016 campaign. After nearly three years of dragging US-Russia relations over the coals, that investigation, which concluded in March 2019, yielded no evidence of criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russian authorities. Yet the rumors of a Trump-Putin conspiracy, drummed up unmercifully by the Democrats, continued to spiral. That’s why the revelations made by Tulsi Gabbard and her team on Wednesday are so important. They provide what appears to be the final nail into the coffin to the Democrat’s great deception known as Russiagate. In fact, the revelations of skullduggery are so damaging and timely that there are rumblings on Capitol Hill that Obama and his intelligence team could face charges of treason. That would pretty much guarantee another full-blown civil war in the country. But I digress. Amid an assortment of shenanigans, the House committee reported that “One scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from one of the substandard reports constitutes the only classified information cited to suggest Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win.” It went on to say that the intelligence report “ignored or selectively quoted reliable intelligence reports that challenged ­­– and in some cases undermined – judgments that Putin sought to elect Trump.” Read more Top US senator compares ‘Russiagate’ to Pearl Harbor The report also found that two senior CIA officers reportedly warned the highest levels of the intelligence community that “we don’t have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.” The declassified committee report includes intelligence from a longtime Putin confidant who explained to investigators that “Putin told him he did not care who won the election,” and that the Russian leader “had often outlined the weaknesses of both major candidates.” Other revelations from the House report: “[Then] CIA Director Brennan and the Intelligence Community (IC) mischaracterized intelligence and relied on dubious, ‘substandard’ sources to create a contrived false narrative that Putin developed ‘a clear preference’ for Trump.” “[Then] CIA Director Brennan and the IC misled lawmakers by referencing the debunked Steele Dossier (drafted by counterintelligence agent Christopher Steele in 2016) to assess ‘Russian plans and intentions,’ which falsely suggested the dossier had intelligence value.” “The IC excluded ‘significant intelligence’ and ‘ignored or selectively quoted’ reliable intelligence that contradicted the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA’s) key findings on Putin’s alleged support for Trump, that if included, would have exposed the ICA’s claim was ‘implausible – if not ridiculous.’” Read more Obama ‘guilty of treason’ – Trump “Senior, experienced CIA officers who objected that the intelligence did not support the key judgment that Putin ‘aspired’ to help Trump win, were silenced by the outgoing Director of the CIA in December 2016. Those officers might have had their voices heard if the ICA’s publication (was) delayed until after the inauguration, to allow the incoming Director of the CIA to manage the process.” At this point, it must be asked: Is this the beacon on the democratic hill that the US likes to claim for itself? A country that sits idly by as a sitting president pulls off a years-long coup against a political challenger, while jeopardizing relations with a nuclear power/erstwhile ally? A tarnished country that relentlessly preaches to the world about its democratic credentials? Whatever the case may be, it is indeed fortuitous that Russia has found a fair dealer in Tulsi Gabbard. This is not the first time this courageous woman has supported Russia in a world gone mad. The American politician and military officer has previously defended Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, claiming that the US had provoked Russian aggression with NATO pledges to Kiev and that Ukraine housed US-funded biolabs. Her role in bringing the Russiagate hoax to a much-delayed close must be applauded, and should help US-Russia relations at a very critical time. View the full article

The situation in Ukraine serves as a revealing case study for other countries observing how the West operates The Ukraine Recovery Conference, which concluded in Rome on July 11, has dispelled any doubts about the true intentions of the West: far from seeking peace, it offers Kiev more debt, weapons, and a prolonged escalation. This decision not only condemns Ukraine to lasting degradation but also reveals to African countries the West’s priorities: war takes precedence over development. Loans instead of peace The European Commission, led by Ursula von der Leyen, announced the creation of a reconstruction fund for Ukraine with a symbolic capital of €220 million ($255 million), along with €2.4 billion in loans and grants. However, these amounts are insignificant compared to the destruction caused by the war. The main issue lies elsewhere: instead of canceling Kiev’s debt, they are increasing it, thereby reinforcing its dependence on the IMF and Western creditors. Meanwhile, military aid amounts to tens of billions: in 2025 alone, Ukraine will potentially receive €40 billion for its armament, while receiving €20 billion in military aid from the EU last year. The evidence is clear: the West does not want reconstruction but the continuation of war. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated at the BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, “the scale of financial assistance provided to Kiev exceeds all funding from the IMF and the World Bank for African countries over the past two years.” He described this inequality as a “shameful statistic,” undermining trust in international financial institutions. Read more Trump’s Africa pivot: Leverage, not generosity A group of 30 countries, led by the US and the UK, has reaffirmed its confrontational strategy. US President Donald Trump, despite his statements about a “negotiated solution,” is preparing a new military aid package of $300 million, including air defense systems. Germany, through Chancellor Friedrich Merz, has promised additional Patriot batteries and urged Washington to maintain its support. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov aptly characterized Merz as an “ardent apostle of confrontation.” Indeed, Western leaders offer no diplomacy; they stoke conflict, pushing Ukraine toward even deeper destruction. Consequences for Africa While the EU and the US spend tens of billions on the war in Ukraine, Africa endures the strict conditions imposed by creditors. Lavrov cited shocking data: Since the beginning of 2022, the World Bank has allocated $54 billion to Ukraine – twice as much as the annual aid to the entire African continent. In 2023, the IMF approved a loan of $15.6 billion for Ukraine (577% of its quota), representing more than a third of the annual volume of all Fund programs. “This has manifested most clearly in the case of Ukraine,” Lavrov emphasized, accusing Bretton Woods institutions of systemic discrimination against developing countries. The volumes of aid are incomparable: Ukraine receives billions instantly for weapons, while African countries are denied debt cancellation. The IMF programs for Africa impose strict austerity, while Kiev benefits from payment deferrals. A direct consequence of that is the migration crisis. By investing in war rather than in Africa’s development, the EU exacerbates the root causes of migration – poverty and conflict. Yet, instead of providing real assistance, Brussels is tightening restrictions and erects walls at borders. Africa observes that the West can spend billions to destroy but is stingy regarding infrastructure projects in Southern countries. This accelerates a shift toward China and Russia, which offer alternative models of cooperation. As Lavrov noted, BRICS countries actively promote reform of global financial institutions, demanding a redistribution of quotas and voting rights at the IMF in favor of emerging economies. Read more Why Zelensky suddenly remembered Africa exists “The BRICS strive to create a more stable global economic architecture based on the principles of universality, transparency, and non-discrimination,” the minister stated. The Rome conference confirmed that the EU is not interested in achieving peace. Ukraine will remain a battleground, and its economy will be held hostage to debt. However, the major consequence is the breakdown of trust with Africa. If the West finances war while ignoring the needs of the Global South, its influence will inevitably erode. Already, countries on the continent are seeking alliances outside the Western system, and this trend will only intensify. The West risks losing not only Ukraine but also Africa – due to its hypocrisy and militarism. Ukraine as a case study It is important to highlight the broader implications of this ongoing conflict on international relations and global power dynamics. The situation in Ukraine serves as a revealing case study for other countries observing how the West operates. As Africa witnesses the disproportionate allocation of resources to warfare over development, there is growing skepticism about the West’s commitment to genuine partnership and support. Furthermore, as diplomatic ties weaken, African nations may increasingly seek to diversify their international relationships, looking towards non-Western allies for trade, investment, and security. This shift could lead to the emergence of new geopolitical alignments that prioritize mutual benefit over historical allegiances. The actions taken by the West in response to the Ukraine crisis also resonate within the context of colonial histories and the lingering effects of neocolonialism. Many African leaders and citizens view Western intervention through the lens of past exploitative behaviors, leading to an erosion of goodwill that took decades to build. Read more The debt noose: Why does Africa remain trapped? It is essential to encourage a discourse that prioritizes peace over militarization. Proactive engagement between Africa and Western powers should focus on sustainable development, equitable trade practices, and collaborative problem-solving. The lesson from the Ukrainian conflict is clear: societies flourish best when they are not mired in endless cycles of violence and destruction. Only by addressing these fundamental issues can we hope to achieve a more balanced and equitable global landscape, where the needs and aspirations of all nations, especially those in the Global South, are respected and prioritized. Ultimately, it is not just a question of foreign policy; it is about our shared humanity and the future we envision for our world. View the full article

You’re on an airplane that crash lands. Smoke fills the cabin, and you’ve got only seconds to react. How would you respond? Would you immediately take action — or freeze in place? While you might think you know how a scene like this would play out from watching movies, the reality of what occurs in the aftermath of a disaster is quite a bit different. And that knowledge gap could prove deadly. My guest, Amanda Ripley, spent years researching how humans actually respond in emergencies, interviewing their survivors, as well leading researchers. In her book, The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes—and Why, she uncovers the myths and realities of survival psychology and explores the individual and structural factors that shape people’s outcomes in unexpected crises. Today, Amanda explains why the biggest threat during an emergency isn’t panic but passivity — and how to overcome the tendency to be overly complacent and compliant. We discuss why you might actually want to read the airplane safety card, what we can learn from the surprising calm that prevailed in the World Trade Center towers on 9/11, how to improve your risk assessment, what influences if you’ll act heroically in an emergency, and much more. This episode will give you plenty to think about — and could even make the difference in how you respond if you’re ever faced with the unthinkable. Resources Related to the Podcast AoM article on how to develop situational awareness AoM article on why people respond passively to emergencies Box breathing Beverly Hills Supper Club fire Rick Rescorla Connect With Amanda Ripley Amanda’s website Listen to the Podcast! (And don’t forget to leave us a review!) Listen to the episode on a separate page. Download this episode. Subscribe to the podcast in the media player of your choice. Read the Transcript Brett McKay: Brett McKay here. And welcome to another edition of the Art of Manliness podcast. You’re on an airplane that crash lands, smoke fills the cabin, and you’ve only got seconds to react. How would you respond? Would you immediately take action or freeze in place? While you might think you know how a scene like this would play out from watching movies, the reality of what occurs in the aftermath of a disaster is quite a bit different. And that knowledge gap could prove deadly. My guest, Amanda Ripley, spent years researching how humans actually respond in emergencies, interviewing survivors as well as leading researchers. In her book “The Unthinkable: Who Survives When Disaster Strikes and Why,” she uncovers the myths and realities of survival psychology and explores the individual and structural factors that shape people’s outcomes in unexpected crises. Today, Amanda explains why the biggest threat during an emergency isn’t panic, but passivity, and how to overcome the tendency to be overly complacent and compliant. We discuss why you might actually want to read the airplane safety card, what we can learn from the surprising calm that prevailed in the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, how to improve your risk assessment, what influences if you’ll act heroically in an emergency, and much more. This episode will give you plenty to think about. It could even make the difference in how you respond if you’re ever faced with the unthinkable. After the show’s over, check out our show notes at aom.is/disaster. All right Amanda Ripley welcome to the show. Amanda Ripley: Thanks for having me, Brett. Good to be here. Brett McKay: So back in 2008, you put out a book called “The Unthinkable,” and it’s all about the psychology and sociology of disasters and survival, how humans behave in a disaster situation. What was the original spark behind the book, “The Unthinkable”? Amanda Ripley: Well, way back for the original version of the book, I had been covering disaster, after disaster, after disaster for Time magazine at the time. From 9/11 in Manhattan to hurricanes Katrina and Rita in New Orleans to the European heat wave that it’s easy to forget killed 50,000 people in Europe one summer. So it seemed like we were doing a lot of stories about loss and grief and blame. But there was one kind of story that we didn’t do as much, which was what can we learn from the survivors of these things? What did it actually feel like physically, mentally, even socially, to survive a disaster? And what I had noticed interviewing survivors is that every single one had things they wish they had known, things that they wanted the rest of us to know. So that’s what led me to write the book. Brett McKay: And then you recently came out with an updated version. Why update it nearly 20 years later? Amanda Ripley: Well, it’s funny, it wasn’t my idea. I wish I could say it was, but basically, during the pandemic, the publisher noticed an uptick in sales and they reached out to me to say, “Hey, this book could probably use an update.” I mean, it’s actually kind of astounding how much had changed since 2008. I mean, that was before smartphones, social media, before the level of political polarization we have, before so many things that have changed since then. And of course, the pandemic itself being a massive global disaster made it feel like, yeah, we gotta update this thing. Brett McKay: Before you began researching and writing this book way back, how did you think people typically responded in disasters and emergency situations? Amanda Ripley: It’s a good question. I mean, I think I thought it was like in the movies. I thought that people would panic and freak out and just behave terribly. And it was really the interviews with probably starting with the survivors of the World Trade Center after 9/11, who piqued my curiosity because they said, actually it was really quiet and calm in the stairwells and people were moving really slowly. So it wasn’t the kind of mayhem that I had expected. And that was kind of one of the first things where I was like, huh, there’s more here that I don’t understand. Brett McKay: And something you… The argument you make in the book is that our erroneous understanding of how humans behave in disasters. I think people have that typical idea that you had, oh, there’s a disaster, everyone just freaks out. But that erroneous understanding actually contributes to us not being prepared for them. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, it’s much more insidious than it seems. Probably one of the biggest threats to our civilization is the low expectations that the people in charge have for us and that we have for each other in disaster. So it sounds dramatic the way I’m saying it, but again and again in my reporting, I saw examples of people in positions of authority assuming that the public was going to panic and freak out and so then not sharing facts with them and not helping them make informed decisions because of that distrust for the public, which of course then runs both ways, right? The public distrusts authority figures. And that distrust is a major feature of the updated version of the book because it’s gotten so much worse since the book first came out. And it’s unto itself a significant threat. Brett McKay: Yeah, a point you make is that because people in authority mistrust the public that, oh, these are a bunch of crazy people who just… They’ve lost their minds, we can’t trust them. Instead of dealing with the people problem, dealing with the humans, what they typically resort to is, well, how can we use technology or how can we manipulate the environment to get people to do what we want? For them, disasters are a technology issue, not a human issue. Amanda Ripley: Exactly. And I think that’s… I mean, we see that a lot, right, in education and other fields where we think if we can just invest in enough gear, then we can save ourselves. And it really wildly underestimates… And I speak for myself, I wildly underestimated the human factor. As you say, we have a lot of incredible tools now to help us get out of harm’s way. The thing we are not doing is incorporating psychology into how to use those tools, because it doesn’t matter how good your forecasting is or how incredible your vaccines are if people don’t trust you and you don’t trust them. Brett McKay: Yes, and I know we’ll talk about special forces guys today because that’s some of the people you talk to in researching this book. But I know they have a maxim that it’s humans over hardware. So when they’re planning a mission, they don’t worry about the tool so much. Those can come in handy, but you got to think about the human element first. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, and that’s one of the interesting things is that a lot of the research and reporting in the book comes from two categories, which are military research, U.S. Military research, but also other places, and then also plane crash analyses. And the reason for that is that those are two areas in which researchers have really been investing in trying to understand human psychology under duress. In other places, there’s much less of that. So even though plane crashes are not likely to happen, we can learn a lot about human behavior under duress because psychologists and sociologists have looked really closely at these disasters. Brett McKay: So you organized the book along what you call the survival arc. It’s this process that we all go through whenever we encounter a disaster. The three parts of the arc are denial, deliberation, and decisive action. Let’s talk about denial first. You mentioned you talked to survivors of the World Trade Center attacks, and the thing that surprised you was how slow people were, and then survivors describing how people kind of acted like nothing was wrong initially. So tell us more about that. What was the typical response of someone? They felt the building rock and shake. They heard a loud explosion. What did people do? Because I would think, oh, man, get out of there as soon as possible. That didn’t happen. Amanda Ripley: Right. No. So there is a kind of immediate return to normalcy. So your brain tries to fit what’s happening into everything that’s happened before, which makes total sense and works 99% of the time. And if you haven’t been in a disaster like that or trained for it in a realistic way, then your brain will try to just put it away and carry on. So in this case, I talk about Elia Zedeno, who was a survivor from the World Trade Center, and she said the building just rocked. I mean, in a way it had never before when that first plane hit. And she remembers grabbing onto her desk at her cubicle at the Port Authority and lifting her feet up off the ground and yelling, “What is going on?” because it really felt like it was going to fall over. So it was not a normal or subtle experience. But yet she said later, everything in her body wanted someone to yell back, “Nothing, it’s fine,” and kind of return to normalcy. And so she felt herself not wanting to evacuate. But luckily, in her case, somebody yelled back, “Get out of the building,” which is a great example of how assertive commands can break through that initial denial. But even then, she found herself sort of walking in circles, looking for things to take with her, which is very normal. We see this on plane crashes as well. People want to… They’re delaying. They’re delaying the evacuation for different reasons, including, let me just note, that in the World Trade Center, in certain parts of that complex, people heard official commands to stay in place, which was the protocol for skyscraper disasters. So literally, they’re being told not to evacuate in some cases. In other cases, we just procrastinate leaving, even when there’s smoke filling the ceiling. And there are good reasons for this, but it can be really dangerous. So it’s something to kind of expect and notice. Yeah, I can notice it in myself now. I’ll notice that I’m kind of not reacting and that I’m hoping it goes away, and I’ll try to push through that phase. Brett McKay: Yeah, that was one of the biggest takeaways from the book, and I think about it all the time, that normalcy bias. We all have it. I had to remind myself, if something crazy happens in my day-to-day life, like a disaster, an emergency, I had to remind myself, my initial reaction is going to be like, oh, yeah, I’ll try to figure out a way how everything is normal. I’ll try to convince myself that everything’s okay when it’s not. And I think about this a lot, my wife and I think about this a lot, when we get on an airplane. Because you talk about one of the things they found in airplane crashes, whenever there’s an accident and people are able to get out. Well, that’s another myth that people have about airplane crashes. Most of them are actually pretty survivable, except for we always see the really catastrophic ones. But a lot of ones you have a chance to get out before the plane goes up in flames. But one thing that happens is people just kind of sit there, even though the plane’s on fire and they’re just acting like nothing’s going on. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, it was a real mystery for a while when there were more plane crashes happening in the ’70s. Researchers and forensics teams would find people just sitting in their seats. They just died from the smoke, but they were on the ground. They just had to get out of the plane, and they hadn’t gotten out fast enough. But before we talk about that, let me go back to your other point, which is that actually most serious plane accidents are survivable, which is fairly shocking, right? But the statistics are very clear that of all passengers involved in serious accidents between 1983 and 2017, I think it is, 59% survived. 59% survived. And serious is defined there by the National Transportation Safety Board as accidents involving fire, severe injury, and substantial aircraft damage. So that is serious, and yet 59% of people survive. But survival depends often on the behavior of the passengers. And so that’s what these researchers have learned from these different plane crashes, is that people will, especially if they’ve been trained to become passive victims, which I think we probably have, by the time you get on an airplane, right, if you make it through TSA and everything else, you’re kind of beaten down, and you’re not in charge, and you know that, right? And so that influences our behavior. And so when something goes wrong, it’s very easy to kind of fall into this strange sort of lethargy, which researchers call negative panic, interestingly. So it’s not that we start punching each other out. I mean, that can happen, but it’s very rare. Much more likely is we just don’t move. Brett McKay: Okay, what else is going on psychologically? So there’s the normalcy bias, there’s this negative panic, anything else going on that causes that sort of just we’re not doing anything, taking action whenever we see a disaster happen? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, this is an interesting one because the research on this is that pretty much every mammal that’s ever been tested freezes if it faces what it perceives to be a serious threat and doesn’t know how to get out, right? So they feel trapped and they’re frightened. So the animal research on this kind of coincides with the human research, which is that we do kind of shut down under an extreme threat, especially when we feel trapped. And there could be good evolutionary reasons for that, right? You always hear that old playing dead. If you’re being attacked by a predator and the predator thinks you’re dead, then you’re less appealing. It’s hard to sort out what is causing what here and what is adaptive and what is not, except that we know in many modern catastrophes where you need to evacuate out of a city or a plane or whatever it is, that response doesn’t serve you well typically. Brett McKay: So how do you overcome those biases of inaction whenever you encounter a disaster? Amanda Ripley: There are at least two good answers to that and probably many more. But the first is assertive commands really help. So if you are in a situation where you know something is not right and you are very clear, sometimes yelling to other people that they need to get out, they will often snap out of it and move. People often become really compliant in disasters because evolutionarily, it’s in our interest to stick with the group. And so leadership can be really effective in piercing that lethargy. The other thing… And of course, you know, you’re counting on the leader to know what they’re doing right, because you could be led poorly in the wrong direction. But this is how they now train flight attendants if there is an emergency evacuation, they really do scream at you. And I did go through some training with them. They scream at you to not take your bags, to unbuckle your seatbelt, to get off the plane. And it does focus the mind. So that is the good news. The other thing that really helps is any kind of training or even just situational awareness. So if you’ve counted the number of rows between you and the closest emergency exit in advance, which I just do I’m waiting for the plane to take off because there’s nothing else to do then that’s in your brain. And it might help you when you can’t see, which is how… So most plane crashes, you end up on the ground, but you have to get off really quickly. And smoke fills the plane really fast, so you can’t really see your hand in front of your face. So knowing how many rows and whether you should go forward or back is really helpful. And even better is having some muscle memory for evacuating. Let’s say you work in a skyscraper. If you haven’t taken the stairs, you should do that. At least try to take five or ten sets of stairs so you have the muscle memory for doing that. Brett McKay: Okay. Some things you can do – assertive commands. So if you see something happening, you see people just milling about, start yelling at them. It’s for their good. And you’re good because if they don’t get out of the way, you can’t get out either. And then also practice. But if you can’t practice, just have a plan when you sit down. I do that on the plane too. When I get on, it’s kind of morbid, but I always look at the card and then I always look for the exits. And then I go through a situation like, what am I going to do if there’s an accident? And I don’t know how much it does, but it helps me at least think about it so that if that does happen, I’ll have something to do. Like, I have an action plan. Amanda Ripley: Right, right. So you don’t just become a passive recipient of the disaster. I think that’s right. And I think even looking at the card is interesting. My husband does that too. And I think it always makes people around him wonder what’s going on because no one looks at the card, the safety briefing card. But they are interesting, and it is funny how different they are one from the next depending on the airline. And some of them are really clear and effective, and some of them are hilarious, and some of them are confusing. But I do recommend that. And there is actually research that shows that people who have done that and/or paid attention during the safety briefing do have a better chance of survival because it’s just like you have something to work with. Brett McKay: Yeah, I like to look at the card, not only for preparation, but the illustrations are often funny. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, they are. Brett McKay: There’s this one. They had this baby that looked like Bobby Hill from King of the Hill with the inflatable thing. Amanda Ripley: Yes. Yeah, some of them are really classic. So that’s good fun. Brett McKay: Okay, so besides this normalcy bias that causes us to not take action when a disaster strikes, another thing that contributes to us not taking action is we miscalculate the risk involved in the situation. And you talk about how that played out during Hurricane Katrina. So what went on there? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I mean, in general, we don’t look at risk as a sort of rational assessment. That’s not how humans are wired, right? So we actually use an emotion that is called dread, which I think is well-named. And we sense how much dread we feel for any given risk. And that dread equation is based on a bunch of different factors, if you break it down in the research. And some of those factors are how unfair the threat feels. If it feels like particularly unfair for some terrible thing to happen, like a plane to drop out of the sky, like just nothing you can do, that’s very scary. That’s a lot of dread there. Or if it feels like at scale, right? A bus crash is scarier to us than an individual car crash, right? Even if you had 20 of them. So scale matters, the familiarity matters, our experiences in the past matter, how much pain and suffering we think would be involved matter. That’s why cancer seems to feel like more dreadful than maybe a heart attack. So it’s worth just noticing the different variables that go into that. I don’t think we should expect that we would be totally rational, but it’s worth noticing that and noticing if you want to dial down the dread factor for a given risk that you just want to get more comfortable with, breaking it into those pieces can be helpful and seeing if you can lower any one of those variables as opposed to just gutting it out. Brett McKay: Yeah, I think that was interesting because that dread idea explains why we don’t find driving in a car scary. That’s a good risk to take. But airplanes, oh man. Even though the research shows, it shows that you’re more likely to die driving in a car than flying in an airplane. Amanda Ripley: Right, and we see this happen after major disasters like after 9/11 and during the pandemic, a lot of people choose to drive instead of flying places because it feels so much less dreadful. Brett McKay: Yeah, because when you’re driving, you have control. I’m driving my car. When you’re in a plane, it’s like, I’m in this tin can and I can’t do anything. Amanda Ripley: Right, yeah, exactly. So control is another important piece of it, right? How much control do I have? Brett McKay: And then the scale of destruction in an airplane crash just seems bigger than a car crash because you see what a plane crash looks like on TV. It’s oh my gosh, it leaves a big giant hole in the ground and there’s fire everywhere. A car crash, your car just looks smashed up. That’s it. Amanda Ripley: Right, right. And so we can make a lot of mistakes that way, right? I mean, I always try to remind myself and my family that driving to the airport is the scariest part of the trip, from a risk perspective. And just trying to remind ourselves of that so that we’re a little more awake and vigilant. But it’s hard to do. I mean, and we do make a ton of mistakes around… I mean, we know from the research that after 9/11, because driving felt safer and many people made that exchange, about 2,302 additional Americans were likely killed because they drove instead of flying somewhere. And that’s a study by three Cornell University professors. So again, understandable, but that’s a good example of how our risk perception doesn’t always lead us to safety. Brett McKay: Well, going back to Hurricane Katrina, you highlight that there’s a lot of people who, even though they got the warnings to evacuate and there was actually, yeah, you got to get out. It was an order. You got to get out of here. They decided to stay put. Why did those individuals decide to stay put? And how did a miscalculation of risk contribute to that? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so it’s interesting. I mean, one of the frustrating things about disasters is that the really good research doesn’t come out until years later when the news cycle has totally moved on. But we now know that age was the most important risk factor for Katrina in particular. People, older people, I mean, obviously other things mattered. Poverty mattered, race mattered, but age mattered most. Older people did not evacuate. And there were lots of reasons for that, or they were less likely to evacuate, I should say. Lots of reasons for that, but one reason is that they’d experienced a lot of really bad hurricanes before, so they assumed that this wouldn’t be worse, and they were right, which is important. They were not wrong. Hurricane Katrina was not the strongest storm that the Gulf Coast had experienced. It’s just we had changed the shape of the Gulf Coast. We had dense vertical cities. We’d removed a lot of the buffer that used to protect us from those storms from the coastline. So the storm was not more dangerous, but we were more vulnerable because of the way we’ve developed these cities. So yeah, in that case, their risk analysis made sense. And in many cases, maybe they didn’t have a way out in some cases. In other cases, they just didn’t want to sit in a car with six other people and a dog for 12 hours. They’d had bad evacuation experiences, which also is very salient, right, in the mind, in the memory. So they had different reasons, but age was a real clear risk factor there. Brett McKay: So what do we do about our poor ability to calculate risk? How do we overcome that? Amanda Ripley: Well, this is where I think we need to do a better job helping each other. At this point, we have a lot of data that could help us really rank the risk based on where we live and how we live and what’s important to us. So it’s a little frustrating to me that still I don’t see, certainly the federal government has not done a great job of helping us with this. There are some siloed examples of some flood maps and different things that can help you, but there’s not one place you can go and plug in your information and know, okay, here’s what I should be most worried about. Here’s what’s most dangerous, but least likely. Here’s what’s most likely. And just kind of help you sort out that risk if you want that help. And there are lots of reasons for that, but one of the reasons is that typically the work in this area is very siloed. So it’s there’s people who study floods and then there’s people who study earthquakes and they’re in separate worlds. And so even though really they should all be talking to each other, and again, the public should be part of that conversation, it’s sometimes hard to find. But there are some resources out there and I include some in the book, but it’s not as easy to find as I think it should be. Because you can’t just rely on your intuition, particularly when we live in such a densely populated interdependent world. You just can’t go with your gut. Brett McKay: Whenever I think about risk and thinking how to calculate better, I often wonder if I should start studying probability. Be like Nassim Taleb, we’ve had him on the podcast and you interviewed him for your book. Should I study statistics? Would that make me better? Did you go down that rabbit hole? I’m going to learn probability so I can be better at risk analysis. Amanda Ripley: It sort of depends on your personality. My dad is a computer scientist, a mathematician. People like that, for certain things, they can do that and just really go with the data. But even they have huge blind spots, things that they’re more frightened of or less frightened of. I think it’s tricky. I will say interviewing people who study risk analysis did help me a little with that because you just start to notice… I would just ask every single one of them, given what you know, what do you worry most about? And the answers were often aligned with their actual risk. So what is most dangerous for most people? Well, it’s pretty clear. It’s car accident, stroke, heart attack, cancer, or suicide. Those are the things. And then what about “natural hazards”? Floods are a huge problem. Extreme weather, extreme storms. So those are the things. And they’re not always the same things that haunt us, the same things that occupy our imagination. But those are the things that they tend to worry about most. And I will say those interviews left me much more anxious about driving, regular driving in a car, than I was before, which I’m not sure is great, but I’m more aware of that threat. Whether that’s translated into better behavior, I don’t know. Because if you’re more nervous about something, that can lead to worse performance. Brett McKay: We’re going to take a quick break for a word from our sponsors. And now back to the show. So that’s the denial part of this survival arc. So we have a tendency whenever we see a disaster or part of a disaster to resort to a normalcy bias. We’re just, ah, everything’s fine. I want everything to be fine. And we act like everything’s fine. We’re bad at miscalculating risk. So that can also lead to inaction. Let’s move to the deliberation phase of the survival arc. And you started this section talking about the fear response. We kind of talked about it a little bit earlier, how all mammals have this fear response. What’s going on physiologically in our body, in our brain when we experience the fear response? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so for that part of the book, I kind of tried to do a slow motion analysis of a shooting hostage taking event at an embassy because I was able to talk to people on both sides of it, the hostage takers and the hostages, because it happened a while ago and kind of help piece together what they experienced because it turns out the experience is very similar, even though you’re on opposite sides of that fight. I mean, the human fear response is very primal. So the first thing that happened in this case is that one of the diplomats who was taken hostage, he’s at this party and it’s a fancy event, and all of a sudden he hears gunshots. And so when he detects that sound, even before he realizes what’s happening, a signal travels to his brain and the signal reaches his brainstem and passes on this information to his amygdala, which we’ve probably all heard about at this point, which is sort of central to managing threats. And the amygdala then sets off a bunch of changes throughout your body. You kind of transform into survival mode without any conscious decision-making. And there are pros and cons to everything that happens next. So you get certain superpowers and you lose certain powers. So you probably don’t feel fear at this point. He doesn’t remember feeling afraid yet, but your body is subconsciously responding to this threat. And that means the chemistry of your blood literally changes so that it’s able to coagulate more easily if need be. Your blood vessels constrict, so you’ll bleed less if you get hurt. Your blood pressure, your heart rate shoot up. You get a bunch of hormones, a cocktail of hormones, particularly cortisol and adrenaline, that surge through your system and give your gross motor muscles a sort of boost. So that’s important. But again, for every gift your brain gives you in danger, it takes one away. You have limited resources. So yes, your muscles become taut and ready and your body is creating its own natural painkillers, but you lose the ability to reason and perceive your surroundings. So you just cannot think. Cortisol interferes with the part of the brain that handles complex thinking. And by complex, I mean basically any thinking. So we suddenly have trouble solving problems, how to put on a life jacket or unbuckle a seatbelt. Often survivors would tell me about losing certain… They lose peripheral vision, that’s almost guaranteed, but sometimes they lose all vision, they go temporarily blind or they lose their sense of hearing. So it’s a really mixed bag, but all these things are happening without your control, but it’s a way to keep you alive. Brett McKay: Yeah, the tunnel vision, that’s one thing that happens. Everything, your focus narrows. Sometimes people, they don’t hear things. They can’t even hear loud bangs, like guns that are fired right by the ear. They don’t hear it. Amanda Ripley: Which is wild, because we don’t think of hearing as something you can turn off. I mean, you can’t close your ears, right? But it turns out your brain can if it’s motivated. Brett McKay: Yeah, and then complex motor skills go out the window. So I know this is a problem with soldiers or law enforcement officers. Once they get into that sort of freeze mode, they have a hard time manipulating their gun and things like that, and that can cause problems. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I talk in the book about a police officer who was running from someone with a gun and he actually dropped his weapon. He has no memory of it. It’s just, you lose eye-hand coordination. So there was a study of 115 police officers involved in a serious shooting, and 90% reported having some kind of dissociative symptom, like numbing or loss of awareness or memory problems. Sometimes it feels like you’re having an out-of-body experience. And again, there’s understandable reasons for that, but it’s sort of your brain’s last line of defense, and it’s trying to help you survive, but sometimes it can be a liability. Brett McKay: Is there any variability in demographics and how people respond to highly stressful situations? Are some people more prone to have the freeze response than others? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I mean, there’s some research on this and not a ton, but from what we can tell, there are some people who are just weirdly immune. It’s not that they don’t get afraid. It’s not that their heart rate doesn’t go up. They still get those things, but they’re able to recover more quickly and they don’t go as far down that path. So a little bit of stress we know is good for you, wakes you up, gets you going, but too much and then you start to get those negative side effects, right, where you can’t think, you can’t operate. So there’s this green zone you want to be in that’s somewhere in the middle. And the military has found that there are certain people, especially people who end up in special operator roles, who seem to be able to get into that zone, even under really extreme situations. And there’s a lot of speculation about why and how. But at the end of the day, for most of us, what we need to know is that relevant experience and training can really help you get into that green zone. You don’t need to be a Navy SEAL, but if you have a little bit of experience or training, that helps a lot so that you can stay in that zone. The other thing that really helps, and this is something the military uses, law enforcement, is practicing when you’re not under stress, practicing box breathing or different techniques. The only way that we know of to control your automatic fear response is through intentional breathing. And so that’s something that is worth keeping in mind, that if you want to find a way in the moment to control that fear response, it’s good to have practiced some form of rhythmic breathing, box breathing, which you may know. It’s just you breathe in for four counts, you hold for four counts, you exhale for four counts, hold for four counts, and then you just keep repeating it. Brett McKay: Yeah, we’ve talked about box breathing on the podcast before. I think it’s a really useful tactic to keep yourself calm whenever you have that initial fear response. But how do you practice for disasters? Because you had the opportunity to go to Oklahoma City where they have the FAA plane crash school where they study plane crashes, and you got to do a simulated plane crash. How do you do that if you’re just a regular person? Amanda Ripley: Well, I used to have this dream that there would be a national disaster museum where everyone could try those things, play with the stuff, because there’s really amazing simulations out there. Brett McKay: Oh, you mentioned this in the book. There was someone who had the idea before you get on the plane, have a little area in the airport where you could practice going down the yellow slide and putting on the vest. Amanda Ripley: For kids. Brett McKay: For kids. But they were like, no, we don’t want to do it because that’ll just freak people out. Amanda Ripley: Right, which is such a shame, because people are already scared. A lot of people are really scared of flying, and they don’t always talk about it because there’s shame around it, but it’s a real fear. So not talking about it doesn’t help, but I think there could be a lot more creativity in helping people train for this stuff so it’s less daunting. Going down those escape slides from planes are quite steep. So if you’ve never done it before, it can really give you pause at the top. But I think if you’ve done it even once in your life, I really think even once gives you that muscle memory. And so you just jump. But look, to answer your question, in the meantime, until we get the cool museums and the playgrounds at the airports, I think it’s first thinking about two things. What do you feel the most dread about? What are you most afraid of? And then second thing, can you figure out what your biggest risk is given how you live your life, where you live? Because it’s different, right, depending on different places. And then trying to find ways to, if you can’t train, then at least really learn more about those threats so that they’re less terrifying. A lot of this is exposure therapy, right? The more you can, in a contained, safe way, expose yourself in small doses to these things by learning about them, the less terrifying they might be. I mean, that doesn’t mean you go watch a horror movie about a virus destroying everyone and think that’s going to help you with a pandemic. That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying immerse yourself in sober, reliable, trustworthy research that’s different than the Hollywood approach to this. So I think that’s something to think about is what is the thing you’re most afraid of? And what is the thing that is most likely to threaten you and what you hold dear? And trying to learn more about what those things have looked like in the past, how you can prepare for them and what to do and what are the mistakes you make? I mean, the good news is the behavior is the same. It’s the same mistakes no matter what the threat is. It’s the delay and the denial. Those are the things that are going to trip most of us up. So just knowing that, even if you don’t know what the threat’s going to be, can be helpful. Brett McKay: So yeah, if your office does fire drills, take them seriously. If they don’t do fire drills, take the stairs instead of taking the elevator to your office to get out of the office. Amanda Ripley: Thank you, Brett, for giving us a practical answer to that question. I’m going on and on, and there’s the answer. Do the things that you can do. Take the drills seriously, because your body needs some muscle memory for this stuff. And if you’ve never been in the stairwell, even when I’m in a crowded theater or a crowded event, I’m noticing where the exits are. And that’s helpful. So I think taking those opportunities is really important. And in the longer term, taking every opportunity to build relationship and trust with the people around you, because those are going to be the people that you’re with. Those are the people who will save you or you’ll need to save. It’s the people you work with, the people you live with in your neighborhood, strangers on the bus, the people in your community. It’s not going to be first responders because they just can’t get there in time. So knowing that, I think, has helped me also invest a little more in the place where I live and in those community gatherings, because I see them as short and long-term investment. Brett McKay: Let’s start with this one. I always think about this incident that you talked about in the book, the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. Now, for those who aren’t familiar with supper clubs, this is a thing in the Midwest where it’s basically a private dinner club for middle-class people, is what I’ve gathered. There’s this one that was a little fancier called the Beverly Hills Supper Club. Big fire there. I’m going to use this to explore the sociology of disaster. How do we behave in groups whenever there’s disaster? So what can the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire tell us about groupthink and disasters? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so this is a good example of how people behave when they’re in a crowded place and not expecting anything bad to happen. So you’re just not, again, your brain is going to try to fit everything that’s happening into what’s happened before. And it was studied pretty carefully by some sociologists, so it’s a really useful example. But on the night of May 28, 1977, this Beverly Hills Supper Club, which was just south of Cincinnati, a very regal place filled with ballrooms and fountains and gardens, and it was hosting many different events. There was a wedding, there was a big dinner happening, all different things happening in this place, all of which were sort of the opposite of a disaster. And that’s important because, again, your brain doesn’t see it coming. But this fire, it was an electrical fire, had started in one room, and it really tore through the whole complex very quickly. And at the time, there were almost 3,000 people packed into the club, because I think it was Memorial Day weekend, so it was really crowded. There was a dog owner’s club in one room having a banquet in the crystal room, and then doctors, a group were together in the Viennese room, all these different groups. There was 400 people for an awards banquet. And then most of the remainder of the guests, most of the guests were in the cabaret room, which was a ballroom. And most of the people who died would die in that room. In all, the fire killed 167 people. And so it became this mystery, what had happened here? What could have gone differently so this wouldn’t happen again? And became very closely studied by safety engineers to try to understand how did this happen? And there were some really hopeful lessons. One that really stands out to me is that the waiters and waitresses went to incredible lengths to get people out on average. I talk about a busboy who really put himself at risk over and over again, going back into the smoke to pull people out. Cooks, busboys, all these people, men and women. And that’s partly because when your role is to be helpful and be the host in a situation, and then a disaster happens, you tend to still obey according to that role. So if your role, though, is to be a guest at a banquet, you’re in a more passive position and you also continue to play that role in the disaster. So it’s interesting to see how that continues. Now there was also denial. There were people who were just not reacting, but many of those employees just behaved magnificently above and beyond what you would expect. The problems included the fact there were just not enough exits in the club and they were really hard to find. And that was true of the World Trade Center. That’s true of a lot of places. These places aren’t really designed for humans often. They’re just mazes. And so it created, in addition to denial, it created dangerous delay. So these sociologists Norris Johnson and William Feinberg, who were professors at the University of Cincinnati nearby, they got really curious about what happened here and they just dug into the research and found that an estimated 60% of the employees had tried to help in some way, but only 17% of the guests had helped. So again, your role at the time really matters. Brett McKay: Yeah, and you talked about when guests did help, they had a social role as a helper. They’re either a doctor or a nurse or an EMT. If they were that in their daily life, then they were more prone to be a helper. But if they weren’t, they weren’t going to do anything. Amanda Ripley: Yeah. Remember I said, there were those doctors dining at the club. They started administering CPR and dressing wounds and nurses did the same thing. There was even a hospital administrator there who began organizing doctors and nurses. So the overarching lesson from the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire is how well most people performed. They thought they were going to find pushing and chaos and selfish behavior, but actually it was really orderly almost to a fault. People were staying in line, not pushing, queuing up to get out and helping each other, particularly when they were in that role going into the event. So it was not what they expected. And it was one of the big eye-opening moments where we started questioning the Hollywood stereotype about how people behave. In fact, if anything, the problems with the World Trade Center evacuation included the fact that people went too slowly. We tend to get very polite to strangers in these situations because we’re scared and we need each other. Brett McKay: Yeah. So I mean, maybe the lesson there is if you are in a disaster scenario, you have to remind yourself, I will probably default to my social role in this situation and that might not be the best thing to do. Amanda Ripley: Right. Brett McKay: Yeah. If you’re in an official role or in a helper type job for your day job, you may default to stepping up and taking action. But if you’re a guest somewhere, a customer, know that you are apt to be passive and compliant and you may need to make an extra effort to snap yourself out of just being passive. Another way your social role in a situation can affect your behavior, and I think about this all the time, let’s say you’re in a restaurant or in a grocery store and there’s an active shooter situation. The closest exit might be through the kitchen or through the back of the grocery store. But because you’re in customer mode, you’re thinking, I can only go through the front door. I can’t go through the employee exit. But then you have to remember that in an emergency, social roles are off the table. I mean, you can break social norms. You got to get to the nearest exit, whether you’re an employee or not. Amanda Ripley: Right. The sort of rule bound folks in the room are going to have to overcome that. And it’s even true in very small ways. Just a few months ago, I was walking around Washington, D.C., where I live in DuPont Circle, which is a pretty safe, affluent neighborhood. And it was on a Tuesday afternoon and just sunny day, nothing big going on. And I was just walking down the street and I heard a gunshot at pretty close range. And I looked around. I couldn’t figure out where it was coming from. But what was weird is everyone around me just kept walking. And people were sipping their coffee and people were chatting and people were on their phones. And it was like it hadn’t happened. And then I remember I’m like, okay, just because no one else is reacting doesn’t mean they’re right. It’s just they don’t expect it here. In this neighborhood, it’s not your brain is just moved right past it. So, again, I couldn’t figure out where it come from, but I knew I’d been around enough guns that I knew that was a gunshot. And so I just knew it wasn’t coming from the subway. So I just went down into the subway to leave the area. And it was, in fact, one driver had shot another. Anyway, what I did not do was start screaming for everyone to run and clear the area. I didn’t take it that far. Maybe I should have. Maybe I shouldn’t have. I didn’t hear additional shots. But it’s like you’re in the moment trying to balance am I right or am I overreacting here? And you just usually don’t know until it’s too late is the thing. You don’t know. Brett McKay: Yeah, that’s another reason people don’t take action is they don’t want to be the weirdo. Amanda Ripley: Right. Overreacting. You don’t want to cause people to think you’re just hypersensitive or, and I think the reality is if you’re going to be that guy or that woman who does say we got to evacuate for this fire drill, even though you all think it’s a joke, people are going to think you’re the weirdo. And that’s probably worth it. But there is a little bit of social pressure that you will face in that situation. So you don’t want to make permanent mistakes there that put people in more jeopardy. But it is worth taking on a little bit of that peer pressure and pushing through. Brett McKay: We’ve been talking about how most people in a disaster, they’re actually very polite, they’re docile, but occasionally panic does happen. And you look at the Muslim Hajj, what that can teach us about panic and why it happens in groups. So tell us about that. I thought this was really fascinating. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, so it’s not that panic never happens. And sometimes it’s annoying because researchers on this will constantly downplay. And I think that’s a mistake because I know that what they’re trying to do, they’re trying to make us less prone to assume there will be panic. But that doesn’t mean that it never happened. So it’s important to talk about when it does happen and why. The research on this is basically yeah, panic rarely happens. But I think people feel panicky in disasters. That’s true. When you’re afraid, your heart races, your palms sweat, your breath is short. That feels panicky. That’s not the same thing as mobs of people freaking out. So it’s almost like the word is inadequate to the task. But when we’re actually looking at, okay, when do groups of people behave in an antisocial way? It’s usually when they feel trapped and they might get out, but they might not. And they also are in a system that they think is corrupt. So there’s certain conditions that have to be met. They don’t trust the setting and they think they may not get out. So there’s a zero-sum situation. But in the Hajj, so the Hajj that you mentioned, there’s been a series of really tragic crowd crushes that have happened in the pilgrimages that happened to the Hajj. And for a long time, some of the people in charge would blame the victims and say that they had misbehaved. And this is something you hear a lot after crowd crushes. And the research on this is pretty clear that that’s not what happened. That basically, usually in crowd crushes and stampedes like that, first of all, it’s just too dense. There are too many people in too small a space. So the design and management of the crowd is a problem. And then what happens is you lose control over your bodily movements because it’s so tight. And then someone falls down up ahead of you. And then that causes other people to sort of surge forward, right? Because they don’t know that someone’s fallen down. So it’s a lack of communication on top of everything else. The way most people die in crowd crushes is asphyxiation. It’s not that people are trampling you, although that happens, but it’s that you don’t get enough air. And the compounding force of many rows of people behind you in big crowds, it’s like a Mack truck. I mean, the pressure on the people in front. And if they don’t know that people have fallen, they just keep moving forward in the direction they were already moving. And then that compounds that pressure. So this might look like panic. And then, of course, people are struggling to breathe and to get to the top of the pile. It might look like panic, but it’s not like people are punching each other out and misbehaving. It’s people are getting really pressed to death. And so that’s a design and crowd management problem. It’s not really that the people themselves misbehaved. Brett McKay: And it sounds like they’ve taken measures to reduce or prevent those type of things happening during the Hajj, right? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, because they’ve learned it’s a physics problem. That is a physics problem. You need to design and manage the crowd differently. And a lot of big crowd events, if you look at Times Square in New York City on New Year’s Eve, they are managed really well. You want a square meter around you of space. And if you have less than that, you can get in trouble. So the advice to individuals is, look, if you’re in a really crowded situation, try to slowly, gradually move to the edge of the crowd where you have a little less, a little lower odds of getting crushed. But the best advice is to the organizers of these events, right? You really have to be able to communicate with the crowd and keep people from getting into too dense of a scenario. And that’s what they’ve gotten much better at at the Hajj, although there are still problems. Brett McKay: Okay, so we’ve talked about the first two parts of the survival arc. There’s denial. People often don’t immediately recognize the danger or downplay its seriousness. They may freeze, delay action, just carry on like nothing’s wrong. Then there’s deliberation. And that’s when people begin to assess what’s happening and consider their options. And sometimes if people are overwhelmed by stress or if they’re unprepared, they get stuck in deliberation. But hopefully, maybe if you’ve rehearsed the scenario before, you can stay calm and then you can enter into the third part of the survival arc. And that’s decisive action. And one thing you talk about in this part of the book is that some people don’t just take action to save themselves, but they try to save others. And we talked about this a little before, that people sometimes help others in an emergency. But let’s talk more about when people are out-and-out heroes. They may not even be directly involved in the situation that’s going on, but they may jump in and risk their lives to save someone else. What did you learn about that? Why would someone who doesn’t even know the person who’s in the freezing cold water drowning, why would they jump in and try to save that person? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, I mean, the research on this is really frustrating. It’s very hard because one person’s hero who jumped in and saved someone else can be another disaster’s victim or fool. If you jump into a really threatening situation and die or make things worse, then it’s a different storyline. So it’s really tricky. But I did try to find research that is out there. And first of all, I interviewed a lot of people that other people have called heroes. And if you ask them why they did what they did, they invariably say the same thing. They say they had no choice, which is interesting. They’re universally uncomfortable with the label hero. They attribute their actions to the situation rather than their own profile. So they say, how could I watch a man drown or starve or burn to death? So for them, the fear of not acting is worse than the fear of acting. And both are scary. So it’s not like they’re not scared. It’s just, given their training, given their background, given their identity, who they think they are in this world, they can’t live with themselves if they don’t try. So that’s some of what we know is that on average, again, this research is really thin, but from what we can tell, a lot of people who are celebrated in the media as heroes from events like this are much more likely to be young, single men. That could be partly because they don’t have families. So maybe they have less at risk. It could be because men are more likely to work outside and in situations where these types of things happen that get a lot of media coverage. They might be they have an identity that they’re someone who’s not supposed to just sit quietly by and watch someone else die. So there’s a lot of possible reasons there, including there’s some evolutionary reasons about why young men would do that, because it raises their status in the group. And that would make sense. But it’s a lot of speculation right now. Brett McKay: Yeah. And it sounds like to the people who have this idea that they couldn’t not act, they had to do something. It sounds like from what you talk about in the book, when they were growing up, they really had a good relationship with their parents and their parents always impressed upon them. You’re a helper, you’re always going to do what you can for others. And then they carry that over into heroic situations. Amanda Ripley: Yeah, it could be like the doctors and nurses, right, from the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire. If you’ve got the mindset that you’re a helper, then you’re going to carry that with you. Brett McKay: So you end the book talking about this guy named Rick Rescorla. He worked at the World Trade Center. And you use him as this is the guy that we should look at to see how to really prepare ourselves and others for the unthinkable. So what can Rick tell us or teach us about that? Amanda Ripley: Yeah, Rick Rescorla is a really interesting person who was the head of security for Morgan Stanley, which had a massive presence at the World Trade Center. He was a former soldier who worked on security and spent many years at Morgan Stanley. He had fought in Vietnam, earned a bunch of medals, and eventually settled into this role. But he still brought with him that mindset that he had learned in the military. He knew that Morgan Stanley was vulnerable, it occupied 22 floors of Tower 2. That’s like a small city, basically. And after the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, he got really focused on the threat of a terrorist attack at the Trade Center. And so he brought up one of his buddies to New York City who did counterterrorism work in 1990 and asked him, where are the vulnerabilities that you see here? And his friend saw the Trade Center’s garage and he said, oh, well, this is a no brainer. I would just drive a truck full of explosives into the garage and walk out. So Rick and his friend wrote this report to the Port Authority explaining their concerns and trying to get more security in the parking garage. Not a lot of things happened, according to Rick. Nothing happened, really. The Port Authority did not respond to my requests for comment. But in any event, three years later, Ramzi Yousef drove a truck full of explosives into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center. And that was the first terrorist attack at the Trade Center that led to a really disastrous evacuation. So while it wasn’t very deadly, it was truly traumatic for a lot of people because it took many hours for people to evacuate. The stairwells were not well lit and ventilated. So now Rick had real conviction that things needed to change. And he didn’t trust the Port Authority, which ran the Trade Center. So he did something that almost no one else did, which was he trusted the people in the company to save themselves. Morgan Stanley was the largest tenant in the World Trade Center. And so he decided they were going to have to take care of each other. And so from then on, no visitors were allowed in the office without an escort. And he made sure they knew where the stairwell was on their first day. So they knew how to get out of there. He told his employees not to listen to instructions from the Port Authority in a real emergency because it had lost all legitimacy for him. And most importantly, he started running the entire company through frequent surprise fire drills, which remains extremely unusual. And he actually had people go down the stairs two by two, go down several sets of stairways. And he insisted that the highest floors evacuate first and not let the lower floors in in front of them, which is actually a big problem, a lot of evacuations because it takes forever. So this is someone who had advanced understanding of human behavior and also incredible faith in his colleagues, in the public basically. He knew that if people had the training, they can become really expert in getting out of places and helping each other. And he was right. So, on the morning of 9/11, he knew that another plane had hit the other tower and he grabbed his walkie-talkie and he started to order an evacuation and it had already started. The Morgan Stanley employees knew not to wait for someone to tell them to go to safety and it already started. They knew where the stairwells were, which was pretty unusual in the Trade Center. It was confusing for different reasons. And then when people started getting scared in the stairwell because another plane hit, he started singing songs through his bullhorn, which is something he had done to calm his soldiers in Vietnam. And he sung songs in the stairwell and there’s a picture of him doing that in the book and people remember that. And when the tower collapsed, only 13 Morgan Stanley employees were inside. The other 2,687 were safe, which was quite extraordinary. And unfortunately, Rick and a handful of his security colleagues had gone back in to get some stragglers. So, they were killed that day. But it’s an incredible story of what can happen when you trust regular people to train for bad things to happen and to help each other. Brett McKay: Well, Amanda, this has been a great conversation. Where can people go to learn more about the book and your work? Amanda Ripley: You can check out more about the book and my work at amandaripley.com. Brett McKay: Fantastic. Well, Amanda Ripley, thanks for your time. It’s been a pleasure. Amanda Ripley: Thanks for having me. Brett McKay: My guest here is Amanda Ripley. She’s the author of the book, “The Unthinkable”. It’s available on amazon.com and bookstores everywhere. You can find more information about her work at our website, amandaripley.com. Also, check out our show notes at aom.is/disaster, where you find links to resources. We delve deeper into this topic. Well, that wraps up another edition of the AOM Podcast. Make sure to check out our website at artofmanliness.com, where you find our podcast archives, as well as thousands of articles that we’ve written over the years about pretty much anything you can think of. And if you haven’t done so already, I’d appreciate it if you take one minute to use your new podcast or Spotify. It helps out a lot. And if you’ve done that already, thank you. Please consider sharing the show with a friend or family member who you think will get something out of it. As always, thank you for the continued support. Until next time, this is Brett McKay, reminding you to only listen to the AOM Podcast, but put what you’ve heard into action. This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

A Chinese mega-dam, India’s diversion plans, and Pakistan’s heated rhetoric signal the rise of a new flashpoint in the region Chinese Premier Li Qiang announced last week the launch of a monumental dam project on the Tibetan Plateau that is set to become the largest hydroelectric facility in the world, according to Chinese media. Situated on the lower stretches of the Yarlung Tsangpo River, the project has sparked concerns about potential downstream effects on water availability and environmental sustainability in India and Bangladesh. On July 19, Li, while justifying the launch of the construction of a dam over the Brahmaputra River in the ecologically fragile and sensitive Tibet region, allayed apprehensions over its possible bearing in the midstream and lower riparian countries such as India and Bangladesh. China says the dam project, costing an estimated $167 billion, will ensure ecological protection and enhance local prosperity. Earlier this month, the chief minister of the Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, Pema Khandu, described the Chinese dam project on the river, which in India is largely referred to as the Brahmaputra, as a “ticking water bomb” and a matter of grave concern. Over 3,000km from Arunachal Pradesh, in the hushed conversations of the Kashmir Valley, people are quietly speculating that the next war between India and Pakistan may be fought over Kashmir’s waters. “Act of war” After the April 22 terrorist attack in the picturesque Baisaran valley in Pahalgam, Kashmir, New Delhi put the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) of 1960 in abeyance. In a tit-for-tat response, Islamabad suspended the Simla Agreement of 1972 and described India’s action as an “act of war.” The IWT, brokered by the World Bank, was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960. It is a water-distribution agreement between India and Pakistan that had survived for the last 65 years but has been suspended for the first time by India. According to the IWT, both countries can use the water available in the Indus River and its tributaries. Pakistan is granted rights to the Indus Basin’s western rivers – Indus, Jhelum, and Chenab – for irrigation, drinking, and non-consumptive uses (hydropower). India has control over the eastern rivers – Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej – for unrestricted use. As per the treaty, India is allowed to use the western rivers for limited purposes (power generation and irrigation), without storing or diverting large volumes. Read more A decades-old deal is falling apart – and two nuclear neighbors are involved New Delhi is now reportedly working on a mega inter-basin water transfer plan to possibly divert surplus flows from Jammu and Kashmir waters to the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana, and even to Rajasthan. Media reports indicate that New Delhi aims to maximize the benefits of the Indus River waters. A feasibility study is being conducted to explore the possibility of constructing a 113-km-long canal that would redirect surplus flows from Kashmir to other states. Predictably, this proposal has not gone down well with either Islamabad or Kashmir-based political groups. Besides triggering a war of words between the major Unionist political formations of Kashmir and Punjab, this project is likely to instigate new interstate water disputes. It also has geopolitical ramifications. Pravin Sawhney, a former India Army officer, prominent strategic and defense expert and author, told RT that any violation of the IWT would be an act of war from Pakistan’s perspective. “Stopping water flow to Pakistan or diverting Kashmir waters to other states in violation of the IWT will be considered an Act of War. A war that India cannot win because of China and Pakistan being iron-clad friends,” Sawhney said. Clash over water However, after the Pahalgam incident, New Delhi hardened its position vis-à-vis Islamabad. On a visit to the state of Madhya Pradesh last month, Indian Home Minister Amit Shah said, “Indus waters will be taken to Rajasthan’s Sri Ganganagar through canals within three years.” He also claimed that Pakistan will be left “craving for every drop of water.” Similar statements have been made by other Indian politicians. How does Islamabad perceive this threat? Read more The train to Kashmir is finally real – and it’s stunning In a recent interview with The Wire, former Pakistani Foreign Minister Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari spoke in favor of a comprehensive dialogue between the two countries on all outstanding issues, including the Kashmir dispute and “water terrorism.” “India is threatening to cut off the water supply to 240 million people of Pakistan to starve the Indus Valley civilization, a shared culture, history and heritage. This goes against everything that used to be Indian. It goes against the philosophy of (Mohandas Karamchand) Gandhi. It goes against all that we have been taught about India as a secular country.” In earlier interviews, Bhutto warned of serious ramifications if the water flow was stopped to Pakistan, a low riparian state. During the National Assembly’s budget session in Pakistan last month, he accused the current Indian government of violating international law by unilaterally suspending the IWT. The Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration recently ruled that New Delhi’s decision to suspend the IWT did not deprive the court of its competence to deliver judgment on Pakistan’s complaints against India. New Delhi has opposed the proceedings of the Court of Arbitration ever since its creation by the World Bank in October 2022. The Indian Ministry of External Affairs, in a statement on June 27, called the move the “latest charade at Pakistan’s behest.” New Delhi’s plan to reroute Kashmir’s waters potentially complicates geopolitical tensions between the two rivals, whose 78-year-old history has witnessed major wars, intense and prolonged periods of escalation during the 1999 Kargil conflict, and more recently, the standoff in May 2025. Rao Farman Ali, the author of ‘Water, Polity and Kashmir’, argues that the international community will not allow another war between Pakistan and India given that both are nuclear powers. "Rhetoric on either side won’t help. There is a need to handle sensitive issues such as the Indus Waters Treaty with caution and foresight, and the key lies in resolution of the Kashmir dispute,” Ali told RT. Read more As India and Pakistan eye each other, this superpower eyes the whole map He added that the IWT’s potential as a sustainable peace-building structure remains unexploited. Meanwhile, he favors a win-win situation for China, Pakistan, and India as a result of a potential agreement between all stakeholders. “A trilateral 1.2.3 Agreement between China, India and Pakistan, focusing on the immediate demilitarization of the Siachen Glacier – the vital ‘blue crystal feeding the Indus (Neelam-Kishanganga) – is an urgent imperative,” he said, adding that suspending the IWT would trigger another conflict and that perpetual Pakistan-India acrimony is unaffordable and unreasonable. Chinese experts meanwhile have warned New Delhi against any potential plans to divert waters. Victor Gao, chair professor at Soochow University and expert on international relations, said in an interview with India Today that Beijing will have to step in if New Delhi and Islamabad are not able to "come up with an equitable way of allocating the water." “We really do not want to see the way the Indian government is diverting water from the Indus river, depriving the Pakistani people in the downstream of the benefit of water. We do not like it at all. And we warned the Indian government not to do that because there will be consequences if the Indian government continues to deny water to the people in Pakistan on the downstream," he asserted, arguing the India is a midstream country and that China is “the real upper stream country.” READ MORE: From bunker bombs to Nobel dreams: Trump’s war for peace Gao, who is known to be close to the Chinese establishment, said that denial or diversion of water to mid-stream or low riparian states will have consequences. “Don’t do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you. India is not really in the upper stream. India is a midstream country. So, be peaceful with your neighbor rather than engaging in a political spectacle,” he warned in a 25-minute-long interview. China controls the Brahmaputra River and wields influence to disrupt the flow of the waters. The proposed dam project by China also risks renewed confrontation between Beijing and New Delhi. Unlike Pakistan and India, China is not a signatory to any international water treaties. View the full article

Last year, we wrote a guide to how to take your first backpacking trip, offering a complete primer for getting out there, even if you’re a little intimidated by the idea. If going backpacking seems daunting when it will just be adults, the thought of bringing kids along can make it feel doubly so. How far are the kids capable of hiking? Are they just going to whine and ask “How much further?” the entire time? How do you pack in a bunch of gear for humans who might not be able to carry their own stuff? To get the lowdown on how to successfully execute a family backpacking trip with the smaller set in tow, I talked to our friend McKenzie Smith. McKenzie and her husband take their six kids — who currently range in age from 5 to 14 — on half a dozen backpacking trips a year. They’ve successfully executed a 40-mile backpacking trip with all their kids with nary a complaint. McKenzie has even taken all six of her children backpacking by herself, including when her youngest was two and her oldest was eleven. To say that she’s a pro at backpacking with kids is an understatement. If you’ve ever wanted to try backpacking with your children — or have tried but it felt chaotic or overwhelming — this guide will walk you through what to know before the hike, with advice straight from a seasoned trail parent who’s logged hundreds of family miles. Why Take Your Kids Backpacking? Modern parenting tends to err on the side of bubble-wrapped safety and optimized schedules. But deep in the backcountry, both parents and kids discover qualities in themselves they wouldn’t otherwise get acquainted with. “I just really believe in it,” McKenzie said of backpacking. “Backpacking really builds character. We’ve been on some very challenging trips, and our kids reference them whenever they’re doing something really hard. They’ll say, ‘We did that 40-miler, Mom. We can do this!’ It’s such a confidence-builder for them.” Beyond building strength and character, McKenzie sees backpacking as one of the most powerful ways to connect as a family. “Some of our very best memories have come from backpacking. The kids remember these trips more than anything else we do.” When to Start McKenzie advocates for not putting your outdoor adventures on hold while your kids are babies, and the Smiths have taken all of their kids hiking while they were still infants. “Our youngest went on his first trip at four months,” she related. “We used the Osprey Poco Plus. It’s a baby carrier that has storage space so you can pack some gear. We just carried him. It was simple.” (If you’re looking for advice on backpacking with a baby, check out this guide.) That said, it’s understandable that many might find the idea of taking a baby backpacking intimidating. In which case, wait to take your children along until the youngest can walk most of the way or until the age they seem ready, realizing that it might be a lot earlier than you’d think. Something McKenzie emphasized is that kids can hike longer than you’d expect. “Our four-year-old hiked 40 miles the year I turned 40,” she said. “Kids are so much more capable than we give them credit for.” If you’re nervous about sleeping on the ground with your little kids, McKenzie suggests easing into it. “There are places out West with hike-in cabins and fire lookouts. You still carry your gear, but you get four walls and a roof. It’s a great way to start.” From my experience, if you’re new to backpacking yourselves, it’s best for Mom and Dad to get a few trips under their own belts, before they bring their kids along. There’s a learning curve to backpacking, and you don’t want to be figuring it out while the complexities are compounded by your children. Gain some confidence in your own backpacking skills first, and then have your kids join you. Choosing the Right Trail If it’s your first time going backpacking with your kids, McKenzie suggests being thoughtful about the trail you pick. A first backpacking route in the 3–5 mile range is a sweet spot. “You want it to be a challenge,” she said. “Enough that they feel like they accomplished something.” You can scale things up or down, depending on how old your kids are. We took our kids on their first backpacking trip when they were eight and eleven and did an 8-mile trail — hiking in 4 miles, camping overnight, and hiking out 4 miles in the morning — and it was very doable and just the right amount to get their feet wet. When choosing a trail, McKenzie notes, elevation is a bigger factor than mileage. “A five-mile trail with 4,000 feet of gain? That’s brutal for anyone, let alone a kid.” Flat or rolling terrain, shaded sections, and trails with a destination — a lake, a waterfall, a lookout — go a long way in keeping kids motivated. Here’s McKenzie’s quick checklist for picking a kid-friendly route: Elevation gain: “Under 2,000 feet is going to be a happier hike.” Natural hazards: Avoid scrambles, cliffs, and fast-moving rivers. Water sources: Critical for hydration and a huge morale booster. “The kids love playing in creeks or lakes. And filtering water is just necessary — you can’t carry enough when you’ve got a bunch of kids.” Shade: Makes a big difference in comfort. As to whether you should choose an out-and-back trail versus a loop, while loops can make the trek feel more varied, only considering loop trails will limit your options. “Out-and-backs still feel different depending on the time of day, weather, and what wildlife you see,” McKenzie says. Gear: What Kids Need (and What They Don’t) Backpacking gear can be expensive and will quickly be outgrown by still-developing kids, which is another reason parents might hesitate to include their children in this pastime. Also, if a kid isn’t old enough to carry their own gear, it means you’ve got to shoulder more equipment, which increases the effort level for you. McKenzie has some solid advice on outfitting your children for a trip so that it doesn’t break the bank or your back. “Until our kids are around 7 or 8, they don’t carry much,” McKenzie said. “They just use a really lightweight daypack, and we have them carry light stuff like our freeze-dried meals or the trash bag out.” If your kids are little, McKenzie recommends opting for gear that you can share with your kids. For example, instead of giving each person their own air pad, use a double sleeping pad. “We use the Exped Duo to cover the whole tent floor. It’s more comfortable and means fewer individual pads to pack,” McKenzie told me. She’s also a big fan of backpacking quilts over sleeping bags. You can share them, and they’re lighter than traditional sleeping bags. Once a child proves they’re committed to backpacking, the Smiths will reward them with their own gear. “We’ll buy them their own hiking-specific pack when they’re around eight,” McKenzie said. “And as a reward for a tough hike, my husband will take them to pick out a new piece of gear — a knife, a filter, whatever. It builds ownership.” If you’re just testing the waters with family backpacking, and you want to minimize costs before fully committing to it, try to borrow gear from friends. Or check out REI and university outdoor programs, as both have rental options. Facebook Marketplace will also be your friend if you want to keep costs down while acquiring backpacking equipment for your kids. As to hiking footwear, McKenzie recommends trail sneakers over full-on hiking boots for both kids and adults. And make sure to bring a pair of Tevas the kids can wear around camp to give their little feet a rest (they’ll also come in handy if the family needs to cross a stream or just wants to play in it). Food on the Trail When it comes to food, simplicity is king. The Smiths primarily use freeze-dried meals. They can be expensive, though, and some cost-friendly meals their family has also enjoyed over the years include bulk freeze-dried refried beans and tortillas for bean burritos and instant pudding and bulk freeze-dried fruit for dessert. They also bring ramen. McKenzie told me they typically have two large sit-down meals: one in the morning so the kids have full tummies for the day and one at night before bedding down. During the day, they’ll snack on trail mix. “They make their own mix before the trip — M&Ms, nuts, dried fruit — and they carry it themselves. They love it.” One underrated trick? Flavor packets. “Creek water can taste kind of funky, and that can gross kids out. Propel or lemonade powder helps them drink more.” Campsite Chores and Evening Fun McKenzie and her husband divvy up tasks as soon as camp is reached: “Older kids set up the tent; I make dinner. Everyone contributes.” She also recommends packing a few activities for those twilight hours before bed: Capture the flag Fishing poles if you’re near water Card games Charades. “Our kids surprisingly enjoy playing charades a lot.” Flashlight Morse code Art kits, scavenger hunts, pinecone collections They’ll spend a lot of time around the fire just telling stories. “We tell our kids stories about ourselves when my husband and I were younger. They also like to hear stories about when they were really little kids or babies. We love telling stories.” Don’t overthink entertainment. “Kids just love being wild and free. They don’t need much else.” Bathroom, Safety, and Other Considerations Some things you learn the hard way: Kids need to pee more. Be prepared to stop — frequently. Sanitation. “Kids get really dirty so you have to do a lot more cleaning.” McKenzie uses compressed towelettes and single-use hand sanitizer pods to keep things clean and lightweight. First aid. Whether you’re backpacking with kids or without, you should always bring an ample first aid kit. Consider including an EpiPen even if your kid doesn’t have an established allergy; if they’ve never been stung by a bee before, you don’t know if they’re allergic or not. Emergency prep. McKenzie always packs bear spray and a satellite phone. “We’ve never had to use them — but just knowing they’re there gives peace of mind,” she said. “And before we leave for a trip, we go over with the kids what they should do if they ever get lost. They’ve all got whistles. This is one of those things that’s easy to forget about while you’re busy getting ready for a trip.” See You On the Trail! Backpacking with your kids isn’t always easy. But that’s the point. “In a world where kids are so protected, it’s powerful to put them in a safe environment that still feels like, ‘I don’t know if I’m going to survive this,'” McKenzie said. “That challenge is important for their development.” It’s also — once you’ve invested in the gear — a surprisingly inexpensive way to spend quality time together. And the dividends are real. “Our kids reference these trips constantly,” McKenzie told me. “They remember the swimming, the hiking, the stories around the fire. And they know they can do hard things.” This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

An important part of manhood has always been about having the competence to be effective in the world — having the breadth of skills, the savoir-faire, to handle any situation you find yourself in. With that in mind, each Sunday we’ll be republishing one of the illustrated guides from our archives, so you can hone your manly know-how week by week. For hunters who like to go after smaller game, frogs represent a prized delicacy. Their legs, served up simply with garlic and butter, or battered and fried, are found on the menus of fancy French restaurants and Southern diners alike. But, they’re probably far more common in the cast iron skillets of those who know the secret to catching them in their own backyard. Frog season generally runs from late spring into the end of summer, when frogs mate. You might see frogs during the day, but they typically hide until it’s dark. Their nocturnal nature would seem to make it harder to catch them, but it’s actually an advantage. When frogs encounter bright lights, they freeze up. So the same flashlight that makes it possible for you to find frogs in the first place also holds them still while you make your move to catch and even spear them. To find frogs, look on the weedy banks of rivers, ponds, and lakes. They typically hang out in muddy, grassy areas near water. As with any foraging or hunting activity, make sure you understand which frogs are safe to eat before you go out. As a general rule, bullfrogs and leopard frogs are what people typically go after, but your area might be home to another type of edible frog. Avoid any frogs that are blue, red, yellow, orange, or brightly colored in some way. If you’re not sure, best to leave a frog and move on rather than catch it and get sick later. Like this illustrated guide? Then you’re going to love our book The Illustrated Art of Manliness! Pick up a copy on Amazon. This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

‘Russian disinfo’ slayers try very hard to pin Queen Ursula’s no-confidence vote on Moscow Apparently, trying to hold Ursula von der Leyen accountable is now a Russian op, reports Der Spiegel, citing a new NATO-linked think tank report. The study treats elected oversight and European lawmakers whose job, ideally, involves more than clapping like trained seals every time an unelected Eurocrat lights public money on fire, like elements of some kind of Russian infiltration plot. “Massive support for this effort was also found by pro-Kremlin media outlets, bloggers, and online influencers, as the Lithuania-based organization Debunk.org specializes in analyzing disinformation and Russian propaganda, which is seen as part of Russia’s hybrid warfare against the EU,” Spiegel wrote, describing Russian-linked media “fueling” a recent von der Leyen non-confidence vote in the EU Parliament. “Among the larger portals were those of the Russian propaganda channel RT…” According to the advance copy of this report seen by Spiegel, the study reviewed 284 articles from Russian-linked media. Exactly how many of those articles expressed something like only von der Leyen’s ouster could save Europe? 90%? 75%? Maybe half? Nope, just 35%. Roughly the same percentage of voting EU lawmakers who favored ejecting her (32.7%). So by this logic, the Kremlin is about as supportive of Ursula as Brussels is. Awkward. Spiegel said that was the most common so-called Kremlin-backed narrative that the study found. Others included the suggestion that von der Leyen is part of a corrupt elite that robbed citizens to fill Big Pharma’s pockets. Because apparently, saying that hey, maybe EU contracts shouldn’t be inked via disappearing text messages with the CEO of a company, means that you’re doing Putin’s bidding. Real democracy means that you shut your mouth when you see your overlords doing shady stuff. Another alleged Kremlin line? That Ursula, despite her presidential title, was never elected. As someone who personally refers to her as “Queen Ursula,” I’m actually surprised that one didn’t rank higher. It’s not like she won a popular vote or anything. She was handpicked in shady backrooms and then subjected to a simple confirmation by EU lawmakers. Her sole opponent in this so-called “election” was literally just “not Ursula.” Only the EU, in all its dystopian delusion, would call that an “election”. Read more Von der Leyen survives EU no-confidence vote Then there was the claim that she’s obsessed with confronting Russia. Which is just, uh, objectively true? I mean, come on. If there are extraterrestrials somewhere out there, they may not know much about Earth, except for the fact that von der Leyen is obsessed with Russia – a phenomenon easily visible from space. Even right before the vote, she accused the lawmakers subjecting her to democratic accountability of being Kremlin stooges just because they wanted her to explain herself. “There is ample proof that many are supported by our enemies and by their puppet masters in Russia or elsewhere. What we hear from you are movements fueled by conspiracies, from anti-vaxxers, to put in apologists and you only have to look at some of the signatories of this motion to understand what I mean,” she pleaded. Let’s back up here. Why exactly did she face this no-confidence vote? Because no one who’s elected and accountable at the EU has actually been able to provide concrete details of contract terms for the tens of billions of euros in Covid jabs that she strong-armed European governments into paying for. Jabs that are now so useless they’re being dumped in landfills all over Europe, where one-eyed stuffed animals, soggy pizza boxes, and a moldy futon just got their third booster, courtesy of the EU taxpayer. One of those contracts followed a flurry of text exchanges between Ursula and Pfizer CEO, Robert Bourla, which she bragged about to the New York Times right before they pulled a Houdini. The courts have so far politely asked her to explain herself. And that’s where we’re stuck right now. So frustrated lawmakers figured that they could at least make her publicly squirm with a non-confidence vote in an attempt to get her to cough up at least some of the answers for taxpayers. The result? Ursula’s interpretive song and tap-dance routine in Parliament: “Putin Did It: Paranoia in Three Acts.” She ultimately survived the vote thanks to some budget crumbs thrown at the lefties who were otherwise saying that they would have voted against her. But even they told Politico that it was her “absolute last chance.” Read more New EU sanctions against Russia take effect So here comes Debunk.org, an obscure outlet that sounds like it’s trying a little too hard with the name. It’s funded by, let’s see… NATO members like the German government, UK Foreign Office, Lithuanian Ministry of Defense, and also the German Marshall Fund, which is practically a NATO mascot. In other words, roughly as independent as a teenager who calls down to his mom for “room service.” And wouldn’t you know it, they galloped in like Queen Ursula’s white knight with a whole “study” backing her mantra that the whole non-confidence vote was little more than a Kremlin plot. They could’ve just called themselves Spin.org. But sure, let’s just call skepticism and the demand for basic accountability a “Russian disinformation campaign,” and totally ignore the fact that Russian-linked media were mostly just echoing general discontent that has been bubbling up in European coverage and parliament for a while now. As reported by multiple outlets including Politico and Euronews, establishment EU Socialists have been turned off by what they perceive as von der Leyen’s overtures to the right-wing. Centrist Renew Europe voices frustration over her increasingly aloof style. Even her own center right European People’s Party (EPP) allies have been criticizing her centralized leadership approach. “EU capitals fume at ‘Queen’ von der Leyen. Diplomats accuse European Commission president of overreach amid a furor over her trip to Israel,” Politico wrote in 2023. “From queen to empress: Inside Ursula von der Leyen’s power grab,” it wrote last year. ”Her penchant for centralisation, her aloof character and her avoidance of controversial subjects have garnered her the nickname of “Queen Ursula” in Brussels,” Euronews says. Know what would’ve been genuinely illuminating? A side-by-side comparison of “Russian” and “non-Russian” media coverage, because although I’ve personally been calling her “Queen Ursula” for years now, apparently it’s been catching on in the mainstream. Debunk.org accuses the Russian-linked press of suggesting that “von der Leyen was an undemocratically legitimized autocrat.” That’s a long-winded way to say “Queen,” as even the mainstream outlets have been doing lately, and also, apparently her own colleagues, as Euronews suggests. But maybe a broader analysis would’ve complicated the nice, clean Kremlin-driven narrative angle. And who needs that when Queen Ursula has a throne to protect? Funny how “Russian disinfo” always seems to show up right when accountability does. If challenging Ursula’s behavior makes you a Russian asset, then much of the EU Parliament should probably just register as foreign agents. Because either the Kremlin is now running half of Europe, or Debunk.org needs to make an effort to step out of NATO’s basement and touch grass. View the full article

France’s occupation of Algeria ended in 1962, but its legacy still shapes identities and policies across North and West Africa As Algeria celebrates 63 years of independence from France on July 5, this year’s anniversary feels more like a reckoning than a triumph. Far from reconciliation, relations between Algiers and Paris have sunk to one of their lowest points in decades – fuelled by France’s refusal to fully confront its colonial crimes, and Algeria’s renewed demands for justice. Amid calls for formal apologies and reparations, the shadow of empire still looms. So why revisit this history now? Because even six decades after the French flag was lowered over Algiers, the wounds of colonialism remain open, and the battle over memory rages on. To understand the depth of today’s diplomatic rupture, we must go back to where the story began – France’s invasion of Algeria starting on June 15, 1830, when French naval forces sailed from Toulon and seized Algiers in less than three weeks. The expedition’s commander, General de Bourmont, boasted: “Twenty days were enough to destroy a state whose existence had burdened Europe for three centuries.” He was referring to Ottoman Algeria, a semi-autonomous province with its own identity and institutions. France’s quick victory fed a dangerous illusion: that conquest would be simple. What followed was anything but. The swift victory gave French leaders an illusion that Algeria’s fall signaled smoother days ahead. Few anticipated serious resistance – an attitude that partly explains how quickly the territory was absorbed into the colonial empire. No one imagined that a national liberation movement, the FLN (Front de Libération Nationale), would one day reclaim Algeria, and force France to retreat. Fly whisk incident Algeria was a peaceful, semi-autonomous Ottoman province with a distinct identity shaped by local political systems, Islamic scholarship, Mediterranean trade, and tribal alliances. For France, however, it was more than a colony – it was a conquest driven by ambition and a bid to restore prestige after Napoleon’s decline. What began as a punitive expedition soon became a 132-year project of domination, costing hundreds of thousands of Algerian lives – Algeria still claims at least 1.5 million people killed. The invasion was sparked by one of history’s most trivial diplomatic incidents. In 1827, the Dey of Algiers – effectively head of state – met French consul Pierre Deval to discuss Algeria’ s unpaid debts. Frustrated by Deval’s attitude, the Dey struck him with a fly whisk. Deval reported the insult to Paris, triggering a chain of events that led to the invasion. Read more La Colonisation: French history of death, torture and indescribable violence in the pearl of its evil empire France seized on the minor incident as a convenient pretext for war. Behind it lay a post-Napoleonic regime eager to distract from domestic unrest and reassert power abroad. Algeria, geographically close and politically weak, was an ideal target – symbolically vital as the gateway to North Africa. From colony to ‘French soil’ The invasion marked the beginning of one of the longest and harshest occupations in France’s colonial history. While France had other holdings in West Africa and its territoires d’outre-mer, Algeria was far more significant – strategically, economically, and symbolically. Its proximity to Europe and greater wealth made it more than just a colony. France saw Algeria as part of its own territory, officially incorporating it and settling nearly a million Europeans – pieds-noirs – who posed as civilians but functioned as a reserve force upholding colonial rule. Most pieds-noirs settlers were attracted by a set of policies offering incentives: cheap land taken from Algerians, tax breaks and subsidized farming backed by modern infrastructure and military protection. European settlers received full French citizenship, while native Algerians were denied equal rights unless they renounced Islam – a condition most rejected. These policies entrenched privilege and exclusion revealing policy of unequal. On December 9, 1848, the French National Assembly declared all of Algeria an integral part of France, dividing it into three départements – Algiers, Oran, and Constantine – mirroring the administrative structure of metropolitan France. In fact, Algeria became French territory over a decade before Nice was annexed from Italy. The phrase “The Mediterranean runs through France just as the Seine runs through Paris” became a popular propaganda slogan, used well into the 1960s to justify France’s continued hold on Algeria. Wine in a Muslim land Within two decades, French Algeria became a top global wine producer, aided by global demand, a favorable climate and a phylloxera outbreak in southern France. By the 1930s, Algeria produced over one billion litres annually, mostly exported to France, where producers blended it with local wine to improve color, taste, and strength. Read more Free trade isn’t free: A struggling ex-colony fights back, but the EU won’t let go easily Ironically, a mostly Muslim country where alcohol is forbidden became a major wine producer under colonial rule. Local farmers, lost land to vineyards, were excluded from profits and denied the chance to cultivate crops aligned with Islamic values – making the industry a symbol of exploitation and cultural disregard. Massacres that sparked a revolution For decades, Algerian resistance to French rule was fragmented and brutally suppressed. On May 8, 1945, tens of thousands marched in Sétif, Guelma, and Kherrata to demand independence – on the day Europe celebrated the end of World War II. Peaceful protests were met with horrific violence. French troops, police, and settler militias killed an estimated 15,000 to 45,000 Algerians. Villages were bombed, civilians executed, and communities razed. International condemnation was minimal, overshadowed by postwar triumphalism. For many Algerians, the message was clear: France would never grant independence willingly. The trauma shattered hopes for reform and fueled a new nationalist generation, paving the way for the FLN less than a decade later. The Battle of Algiers The FLN chose Algiers, the capital, to ignite full-scale resistance with dramatic violence. Three women – Djamila Bouhired, Zohra Drif, and Samia Lakhdari – disguised in European dress, slipped through French checkpoints into the European Quarter. Their targets: a busy Milk Bar and a crowded cafeteria. The bombings shocked the capital, marking a bloody new phase in urban resistance and showing the FLN’s growing reach within colonial strongholds. Following the attacks, French authorities cracked down hard. Zohra Drif and Samia Lakhdari were captured, but it was Djamila Bouhired’s arrest and trial that drew global attention. Tried by a military court and facing death, her case revealed colonial brutality, especially torture. Bouhired’s defiance made her a symbol of the FLN and the independence struggle, galvanizing international sympathy and cementing her legacy as an Algerian War icon. The guerrilla campaign, called the Battle of Algiers (1956-1957), was a defining chapter in Algeria’s independence war, highlighting the FLN’s urban guerrilla tactics and the harsh French counterinsurgency. The events shocked France and the world, later immortalized in Gillo Pontecorvo’s 1966 film, ‘The Battle of Algiers’, which portrayed the conflict in a raw, documentary style. Djamila Bouhired, a key figure, became a global resistance symbol. Her legacy extended beyond Algeria – she led an international women’s delegation to Gaza in 2014, blocked by Egyptian authorities. Her story inspired a generation of African activists fighting colonialism and apartheid. Read more Hands on the valve: How this former French colony could now control Europe The film influenced liberation movements across Africa, serving as a blueprint for urban guerrilla warfare, secret networks, and mass mobilization. In the 1970s, African National Congress (ANC) leaders in exile studied the film, and members of Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), the ANC’s armed wing, reportedly used it in their training. Its raw portrayal of resistance also shaped fighters in Angola, Guinea-Bissau, and Zimbabwe – making Algeria’s struggle, and its cinematic depiction, a shared reference in Africa’s fight against colonialism and apartheid. Memory wars and Macron’s partial apology Algeria’s colonial past continues to strain relations with France, marked by unresolved grievances and deep distrust. France has repeatedly refused a full apology for its 132-year occupation, while Algeria insists it’s essential for genuine reconciliation. In 2021, French President Emmanuel Macron offered a limited apology for the 1961 Paris massacre, when the police killed at least 100 protesters, some of whom were thrown into the River Seine, but stopped short of acknowledging broader colonial crimes. For many Algerians, such gestures fall short, keeping demands for full recognition and reparations central to the post-colonial debate. In every French presidential election, colonial memory – especially Algeria’s – shapes debates and voter behavior. A recurring issue is the fate of the Harkis, Algerians who fought with France against their country. After independence, many fled to France, where they and their descendants – now millions strong – form a significant electoral bloc. While not openly hostile to Algiers, many harbor deep resentment over perceived neglect by both France and Algeria. Algeria continues to demand a full apology and reparations for colonial crimes. In March 2025, the Algerian parliament revived stalled legislation from 2006 to criminalize French colonialism, calling for a formal apology, recognition of crimes against humanity, and compensation for France’s 132-year occupation. On May 8, Interior Minister Brahim Merad said France would “inevitably have to recognize its colonial crimes.” However, France has repeatedly avoided the issue – most recently worsening ties by recognizing Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, opposing Algeria’s support for Sahrawi independence. Algeria withdrew its ambassador from Paris, bringing relations to a low point. Despite strong domestic backing, the draft law remains under review amid fragile diplomacy and unresolved history. Read more ‘We have provided everything possible for their freedom’: How the USSR helped France’s most important colony stick it to Paris Algeria’s echo in the Sahel The violent French expulsion from Algeria in 1962 left a lasting impact across West Africa, still felt today. A new generation of Sahelian leaders – shaped by poverty and postcolonial frustration – views France not just as a former colonizer but as a failing patron. Between 2021 and 2023, Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger expelled French troops, citing worsening security and sovereignty violations. Niger cut ties with Paris in 2023, following Mali and Burkina Faso. Even longtime allies like Chad and Senegal have voiced discontent. France’s occupation of Algeria formally ended in 1962, but its legacy still shapes identities, policies, and geopolitics across North and West Africa. The scars of colonization remain living tensions – contested memories and unresolved demands for justice. From Algiers to the Sahel, the struggle against French dominance continues, as new generations reclaim their histories and reshape sovereignty in a post-imperial era. As French influence in Africa wanes, a new generation of leaders draws strength from the continent’s history of resistance, inspired by struggles like Algeria’s independence fight. The legacy of colonialism, marked by exploitation and violence, must be fully acknowledged and addressed. Only by settling these historical grievances, however delayed, can former colonies and their colonial powers build a foundation of genuine partnership, mutual respect, and a more hopeful future. View the full article

The fact that Brussels is even considering Maia Sandu’s Moldova for accession speaks volume of its proclaimed ‘values’ By all appearances, Maia Sandu should be the darling of Brussels. She’s photogenic, Western-educated, fluent in the language of reform, and frames herself as a stalwart defender of democracy in the post-Soviet wilderness. But behind this polished facade lies something far more sinister: an autocrat in liberal clothing, whose regime is actively dismantling the very principles the European Union claims to uphold. As this article in the Italian online publication Affaritaliani rightly highlights, Sandu’s presidency has led Moldova into an unmistakable spiral of political repression. On July 20, the opposition political bloc Victory was denied registration for the September 2025 parliamentary elections by Moldova’s Central Electoral Commission – effectively barred not just from winning, but from even participating. This isn’t a one-off bureaucratic hiccup. It is a calculated maneuver to ensure total political control. Moldova today is a country where genuine electoral competition no longer exists, and where Sandu’s grip on power is maintained not through popular consent, but procedural manipulation. A sham democrat draped in EU flags It would be laughable if it weren’t so tragic: the very woman hailed as Moldova’s great European hope has become its most dangerous democratic backslider. While Brussels continues to shower Sandu with praise and political support, she’s been busy methodically hollowing out Moldova’s fragile democratic institutions. Read more EU candidate state blocks opposition from elections (VIDEO) Consider the judiciary. Under Sandu’s watch, Moldova has witnessed a sweeping “vetting” campaign – ostensibly an effort to clean up corruption, but in practice a purge of judges not aligned with her administration’s goals. Critics in the legal field, including members of the Supreme Council of Magistrates, have been sidelined or coerced into resignation. Independent prosecutors have been replaced by loyalists. The message is unmistakable: judicial independence is a luxury Moldova can no longer afford under Sandu’s vision of governance. The media landscape is no less concerning. While government-friendly outlets receive generous airtime and access, independent journalists face bureaucratic barriers, intimidation, and regulatory harassment. Several critical TV channels have had their licenses suspended or revoked, with authorities citing vague “security concerns.” Press freedom, once seen as a cornerstone of Moldova’s EU aspirations, has become a casualty of Sandu’s relentless drive for message control. Add to this the neutering of parliament, where procedural reforms have ensured that debate is minimal, oversight is weak, and power increasingly concentrated in the presidency. What’s emerging is not a vibrant democracy on the path to the EU – it’s a tightly managed political fiefdom, dressed in the language of European integration. Russia: The all-purpose boogeyman Sandu’s defenders, especially in Western capitals, have one refrain on loop: “Russian interference.” Under Sandu, Russia has become a pretext. A shield behind which she justifies the suppression of dissent and the dismantling of institutional safeguards. Every opposition voice is painted as a puppet of Moscow. Every protest is portrayed as foreign subversion. Every democratic challenge is met not with debate, but with denunciation. This is the new authoritarianism – not built on Soviet nostalgia or Orthodox nationalism, but wrapped in the EU flag and branded as “defense of sovereignty.” Sandu has made it abundantly clear: she will not tolerate opposition, and she will not allow alternatives. Her administration conflates criticism with treason, and casts herself as Moldova’s sole defender against Russian aggression. It’s a familiar script – one that echoes leaders she claims to oppose. Read more Legal blackout in Eastern Europe: No lawyers, no justice, no questions EU accession: A theater of hypocrisy Yet in the halls of Brussels, Sandu remains a VIP. Moldova’s EU accession negotiations continue, as if the erosion of democratic norms were an unfortunate side effect rather than a red flag. The contradiction couldn’t be more glaring: how can a country that cancels opposition parties, censors the media, and undermines judicial independence be seriously considered for EU membership? The answer, of course, lies in geopolitics. Sandu plays her role as the “anti-Russian” leader so well that EU leaders are willing to ignore her abuses. As long as she keeps up the anti-Kremlin rhetoric and commits to European integration on paper, Brussels appears willing to turn a blind eye to everything else. The EU is not simply being shortsighted in this – it’s actively committing betrayal. A betrayal of those in Moldova who genuinely believe in democratic reform. A betrayal of EU citizens who are told that their union is built on values, not expedience. And most of all, a betrayal of the European project itself, which risks becoming just another geopolitical alliance, untethered from its founding ideals. Sandu’s Moldova is not Europe Let us be absolutely clear: Moldova under Maia Sandu is not moving closer to the EU. Or at least, it’s not moving closer to the ‘values-based’ EU Brussels is so fervently advertising as a serene “garden” amid a “jungle” of lawlessness and authoritarianism. Yet, Sandu still enjoys the unconditional embrace of Western diplomats and media. That must change. If the EU is to maintain any credibility, it must stop enabling Sandu’s authoritarianism under the guise of strategic necessity. Moldova’s EU bid should be frozen. Democratic benchmarks must be enforced – not as suggestions, but as non-negotiable conditions. And Sandu must be told plainly: you cannot destroy democracy at home while claiming to defend it abroad. The EU deserves better. Moldova deserves better. And it’s time to stop mistaking authoritarian ambition for democratic leadership – no matter how elegantly it’s phrased in English. View the full article

The years-long deception maintained by highest-level US officials has been put to rest, though not for the sake of justice and democracy Be real: It is not hard to see that America – as it really exists, not the ‘dream’ version – is neither a democracy nor a country with genuine rule of law. That’s because democracy worth the label is impossible, for starters, with elections awash in private money and a bizarre Electoral College making sure that Americans do not, actually, have votes of even numerically equal weight when electing their single most powerful official, the president. The rule of law can only exist where citizens are equal before laws that apply to everyone in the same, just manner. This is a challenge everywhere, but the US is an almost comically egregious case of legal bias, obscurantism (masquerading as limitlessly re-interpretable case law), and inequality by status, wealth, ethnicity, and skin color. Just ask that crackhead, porn addict, and shady “businessman” from an infamous clan, who is currently not in prison but giving expletive-laden interviews instead. The US, simply put, does not operate the way it claims to operate. It takes an extraordinary amount of naivete – on the scale of believing in Santa Claus or an honest Vladimir Zelensky – not to notice that much. What is more difficult to figure out is how politics and power actually do work in America and, most of all, who is really in charge. We have, for example, recently witnessed a presidency in which a severely senescent Joe Biden claimed to be but clearly could not be in command. So, who was? And who is in general? That, ultimately, is perhaps the single most disturbing question raised by recent developments around the rotting corpse of “Russiagate” (aka Russia Rage). In its heyday – between 2016 and about 2020 – “Russiagate” was the shorthand for a conspiracy theory that dominated US politics and mainstream media, causing mass hysteria. Its details were exceedingly complicated but its core was extremely simple: the claims that Russia had manipulated the American presidential elections of 2016, that it had done so to facilitate the first victory of Donald Trump, and finally that Donald Trump’s team had colluded with Russia. Read more Obama’s role in ‘Russia Hoax lies’ exposed – Gabbard The power of this preponderantly factually false and entirely misleading narrative was such that it overshadowed much of Donald Trump’s first presidency and contributed greatly to a catastrophic and very dangerous decline in the always challenging relationship with Russia. Indeed, there even is a plausible connection to be made between the mass madness of “Russiagate” and the reckless policy of provoking and waging a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. “Russiagate,” in other words, did not only harm the US; it harmed the whole world. In that respect, think of it as the political equivalent of the 2008 US banking crisis: the mess was American, the fallout global. Now, Trump is back for a second term and bent on revenge against his detractors not only but especially over “Russiagate.” In his usual refreshingly candid style, he has announced that “it is time to go after people,” fingered former president Barrack Obama for “treason,” and gleefully shared an AI-generated video showing Obama being arrested in the White House. Just before that typical Trump outburst, his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, released a freshly declassified report – produced in early 2017 by the intelligence committee of the House of Representatives – that addresses what really happened in 2016 when “Russiagate” was initially invented. This release was clearly meant to be a sensation: Gabbard accompanied it with press statements and a detailed thread of X posts bringing out its most explosive aspects. Among them, the key finding is that Russia did not work to make Trump president. Boom: the basis of “Russiagate” gone, just like that. And who was to blame? Gabbard made clear that “Russiagate” was not a cluster-fiasco born of mere incompetence but a monster intentionally produced and carefully nurtured. She accused “top national security officials,” including FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper as well as Obama himself of deliberately creating and spreading the impression of Russian election meddling in favor of Trump by manipulating the actual, contradictory findings of the intelligence agencies. Read more Obama ‘guilty of treason’ – Trump Gabbard used strong language: a “coup” against Trump, the “weaponization of intelligence,” a “treasonous conspiracy,” and a “betrayal concerning every American.” Those mainstream media, such as the New York Times, that are among the worst offenders in spreading the “Russiagate” hoax have already pounced on this language to, in essence, pooh-pooing Gabbard’s charges as hyperbolical. Don’t fall for that deflection. Gabbard’s way of presenting her case does have a political edge. Of course it does. Duh. And if they wish, the old “Russiagaters” can nitpick over her terms to their heart’s content. But that makes no difference to the fact that what has happened is an enormous blight on US politics, implicating the intelligence services as well as other state agencies, the media, and, indeed, former President Obama. Gabbard may be laying it on a little thick (or not, actually), but even without any embellishment, the fabrication of “Russiagate” was the real, humungous scandal. And it must be dealt with at long last. Dealing with it is where several measures already taken point: A Justice Department “strike force” has been set up; the current CIA director John Ratcliffe has, in essence, denounced his predecessor John Brennan to the FBI; and the current FBI director Kash Patel has opened an investigation into his predecessor James Comey. The knives are out. Or so it seems. It is always satisfying to see a big fat lie punctured and deflated. But there is, unfortunately, little reason to celebrate. For one thing, it is unlikely that many of those who concocted and spread “Russiagate” will actually face real consequences. That is just not how the US works: its “elites” have a record of impunity only rivaled by those of Israel. Obama, in particular, is certain to be safe: Ironically, he is now protected by the same extraordinary legal privilege that the Supreme Court has conjured up for Trump. Read more Trump posts AI video of Obama being arrested And where one team of manipulators has lost its grip, another one is already showing its mettle. Because in one respect even the New York Times has a point: one reason for at least the timing of escalation in Trump’s revenge campaign is that it is meant to distract us from that other horrific scandal, associated with the name of convicted pedophile, suspected intelligence agent and blackmailer, and very, very dubious suicide victim Jeffrey Epstein. The same Trump officials now in high dudgeon over “Russiagate,” have shown no independence of mind, professionalism, or commitment to truth and the public welfare, when helping Trump evade full transparency for the Epstein files, in which his name also appears. Finally, even while revealing that “Russiagate” was a hoax, Gabbard – and the House intelligence report she had declassified – still tried to blame Moscow. It’s a tricky operation: Now, we are supposed to stop accusing Russia and its President Vladimir Putin of helping Trump – and Trump of profiting from such help – but we are still asked to believe that they had nothing better to do than “undermine faith in the US democratic process.” Where to even begin? There is no democratic process in the plutocratic US. Even a Princeton University study has long acknowledged that America is not a democracy. In reality, there only is an obstinate and, frankly, brazen pretense of such a process; and maybe some people still believe in it. But it really does not take Russia or any other outside forces to make sure that many do not. That loss of faith in a thing that isn’t there is entirely made in America. Maybe one day, America’s establishment – of all flavors – will learn to stop childishly blaming others, be it their predecessors (who usually deserve it) or foreigners (who often don’t deserve it) and face its very own responsibility. But I would not bet on it. Cowardice, careerism, and hypocrisy run too deep. Most likely, there will never be true justice. Only tit-for-tat retaliation. On the other hand, if that’s the only thing on offer, bring it on: I, for one, will take it. View the full article

A leaked claim about control of the Syunik corridor may or may not be true – but the conditions for it are rapidly falling into place A recent report from the Spanish outlet Periodista Digital made waves by claiming that Armenia may be preparing to hand over control of a strategic corridor in Syunik province to an American private military company. If this report is true, the consequences will be profound as it would mark the entry of a Western security actor into one of the most sensitive regions in Eurasia. Armenian sovereignty would be significantly diminished. The strategic calculus of Iran, Russia, China, and Turkey would shift. And the South Caucasus, a region held in balance by conflicting pressures, would face a serious realignment. The Armenian government has denied the report. But the idea that such a scenario could emerge is not far-fetched. Over the past year, the United States has expanded its institutional presence in Armenia. It has signed a Strategic Partnership Charter, introduced border and customs reforms, and deepened security cooperation. American contractors and advisors are already on the ground. These developments suggest a deliberate effort to secure long-term influence – framed as technical assistance, but carrying clear geopolitical weight. The Syunik corridor sits at the center of this unfolding dynamic. Iran views the territory as a gateway to the Caucasus. Russia considers it a buffer protecting its regional interests. China has identified it as a possible node in the westward expansion of Belt and Road infrastructure. US involvement in this space, even indirectly, would be interpreted by each of these powers as a strategic provocation. Read more Zelensky’s end goal is in sight, and so is his end Moscow would see this as confirmation that it is being pushed out of the South Caucasus altogether. Tehran would regard it as another stage in a pattern of encirclement. Beijing would see growing risk in placing long-term logistical bets on a region where US-aligned security actors operate. France, which has positioned itself as Armenia’s diplomatic partner, would lose ground to a deeper US-Turkish arrangement. Each player would adjust accordingly, and the fragile equilibrium that has kept open conflict at bay would begin to fray. For Türkiye, this shift could unlock long-held ambitions. A Western-secured corridor through Syunik would give Ankara a direct route to Azerbaijan and Central Asia. The corridor would serve Turkish strategic and commercial goals while shielding Turkey from accusations of coercion. American involvement would provide cover – and legitimacy. The presence of a US-linked private military actor would not go unnoticed or unanswered. It would alter how other regional powers assess risk, opportunity, and urgency. The shift would not require formal agreements or large troop deployments. Influence would be exerted through contracts, technical programs, and private sector partnerships. The effect would be real. Read more Why this American vassal is suddenly defying its master The South Caucasus is one of the few regions where major powers still operate in parallel without direct confrontation. That balance has held not because of harmony, but because each actor respects the costs of escalation. When a new player enters that system – especially one with global reach – the calculations change. This is why the report matters. Even if the details prove inaccurate, the scenario it outlines matches current trends. It reflects a trajectory already visible in US policy: assertive engagement through nontraditional instruments, designed to shape the regional environment without provoking a formal conflict. It also reflects the growing potential for backlash. Strategic moves framed as stabilization may be perceived by others as disruption. And when those others include nuclear powers and regional heavyweights, perception quickly becomes policy. The logic of great-power competition that has shaped recent years of international security policy has now reached the South Caucasus. The form is quieter – conducted through infrastructure, contracts, and influence – but the stakes remain high. In this environment, smoke should not be ignored. It may not always mean fire. But it always means heat – and someone is trying to raise the temperature. View the full article

The Ukrainian leader is not “turning” to authoritarianism – it has always been his goal, and when he has it, he won’t let go When the US picks clients, vassals, and proxies, it needs men or women ready to trade in the interests, even the welfare and lives of their compatriots. Vladimir Zelensky is such a man. A look at the elites of EU-NATO Europe shows he is not alone. But he is an especially extreme case. It is much less than a decade ago that the former media entrepreneur and comedian – often crude instead of witty – advanced from being a pet protégé of one of Ukraine’s most corrupt oligarchs to capturing the country’s presidency. As it turned out, never to let go of it: Zelensky has used the war, which was provoked by the West and escalated in February 2022, not only to make himself an indispensable if very expensive and often obstreperous American puppet but also as a pretext to evade elections. And yet, now signs are multiplying that his days of being indispensable may be over. For one thing, Seymour Hersh, living legend of American investigative journalism, is reporting that Zelensky is very unpopular where it matters most, in US President Donald Trump’s White House. This is not surprising: Trump’s recent turn against Russia – whatever its real substance or marital reasons – does not mean a turn in favor of Ukraine and even less so in favor of Zelensky, as attentive observers have noted. According to the Financial Times, “Western allies of Ukraine” still believe that Trump keeps seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin “as his main negotiating partner and Zelensky as the primary obstacle to a workable peace deal.” And according to “knowledgeable officials in Washington” who have talked to Hersh, the US leadership is ready to act on that problem by getting rid of Zelensky. And urgently: Some American officials consider removing the Ukrainian president “feet first” in case he refuses to go. Their reason, according to Hersh’s confidants: to make room for a deal with Russia. Read more US congresswoman labels Zelensky ‘dictator’ Hersh has to make do with publishing anonymous sources. It is even conceivable that the Trump administration is leaking this threat against Zelensky to pressure him. Yet even if so, that doesn’t mean the threat is empty. Judging by past US behavior, using and then discarding other countries’ leaders is always an option. Another, also plausible, possibility is that Zelensky will be discarded to facilitate not ending, but continuing the war, so as to keep draining Russian resources. In this scenario, the US would prolong the war by handing it over to its loyally self-harming European vassals. After, that is, seeing to the installation of a new leader in Kiev, one it has under even better control than Zelensky. Just to make sure the Europeans and the Ukrainians do not start understanding each other too well and end up slipping from US control. The Ukrainian replacement candidate everyone whispers about, old Zelensky nemesis General Valery Zaluzhny – currently in de facto exile as ambassador to the UK – might well be available for both options, depending on his marching orders from Washington. Meanwhile, as if on cue, Western mainstream media have started to notice the obvious: The Financial Times has found out that critics accuse Zelensky of an “authoritarian slide,” which is still putting it very mildly but closer to the truth than past daft hero worship. The Spectator – in fairness, a magazine with a tradition of being somewhat more realistic about Ukraine – has fired a broadside under the title “Ukraine has lost faith in Zelensky.” The Economist has detected an “outrage” in Zelensky’s moves and, more tellingly, used a picture of him making him look like a cross between a Bond villain and Saddam Hussein. Even Deutsche Welle, a German state propaganda outlet, is now reporting on massive human rights infringements under Zelensky, with the impaired systematically targeted for forced mobilization. Full disclosure: Knowing Ukrainian and Russian – Ukraine’s two languages – well and having written about the realities of Zelensky’s misrule for years already, my immediate response to these sudden revelations is “what took you so long?” My first articles explaining Zelensky’s obvious authoritarian tendencies – and practices, too – date back to 2021, and I have repeatedly pointed out that his popularity was slipping. All it took was to pay attention to Ukrainian polling. Read more Trump questions Kiev’s use of US aid (VIDEO) But then, I know the reason for the mainstream’s delay: The bias induced by Western information warfare and media career conformism, which only weakens a little – or is redirected – when the geopolitics of the powerful change. In that sense, the increasingly sharp public criticism of Zelensky is yet another sign that he has fallen – and remains – out of favor with the American leadership that rules the West. Zelensky’s recent actions may well indicate, as Hersh also suspects, that he knows he is in great danger – and not from Russia but his “friends” in the West. Just over the course of the last two weeks, Zelensky has reshuffled his government and, at the same time, started a devastating campaign against institutions and individuals that have two things in common: the mission to combat corruption and a well-deserved reputation for being particularly open to US influence. Indeed, it is when Zelensky escalated his attacks on the latter that the Financial Times woke up from years of sweet slumber to discover there’s something authoritarian about the West’s top man in Ukraine. By now, things have only gotten worse: The domestic intelligence – and, of course, repression – service SBU has raided key anti-corruption organizations and made arrests. Simultaneously, Zelensky’s absolutely obedient majority in the Ukrainian parliament has passed a law to completely neuter these institutions by putting them under the president’s control, which the president then signed rapidly. By now, Ukraine is witnessing widespread protests against Zelensky’s attempt to combine maximum greed with unfettered if petty despotism. For the Ukrainian news site Strana.ua – a media rarity, as it has managed to resist the Zelensky regime’s aggressive attempts to subdue and streamline it – the SBU raids on the anti-corruption agencies alone were a powerplay, designed to consolidate Zelensky’s one-man rule. That is correct, and he wasn’t even done. Read more Kremlin comments on Zelensky’s crackdown on anti-corruption agencies At the same time, it is, obviously, also very convenient to remove the last feeble restraints on Ukraine’s fabulously pervasive graft, since whatever the West – that is, the Europeans – will now spend on Ukraine will be misappropriated even more wildly than before. That could come in handy especially if there should be a need to stay rich in exile. This gangster-economic aspect of Zelensky’s fresh power grab has not escaped even his Western friends: the OECD has already warned the Ukrainian regime that the stifling of the anti-corruption agencies will harm Western investment in Ukraine’s reconstruction in general and its arms industry in particular. Likewise, the International Renaissance Foundation, a Soros power structure that has been all too active in Ukraine for more than three decades now, has also called for a repeal of the new law. In essence, these and similar Western complaints all mean the same: We know you are robbing us blind already but we’ve made our peace with that because you serve our geopolitics. But if you try to take an even larger cut, we may reconsider. Taken together, Zelensky’s government reshuffle and his assault on the anti-corruption agencies seem to reflect a double strategy: On one side, the endangered puppet is signaling submission to the US in at least some of his recent personnel moves, but on the other, he is also consolidating his power at home by insulating it from too much direct American influence. It is as if he were sending a message to Washington: “I really am your man. But if you try to choose another, I’ll fight.” Read more ‘Playing with fire’: Western media reacts to Zelensky’s crackdown on anti-corruption bureau The historic irony is that, with Zelensky succeeding in finally razing the last pitiful remnants of pluralism in Ukraine, he – the once hysterically idolized darling of the “value-based” West – will be the president achieving a complete authoritarianism like no Ukrainian leader before him. And all that while propped up with hundreds of billions from the West. Any displays of surprise or shock by Ukrainian and Western politicians or mainstream media betray either that they have been dozing under a rock for years or that they are being disingenuous. Because today’s Zelensky is not “turning” to authoritarianism. On the contrary, authoritarianism has always been his default disposition and his aim. Zelensky has been working on his personal assent to unchecked power – and, of course, its material spoils as well – since he became Ukraine’s president. That means, long before the conflict between Russia and Ukraine (and behind and through it the West) escalated in early 2022. How do we know? Because it was already obvious, including to many Ukrainians, by 2021 at the very latest. It was then that Zelensky’s Ukrainian critics – not Russians or those with sympathy for Russia – attacked him and his political party “Servant of the People” for erecting a “mono-vlada,” that is, in essence, an authoritarian political machine to control not only the state but the public sphere as well. Read more Mass protests against Zelensky’s crackdown on anti-graft bodies: What we know so far By 2021, Zelensky had already engaged in all of the following: vicious lawfare against Ukraine’s opposition and his personal political rivals, such as former president Petro Poroshenko; massive media censorship and streamlining, while targeting with repression and chicanery any outlets, editors, and journalists daring to resist, for instance Strana.ua; systematically and illegally abusing emergency powers and unaccountable but powerful institutions (most of all, the National Security Council) to stifle criticism; and, last but not least, the fostering of a dictatorial personality cult which was boosted by the West. Since then, things have only gotten worse. Zelensky has steadily fastened his hold over Ukraine, while prolonging and losing an avoidable and catastrophic war for a Western strategy to demote Russia. Ukraine has been bled dry for a cynical and (predictably) failing Western scheme; Russia, meanwhile is not only winning but has greatly increased its autonomy from the West. The war may end soon or it may drag on. For the sake of Ukraine we have to hope it will be over soon. Zelensky, if he were a decent man, would then have to hand himself over to postwar Ukrainian justice or be his own judge, the old-fashioned way. But Zelensky is no decent man. If rumors now swirling are not only plausible but truthful, then his masters in Washington may be the ones preparing an appropriately indecent end for him. If the protests against him accelerate, Zelensky may even end up “color-revolution-ed.” How ironic. View the full article

Will the Prince of Darkness, who dreamed of light, find peace? In the spring of 2018, I was finishing high school. With graduation looming and the state exams around the corner, I found myself preoccupied with one thing: a long-awaited concert. At the last minute, I managed to get tickets to see Ozzy Osbourne perform live in Moscow. I didn’t make it to the mosh pit, but from my seat, I felt a charge of nuclear energy – raw and unforgettable. It’s a rare thing, to see your childhood idol in the flesh. My father raised me on Osbourne’s music – ‘Iron Man’, ‘Paranoid’, ‘Crazy Train’ – songs that rattled the walls of our home and shaped my idea of what it meant to be alive. That night, I saw Ozzy in his element. And now, he’s gone. Ozzy Osbourne, the iconic frontman of Black Sabbath, the man who helped birth heavy metal, has died. Just two weeks ago, he was on stage at the ‘Back to the Beginning’ farewell concert in Birmingham, the city where it all started. Surrounded by guest stars and reunited with the classic Sabbath lineup, he performed chained to a bat-shaped chair, singing with the wild, unrelenting force that defined his career. He left this world as he lived in it – on his own terms. A rock star until the end. Most who don’t follow rock know Ozzy only as the man who bit the head off a bat – a story that became a kind of curse. He grew tired of it in later years, annoyed that a moment of shock theater had come to overshadow a lifetime of art. Others remember him as a foul-mouthed, lovable old rocker – the Prince of Darkness turned reality TV grandpa. A man who swore like a sailor and laughed like a child. Read more It’s time to learn about the Russian sound you hear every time you scroll But there was more to him than the antics. He was outrageous, yes – he once threw raw meat into a crowd, and at Madame Tussauds, posed as a wax figure of himself, startling tourists for fun. He was devoted too. Even in a wheelchair, battling Parkinson’s, he kept making music. He once said he would perform until his last breath. And he nearly did. Osbourne’s final solo album, Ordinary Man (2020), was widely seen as a swan song – romantic, tragic, and defiantly honest. One of its standout tracks, ‘Under the Graveyard’, plays like a hymn of regret. It’s an unflinching confession of the wildness and wreckage of his youth: the drinking, the drugs, the chaos. His treatment of his wife Sharon. His battles with himself. In that song, he sings: Don’t take care of me, be scared of me My misery owns me I don’t want to be my enemy My misery owns me now The man behind the myth emerges here – not Ozzy the bat-eater, but Ozzy the broken soul who somehow stitched himself back together. He joked once that his gravestone should read: “Ozzy Osbourne. Born 1948. Died… when the f*ck you know.” But later, he softened. He didn’t want to be remembered just for his mistakes. And yet, it’s in those very mistakes – how he faced them – that we find the heart of who he was. Many would ask for pity in his place. Osbourne never did. He owned his flaws. “Don’t care for me, fear me,” he sang. He accepted the love of his fans and his family as the greatest grace life had given him. In return, they never left him. Not his sons. Not Sharon. Not the 45,000 fans who cheered him through his last performance. Not the millions who watched the broadcast from home. Read more From psychiatric ward to Nobel prize: How a Jewish outcast became a great Russian poet Despite the dark image – crosses, bats, devils, and all – Ozzy was a man of faith. He often said that Satanism frightened him. The symbols were theater, not creed. In truth, he hoped for the light. Not eternal party-in-hell nonsense, but peace. In his later years, he lent his voice to characters in video games and cartoons. He voiced himself in Trolls World Tour. He was a character in Brütal Legend. And he was, always, a character in the great rock opera of life. I’ve read and watched a lot about Ozzy. But one quote sticks. In an interview, asked about his faith, he said he hoped that when his time came, it wouldn’t be fire and brimstone waiting for him, but something gentler. Something merciful. I think he found it. He was a prince of darkness, yes – but he dreamed of light. And maybe, in the end, that’s what we’ll remember: a man who learned. Who stumbled, fell, and staggered forward anyway. A man who clawed his way back from himself, through the haze of fame, addiction, and regret. Peace looks different for different people. For Ozzy, maybe it’s the roar of a stadium, the crash of drums, the lift of 100,000 voices singing his name. Or maybe it’s quiet now. Maybe, finally, silence. But even silence, when it follows a life like his, sounds like music. View the full article

Media, governments, and digital giants stay silent on elite child trafficking – even as the evidence piles up In an age where every celebrity meltdown or presidential tantrum is livestreamed, where partisan jabs flood timelines within seconds, and where outrage is algorithmically amplified to viral proportions, one might assume that the most heinous crimes – especially those committed against the most vulnerable – would dominate media discourse. Yet the opposite is true. Global child trafficking, particularly when it implicates oligarchs, elite institutions, humanitarian organizations, and religious authorities, remains one of the most underreported, diluted, and actively suppressed issues across both mainstream and alternative media ecosystems. The selective silence is not accidental as it is designed to shield power from scrutiny while feigning moral concern. Take the decades-long cover-up of Jimmy Savile’s crimes in Britain. For years, the BBC and the broader British establishment, including members of the royal family, ignored, enabled, or even protected a prolific predator in their midst. Keir Starmer, now prime minister, has faced longstanding accusations that he obstructed investigations into Savile’s network during his tenure as head of the Crown Prosecution Service. Instead of truth and accountability, Britain witnessed institutional inertia and elite protectionism. Across the Atlantic, things are no better. US President Donald Trump – whose populist rise partly hinged on ‘draining the swamp’ and exposing elite pedophile rings – recently declared that there is “nothing to see” in the Jeffrey Epstein files. He even dismissed ongoing public concern about the case as “stupid.” This abrupt reversal betrayed many who viewed Epstein’s exposure as a gateway to unraveling deeper systemic rot. Read more Only ‘stupid people’ care about Epstein Files – Trump Except for hardcore MAGA grifters and the ‘compromised cohort’, nobody bought Trump’s deflections this time around. MIT scholar and activist Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai recently issued a single, scathing tweet – linked here – sharing FBI and DOJ files which contradicted Trump’s words. These were not conspiracy breadcrumbs but official documents, offering a damning appetizer for anyone willing to dig deeper. But legacy media will ignore it, and alternative influencers will likely pivot to more ‘monetizable’ culture-war topics. Curiously, the Democratic Party – always eager to weaponize Trump’s prevarications – remained suspiciously muted on the subject. The reason is not hard to fathom. America’s political establishment functions as a duopoly. Republican or Democrat, both parties have skeletons in the same basement. When it comes to institutional crimes against children, mutual silence becomes a form of mutual protection. At one point, the hashtag #PedoPete – referring to then-President Joe Biden – trended briefly on Twitter. Today, the trend has flipped: #PedoTrump now circulates with greater, more sustained intensity. These hashtags may sound juvenile, but they reflect the fact that both sides of the political divide are equally compromised. When elite crimes threaten to break through media filters, the duopoly instinctively closes ranks. This is not just a media failure. It is a civilizational failure. The refusal to investigate, question, or even discuss the abuse of children by people in power suggests that, despite all our technological progress, we remain governed by the same feudal reflexes which protect the nobility, silence the peasants, and punish the whistleblowers. That so few journalists, influencers, or institutions dare to speak plainly about this issue is not due to lack of evidence. It is due to a lack of will. The media’s silence is not benign; rather, it is complicity by omission. And increasingly, even independent platforms mirror the same herd behavior: Mainstream mimics mainstream; conspiracy mimics conspiracy. Viral outrage loops endlessly, but the hard questions go unasked. Read more Trump threatens to sue WSJ over ‘bawdy letter to Epstein’ In an attention economy driven by clicks and tribal confirmation, there’s little incentive to tackle issues that require long attention spans, moral courage, or cross-partisan inquiry. And so, the real stories – the ones involving systemic abuse, elite immunity, and generational trauma – remain locked in the basement of our public consciousness. The question is no longer whether the truth is out there. It is whether we are still capable of seeking it. The sordid stats According to the International Labor Organization, nearly 1.7 million children are victims of commercial sexual exploitation worldwide. (I believe this number to be grossly underreported). The figure does not include forced labor, child marriages, and trafficking under the guise of ‘adoption’ or ‘rescue’. These crimes often occur in the shadows, but the silence surrounding them is deafening, especially considering the alleged involvement of trusted institutions like the UN, NGOs, and faith-based charities. In 2017, leaked internal UN reports and whistleblower testimonies revealed a disturbing pattern of sexual abuse and exploitation by peacekeepers in several African countries, notably the Central African Republic and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Victims were children – orphaned, impoverished, and completely powerless. These revelations barely made headlines beyond a few days of fleeting, dissembled horror. There was no sustained investigation, no sweeping reckoning. The UN promised reforms, but follow-up reporting was minimal. And today, those same peacekeeping structures continue to operate with minimal public scrutiny. What happened to the Syrian children who disappeared during the years the West, Israel, Türkiye, and Global Jihad Inc. waged war on Bashar Assad? There were disturbing allegations that US intelligence had recruited children as suicide bombers for its jihadist proxies, some of whom were also accused of harvesting the organs of over 18,000 minors. So is it any wonder that Trump – who once vowed to defeat “radical Islamic terror” – personally lavished praise on Syria’s new president and jihadist war criminal extraordinaire Ahmed al-Sharaa? Read more Trump orders release of Epstein ‘transcripts’ Charitable Trojan Horses There is perhaps no greater moral shield for crimes against children than the Trojan Horse of charity. Some of the most egregious trafficking networks operate under the halo of humanitarian work. In Haiti, multiple investigations have revealed how certain orphanages and foreign-run NGOs were fronts for abuse and trafficking. In India and Nepal, similar patterns emerged: Western ‘voluntourists’ and missionaries gain access to vulnerable children under the pretext of aid, only to become conduits for exploitation. Mother Teresa’s charity organization itself was linked to child trafficking networks spanning India to Haiti. Stories like these are often relegated to obscure human rights blogs or independent journalists with limited reach. Beholden to the same donor networks and oligarchic interests, the mainstream press simply looks away. The AI crisis no one mentions While the AI boom dominates headlines in terms of productivity and existential risk, almost no major outlet has dared to delve into how generative AI tools are being used to create photorealistic child sexual abuse material (CSAM). The dark web is rife with communities exchanging AI-generated images, bypassing existing legal frameworks which often only address real photographic evidence. This raises disturbing questions: What constitutes child abuse imagery in the age of AI? How will law enforcement adapt? And why is no one talking about it? The tech platforms developing these tools are often mum about their misuse. Regulatory agencies are slow, and public debate is nearly non-existent. The media, meanwhile, prefers to debate AI replacing screenwriters rather than protecting children. In fact, AI parodies of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza are more likely to get censored than child sexual abuse material. Read more Is AI driving us all insane? Impunity and immunity The Epstein case should have shattered any illusions about elite immunity. A convicted sex offender with connections to presidents, royalty, and top scientists managed to operate a trafficking network for years – even after his initial conviction. His mysterious ‘death in custody’ convinced no one with two functioning brain cells. His co-conspirator, Ghislaine Maxwell, was convicted. Yet not a single client has been named in court. Rather than igniting systemic media scrutiny into elite involvement in trafficking, the Epstein saga has been conveniently bracketed as an anomaly or relegated to conspiracy land. But it was never just about Epstein. Similar scandals have emerged in the UK (the VIP child abuse ring), in Hollywood (Dan Schneider and Nickelodeon), and within religious institutions across continents. While the media has been reduced to a recycled echo chamber, the lesson bears repeating: The elite criminal class continues to get away with crimes against children with impunity. The hashtag #ArrestObama is trending before another sensationalist deflection takes over. What next? A few carefully scripted jabs at Benjamin Netanyahu to regain credibility with disillusioned MAGA voters? The cost of silence The decentralization of news via social media was expected to fill in vital gaps in mainstream reports. To some extent, it has. Survivors, whistleblowers, and independent researchers have found platforms to speak out. Hashtags like #SaveTheChildren briefly trended. Read more From Torah to trauma: A Satanic child abuse scandal blows up in Israel But these moments are fleeting. The attention span of social media is short, and the billionaire owners of these platforms are inextricably linked to various elite pedophile networks. A 2024 meta-analysis by the University of Edinburgh estimated 302 million children (1 in 8 globally) experienced online sexual abuse annually, with platforms like Facebook serving as vectors for exploitation. Earlier, in 2020, Facebook accounted for around 20 million child sexual abuse material reports, constituting nearly 95% of all incidents submitted through its systems. By comparison, Google logged 500,000, Snapchat 150,000, and Twitter just 65,000. Serious discussions are also often hijacked by fringe accounts, QAnon-style disinformation, or bad-faith actors. As a result, the issue itself becomes tainted via guilt by association. Even legitimate stories and investigations are dismissed because they were shared by someone with suspect affiliations. This is a classic tactic perfected by the likes of the CIA and Mossad. The cost of media complicity in the face of global child trafficking is not just journalistic failure; it is moral collapse. The ongoing crimes against children is a human story of betrayal, of complicity, and of the innocent lives that are shattered while the world scrolls on. View the full article

Australia has refused to go to war with China over Taiwan The Trump administration has been having a rough few months. Domestic chaos – fuelled by the use of black clad, masked para-military squads to deport illegal immigrants – has fused with the deepening foreign policy crises resulting from Trump's support for the doomed right-wing Zelensky and Netanyahu regimes. And if this were not bad enough, last week Trump escalated his disruption of the global economic order by imposing yet more tariffs on the EU and other countries that are ostensibly American allies. Add to that the establishment of an “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida and Trump’s recently revealed threat to “bomb the sh*t out of Russia and China,” and it’s no surprise that even Trump’s core MAGA supporters are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with a president who promised them that he would swiftly end the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza and restore America’s economic prosperity. They are also up in arms at the White House’s refusal to release Jeffrey Epstein’s client list, suspecting a self-serving cover up. Prominent Trump supporters are now openly critical, and Trump’s dissatisfaction with inept cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Pam Bondi is clear for all to see. More ominous, perhaps, is the calculated silence of Vice President J.D. Vance in recent times. Read more Hunter Biden says he’d invade El Salvador Even in Australia there are signs that the American hegemony is beginning to crumble. Last week Prime Minister Anthony Albanese took the extraordinary step of refusing to reassure Trump that Australia would assist America militarily if it went to war with China over Taiwan. Albanese’s reluctant assertion of foreign policy independence was somewhat surprising given that, until now, he has been a keen supporter of Trump’s foreign policy. Albanese remains a committed funder of the Zelensky regime, and Australia has consistently aligned itself with US policy in Gaza. The Australian leader enthusiastically embraced the AUKUS military agreement with America and the UK, when it was entered into by his predecessor, Conservative Prime Minister Morrison, and has echoed – albeit more moderately – the narrative surrounding a perceived China threat. Albanese’s previous reluctance to assert its foreign policy independence is a consequence of Australia’s longstanding dependence on America – together with Albanese’s pragmatic decision to adopt wholesale the Conservative coalition’s foreign policy framework so as to neutralise foreign policy as a domestic political issue. This foreign policy capitulation was also designed to mute criticism from the pro-Trump, pro-Israel, anti-China and anti-Russia Murdoch media empire – which incessantly promulgates various rejigged Cold War conspiracy theories demonising China, Russia, and the Palestinian cause. Albanese, of course, has has not succeeded in placating Murdoch – and it is a measure of his abject weakness as a political leader that he refuses to openly attack the owner of Fox News who peddles the same discredited dogmas in Australia that he does in America. It is Albanese’s most egregious failure as prime minister to have permitted Murdoch to frame the foreign policy public debate – such as it is – in this country. Read more Pentagon pressuring Japan and Australia over China – FT Why then has Albanese belatedly decided to stand up to Trump? Primarily because the fundamental irrationality at the heart of the Trumpian agenda has now become glaringly obvious – even to political leaders as maladroit and supine as Albanese. Trump’s efforts to dismantle the rules-based world order have, paradoxically, only strengthened China, Russia and BRICS. Meanwhile, the American proxy wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to intensify. Nor has Trump’s green lighting of Netanyahu’s recent attacks on Iran destroyed that country’s nuclear capacity. Trump has shown skepticism about NATO, and his commitment to defending allies like Australia is unclear. The recent inquiry launched by Pete Hegseth into the AUKUS compact may signal intentions to withdraw from the agreement. The AUKUS deal – which obliges Australia is to pay $360 billion for a few submarines that may or may not be delivered years down the road – is not only economically profligate, but it ties Australia to Trump’s military agenda. Why would Albanese give a commitment to Trump to provide militarily assistance should America be unwise enough to commence a war with China? Australia has no strategic interest in defending Taiwan, and only the most ideologically deranged of Murdoch journalists could believe that Australia and America could defeat China militarily in a war in Southeast Asia. Despite advocating for a reduced global footprint, Trump continues to promote the concept of American global leadership. He may still pursue conflict with China, possibly to shift attention from persistent domestic and foreign challenges. Read more Dmitry Trenin: World War III has already begun China is Australia’s most important trading partner and Trump sought last week’s assurance from Albanese while the prime minister was in China on an important five-day visit. The trip included a meeting with the Chinese president – something, by the way, that Trump has denied Albanese to date. Trump was well aware of this, and he well knew that, if Albanese had given him the assurance he sought, China would have immediately retaliated by imposing trade sanctions on Australia. The contrast between Trump’s treatment of Albanese and Xi Jinping’s – at their private lunch last week Xi committed China “unswervingly towards ongoing cooperation and common understanding with Australia” – is stark and telling. Meanwhile, as the US shifts away from traditional diplomacy, China and Russia have deepened their diplomatic engagements. Trump’s domestic policy measures also warrant reconsideration by Western political leaders. The scenes of masked ICE officers clashing with protesters in California have drawn comparisons to past episodes of American civil unrest. Many observers were alarmed when Senator Alex Padilla was manhandled by officers for raising questions at a press conference. Additionally, the administration’s suppression of dissent – including defunding public broadcasting and pressuring media outlets to silence critical voices – raises concerns about media freedom and civil liberties. Read more Taipei sets up first HIMARS unit The perceived harshness of Trump-era policies contributed to Albanese’s election success. Many Western voters reject combative political behaviour, and Australian voters were similarly put off by Peter Dutton’s emulation of Trump’s combative style. There are two key takeaways for Western leaders from Trump’s treatment of Albanese, and Albanese’s decision to resist his demands. First, that the Trump administration is facing deep internal and external challenges, and its foreign policy approach may become increasingly erratic and unilateral. Second, that Trump may prioritize his administration’s objectives even at the expense of partners. Albanese was placed in an extremely difficult diplomatic position this week. For many mainstream Western leaders, these insights may be more than a little uncomfortable – particularly those who continue to support US foreign policy and seek approval from the administration. There are also domestic pressures, including media outlets aligned with Trump, that make it difficult to oppose his influence. Unsurprisingly, the Murdoch press criticised Albanese for “neglecting the US alliance” and “putting the region in danger.” Nevertheless, as the inconsistencies within Trump’s foreign policy become more apparent, political leaders in the West who value sovereignty and economic stability may feel compelled – as Albanese did – to redefine their alliances and pursue a more independent path. If they fail to do so, they may face a similar fate to Trump’s most obsequious and compliant ally – Vladimir Zelensky. View the full article

Ukraine’s supporters are up in arms over a factual and neutral – for a change – report on the aftermath of the failed Kursk invasion It’s a platitude that war kills not only people but truth. And as all platitudes, the statement is true, boring, and misleading. Because it omits the real murderers: “War” does not, actually, kill truth; people kill truth. War just tempts them to do so as few other things – such as job applications or marriage – can. The flipside of that fact is that it is perfectly possible to stick to the truth – or at least make an honest effort to do so – in war, too. That effort is different from “getting it right.” Think of, for example, George Orwell’s 'Homage to Catalonia', his unabashedly personal account of the Spanish Civil War. It was not even meant to be neutral because he sided with – indeed fought for – the underdog Trotskyists; historians, as always, feel they know better about the context and details; and – notwithstanding the sad mainstream sanctification Orwell has suffered posthumously at the hands of conformist mediocrities – 'Homage to Catalonia' is, of course, flawed. Saint Orwell was fallible. Duh. But 'Homage to Catalonia' was an honest effort to find out and tell true things about a war and, importantly, from a war. How do we know that? Most of all by reading it, of course. But apart from that, there is another test: the manner in which it was received when it came out, namely badly. Making no concessions to what his audience might want to read, Orwell had trouble getting 'Homage to Catalonia' published and rightly suspected that was due to its politics, which antagonized everyone: Orwell’s own tribe, the Left, no less than the Right. In the end – with the work, in Orwell’s words, “boycotted by the British press” – barely over a third of its modest first edition of 1,500 copies were sold. Homage to Catalonia is a modern classic now. But when it hit the shelves in 1938 and until Orwell died in 1950, it was a dud. That’s, in essence, because it was too honest. Read more Ukraine accuses NYT of spreading ‘Russian propaganda’ Without stretching the comparison too far, it is fair to say that recently we have witnessed the same principle at work, when the New York Times published an article by photographer and reporter Nanna Heitmann. Under the title 'A Landscape of Death: What’s Left Where Ukraine Invaded Russia', Heitmann’s sophisticated account is based on her own six-day visit to the Russian town of Sudzha and its surroundings. Sudzha is located in Kursk Region, which borders Ukraine and where Kiev’s forces staged a large-scale incursion that brought great destruction, fierce fighting, and ended in a – predictable – fiasco for Ukraine. As its title indicates, Heitmann’s article gives much room to the devastation and suffering wrought by the fighting. She also describes a surprise advance by Russia’s military through an empty gas pipeline. Throughout she lets individuals with different experiences and points of view speak, civilians and soldiers, and is careful to record official statements from both sides, Ukraine and Russia. It is obvious to any fair reader that no favors are extended to Russia. Heitmann, for instance, dwells on local criticism of Russian evacuation efforts and the adverse health effects suffered by some of the ethnically Chechen fighters who carried out the pipeline operation. She ends her story by reporting both a local man’s hope for reconstruction and the skepticism of a woman who cannot see a future for herself in the region, whether reconstructed or not. The reactions by high-ranking Ukrainian officials and media outlets in Ukraine to Heitmann’s article have been hostile. Georgy Tikhy, spokesman for the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, tagged the New York Times in an X post accusing Heitmann of reproducing “Russian propaganda” and engaging in “Duranty-level manipulation.” Read more It’s time, Ukraine: Kiev braces for a final reckoning Walter Duranty was an American journalist who is now infamous for spreading Stalinist deceptions. Heitmann has done nothing remotely comparable. Tikhy’s wildly unfair comparison reveals his malicious intent, namely to smear Heitmann as badly as he can before the public in general and her employer in particular. Ironically though not surprisingly, it is not Heitmann but the Ukrainian government official who is conducting information war here, and in an especially dirty, personal way. That Heitmann is being targeted by a systematic campaign is obvious from the involvement, as if on cue, of additional attackers: The so-called Center for Countering Disinformation (CCD) under the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine has joined in, also charging Heitmann with manipulation. In particular, the CCD is angry about the fact that Heitmann didn’t spend precious words on reiterating the Ukrainian and Western narrative about wicked Russia invading Ukraine. Notwithstanding that every New York Times reader is certain to have had that story hammered into their consciousness for years already not only by that newspaper but every other Western mainstream news outlet, Heitmann, actually writing about a case in which Ukraine – proudly – invaded Russia, is faulted for not ritualistically restating that part of the Western narrative. In the same spirit – and in an especially perverse but also revealing turn – the CCD even went as far as to explicitly impugn Heitmann’s “neutrality.” Being unbiased, so the message from the Ukrainian information warriors, is wrong in and of itself. The Kiev regime, in other words, has a right to expect bias in its favor: mere honesty will not do. This is nothing less than an astonishingly aggressive and open demand for the Western media to be as submissive and streamlined as Ukraine's is. It is testimony to the sense of entitlement that the West has long fostered among its political and media proxies in Kiev. Read more Top Russian Navy commander killed in Kursk Region – MOD A “colleague” also hurried to put the boot in, denouncing Heitmann for “moral equivalency” – translation: honesty we do not like – and gaining access to Sudzha through soldiers from Russia’s Chechen Akhmat unit. That, in and of itself, is, we are to understand, an unforgivable sin. Curiously enough, the same logic doesn’t seem to apply when Western journalists “embed” – a telling term – with Western forces conducting wars of aggression, regime change operations, and “counter-insurgency,” that is, dirty war campaigns of torture and assassination. It also seems to make no difference to Heitmann’s denouncer from within the profession – how very Stalinist, really – that her article shows no favor to Akhmat. Regarding its soldiers, too, it is simply factual and calm. Clearly, though, hysterical condemnation is the least Kiev and its Western propagandists feel they have a right to expect. In reality, Heitmann’s article is informative, well-written, and free of bias. What is really intriguing about the backlash against her work is not the work – which is simply good, conscientious reporting – but the backlash itself. The high-level and widespread hostile reaction to Heitmann’s piece reveals only one thing, and it is not anything about Heitmann and her work: Western and Ukrainian authorities and information warriors have had it far too easy for far too long. Pampered by years of easily feeding their bias to Western publics, while any dissent was repressed and marginalized, they react with allergic fury to even modest signs of unbiased, clear-eyed reporting breaking through into a mainstream outlet. How fragile they must feel. View the full article

As China ramps up its air power, India is eyeing Russia’s most advanced warplane while racing to develop its own fifth-generation jet The British F-35B fighter jet which made an emergency landing at Thiruvananthapuram in the southern Indian state of Kerala nearly four weeks ago and has been stranded since then is finally being repaired by a team of UK specialists. If the effort fails, the aircraft will be dismantled and transported – likely in a C-17 Globemaster. The incident was closely observed by global and Indian security establishments, highlighting the complexity of the F-35 and its reliance on specialized equipment and personnel. Dismantling an F-35 is a complex process involving detailed logging and security protocols to prevent data breaches. The F-35’s misfortune in India attracted attention for several reasons. Just two months earlier, India and Pakistan were engaged in a four-day military standoff, which underscored the importance of air power. Both sides made competing claims of downing each other’s aircraft. Amid the tension, Pakistan announced it would begin acquiring around 40 Chinese fifth-generation J-35A fighters as early as August 2025. Reports claimed that Foreign Minister and Deputy PM Ishaq Dar finalized the logistics and financing of the deal during a post-ceasefire visit to China. However, Pakistani Defense Minister Khawaja Asif denied the deal had been finalized, dismissing the reports as “media chatter.” Read more How Moscow’s legendary S-400 missiles helped India outgun Pakistan If realized, the J-35 deal would mark China’s first export of its kind. It could also include the KJ-500 AEW&C aircraft and HQ-19 ballistic missile defense systems. Some reports suggest a nearly 50% discount, valuing the package at approximately $4.6 billion. A key question remains: How would a financially struggling Pakistan, which is reliant on IMF loans, afford such an expensive acquisition? Though speculative for now, China’s potential J-35 export would be a milestone for its defense industry. Yet, only around ten have been built so far, and Chinese induction begins only this year. Earlier delivery timelines indicated 2029. Should Pakistan acquire the J-35, it would alter the subcontinent’s air dominance equation. This development could pressure India to expedite both the indigenous Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA), currently expected by 2035, and secure an interim fifth-generation platform – thus sparking a growing debate. What’s the deal with fifth-generation fighters? Fifth-generation aircraft were pioneered by Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor in 2005. They are built for network-centric combat and feature low observable signatures using advanced materials and shaping, and employ multifunction AESA radars, low-probability-of-intercept capabilities, and IRST sensors for 360-degree situational awareness. Advanced avionics relies on high-speed integrated circuits and data buses. The combination aims to provide ‘first-look, first-shot, first-kill’ capability. The fifth-generation jets have integrated EW systems, navigation, communication, vehicle health monitoring, and fiber-optic data transmission. Thrust-vectoring improves maneuverability and shortens take-off and landing distances. Supercruise is standard. Radar cross-sections are minimized across a broad frequency spectrum. Read more Why Russia is here to stay, making India’s military stronger The primary weapons are carried in internal weapon bays. Signature-reduction techniques include special shaping approaches, thermoplastic materials, extensive structural use of advanced composites, conformal sensors, heat-resistant coatings, low-observable wire meshes to cover intake and cooling vents, heat ablating tiles on the exhaust troughs and coating internal and external metal areas with radar-absorbent materials and paints. Some are very expensive: The F-22 costs around $227 million, and the F-35 around $100 million per unit, despite mass production. Other fifth-generation fighters include Russia’s Su-57 and China’s J-20. The J-20 has been flying since 2011 and entered service in 2018. China now operates nearly 300. The J-31 (now J-35) first flew in 2012 and is expected to enter service in 2025. South Korea’s KF-21 Boramae, built for the Korean and Indonesian air forces, has stealth features but currently carries weapons externally. Internal bays are expected in the KF-21EX version. The first flight was in July 2022, with six prototypes built so far. Service entry is scheduled for 2026. Turkey’s TAI Kaan, with BAE Systems as the subcontractor, had its maiden flight in February 2024. Only one aircraft exists, with service induction expected by 2030. The Global Combat Air Program (GCAP) – a UK-Japan-Italy initiative – aims to develop a sixth-generation stealth fighter by 2035. In Europe, Dassault, Airbus, and Indra Sistemas are working on FCAS to replace the Rafale and Typhoon fleets by 2040. Stealth aircraft and stand-off weapons The Ukraine conflict and the recent India-Pakistan flare-up have demonstrated the operational value of long-range stand-off weapons. The use of Russian Kha-series missiles (Kh-47M2 Kinzhal, Iskander), the R-37M, Indo-Russian BrahMos, French SCALP-EG, and the Chinese PL-15 were all closely watched. In these conflicts, the adversary’s aircraft were forced to use stand-off weapons both for offensive and defensive purposes. One’s own aerial assets also have to be operated at very safe distances to avoid long-range surface-to-air missiles such as the S-400. Stealthy fifth-generation aircraft can get closer to the target and add stand-off distance to the long-range weapon. These warplanes can move closer to the border or penetrate into an adversary’s territory without being seen, and thus deliver weapon loads on targets and return unharmed. Similarly, they will have the advantage in aerial engagements with the ability to shoot and scoot without being seen. READ MORE: Hypersonic version of BrahMos on the cards – ex-CEO Future air warfare will emphasize Very Long Beyond Visual Range (VL-BVR) combat and ground engagements. Though anti-stealth radar systems (like Russia’s Nebo-ME, China’s JY-27V, and India’s Surya) are in development, stealth remains a top-tier capability. B-2 bombers reportedly entered Iranian airspace undetected. Russia is building the PAK DA stealth bomber; China has the H-20. Sixth-generation fighters such as the F-47 and China’s J-36/J-50 are also under development. India’s AMCA program New Delhi is actively working on its own fifth-generation jet. India’s AMCA will be a stealth, multirole, single-seat, twin-engine, air superiority fighter with ground-strike, Suppression of Enemy Air Defences (SEAD) and Electronic Warfare (EW) missions. Designed by the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), it will be built by a public-private joint venture. The initial development cost is estimated to be around $2 billion. In March 2024, the project received approval from India’s Cabinet Committee on Security for the prototype development. Mass production is expected to begin by 2035. Read more Boosting firepower: India shifts towards private defense manufacturing The development of AMCA will take place in two phases, AMCA Mk-1 and AMCA Mk-2, which would majorly differ in the indigenous content and futuristic features. Mk-2 will focus more on stealth, EW, and futuristic pilot-AI interface. The AMCA Mk-2 will have Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) and more powerful thrust-vectored engines. It will also incorporate sixth generation technologies. The aircraft will one day replace the Sukhoi Su-30MKI of the Indian Air Force. DRDO aims for prototype rollout by 2027, first flight in 2029, and certification by 2032. Five prototypes are planned, each costing around $120 million and spaced eight to nine months apart. The IAF plans to procure 125 aircraft. The government has yet to finalize a production partner. The ADA prefers private-sector involvement rather than Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), the government-owned defense manufacturer due to its “poor delivery track record.” The ADA’s push for changing the production partner is aimed at avoiding any further delays following setbacks from development funding and delays in clearance from the US government for license production of engines. The private sector partner would be responsible for development, production and lifetime maintenance of the jet. In May 2025, the Defense Ministry approved the AMCA execution model. In June, the ADA issued an EoI inviting public and private Indian firms – solo or as consortiums – to participate. The proposal deadline is August 16, 2025. India is also in talks with global firms for co-development of the AMCA engine, seeking full intellectual property ownership. Does India really need an interim fifth-gen fighter? There is growing consensus that India must acquire an interim fifth-generation aircraft. However, options are limited. President Donald Trump announced that the US is willing to offer the F-35, but it seems that no formal dialogue has begun. The US earlier refused NATO ally Turkey, because like India, Ankara had acquired the S-400 air defense system from Russia. The S-400 reportedly has sensors that will be able to record the F-35’s electronic signature. Also, the US prefers that India first buy a fourth-generation aircraft in the MRFA competition before the F-35 can even be considered. Clearly, there are complex geopolitics at play. Read more Stunning images from Su-57 cockpit on India debut (VIDEO) India remains cautious about US pressure and geopolitical unpredictability – especially as Washington strengthens ties with Pakistan. These factors make the F-35 offer unlikely or impractical. The Su-57 is a more viable candidate. It is combat-tested in Syria and Ukraine. Russia has offered to set up Indian production and share technology. The Su-57 evolved from the Indo-Russian FGFA project (2007), which itself derived from Russia’s PAK FA program. India exited in 2018 due to concerns over cost, performance, and work-share imbalance. Since then, Sukhoi has continued Su-57 development. The export variant, the Su-57E, debuted at MAKS 2019. It has since appeared at several global airshows, including in China and India. Russia has produced around 42 Su-57s and ordered 30 more. The estimated cost ranges from $35-50 million, potentially $60-75 million with local production – still cheaper than the F-35. Russia is also developing the Su-75 Checkmate (LTA) – a single-engine, AI-enabled fighter meant to compete with the F-35 and J-35. It had its maiden flight in 2024, with induction targeted for 2027. The Su-75 is intended to compete with fifth-generation fighters like the F-35 and China’s Shenyang J-35. The aircraft is designed with AI integration for enhanced capabilities. Russia has also offered to upgrade the Su-30 MKI to Su-35 technology standard, or make Su-35S in India with full Transfer of Technology. Also on offer is the Russian stealth drone Sukhoi S-70 Okhotnik-B which forms Manned Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) with Su-57, and the long-range R-37M AAM. Challenges remain: Su-57 production is slow but increasing. Russia remains focused on the Ukraine conflict. Sanctions complicate payments. India’s oil imports have worsened the trade balance, though it is easing with falling prices. The IAF also already operates a 60% Russian fleet and may wish to diversify. READ MORE: India eyes fifth generation fighters: Can Russia’s Su-57 make the cut? The way ahead for India With China’s air capabilities expanding rapidly, regional players such as Japan, South Korea, and India must invest in advanced fighters to maintain deterrence. China’s growing lead may soon become insurmountable. The F-35 is not on the table. The Su-57 is a time-sensitive, cost-effective option that will be cheaper. The existing Russian aircraft production lines will be useable to some extent. The decision may anger the Americans, but that is not new. GCAP could be viable long-term, but its partners are US allies and may align with US platforms such as the Boeing F-47. For India to be part of the big league, the AMCA must succeed. In addition to two squadrons of Su-57, it may be worthwhile to quickly build a large inventory of 4.5-generation fighters such as the LCA Mk2 and Rafale, and get long-range air-to-surface missiles (BrahMos II) and longer-range AAMs like the Astra III or the Russian R-37M. India must avoid reactive decisions – but the time to act is now. View the full article

An important part of manhood has always been about having the competence to be effective in the world — having the breadth of skills, the savoir-faire, to handle any situation you find yourself in. With that in mind, each Sunday we’ll be republishing one of the illustrated guides from our archives, so you can hone your manly know-how week by week. Earlier this month, 71-year-old Donald Zimmerman was jogging near Pillar Mountain outside of Kodiak, Alaska. He was surrounded by berry bushes that were just starting to fill out, and he knew that encountering bears was a possibility, which is exactly why he carried bear spray. He saw the bear out of the corner of his eye just before the attack. Zimmerman was mauled before he had a chance to pull the spray out, but during a brief break from the violence, he managed to uncap his spray and deploy it, scaring the bear away. Officials say the bear spray saved his life. While bear attacks aren’t predictable (nor common), the outcome when victims use bear spray is. One study found that spray stopped “undesirable behaviors” in 92% of cases. And among people who carried bear spray, 98% were uninjured after having a close encounter with a bear. The bottom line is, bear spray works. But like all tools, it takes practice to use it effectively; you shouldn’t just buy a can, stick it in your pack, and never consider how to use it until a 700-pound grizzly is upon you. Bear spray is much like normal pepper spray, but it typically sprays much farther and for a longer period of time. Training to use bear spray is imperative if you’re headed into bear country. Luckily, many of the companies that manufacture bear spray also sell inert training cans, so you can test out their functionality before you hit the trail. One of the things they’ll tell you is to store your bear spray in a hyper-convenient location where you can access it quickly — like holstered on your belt; you don’t want it buried inside your pack when you need it. Also be sure to read up on our other bear encounter safety tips. Illustrated by Ted Slampyak This article was originally published on The Art of Manliness. View the full article

An activist group’s CEO claims he was offered millions of dollars to recruit protesters for anti-Trump demonstrations It should come as no surprise, but the next time you see a protest popping up in cities across America, there is a chance it is not as spontaneous and homegrown as it seems. In fact, many of the young, rebellious faces in the crowd are paid actors content to earn a paycheck on behalf of very wealthy individuals who are committed to artificially manipulating the US political system. Enter Adam Swart, the CEO and founder of Crowds on Demand (CoD), whose website details a long list of services it provides to give any political movement the booster rockets it needs to get off the ground. “If you need to hire protesters, we can get a crowd on the street, sometimes within 24 hours time. If you need speakers to present at a council meeting, we can provide talented and well-spoken individuals to advocate for the cause. We also have a dedicated team of phone-banking staff who can call Congressional Offices and convince government officials to support your cause and help you overcome opposition. If you need lots of letters and emails written from constituents, we have a network of tens of thousands of individuals across the country who can send well-written constituent letters to their representatives.” Read more Rent-a-crowd CEO lifts lid on US protest industry’s ‘dirty secrets’ “We are the ultimate guerilla lobbying and government relations firm,” the website boldly declares. Swart was forthcoming with the information that his publicity firm was offered a lucrative contract to assist in a Democrat-backed astroturfing effort. “Interests aligned with the organizers of the July 17th movement have approached us and, in fact, we rejected an offer that probably is worth around $20 million dollars,” Swart admitted to NewsNation’s Brian Entin in an interview. On July 17, protests took place around the country against the Trump administration, organized by Good Trouble Lives On, a left-wing progressive organization. July 17 was the fifth anniversary of the death of former Democratic Representative John Lewis, a civil rights leader who referred to protests as “good trouble.” So why did Swart reject the multi-million-dollar offer to host the July 17 event? After all, some Trump supporters suspect that CoD played a prominent role in the highly successful ‘No Kings Day’ protests, which were said to have attracted more than 5 million people in more than 2,100 cities and towns, possibly the largest single-day demonstration in US history. Right-wingers have insisted that the numbers turning out to oppose Trump are routinely bolstered by hired operatives supplied by Swart’s company. While CoD denies any involvement in No Kings, for example, just the idea that a publicity firm could legally exist as a driving force to any protest movement is extremely unsettling (determining exactly what groups CoD supports is very difficult as employees are forced to sign non-disclosure forms that protect the client’s anonymity). With regard to the ‘Good Trouble Lives On’ protest, Swart admits to turning down the offer because the demonstrations would “make us all look bad,” as 1,500 events planned across the country had the potential to “turn violent.” Read more Assaults against US immigration officials surge by 830% The CEO said he does not activate any activists-for-hire if “it involves illegal activity… we do not engage in any form of illegal activity – of course, no violence, no vandalism, and no blocking streets without a permit.” While Swart must be applauded for turning down a fortune for keeping the US political process transparent and safe, there are other big-league players who do not operate with a similar moral compass. Consider George Soros and his Open Society Foundation for one. Last summer, at the height of anti-Israel protests on university campuses, US lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Fox News that organizations funded by the billionaire philanthropist and others helped finance the movements. “There’s no question that there are organizations funded by George Soros and the Rockefeller Brothers. Take for example ‘Jewish Voice for Peace,’” Dershowitz said. “It has been behind many of these demonstrations. They’re not Jewish and they don’t want peace. It’s a fake organization. It’s an old-line group of communists and anarchists that want to overthrow the United States government… These organizations are funded by Soros and other organizations that help turn these useful idiots into protesters and eventually into terrorists.” Getting back to the Democrats, the very act of astroturfing the US political system strongly suggests that Trump’s MAGA presents a clear and present danger to the liberals. The Democrats have reached the point where they are practically forced to pay people a minimum wage check to mobilize against Trump. Nothing screams a party in disorder more than one that obviously lacks grassroots support and is forced to rig the political system. View the full article

Macron’s handpicked centrist prime minister has chosen to mess with the one thing that unites the French more than anything: their time off The day after French President Emmanuel Macron said that, in the year 2027 alone, he would blow another roughly €60 billion on weapons for some fantasy war with Russia that France isn’t even in, the French prime minister proposed axing some statutory holidays in an effort to balance the books. Dude just hit a third rail and electrocuted his political career. There are two things the French hold sacred. The first is their sprawling social safety net, which they fund with sky-high taxes and from which they get diminishing returns. And the other is their numerous beloved paid vacation days. Macron’s handpicked prime minister, longtime establishment centrist fixture François Bayrou, has chosen to mess with the one thing that unites the nation more than even football: their time off. Why would he want to do that? So the French can work more. So the activity generated can be taxed. Because the government is super broke. Bayrou says that he has to find another €44 billion in the state’s couch cushions to keep France’s ballooning debt and borrowing costs from setting off more investor panic and bond-dumping. Normally, the government doesn’t even touch the budget until September, when legislators return from their sacred summer break, which of course they’re not being asked to sacrifice in the interests of austerity. But Bayrou says that he wants to get a head start because the public needs time to digest his ‘let’s cancel holidays’ pitch. Read more France predicts ‘major war in Europe’ by 2030 Or maybe he just needs a running start at the cliff that he’s about to hurl himself off. Because both the anti-establishment right and left will almost certainly vote non on his holiday cuts, possibly triggering a no-confidence vote. Or rather, another one. He’s survived eight so far. But with a proposal so ludicrously unpopular, this cat’s ninth political life may be about to bite the dust. It’s been a year since the last election, so France could legally have another one anytime now. Which would make it three elections in as many years. And it’s not like those are free either, by the way. So here he is, Prime Minister Bayrou, waxing all poetic about national sacrifice, while at the same time proposing to axe the Easter Monday state holiday in April, and the one that falls on France’s WWII Victory Day on May 8: “I think this is the last station before the cliff and the crushing by the debt. We must call it by its name. It is a mortal danger for a country,” Bayrou said. Hear that, Frenchies? Accept his proposal or the country gets fatally knifed. No mention of cutting anything else from the budget, huh? Not a whiff of trimming that €170-billion deficit from any of the other more glaring bloated line items? He said that he has zero interest in messing with Macron’s new 5% of GDP for NATO defense spending, despite France not actually being in a war. Read more France to raise taxes on the rich “We planned to double the budget by 2030, we are actually going to double it by 2027,” Macron had just announced. “To this end, a review of the military planning law will be presented in the autumn. And I call on the National Assembly to vote on it,” he said. Look, I’m no Inspector Clouseau, but I think I just may have an idea of where they can find a super big line item so they don’t have to keep nickel and diming French workers. As one might imagine, this is going over like canned Cheez Whiz with the average French citizen who depends on those clustered April-May-June holidays to build “bridges” from midweek days off to weekends – or maybe even use them to dig full-blown “tunnels” under entire work weeks. The government is now asking ordinary people to surrender rest so it can look fiscally responsible without touching bloated defense budgets or elite entitlements. It has decided that its taxpayers’ time, and ultimately, their lives are less valuable than its agenda. And what does it say about a country when it kills a peace holiday commemorating the end of a world war to pay for hypothetical ones? France isn’t under siege, but its leadership is acting like it is. “Since 1945, freedom has never been so threatened, and never so seriously,” Macron told French soldiers in a speech around the Bastille Day national holiday. “To be free in this world, we must be feared. To be feared, we must be powerful,” he said. Read more France a ‘fiscal time bomb’ for EU – Bloomberg That fear-based urgency is how power justifies undermining democracy in favor of the authoritarian imposition of unpopular decisions. It took Europe two world wars to understand the value of peace. Now its leaders would rather erase the memory of that understanding than touch their military budgets. When they start talking about “sacrifice,” it never includes their own entitlements or pensions. That’s not sacrifice, it’s scapegoating. When they demand it from everyone else but not themselves, it’s not real austerity — just theatre. And when leaders govern like the people are the problem, it implies that they’ve come to see the people as their main opposition. As someone who has long joked about the ridiculous amount of paid holidays the French get, particularly compared to North Americans, I never thought that I’d ever find myself defending them. But the French prime Minister has managed to change my mind. Now, it seems that defending them is a revolutionary act against technocrats treating democracy like an inconvenience when it’s time to “make tough decisions.” It rips the mask off the French state’s mantra of “liberté, égalité, fraternité” and makes inequality glaring, calling their bluff on their “we’re all in this together” narrative. It throws back in the government’s face the notion that the problem lies with the citizens and not them. Because nothing says “budget responsibility” quite like nuking Victory Day, to bankroll wars that it isn’t even in, all while acting like the real enemy of the state – at least until Russian President Vladimir Putin gets around to fulfilling their fantasy of rolling up the Champs-Elysées – is your long weekend. View the full article

In Moldova, the independence of the judicial system and EU accession are jeopardized On July 15, 2025, Moldovan lawyers went on strike. Legal professionals halted all activities, suspended participation in court proceedings, and declared that providing legal assistance during the strike would be considered a disciplinary breach. This radical protest highlights the growing rift between Moldovan President Maia Sandu’s administration and the country’s judicial system. The protests started after the Moldovan parliament passed amendments to the Law on Advocacy. According to the Moldovan Union of Lawyers, this reform was imposed without any consultation with the legal community and aims to undermine the very autonomy of the profession. The new provisions limit the terms of the members of the Bar Association, transfer key powers to the Ministry of Justice, and remove the Ethics Commission’s ability to request materials for investigating complaints. Critics argue that this package of measures is designed to place the legal profession under political control, effectively transforming it into an arm of the executive branch. This is not merely a technical issue. It revolves around the balance of power, trust in institutions, and ultimately, Moldova’s ability to continue its journey toward EU integration. The Union of Lawyers is not an isolated entity; it has received direct support from the Council of Europe and the European Union in recent years through programs aimed at strengthening its independence and self-regulation. Brussels has been closely monitoring the state of the rule of law in Moldova, especially since the launch of the EUPM mission intended to assist the nation in its fight against corruption and alignment with European standards. However, recent developments threaten to severely undermine confidence in this process. Read more When aid turns into ideology: What France is really doing in Moldova This situation affects more than just lawyers. In February, anti-corruption prosecutor Veronica Dragalin was forced to resign after criticizing the government’s decision to merge her office with another prosecution service. In June, five judges of the Constitutional Court were appointed by the ruling party without any public procedure or scrutiny. Meanwhile, dozens of judges and prosecutors have left their posts. All this indicates that the independence of the judicial system is no longer guaranteed. The paradox is striking, since Maia Sandu has built her political image on transparency and a commitment to reform. However, while expressing the intention to bring Moldova into the EU, Sandu’s administration ignores recommendations from the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, stifles criticism within the country, and appropriates democratic oversight mechanisms. This has led to growing disillusionment not only among legal professionals but also within the parts of society that had hoped for genuine change. The lawyers’ protest has already had a political impact: some MPs from the ruling party have publicly acknowledged that the law was passed without real consultations with legal professionals. However, this won’t yield any immediate results — since this is a foundational law, any amendments can only be addressed in the next parliamentary session. Meanwhile, the ball is now in President Sandu’s court as she decides whether or not to sign the bill. Confronted with such a contentious bill, the only course of action aligned with European values would be to block it. Signing it would effectively legitimize a centralizing and authoritarian trend that runs counter to the principles of transparency, pluralism, and the rule of law that the EU expects from its members. Moldova stands at a crossroads, and the choice is not merely political — it is a question of legal ethics. This article was first published by Valeurs and was translated and edited by the RT team. View the full article

We were taught in high school that vaccines have saved millions of lives in America and Europe. One of the greatest heroes of modern medicine is Louis Pasteur, the creator of the “germ theory,” the ideological foundation for vaccines. But the real history of vaccines, and the real story of Louis Pasteur, is something quite different. In his early career, Pasteur did believe that germs were the cause of disease. But 15 years before his death he recanted this belief. He came to believe that it was not germs but the degradation of an organism’s internal environment that causes disease. He came to believe that germs took advantage of degraded or susceptible “terrain.” Over a century of scientific research has validated Pasteur’s terrain theory. Maintaining a healthy terrain, not eliminating germs, has proved to be the key to disease prevention. But Pasteur’s germ theory retains a powerful hold on our collective imagination. The polio vaccine is the most touted example of the human endeavor to triumph against germs. “Every school kid knows” that the polio vaccine eradicated polio in the Western hemisphere. But in fact there is no evidence to support this claim. From 1923 to 1953, before Jonas Salk’s killed-virus polio vaccine was introduced, the polio death rate in the U.S. and England had already declined by 47 percent and 55 percent, respectively. The epidemic ended not just in the United States and England, but in European countries that questioned the vaccine’s safety and refused to systematically vaccinate their citizens. Not only was the vaccine ineffective, it produced results opposite to those intended. In the U.S, the number of polio cases following mass vaccinations was significantly greater than before mass vaccinations. Doctors and scientists on the staff of the National Institute of Health during the 1950s were well aware that the Salk vaccine was ineffective. Some frankly stated that it was worthless as a preventive and even dangerous. Many refused to vaccinate their own children. Dr. Salk himself said: “When you inoculate children with a polio vaccine you don’t sleep well for weeks.” But the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, and pharmaceutical companies with a large investment in the vaccine, convinced the U.S. Public Health Service to sign a proclamation claiming that the vaccine was “safe and 100 percent effective.” From the early 1960s to the mid-1970s, a new live-virus polio vaccine became, in Salk’s words, “the principal if not sole cause” of all reported polio cases in the U.S. Between 1973 and 1983, 87 percent of all cases of polio (excluding imported cases) were caused by the vaccine. More recently, every case of polio in the U.S. since 1979 (excluding five imported cases) was caused by the vaccine. In Dr. Benjamin Sandler’s book “Diet Prevents Polio,” an unequivocal correlation is found between diet and susceptibility to polio. Sandler found that persons in contact with the virus but eschewing foods high in sugars and starches have significantly greater protection from the polio virus. Dr. Sandler is one of many advocates of the terrain theory whose work has been systematically ignored. The details of his work were published in the American Journal of Pathology in 1941. Sixty years later, in the waning days of the year 2000, members of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) unanimously voted for an end to all government-mandated childhood vaccines. Jane M. Orient, M.D., AAPS executive director, said: “Children face the possibility of death or serious long-term adverse effects from mandated vaccines.” One of the most serious adverse effects of vaccines is that they cause the very diseases they’re meant to prevent. Measles, for instance, which declined by more than 95 percent before the vaccine was introduced, is 14 times more likely to be contracted by vaccinated than by unvaccinated persons. A recent study in Pediatrics found that women vaccinated with the measles vaccine pass on far less immunity to their offspring. Before the vaccine was introduced, it was extremely rare for an infant to contract measles. Now more than 25 percent of all measles cases are babies under a year of age. One significant concern with vaccines today is their casual relation with the growing epidemic of childhood autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). ADHD has increased from 900,000 in 1991 to over 5 million today. The MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine is the primary suspect. Dr. Viera Scheibner, author of “Vaccinations: 100 Years of Orthodox Research” sums up the position of researchers not funded by pharmaceutical companies: “There is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines of any kind … are effective in preventing the infectious diseases they are supposed to prevent. Further, adverse effects are amply documented and are far more significant to public health than any adverse effects of infectious diseases. Vaccinations have caused more suffering and more deaths than any other human activity in the history of medical intervention.” Vaccines are only the tip of the iceberg for a look at how the medical industry has consistently defrauded the American public on issues from cancer to childbirth. And, let’s not forget President Bush’s law passed in 1990 giving the pharmaceutical industry full immunity from lawsuits even when the results of vaccinations caused death. Welcome to the world of HIV, Ebola, Sars, Mersa, Swine, and now the worst scam of all, Covid-19. It never ends. In God we trust. All others pay cash! Aloha! Sources: www.chiropractic.org/truth-will-prevail www.griebchiropractic.com The post The truth about vaccines is that they rake in the bucks! appeared first on NaturalNewsBlogs. View the full article