May we preserve a sense of adventure...
Musk, Ramaswamy Will Hold DOGE Talks With House Republicans. The meeting will be the DOGE’s first formal interaction with Congress.
WASHINGTON—House Speaker Mike Johnson announced on Nov. 27 that he would host Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk and biotechnology businessman Vivek Ramaswamy at the U.S. Capitol to discuss the activities of their new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with Republican members of Congress.
The DOGE is an advisory body chartered by President-elect Donald Trump to advise his incoming administration on cost-cutting, deregulation, and reducing the size of the U.S. government.
Johnson announced that Musk and Ramaswamy would be invited on Dec. 5 to discuss their proposals, which have so far been posted on Musk’s social media platform X, with Republican senators and members of the House of Representatives.
“Looking forward to hosting?@elonmusk and?@VivekGRamaswamy next week on Capitol Hill to discuss major reform ideas to achieve regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions, and cost savings—& revive the principle of limited government!” wrote Johnson on X.
Despite its title, the DOGE will not be a federal executive department—which would require congressional approval—or receive taxpayer funds.
Trump, in his announcement on Truth Social, wrote that the organization will “provide advice and guidance from outside Government, and will partner with the White House and Office of Management & Budget to drive large scale structural reform, and create an entrepreneurial approach to Government never seen before.”
The exact plans for government downsizing, as advised by DOGE, remain to be seen. In the past, Ramaswamy has suggested the dismissal of 75 percent of all non-military government employees, which he claimed could be accomplished without the approval of Congress and would result in over 1 million federal bureaucrats losing their jobs.
Musk, by contrast, has recently highlighted on X certain government jobs he seeks to eliminate, many of which relate to climate initiatives. Both men have also suggested permanently ending the twice-yearly daylight saving time changes in the United States.
“We expect mass reductions. We expect certain agencies to be deleted outright,” Ramaswamy recently told Fox News. “We expect massive cuts of federal contractors and others who are overbilling the federal government,” he said, which he said could be accomplished quickly due to the “legal backdrop [of] the Supreme Court.”
Any executive branch downsizing is likely to affect members of Congress significantly, many of whom use earmarks and leverage votes to bring federal jobs and spending projects to their constituencies, which they publicize during election campaigns. Johnson’s meeting with DOGE leaders will be the first major interaction regarding government reduction, which could become a significant issue in 2026’s midterm elections.
The Republican Conferences in the House and Senate have already acted in anticipation of DOGE activities. The Senate DOGE Caucus has been established, with Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) as its chair, while the House will create an Oversight Subcommittee on DOGE to be chaired by Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.).
Even though Trump’s administration will not take office until Jan. 20, 2025, Musk has already started DOGE activities. The organization’s X account on Nov. 14 began soliciting job applicants who are “super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries willing to work 80+ hours per week on unglamorous cost-cutting.” The application process entailed an X Premium subscription, which costs between $3 and $16 per month and benefits Musk’s business. the DOGE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
A few weeks ago, I published an article about NATO's role in the war in Ukraine. The situation there has since become even more delicate. Several NATO countries (the USA, France, and the UK) have authorized Ukraine to use long-range missiles supplied by them to strike targets deep within Russian territory. This has brought the world closer to a third world war than ever before.
While the war machine is being recklessly ramped up by some, we will remain calm and continue our work here. On this Substack, we explore (among other things) the tension between media narratives and reality. In America and the West, these media narratives – in particular those about wars – are often little more than propaganda. But what about in Russia? How about the use of propaganda in Russia?
Chechnya Before the Soviet Era
Chechnya, a small, mountainous country in the northern Caucasus, situated between the Black and Caspian Seas, has traditionally been inhabited by tribes who called themselves the "Vainakh" ("Our People").
These tribes were organized into clans ("Teips"), sometimes consisting of a few hundred members, and were led by councils of elders who would meet every few weeks to discuss the welfare of their tribal communities. Through conversations, they reached agreements and made arrangements to organize their shared life.
Sometimes these discussions likely went better than at other times, but they were generally sufficient to bring a degree of harmony to communal living. This does not mean that life was idyllic in those days. The clans had a strong sense of family honor and a strict code of honor, with blood vengeance and retribution being integral parts of daily life.
This ancient culture came under severe pressure from Russia from the mid-16th century onward (starting around 1556). Under the rule of Tsar Ivan the Terrible and later Peter the Great (early 18th century), Russia set its sights on the Caucasus (including Chechnya). The motives at the time were primarily strategic: the region was crucial in the power struggle with the Persian Empire.
It was not until the Caucasian Wars, which began in 1817, that the Russian tsars succeeded in subjugating the Vainakh in Chechnya. Even after their subjugation, the tribes continued to resist domination with an extraordinarily tenacious will for self-determination. Russia's response to uprisings was anything but gentle. Entire Vainakh villages were occasionally wiped out. The Vainakh continued to resist through guerrilla tactics until 1856, when Imam Shamil, the foremost figurehead of their resistance, was captured by Russia. After that, they remained under the rule of the Tsar for a few decades.
***Chechnya During the Soviet Union***
When the Tsarist regime in Russia was overthrown by the Bolsheviks during the 1917 Russian Revolution, the Chechens (understandably) sided with the revolutionaries. Initially, this worked out well.
TRANSCRIPT
The “Russian Revolution of 1917” might be a more accurate name if “Revolution” were plural. It includes two revolutions that took place in the same year: the first revolution, in February, overthrew the imperial government... and the second revolution, in October, placed the Bolsheviks in power.
What caused the Russian Revolution?
By 1917 there was no love lost between the imperial family and the Russian people. The government was rife with corruption, food was scarce, and World War I had devastated both the Russian economy and the country’s reputation as a military powerhouse. Yeah, the Romanov dynasty had lasted 300 years—but that didn’t mean they’d earned the trust of their people. Mistreated peasants, workers, soldiers, and ethnic minorities expressed their dissatisfaction via revolt.
What happened to the Russian royal family?
When most of Petrograd rose up in protest over food shortages, Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate his throne. When his brother, Grand Duke Michael, refused to replace him, the dynasty came to an end. Nicholas II and his family were confined in western Siberia and the Ural Mountains for over a year. On July 17, 1918, the entire family was killed to prevent a rescue attempt by White Russian forces.
Who governed Russia after the Revolution?
Though a Provisional Government was appointed to succeed the monarchy, it faced a rival in the Petrograd Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies—a body with more support, more authority, and, soon, more power. The two groups clashed until October 1917, when a nearly bloodless coup established a new Bolshevik government. At the time, the Soviet bloc largely consisted of members of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and the Bolshevik party—the latter of which had won considerable support from the people with its platform of “peace, land, and bread.” Resistance from the Provisional Government proved futile. Though the Bolshevik government went through a few name changes during its decades in power, it essentially ruled Russia from 1917 to 1991.
Chechnya became independent and appeared to have aligned successfully with the new regime in Russia.
However, this period of independence was short-lived. In 1924, after Stalin rose to power among the Bolsheviks, his Red Army re-annexed Chechnya. Several changes typical of communism were imposed, such as attempts to ban religion and collectivize agriculture.
The Vainakh’s desire for self-determination, however, remained unbroken. In 1941, when Stalin’s Soviet Union was heavily engaged in the fight against Nazi Germany, Chechnya seized its chance and declared independence once more. Some collaborated with Nazi Germany, primarily because Hitler promised that, once Stalin was defeated, agricultural collectivization would be reversed, the Vainakh would gain freedom of religion, and they could establish an educational system to teach their own language and culture.
History, however, had a different outcome for the Chechens.
Once Stalin began to sense victory over Nazi Germany on the World War II front, he decided to bring order to Chechnya. In 1944, he accused the Chechens of collaborating with Hitler and lived up to his moniker, "Man of Steel." He collectively deported the Vainakh to Central Asia—a total of approximately 3.2 million people, without any distinction, even those who had fought against Nazi Germany in the Soviet army.
More than a quarter of them perished in a short time under inhumane conditions in labor camps.
In 1957, four years after Stalin's death, Khrushchev allowed the surviving Chechens to gradually return to their homeland. However, their homes had largely been taken over by Russians, Ukrainians, and Ossetians in the meantime. Riots and pogroms erupted, claiming hundreds of lives.
Only a decisive Soviet military intervention to harshly suppress the unrest managed to restore a semblance of peace in the land of the Vainakh.
***Chechnya After the Soviet Union***
After the Soviet Union dissolved in 1989, a power vacuum emerged, presenting an opportunity for former Chechen air force general Dzhokhar Dudayev. In 1991, he declared independence. A brief civil war ensued, during which thousands of Russian engineers and workers fled the country, causing the collapse of the industry.
During the early Yeltsin years, Russia initially tried for several years to undermine Dudayev’s Chechen regime through covert military support—mainly by supplying military equipment to local opposition groups.
When this failed, a large-scale military offensive was launched in 1994, with the Chechen capital Grozny bombed, followed by a massive ground invasion.
Despite overwhelming Russian military superiority, the Chechens held their ground. Ultimately, more than 100,000 people died in the conflict, with neither side achieving a decisive victory. Russian public opinion turned against continuing the war, and morale within the Russian army plummeted due to ongoing hostage situations and relentless guerrilla tactics by Chechen resistance fighters. Demoralized, Russia signed the Khasavyurt Accord on August 30, 1996, ending the war. Chechnya remained temporarily independent.
The subsequent period was marked by a devastated economy, deep social decline, and unrest. Islamic militias led by Wahhabist-extremist warlords engaged almost exclusively in violence, with kidnappings becoming their primary source of income. Between 1996 and 1999, about 1,300 kidnappings were reported, generating an estimated $200 million in ransom.
In 1998, the government declared a state of emergency.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin closely monitored the situation. There was no public support for renewed military intervention, so they initially sought other ways to regain control. Several assassination attempts were made on separatist president Aslan Maskhadov, likely by Russian intelligence agencies. All of them failed.
When Kremlin envoy Gennady Shpigun was murdered in Chechnya in 1999, it became clear that diplomacy also offered no prospects, and the situation neared another boiling point.
***Putin Steps onto the Stage***
Meanwhile, the Putin era began to take shape in Moscow. Putin, who had risen from modest beginnings to director of the FSB (the successor to the infamous KGB) and advisor to the mayor of St. Petersburg, was appointed Prime Minister by Yeltsin in 1999. It is here that recent history begins.
Entire libraries have been written about how Putin came to power. Regardless of the sources you consult, the question always remains: what can be considered even somewhat reliable? Anyone even slightly familiar with the pro-Western and pro-American bias against Putin and the omnipresent NATO propaganda can’t help but feel frustration and annoyance when watching yet another documentary comparing Putin to Hitler or Stalin and blaming him for all military and other tensions between Russia and the West.
As with any geopolitical issue, the first and most important question is: What can we actually know? Below, I’ll limit myself to discussing a few historical facts that seem relatively reliable, though I remain aware of the subjectivity of even this information. I am always open to corrections from those who believe I am mistaken.
An anecdote surrounding Yeltsin's appointment of Putin as Prime Minister offers insight into how Putin wields power. In 1998, the Yeltsin administration contracted a Swiss company, Mabetex, to renovate the Kremlin. Information quickly leaked suggesting irregularities in how the contract was awarded. Persistent rumors claimed that hundreds of thousands of dollars had been transferred from Mabetex to accounts belonging to Yeltsin’s daughters.
While these allegations were never definitively proven, there was little doubt about corruption involving the highest levels of the Kremlin.
Prosecutor General Yuri Skuratov took on the case. Skuratov was no stranger to high-profile investigations, having previously probed top KGB figures such as Alexander Mamut, Yuri Borodin, and a then-relatively unknown Vladimir Putin. The case garnered significant media attention, and it quickly became apparent that some top officials, including Yeltsin, were in trouble.
This was the moment for the FSB to act. The agency leaked a compromising video of Skuratov in a sauna with two young prostitutes. Then-FSB chief Vladimir Putin personally appeared on television to confirm the video’s authenticity. The smear campaign was highly effective. Skuratov’s credibility was so severely damaged that he was forced to resign, halting his investigation into Yeltsin.
To this day, there is debate over the video's authenticity. The man in the video resembles Skuratov, but the footage is unclear. Many experts believe the video was manipulated or entirely fabricated. Skuratov himself has always adamantly denied being the man in the video. Another prosecutor, Tamaev, was also forced to step down after his two half-brothers were accused of drug and illegal arms possession—charges that were later withdrawn. Skuratov later ran for president but was given little airtime on Russian television and dismissed as a non-viable candidate.
The Mabetex affair proved politically advantageous for Putin. On August 16, 1999, Yeltsin appointed him Prime Minister. Four months later, on December 31, 1999—literally on the eve of the new millennium—Yeltsin nominated Putin as his successor for the presidency. With a handshake and the words “Take care of Russia,” Yeltsin passed the torch.
It remains uncertain whether Yeltsin committed fraud in the Mabetex affair. What is undeniable, however, is that corruption was rampant during his tenure in Russia. This cannot be entirely blamed on Yeltsin, as signs of such practices were already visible in the final decade of the Soviet Union (circa the mid-1980s). The FIMACO scandal perhaps illustrates this best: in the 1980’s, the KGB elites already purchased Russian state assets for a pittance, sold them to foreigners, and deposited the money into secret foreign accounts.
After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the fire sale of state assets accelerated, giving rise to the infamous Russian oligarchs. A major part of the Soviet state properties were snapped up for next to nothing by a handful of former Communist leaders, who often resold them to foreigners.
Putin sought to put an end to these practices, tackling the problem head-on. He started with Russia’s richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, head of the oil company Yukos and a financier of several opposition parties. Khodorkovsky was charged with fraud and brought to court in an iron cage (a not uncommon practice in Russia). Found guilty, he served eight years in prison (2005–2013).
Putin’s actions were undoubtedly forceful. The question remains, however, whether they were consistent. The 2015 Panama Papers leak revealed that several of Putin’s close associates had stashed large sums in offshore accounts without facing any consequences. This suggests that Putin did not so much eliminate the oligarchs as reorganize the oligarchic landscape—removing politically hostile oligarchs while empowering others. Regardless of the method, it is certain that he stabilized the country and curtailed the sale of its wealth.
***Chechnya During the Putin Era***
Let us return to late 1999, when Boris Yeltsin nominated Vladimir Putin as his successor to the Russian presidency. Yeltsin put Putin forward as his preferred candidate, but to become president, Putin still needed to win over the electorate. This was no small feat. At the start of his tenure as prime minister in August 1999, Putin was relatively unknown to the general public, with some claiming he had a mere 2% voter support. What could a prime minister do in such a situation to boost his popularity? Winning a war, for example.
And so, we turn to Chechnya. When Putin became prime minister in 1999, Chechnya was in deep crisis. The Chechen government had declared a state of emergency in 1998, and the Russian government was eager to intervene militarily. The only issue: there was no public support for a new war in Chechenya. Under Putin, however, that would change, albeit in a rather peculiar way.
In late 1999, a series of apartment bombings in Russia killed between 200 and 300 civilians. The Kremlin needed only a few hours to identify the culprits: Chechen terrorists. Others, however, were less convinced. Several eyewitnesses claimed to have seen military personnel planting explosives in the apartment buildings. The then-director of the FSB attempted to dispel doubts, explaining that military exercises had "coincidentally" been underway at those locations.
Russian dissidents Anna Politkovskaya (a journalist) and Alexander Litvinenko (a KGB officer) rejected this explanation and argued that the 1999 bombings were false flag operations orchestrated by Russian intelligence to manufacture public support for another war in Chechnya. While these claims were never conclusively proven, they remain compelling. False flag operations—whether executed by the U.S., Russia, or European nations—often "coincidentally" occur alongside military exercises that mirror the events of the attack.
Politkovskaya and Litvinenko made similar allegations about the so-called Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis. On October 23, 2002, 40 Chechen fighters (terrorists?) took 850 civilians hostage in the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow.
After two days of unsuccessful negotiations (in which Politkovskaya herself participated as a mediator), Russian special forces ("Spetsnaz") ended the siege in a brutal manner. They pumped an opioid-based sedative gas into the theater, rendering everyone—hostages and hostage-takers—unconscious. However, the dosage was too high, resulting in the deaths of 130 hostages.
The official narrative was met with widespread skepticism. Polls suggested that 74% of Russians did not believe the official account. Several aspects of the story raised eyebrows. For example, all the hostage-takers were shot dead, even though many could have been subdued and interrogated—a standard approach in such operations. Questions also linger about how the attackers managed to smuggle explosives into a large Moscow theater and execute an operation of such scale without detection.
The analysis of these events is further complicated by American geopolitical meddling in Chechnya. As in many other regions—Guatemala, Chile, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria, and so forth—the U.S. likely sought regime change in Russia, arming Chechen rebels and potentially aiding in the planning of terrorist attacks. In this sense, Putin was probably correct: the U.S. actively sought to destabilize Russia during this period.
Regardless of the truth, the 1999 bombings provided the Russian government with the perfect pretext to gain public support for renewed military action in Chechnya. Weeks later, Russia launched its campaign, and after a ten-year struggle (ending in 2009), the proud and resilient Vainakh people were forced—once again—to bow to Russian rule.
The narrative about Chechnya disseminated by Russian media since 1999 strongly resembles the "war on terror" rhetoric of the Bush administration in the U.S. In some ways, the Russian narrative even preceded the American one.
The U.S. would follow Russia's lead a year later, after 9/11, launching its own "war on terror" in the Middle East—a campaign of imperialistic plunder that dwarfed Putin's Chechen campaign.
Anna Politkovskaya, mentioned earlier, took it upon herself to bear witness to the horrors of the Chechen war—committed by both Chechens and Russians—through interviews, articles, and books. She paid the ultimate price. Facing several death threats (including from the Chechen president Ramzan Kadyrov), she was imprisoned by the Russian army in Chechnya and subjected to a mock execution.
Twice she was poisoned. Ultimately, only a bullet to the head silenced her.
To this day, the mastermind behind her murder remains unknown. Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya who had previously threatened her, is a prime suspect. However, many fingers point to Putin, not least because the murder took place on his birthday. The Kremlin arrested five men as alleged perpetrators, but whether this absolves them of suspicion remains a critical question.
Politkovskaya's case is not an isolated one. Four of her colleagues at Novaya Gazeta—one of Russia's few critical newspapers—were also murdered.
In their honor, we name them here:
Igor Domnikov (2000),
Domnikov, 42, a reporter and special-projects editor for the twice-weekly Moscow paper Novaya Gazeta, died two months after being attacked in the entryway of his apartment building in southeastern Moscow.
According to numerous sources, the reporter was attacked on May 12 by an unidentified assailant who hit him repeatedly on the head with a heavy object, presumably a hammer, and left him lying unconscious in a pool of blood, where a neighbor found him.
Domnikov was taken to a hospital with injuries to the skull and brain. After surgery and two months in a coma, the journalist died on July 16 in the Burdenko Neurosurgery Institute in central Moscow.
Yuri Shchekochikhin (2003),
On 3 July 2003, Shchekochikhin died 12 days after being hospitalised in a Moscow clinic, at the age of 53, of what doctors said was an acute allergic reaction. He died suddenly a few days before his scheduled departure to the United States, where he planned to meet with FBI investigators. According to Novaya Gazeta, his medical documents were either lost or destroyed by authorities. Several stakeholders, including civil society organisations, political allies and the journalist’s family and colleagues, however, suspected that Shchekochikhin was poisoned to prevent him from further reporting on high-level corruption cases involving officials from the Federal Security Service (FSB) and the Prosecutor General’s Office.
Anastasia Baburova (2009),
Stanislav Markelov was shot to death on 19 January 2009 while leaving a news conference in Moscow less than 800 metres (1?2?mi) from the Kremlin; he was 34. Anastasia Baburova, a journalist for Novaya Gazeta who tried to come to Markelov's assistance, was also shot and killed in the attack.[1][2] The weapon used in the shooting was a Browning 1910 pistol
and
Natalya Estemirova (2009).
Two witnesses reported they saw Estemirova being pushed into a car shouting that she was being abducted. Her remains were found with bullet wounds in the head and chest area at 4:30?p.m. in woodland 100 metres (330?ft) away from the federal road "Kavkaz" near the village of Gazi-Yurt, Ingushetia.
Also here, in each case, suspects were convicted in Russian courts, but whether justice was truly served is doubtful.
Some assassinations in Russia are scarcely debatable as being orchestrated by the Kremlin. The murder of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, on a bridge near the Kremlin, was almost certainly ordered by high-ranking officials. For instance, all security cameras on the bridge were "coincidentally" switched off—a feat hardly achievable without Kremlin involvement. The killing took place the day before Nemtsov was set to lead a protest in Moscow and shortly before he planned to publish an article exposing Russia's involvement in the war in eastern Ukraine.
This incident draws parallels with the "suicide" of Jeffrey Epstein in his New York jail cell—except that Epstein, unlike Nemtsov, was not known for his pursuit of truth. In Epstein’s cell, "coincidentally" all security cameras failed, a fellow inmate was transferred to another cell the day prior, and guards were either asleep or conveniently absent. In both cases, a powerful story was concealed.
Turning now to Alexander Litvinenko. As an FSB officer specializing in combating organized crime, Litvinenko quickly uncovered the deep ties between the criminal underworld and Russia’s bureaucracy and power structures (a phenomenon Whitney Webb argues is equally prevalent in Europe and America). Litvinenko, said to be an idealist, struggled to reconcile with this reality.
He also encountered other troubling orders. In 1998, his superiors instructed him to assassinate oligarch and Kremlin critic Boris Berezovsky. Litvinenko refused and decided to go public. Together with a few colleagues, he planned a press conference to expose the system of political assassinations. Just before the conference, he was arrested and held in pretrial detention for a year on charges of abusing information obtained in his official capacity.
Upon his release on bail, Litvinenko learned from reliable sources that he would be killed before his trial. He fled to the United Kingdom, where he reportedly collaborated with British and Spanish intelligence—an act considered treason in Russia. On November 23, 2006, Litvinenko died in London after a 22-day battle with polonium-210 poisoning.
***
We have presented a few historical facts regarding the fate of those who attempt to speak the truth in Russia.
How should we assess Russia's political system?
In some respects, Putin clearly demonstrates a certain reverence for the totalitarian Soviet era (for instance, by reinstating the Soviet anthem introduced under Stalin as Russia's national anthem).
However, he himself is not a totalitarian leader, nor is contemporary Russia a totalitarian state. Putin’s policies, for example, lack the ideological fanaticism that is a defining characteristic of totalitarian systems.
Totalitarianism has not disappeared, but it will not reemerge from Russia, the United States, or any other nation. Instead, it is returning via globalist institutions. These institutions exhibit the foundational traits of totalitarianism: a fanatical utopian-ideological drive to create a new technocratic and rationalist society.
French anthropologist and historian Emmanuel Todd characterized the West as a liberal oligarchy and Russia as an authoritarian democracy:
"Of course, Russia has not become a liberal democracy. Personally, I would describe it as an authoritarian democracy, giving equal weight to both terms—democracy and authoritarian. Democracy, because, even though elections are somewhat manipulated, the polls—which no one disputes—show unwavering support for the regime in both wartime and peacetime. Authoritarian, because the regime clearly does not meet the essential criteria of a liberal democracy: respect for the rights of minorities. The authoritarian nature of the regime is evident, with all that entails, including restrictions on press freedom and the liberties of various groups in civil society." (La défaie de l’Occident, p. 47)
The notion that Putin is solely responsible for the escalating tensions between Russia and NATO is questionable on many levels. A younger Putin was overtly pro-Western. He explored the possibility of Russia joining NATO with President Clinton and even aligned himself with elite Western organizations such as the World Economic Forum, where he trained as a Young Global Leader.
He soon realized, however, that NATO—particularly American neoconservatives—had other plans. Leaders like Bush and Blair initially appeared sympathetic, but deeper layers of the U.S. and British state systems quickly made it clear that there was no room for Russia within NATO.
Under these circumstances, Putin turned inward, building a strong and conservative Russia regulated through the old structures of the KGB, the Soviet-era intelligence service.
The intelligence service may have adopted a different name, but it unquestionably still exists. It even forms the core of the current Russian state system. Contemporary Russia was, to a significant extent, constructed from within the FSB. In a sense, it is accurate to state: in the Soviet Union, the state built the secret service; after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the secret service built the state.
Important to note: also in other countries, the totalitarian systems of the first half of the 20th century (Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union) never truly disappeared. A significant portion of the Nazi apparatus was either transported to America (both South and North America, as seen in Operation Paperclip), remained active within Germany, or was transferred to the Soviet Union (as in Operation Osoaviakhim). Similarly, in Japan, many fascist officials from World War II remained in power. Nobusuku Kishi, for instance, who served as Minister of Justice during WWII, became Japan’s prime minister after the war and founded the Liberal Democratic Party. It is fair to conclude that as long as humanity remains captivated by a rationalist-materialist worldview, the same types of individuals and the same state systems will continue to lead it.
When it comes to propaganda techniques, NATO countries employ methods comparable to those used in Russia. Political assassinations occur here as well, far more frequently than we might like to admit. Similarly, false flag operations, in which large numbers of casualties are inflicted on one’s own population to generate political support for wars, have been well-documented in Europe and the U.S. Sometimes these operations are publicly denied, while other times they are acknowledged years later. Operation Gladio is perhaps the best-known example of the latter. In the anxious struggle to survive and assert dominance inherent to the rationalist worldview, no one can afford to be constrained by ethical principles.
Perhaps nothing is more telling than the episode in Tucker Carlson’s interview with President Putin, where Carlson asks him, “Who blew up the Nord Stream pipeline?” Putin chuckles warmly and mischievously, replying, “YOU did.”
There is no trace of indignation or resentment over the West’s underhanded attempt to pin the sabotage on him.
The Russian chess master’s words and body language convey something along the lines of: “No hard feelings; we are all playing the same game; we all use the same tricks.”
The historical background of the war in Ukraine.
Dear friends, it's 8 AM and I’m sitting in my car, parked in a small lot on a beautiful castle estate in Zutphen, a Dutch village near the German border. The castle and its surrounding park exude the atmosphere of the pre-French Revolution era, when nobility and clergy ruled the world at their leisure. I watch as the sun breathes life into the morning mist before me, filling it with a glow of hope and desire.
I left Belgium this morning at half-past five to come here for a workshop on courageous speaking. I arrived an hour early, and in this idle time, a few words have drifted my way that I want to share with you. It’s been a while since I’ve shared anything, and that has everything to do with the nature of my current life.
I’m diligently writing my book on the psychology of propaganda and Truth, while also traveling the world. My psychological reflections on totalitarianism took me last month to Canada, Portugal, and the Netherlands, and next month they will take me to places like Greece, Great Britain, the US, and Denmark. I surrender to the flow of life.
I know I publish somewhat irregularly here, but I allow myself that freedom. I don’t do my readers any favors by writing out of obligation rather than the urge to create. I don’t write at the command of calendar or clock; I write according to the tides and seasons of the source of words—sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly, and sometimes even less when the winter has fully settled in the land of words.
***
Alright, now to the point: I want to share a few thoughts that are clearly emerging in the early morning air.
Why are some people nowadays trying so hard to provoke a third world war? The dark figure of a global nuclear conflict is indeed knocking on our door. The conflict in the Middle East is intensifying, and the conflict in Ukraine threatens to escalate into a third world war. It is mainly about the latter that I want to say something today. The stories about that conflict vary quite a bit.
The story in the media sounds roughly as follows: in the icy Russia, disorganized and divided after the Soviet Union lost the Cold War, a cold dictator, a new Hitler, seized power over the last twenty years. His name is Putin. He first became director of the FSB, the successor of the KGB, the ruthless and horrific secret service of the Soviet Union. That says enough about the type of person we are dealing with.
After that, he crept in a sly and ruthless manner onto the Russian presidential throne. Even that did not satisfy his hunger for power. He wanted to expand his Russian empire without limit and become a sort of new Tsar. In 2014, he slyly conquered Crimea by manipulating the population through propaganda and using a – likely falsified – referendum as a pretext to annex Crimea. In 2022, he took his next step: the military conquest of democratic Ukraine.
But fortunately, there is the noble NATO, which under the leadership of the USA courageously opposes this cold criminal. They are trying to allow Ukraine to join their alliance, just like the other helpless Eastern European countries that have already joined earlier, in order to protect it against the Russian threat. That is one story.
***
There is also another story, also just a story, but a story that deserves to be heard in these ominous times. It also begins with the end of the Soviet Union in 1989 and goes as follows:
The Soviet Union didn’t really lose the Cold War. A complex interplay of internal and external factors led the Soviets to grow tired of their own totalitarian society and made them decide to dissolve the Warsaw Pact and dismantle the Soviet Union. In a sincere moment of political naivety, top Soviets like Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and the young Putin believed that the West would welcome them with open arms; Russia would become their playmate in the great democratic playground of the Free Western Market. They quickly realized that the terms 'democratic' ?and ‘free’ are highly relative in the West.
What they encountered was a velvet totalitarianism that in some respects was as totalitarian as the Soviet Union they had just dismantled. NATO, supposedly established to counterbalance the Soviet Union, refused to disband when the Soviet Union dissolved. Even more: contrary to all implicit and explicit agreements made with Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin, NATO steadily moved its borders eastward, towards Moscow.
The whole idea of NATO's eastward expansion was devised by an American power bloc with one big goal: to create a unipolar world dominated in which one superpower, the United States, controls and contains the global geopolitical situation. The main geostrategist was Zbigniew Brzezinski, a brilliant American professor born in Poland, whose visceral aversion to Bolshevism, ingrained in his blood, brought everything related to Russia to life. That is, of course, human, just as it is human and understandable that the inhabitants of Eastern European countries transform their deeply ingrained fear of Stalin and the Soviets today into a desire to belong to NATO.
Brzezinski was an advisor to several American presidents and chaired various committees set up to execute the NATO plan. From the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989, he outlined his strategy in various articles and interviews: Russia must never again become a world power, and to prevent that, we must isolate the country from the Black Sea by expanding NATO to the east. In doing so, he adopted a Russian strategy that European powers had already followed in the nineteenth century.
When the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire began to lose strength in the nineteenth century, Russia prepared to fill the resulting vacuum and expand its sphere of influence through the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. This threatened the economic and territorial interests of the then-superpower Great Britain. In the worst case, the British could even see their access to their colonies in the Middle East and India blocked by the Russians.
It was within this tension that the Crimean War started in 1853, a conflict between Russia on the one hand and a European alliance of the British Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the Second French Empire, and the Kingdom of Sardinia on the other. This war is historically significant in many ways, among other things because it was the first industrialized and heavily propagandized war.
The industrialization of the war (use of advanced firearms, supply of war materials via railroads, use of naval mines, etc.) resulted in enormous numbers of casualties, with estimates ranging from 400,000 to over 750,000 deaths in just three years. What determined the course of the war was no longer the military-tactical intelligence of the leading officers or the size and loyalty of the troops, but rather who had the most sophisticated war industry and technology, and, last but not least, who had the most effective propaganda apparatus.
It is that last point that interests us most, the importance of propaganda. After the French Revolution and the replacement of the ancien régime by the modern democracy, propaganda became an obvious instrument of power. The old elite, before the French Revolution, did not really need to manipulate public opinion that much. Public opinion didn’t matter all that much. They had to massage and manipulate the population here and there, but ultimately, the elite could impose its policy without much justification. If the elite wanted to go to war, they would simply inform the people, and they had to accept it. God had willed it so: some were born to command, and others to obey.
In the new, materialistic worldview, there was no God to be found, and leaders could no longer rely on his authority to send people to war. The only option leaders had to get the population excited about war was large-scale manipulation of public opinion through propaganda.
The nineteenth-century Crimean War was the first war in which modern propaganda was of decisive importance. Emerging technology for the first time gave leaders the material means to directly and massively manipulate the population. The invention of the telegraph and the camera, along with the rise of mass media (primarily the widespread distribution of newspapers), allowed European powers to bring vivid and convincing war stories, illustrated with photos, to the home front within just five days. The Allies perfectly understood that such forms of war communication were crucial to creating public support for the war.
The real reasons for the European countries to go to war against Russia were primarily economic in nature.
But those reasons alone would not suffice to overcome the population’s fear of the horrors of war, nor would they make people willing to pay the huge sums of taxes needed for the war. Therefore, the European powers decided to portray Russia as a military threat that urgently needed to be stopped. The lie is often more efficient than the truth in making a population eager for war.
The propagandists carefully spread fabricated, ominous information about the Russian enemy among the population. The Russian soldiers were portrayed as outright savages and barbarians, and Russia as a radically expansionist power. Historians agree that this was a propagandistic and false representation of the facts (see here and here).
Once the war had started, the propagandists directed triumphant war stories, supplemented with photographs and neatly supervised by a military censorship apparatus: we are winning, the barbaric Russians are being defeated, humanity is triumphing, but not quite yet—keep paying war taxes for a while longer.
Russia, at that time, was inferior in terms of both industrialization and propaganda. They lost the Crimean War in 1856, and that also marked the fall of Russia as a European great power. Russia would only restore its position after the Russian Revolution and the rise of the totalitarian Soviet Union under Lenin and (especially) Stalin.
That marked the point where Russia itself began to fully exploit the power advantages of industrialization, technology, and propaganda.
Now, back to the core strategy during the nineteenth-century Crimean War: the goal of the war was to deny Russia access to the Black Sea. Lord Palmerston, the then British Foreign Secretary, was the first to fully grasp the economic and strategic importance of the Black Sea for Russia and developed a military strategy around it: block Russia’s access to the Black Sea, and you block Russia’s only ice-free gateway to the Mediterranean and the rest of the world. In other words, if you can ensure that Russia no longer has access to the Black Sea, Russia will lose its economic and military power within a few decades.
The same motives are currently at play in the lead-up to the war in Ukraine. Reread the paragraphs above: the current narrative regarding the tensions between Russia and NATO is essentially a reflection of the story from the First Crimean War. We will outline a number of facts concerning the buildup to the current war in Ukraine.
A neoconservative power group in the U.S. reverted to Lord Palmerston’s strategy at the end of the twentieth century, attempting to permanently eliminate Russia as a great power: NATO would isolate Russia from the Black Seathrough a gradual expansion to the East.
This strategy was developed by Brzezinski in 1989, immediately following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, notably in his book?The Grand Chessboard.
Thanks to the archival documents released after the Freedom of Information Act was enacted in the U.S. in 2017, we also know that this strategy was adopted as a strategic guideline by the Clinton administration in 1994. It was essentially followed by all subsequent American presidents, including Trump, and their administrations.
Whether Trump will keep his promise to break with this “tradition” if re-elected remains to be seen.
This strategic plan was gradually implemented from the 1990s onward. In 1999, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were added to NATO; in 2004, the Baltic states Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, as well as Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania were added; in 2009, Albania and Croatia; in 2017, Montenegro; and in 2020, North Macedonia. These countries were immediately provided with temporary or permanent NATO military bases. The issue is that NATO is not a lion without military teeth. Somewhere along the way, in 1999, NATO also bombed Belgrade to establish a NATO-supervised state of Kosovo and to set up Camp Bondsteel, the largest NATO base in Southern Europe.
The final step was the inclusion of Ukraine in NATO, something that Brzezinski viewed as the crowning achievement of the entire strategy to deliver the final blow to Russia as a great power. Initially, European leaders like Merkel and Sarkozy fiercely resisted because they realized that the annexation of Ukraine made the risk of nuclear war a reality. However, at the NATO summit in Bucharest in 2008, President Bush Jr. made it clear that there was no room for discussion: Ukraine would “have the chance” to join NATO.
At that same summit, Putin also made something clear: this would be the step too far in NATO’s advance to the East.
The neoconservative faction in America, backed by the whole dismal CIA regime-change machine, was not deterred by the prospect of a war between powers each possessing around 6,000 nuclear warheads. They began their démarche with the so-called Maidan revolution in 2014, during which President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power. Essentially, there is little doubt that this was not so much a popular uprising but rather a NATO-directed overthrow of a previously neutral and democratically elected president (see, among others, this interview with American top diplomat Professor Jeffrey Sachs and the documentary?Ukraine on Fire?by Oliver Stone). Yanukovych fled to Russia after the Maidan revolution, not because he was a puppet of Putin, but because Russia was about the only place on earth where he could be somewhat safe. After his departure, his government was replaced by a pro-Europe and pro-NATO regime.
As described above, the motives for bringing Ukraine into NATO were perhaps primarily ideological and strategic in nature. However, they intertwined with enormous economic-commercial motives. This becomes clear when considering the fate of Ukraine’s extraordinary natural wealth. Ukrainian agricultural land is among the most fertile in the world, earning Ukraine the nickname "the breadbasket of Europe."
Moreover, enormous quantities of iron ore, coal, and rare and strategically important minerals such as uraninite (the base raw material for uranium), rutile, and ilmenite (the base raw materials for titanium), as well as lithium (crucial for battery production), are also found in Ukrainian soil. According to some estimates, about 5% of the world’s mineral reserves are located in Ukraine. Depending somewhat on market conditions, its value is estimated to be in the tens of trillions of dollars (some say about 19 trillion dollars) (!).
Immediately after the pro-NATO government came to power in 2014, lobbying began to lift the moratorium that stated foreigners could never buy more than two hectares of Ukrainian land. In an April 2021 report, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the monetary infrastructure of NATO, explicitly stated that lifting this moratorium was a necessary condition for providing funds to Ukraine. In June 2021, Ukraine capitulated and effectively lifted the moratorium. Subsequently, giant American companies like Monsanto, Cargill, and DuPont bought up approximately 17 million hectares, or one-third of Ukraine’s agricultural land, in no time.
Behind these companies are the financial giants of the world: BlackRock, Vanguard, and Blackstone, asset managers of astronomical proportions. Following the rise in agricultural land prices from €2,500 to €10,000 that followed these massive purchases, these giants immediately multiplied their invested capital. That the land has now become too expensive for countless small Ukrainian farmers to earn a living from should not concern someone striving for world dominance.
In the same movement, the economic giants took another step. BlackRock, Vanguard, and Blackstone are heavily entrenched in the American military industry, and since NATO’s actions would almost inevitably lead to war, they could also prepare for a new round of monstrous profits (at the expense of the American people).
Moreover, BlackRock and Vanguard are also significant shareholders in American construction companies Bechtel and AECOM, which signed contracts at the onset of the war for the future reconstruction of Ukraine once it would have been nearly completely leveled by the war.
Adding to this is the fact that BlackRock, McKinsey, and JPMorgan Chase established a reconstruction bank for Ukraine together, leading to the staggering conclusion: the same companies that earn fortunes from buying up Ukrainian agricultural land and its natural resources also profit immensely from supplying the weapons to devastate Ukraine and will ultimately profit from rebuilding it.
The grinding gears of this money machine have meanwhile crushed more than a million young Ukrainian and Russian soldiers’ bodies; the thrum of the money press drowns out the moans of thousands of tortured bodies, the sobbing of thousands of raped women, the cries of a country bleeding from every pore of its fertile land. Trying to make money is undoubtedly human, but at the top, where it is ruthlessly elevated to the highest goal, it takes on diabolical forms.
After the Maidan power takeover in 2014 and the advancing NATO militarization of the entire Black Sea region, Putin anticipated the next step: after Ukraine, NATO would set its sights on Crimea. This meant that Russia would be cut off from its fleet in Sevastopol. Putin did not wait and annexed Crimea via a referendum, increasing Russia's military presence on the peninsula. As a side note, Putin used social media and the internet for this referendum, which would be the reason Google and social media would significantly ramp up censorship thereafter (see this interview with Mike Benz).
With the referendum, Putin scored a significant victory but also suffered an inevitable defeat in terms of image and propaganda. This step was portrayed in the free West as the definitive outbreak of an emerging dictator who was no longer satisfied with tyrannizing his own people but was now embarking on a foreign conquest. The evidence was now provided: Putin is the new Hitler who wants to conquer all of Europe. This image was further reinforced when Putin made the next counter-move on the great global chessboard: invading Ukraine.
Through this propaganda, a psychological support base was created among the European and American populations, impoverished by the corona and other crises, to gradually mobilize for a large-scale conflict with Russia, or in other words, for World War III. That global conflict is now also approaching on another front. In the Middle East, the same Brzezinski-esque geopolitical strategy is now preparing to bring another strategic line to an end, moving towards the endgame of striving for geopolitical hegemony. Everything is being readied there to level Iran.
Thanks to the work of Pulitzer Prize winner and investigative journalist Seymour Hersh, we know that the list of countries to be destroyed in the Middle East was already on paper in 2001 (and perhaps even earlier). The list began with Iraq, included Syria and Libya, and ended with Iran.
***
We ultimately ask ourselves: what drives NATO, and particularly the American power bloc that calls the shots, to steer towards a third world war? The causes of any war are complex and usually rooted in a blind destructive and self-destructive death drive. However, at a certain level, they are also simple. The USA still has military power, but economically, it is rapidly losing its position. The USA is part of the economic power bloc of the G7 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States); it’s economical counterpart are the BRICS countries, including its arch-enemy Russia (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
To illustrate the decline of the G7 and the rise of the BRICS countries economically: in 1950, the G7 countries accounted for about 70% of global market share, in 1990 this decreased to about 50%, and by 2020, it further dropped to 40%. It is expected to be around 30% by 2040. The BRICS countries are going in the opposite direction. Before 1990, their share was negligible; after 1990, it rose to about 15%, and in 2020 it was approximately 30%. It is expected that by 2030, the BRICS countries could surpass the G7’s share.
The aforementioned American power bloc knows that the loss of economic power inevitably leads to the loss of military power. The only way to maintain power is to use the remaining military superiority to crush the emerging economic power of the BRICS countries and thus restore economic dominance. In other words: to provoke a third world war. Even the total destruction of humanity and humaneness does not compel some to let the ring of power be taken from their hand.
To unleash this third world war, the war machinery, again, needs the consent of the populace and must manipulate public opinion. As again: what brings people to war is a highly complex dynamic, yet there are people involved, people who take the lead. This is happening abundantly in light of the war in Ukraine. Thera are people who are blowing up a pipeline or dam here and there, people who produce propaganda in all its diversity. People who are proposing a NATO Secretary-General (the Dutch Mark Rutte) who has already convincingly demonstrated that he is willing to fully escalate the conflict with Russia. The man in question employs a kind of war rhetoric that suggests he is not genuinely inclined to empathize with the hundreds of thousands of war victims that NATO’s strategy in Ukraine has already caused, nor with the billions of potential victims that it could still create. I hope he changes his mind. A human is always a human. It is an ethical duty to assume that he can still turn for the better. ?
***
In a sense, all world powers are players on the same ‘Grand Chessboard’ of Brzezinski. The rules of this chess game are set by the symbolic structure within which our global society currently operates: the materialistic-rationalistic worldview. No one escapes the power of this symbolic framework, neither Russia nor America, Europe nor China. They all use propaganda, they all participate in the arms race, and they are all caught in the relentless logic of a market that is only free in appearance.
Ultimately, the enemy is not a Russian or an American or any other person. The enemy lies in an ideology, a way of thinking, in a certain metaphysical force or spirit. The real problem, the actual enemy, is situated in a worldview that reduces the entire world and existence to a material phenomenon, in which human beings are no more than biological machines, biochemical processes devoid of Spirit or Soul. In such a context, biological survival and the pursuit of absolute dominance without any ethical or moral limits easily become the ultimate goal. Within that worldview, this is also perfectly logical: in a purely material world, ethics and morality are nothing more than an illusion arising somewhere in the biochemical machinery of our brains. Why should we allow ourselves to be hindered in the great game of survival of the fittest? Anyone who views life through that lens is already an instrument of destructive drive.
As I type the last letters of this article, I see the sun sending its light through the morning mist, a golden gift at the start of a new day. The trees in the castle park exude a majestic power through the tenderness of their autumn leaves. Their meter-wide trunks fearlessly send their roots into the depths of the dark autumn ground; their branches lift their trembling twigs high above the mists into the sparkling morning light.
I am ready to give a workshop, a workshop in which I will practice the art of sincere speaking with the participants, an art that requires exploring the unfathomably dark depths of the human being, an art that elevates humanity to its highest heights, a strand of words that connects darkness with light, an art that is the opposite of the practice of propaganda. While the thudding of the propaganda drum sets the war machine in motion, I feel people everywhere becoming aware that only the Act of sincere speaking offers a way out of the hopelessness of humanity that has lost itself in appearance and manipulation.
Do not remain silent, stay true to the ethical duty to speak as a human in times when society blindly follows a discourse that leads to ruin. Speak calmly, speak steadily, try not to convince too much, but rather to testify; speak from your belly rather than your head. I hope this article can be a small spark, a small contribution to the rise of a group of people united by the act of sincere speaking, a group where the opinion itself does not take precedence but the right of every person to express their opinion; a group that does not get lost in the narcissism of a collective ideal image and enemy image but cherishes the love for the uniqueness and singularity of each individual; this is the group that can provide a counterweight to the death drive of the propagandized masses.
Mattias
Late into the night on Nov. 28, the Australian Senate passed a “world first” law that bans under 16-year-old children from accessing social media.
The new law, once in effect, means young Australians will be barred from accessing platforms like TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, Reddit, and X—age verification technology will be implemented by the Big Tech firms to ensure compliance.
Certain social media programs will be allowed, including YouTube and educational apps.
The centre-left Labor government achieved passage of the Bill with support from the centre-right Liberal-National Coalition amid a blitz of Bills on the last sitting day of Parliament in 2024.
The ban passed the lower house a day earlier.
Keeping Phones From Kids Unrealistic: Senator
Liberal Senator Dave Sharma speaking in the Senate on Nov. 28, argued that parents need assistance managing social media for children.
领英推荐
“I think parents need help with this, and this is why I think there is a case for government intervention,” he said.
“Partly because parents have to grapple with the ubiquity of phones and electronic devices, and the crude measure that some suggest—which is take away your kid’s phone, or give them a non-smartphone without adding any apps—I don’t think is particularly realistic,” Sharma said.
“I think in today’s era we expect our children to be able to be contacted and be contactable, and this is especially true in situations in many households today where both parents are working, and they are often not home when the children might be home or coming home from school.”
Sharma added he did not discount that there were some benefits to children using social media, providing a way for them to stay in touch and stay connected.
“We all saw this during the COVID pandemic, when our children weren’t going to school and they stayed in touch through messaging platforms, through social media platforms, and it allows them to build and maintain a social circle,” he said.
“I also appreciate that the people who are isolated geographically or socially or otherwise, it provides them a way to build a community which might not be available to them in the real world.
Greens Oppose
Greens Senator David Shoebridge, however, described the bill as “deeply flawed” and was a proposal that appeared to come from people who have “never been on the internet.”
“It’s a bill to appease [media mogul] Rupert Murdoch,” he claimed.
Shoebridge also described the short Senate inquiry into the legislation as a “sham” and said the evidence against a social media ban was “overwhelming.”
Labor Minister Jenny McAllister noted the law would not come into force for a year, emphasising that keeping “Australians safe online” was a top priority of the government.
“Through extensive consultation and with the input of states and territories, the government is agreeing that until a child turns 16, the social media environment as it stands is not age-appropriate for them,” the speech said (pdf).
“Critically, this legislation will allow for a twelve-month implementation period—to ensure this novel and world-leading reform can take effect with the care and consideration Australian’s rightly expect.”
What Social Media Companies Will Be Impacted?
The Online Safety Amendment (Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2024, which will come into force within a year, will require social media platforms to take “reasonable steps” to stop Australian children from holding an account.
“The penalty amounts are intentionally large, which reflects the significance of the harms the Bill is intended to safeguard against,” the government said in its explanatory memorandum (pdf).
“It will also strongly signal the expectation that age-restricted social media platforms treat the minimum age obligation seriously.”
Companies that do not comply face fines of up to $49.5 million (US$32 million).
Social media platforms will also need to roll out technology to verify the minimum age of users.
“The Bill does not dictate how platforms must comply with the minimum age obligation,” the explanatory memorandum states.
“However, it is expected that at a minimum, the obligation will require platforms to implement some form of age assurance as a means of identifying whether a prospective or existing account holder is an Australian child under the age of 16 years.”
X Corporation’s Concerns With Legislation
X Corporation raised concerns about the legality of the legislation and failure to incentivise parents, in a submission to the Senate Environment and Communications Legislation Committee.
“We have serious concerns as to the lawfulness of the Bill, including its compatibility with other regulations and laws, including international human rights treaties to which Australia is a signatory, as further detailed below,” X said in a submission (pdf).
“By design, the Bill ignores the realities of the wider technology ecosystem and goes as far as to exclude entire industries and parts of society, including parents and caregivers, all of whom should be motivated and supported to work together to keep young Australians safe online.”
Billionaire Elon Musk also weighed into the debate on the social media ban personally on Nov. 21, responding to a post from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese touting the ban.
“Seems like a backdoor way to control access to the Internet by all Australians,” Musk posted to X, in reference to the possible rollout of a national ID or age verification technology.
Catholic School Parents in Favour
The Senate Committee also heard views in favour of the bill, with the New South Wales government presenting a survey of 21,000 people that showed 87 percent of people supported a minimum age standard for social media.
Catholic school parents in Western Australia also argued that social media could impact children’s behaviour.
“Parents are worried that children and young people are becoming desensitised to some of the content that they are seeing, and that it is leading to a distorted understanding of some serious topics,” the advocacy group told the inquiry.
Tuesday, 12-03-2024 @ 08:30 AM @ Stephen P. Clark Center, 111 NW 1st Street, Miami, Florida 33128
Dear Doral Residents,
Your engagement is crucial! On Tuesday, December 3rd, at 8:30 AM, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) will hold a critical meeting to discuss and decide on the relocation of the incinerator facility.
This decision will impact our community in Doral, and it’s vital that our voices are heard. Your presence and input can make a difference.
Here’s how you can participate:
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
MEETING DETAILS
PLEASE ENSURE TIMELY ARRIVAL AND BRING A VALID PHOTO ID
TRANSPORTATION
The City will be providing two buses for transport from Doral Government Center (8401 NW 53rd Terrace) to Miami-Dade County’s Stephen P. Clark Government Center (first come, first serve). Residents are asked to arrive at the Doral Government Center by 6:30 a.m. on December 3rd– buses will depart promptly at 7:00a.m. Free parking will be available in the Doral Government Center parking garage.
Additional Transport Options:
We are stronger together, and this is our chance to advocate for a decision that protects Doral's quality of life.
Thank you for standing with us!
Doral, today, Miami-Dade County Mayor Daniella Levine Cava has reversed her original decision, recommending instead the creation of a County Solid Waste Campus within Doral. While this may seem like the easiest solution, it is not the right one because it places an undue burden on Doral residents who have already endured the environmental, health, and quality-of-life impacts of hosting this facility for years. The County claims that relocating the Waste-to-Energy Facility would cost an additional $800 million, equating to $42 per household annually over 20 years—a cost that I understand may be significant for some families. However, this $42 per household annual investment is not unreasonable if we choose to see it as the long-term definitive solution to Miami-Dade County’s critical solid waste challenges.
Consider that because Doral is the smallest of the proposed sites, choosing it for the Solid Waste Campus ignores the County’s future growth. And I assure you that sooner rather than later, the Doral site will be insufficient to process the County’s solid waste needs which will in turn saddle future generations with the same lack of capacity issues that we suffer today at a much higher cost to taxpayers in the future.
Equally troubling is the lack of consideration given to innovative public-private partnerships that we worked on and proposed that could have alleviated the financial strain and offered forward-thinking solutions. The County’s demand that Doral pay $400 million—a disproportionate and unrealistic request amounting to nearly five years of our city’s total revenues—displays a disregard for the shared financial burden already assumed by all County taxpayers. Doral, as a major economic engine for Miami-Dade, should not be forced to sacrifice both its resources and quality of life for a plan that fails to adequately address the County’s long-term waste management needs.
To the residents of Doral, I share your disappointment, but I also share your resolve. We will not take “no” for an answer. As your Mayor, I will continue, as I have during the last two years, to advocate tirelessly, meeting with commissioners, the private sector, and state and federal officials to explore every possibility and exhaust all options for a fair and sustainable resolution. Together, we will make our voices heard and hold the County accountable for finding a solution that prioritizes equity, sustainability, and the well-being of all Miami-Dade residents. I encourage you to stand with me, reach out to County Commissioners, and join us at the December 3rd meeting to fight for a better future for our city. Rest assured, you are not alone in this fight. As your Mayor, I will never stop advocating for you and for what is right.
Article: https://www.cityofdoral.com/News-articles/December-3rd-Miami-Dade-County-Commission-Meeting-JOIN-US
15A1??242135 Resolution Clerk of the Board???RESOLUTION APPROVING THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PROPERTY APPRAISER, AND THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR???S OFFICE TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE TO MIAMI-DADE COUNTY SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UNIFORM METHOD FOR THE LEVY, COLLECTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 197.3632 AND 197.3635 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES; AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR COUNTY MAYOR???S DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAME AND EXERCISE PROVISIONS CONTAINED THEREIN, INCLUDING CANCELLATION(Office of Property Appraiser)
The Town of Miami Lakes... at Veterans Park
If a South Florida Attorney won condos at auction for $100... then the Property Appraiser's Office should re-evaluate the properties and decrease the valuation to $100, would you not agree?
Taking aim at what she called “predatory practices,” a Miami state senator filed a bill this week to close loopholes that allowed a South Florida attorney to manipulate condo foreclosure auctions. Sen. Ileana Garcia, R-Miami, said the Miami Herald’s “Rigged” reports earlier this year dissecting the maneuvers of South Florida attorney Brad Schandler provided the framework for her proposed legislation (SB 48). Schandler’s strategy for winning foreclosure auctions would be rendered impossible under the bill Garcia filed on Wednesday.
Garcia said she nearly lost her own home at one time, and she hopes to protect homeownership. By closing the loopholes, “we are supporting our most vulnerable constituents,” she told the Herald.
Foreclosure auction schemes have taken on new urgency in Florida as condo owners face hefty assessments to meet state requirements put in place after the June 24, 2021, collapse of the Champlain Towers South in Surfside. Using current state laws, Schandler was able to enter foreclosure cases relatively cheaply, take over, and get judges in Broward and Miami-Dade counties to change the auction terms to his benefit. Customarily, such auctions are held online and people from all over can participate. Schandler typically persuaded judges to allow in-person auctions that his clients had virtually no chance of losing. In at least five cases examined by the Herald, he or his associates won condo auctions for $100. The proposed law, which would take effect in July, would infuse transparency into the process. Among the new restrictions:
? A property that sells at too deep a discount at auction — less than 75 percent of assessed value — would have to be re-auctioned.
? If an attorney is running the auction, the attorney’s clients, former clients, relatives, or any legal entity owned by any of them, could not participate as bidders. Schandler’s sister and associates participated in his auctions, the Herald found.
? Judges would not be allowed to give advantages to any of the participants. Under the terms Schandler wrote and judges approved, his client was declared the winner at minimal cost if the winning bidder didn’t pay.
? Auctions held in person would have to be accessible to the public, not behind locked doors or in locations requiring a key card access. One bidder told the Herald he participated in an auction held in a remote location of a condo tower. An auction attended by a Herald reporter took place in a hallway around the corner from the actual condo.
? Judges would not be allowed to approve alternative rules that are not spelled out in state law. Current state law allows such deviations.
? Bidding credits would be severely limited. Such credits allow a bidder to offer a sum during the auction that doesn’t actually have to be paid — a mind-boggling advantage. Schandler persuaded judges to grant his clients unlimited bidding credits, so they could offer the highest bid without having to pay. Under the proposed law, credits could not exceed 10 percent of the property’s assessed value — for example, $20,000 on a $200,000 assessed value.
Garcia said she’d push the bill when the Legislature next convenes. “I’m very happy,” Hernando Posse, who lost one of Schandler’s auctions, said this week when he learned of the proposed legislation. “I’m the one who blew the whistle, and I was very hurt and very angry.” Posse wanted to buy an oceanview condo at the Emerald Tower in Pompano Beach in 2021, but was outbid by a woman he later came to believe was Schandler’s sister, using a fake name. In a complaint to the Florida Bar, he accused Schandler of rigging foreclosure auctions and “illegally enriching himself from cheating the system and hurting many honest people that are actually looking for a home.” Schandler is under investigation by the Florida Bar and could not be reached for comment. He told the Herald earlier this year that he hadn’t invented the procedures he used. In a response to the Bar complaint, his lawyer said his methods were court-approved and that he “took measures to try to locate relatives, even distant ones with little or no connection to the abandoned properties,” before proceeding to auction. The letter to the Bar noted that “since the publication of the first Miami Herald article, the procedures used by Mr. Schandler have come under court scrutiny. As a result, Mr. Schandler has made changes to court submissions to explain the reasoning behind his requests relating to the location, manner and terms for the foreclosure sales, as well as to provide options for the judges for inclusion in their orders. It is his hope that by doing so he has been able to address the court’s concerns going forward.” A Bar spokeswoman said Thursday that the case will be heard by the grievance committee, which will determine whether discipline is warranted.
Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article295890469.html#storylink=cpy
We used to travel and park by paying with coins that if the money paid ran out, resulted in a parking ticket. Today we find pay by phone parking spaces. Now, the news report that thieves of identity are placing Q-R codes over the parking that provide them with our bank information. The news caution South Floridians and visitors to our State to be careful...
Careful?
Why did we move away from safe technology, paying for the removal of old SAFE parking meters to today's version that are not only dangerous but expose us to all sorts of trickery?
Who is responsible?
We used to travel and found pay phones along the way where for 25 cents we made a call to resolve issues. Now, each person must have a cell phone that intrudes in our privacy, distracts us while driving, cause many accidents on the road, and seems to be killing pedestrians that are no longer paying attention their surroundings because they are coping with the over abundance of text messages, emails and phone calls...
Do we call this progress?
Statistics show distracted driving mistakes happen far too often. The CDC tells us that over 3,000 will die because of distracted driving in 2024. How many deaths are caused by texting and driving? Statistics suggest there are 400 deaths from texting and driving every year in the United States.
The National Safety Council (NSC) reports that almost 6,000 people on foot were killed in fatal pedestrian accidents in 2017, a huge increase from just a decade earlier.
Researchers attribute the spike to increased use of cell phones by walkers, an activity that can be just as deadly as distracted driving.
As I rake leaves I notice people that are not even aware of my presence because they are busy looking at their cell phones... As I ride my bike, I am appalled at the number of people that are unaware of my presence because they are on their phones, and as we walk, we are mortified to have to listen to conversations of the many neighbors that are talking, without even holding a phone as they have ear plugs and hold conversations / even conferences with co-workers.
Family, life, and life’s little blessings loom large as Americans prepare for their national day of gratitude.
By Lawrence Wilson, Travis Gillmore, Jacob Burg, Oliver Mantyk, Stacy Robinson, Jan Jekielek November 28, 2024
We asked Americans what they’re thankful for this year and received some surprising answers. The surprise was not in the things they listed but in how often the urge to give thanks was set against a backdrop of hardship.
Separation from loved ones, illness, grief, unemployment, and even stress from the election seemed to heighten the sense of gratitude in many Americans this year. As with the earliest Thanksgiving celebrations, this year’s national day of gratitude seems to be enriched, not dampened, by the difficulties of the year gone by.
Family
Anticipation at having the entire family together was a point of thanks for nearly all of the folks we heard from, including Joe Jerrell, 49, and his daughter, Taylor, 20, of Noblesville, Indiana.
“I’m thankful to have my daughter home from college,” Joe Jerrell said.
Taylor Jerrell, a student at Indiana University, said she is grateful for the chance to see friends from home.
“Bringing family together, that’s really what Thanksgiving is about,” said Cambria O’Neill, 25, of San Diego. “It’s time for all family from different places to get together. That’s my favorite part about it.”
Biff Schwart, 67, told The Epoch Times: “I’m thankful that we survived this election and that my family’s all happy and healthy.”
The Northern California man with family spread over Lake and Mendocino counties said putting up a Christmas tree the day after Thanksgiving is a family tradition.
“We like to spend the holidays together, around the tree with the grandkids,” Schwart said. “That’s what’s important.”
Also in California, further south in Los Altos in the Bay Area, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya is settling down to his favorite holiday of the year.
“I am thankful for my family and for the many friends, new and old, who have supported me through some very difficult times these past five years,” President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, told The Epoch Times.
“Every year we host a big traditional Thanksgiving with lots of family from near and far. We always invite my international students who can’t go home for the break to come.”
Brooke Rollins, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Agriculture, said she is most grateful for “my amazing family and my four imperfect but spectacular teenagers. America!! And of course President Trump.”
“Our greatest Thanksgiving tradition has not happened for more than a decade … The fight'n Texas Aggie rivalry with that little Austin school!!! It’s time to saw varsity horns off again!” she said, citing Texas A&M’s historic and intense football rivalry with the University of Texas.
Adriana Johnson, 26, of metro Washington, D.C., is thankful for family members coming to town—more than 100 of them. Relatives from Baton Rouge, Louisiana, are descending on the city for the holiday, many of them staying at her place.
Ryan Barnard, 44, of Muncie, Indiana, recently began a new job but is most grateful for his family and two children. Noting that his son is now 21, Barnard said, “I think I get more grateful every year.”
Gratitude for family has gained new meaning for Donald Dudley, 59, a chief security officer with the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia. Dudley recently suffered the loss of his last surviving aunt, and the loss has made him more thankful for those who remain.
“[I’m] grateful for everything I have,” Dudley said. “Being able to touch my wife and kids and grandkids.”
Carrie Speed, a personal coach from Spring, Texas, said, “Gratitude shifts our focus from what’s missing to what’s present, increasing contentment and reducing feelings of envy or dissatisfaction.”
The yoga instructor and author of “Mindful Moments” added, “At its core, gratitude is about recognizing the goodness in our lives, even amid challenges.”
Life and Health
Many Americans are grateful simply to be alive. Life and health were the next most frequently cited points of thanks among those we spoke with.
“We’re all still upright,” Jake Wilson, 44, of Greenfield, Indiana, said with a grin. Wilson’s son, Kolt, 15, said he is excited about the prospect of getting a driver’s license soon but is most thankful for his family.
Patrick Withrow, 64, a lifelong resident of Mendocino County, said, “I’m thankful for life in general, and every day, I’m glad to be alive.”
Having a sense of the fragility of life seemed to heighten the gratitude of some folks.
“I’m very thankful that my brother-in-law has received a new kidney. He was on the donor list for three years,” said Joan Kaylor, 71, of Pittsburgh.
Susan Blum, 80, of Venice, Florida, is grateful for good health. “[I’m thankful] that we’re both healthy and happy,” she said, speaking of her spouse. “My husband’s going to be celebrating his 90th birthday [on] Friday, so Thanksgiving will make us think of that.
“It’s kind of not the happiest time here,” Blum said. “Makes us think more back to the pandemic year because everyone’s had a rough time down here with all the hurricanes.”
Venice was hit back-to-back by hurricanes in October, causing extensive damage along the coast.
“I’m thankful for my vision so that I can see all this,” said Gloria Nelson, a Florida retiree visiting New York City. She and her husband, Richard, are grateful for life, health, and the ability to travel.
D.C. resident Steven Johnson said life, health, and strength top his Thanksgiving list. “I can have a million dollars, and if I don’t have health, it means nothing to me,” he said.
Small Blessings
Gratitude is “the intentional act of recognizing and appreciating the good in your life, no matter how big or small,” Atlanta-based psychologist Kiki Ramsey told The Epoch Times.
For some Americans, giving thanks for little things is top of mind this year.
“My three-year-old son, Auggie, is great at thankfulness,” said Jeremy Lott, 46, of Lynden, Washington. “He'll thank others not only for the little things he receives but also when, say, I get his mother something that brightens her day.”
Lott lamented that his son will miss an extended family gathering due to an illness but is determined they will all enjoy the holiday regardless. “Some of us will go,” he said. “And if we all catch [the illness], then we'll hunker down together.”
O’Neill expressed gratitude for recent changes in her life, including landing a new job, and her relationship with her partner, Dalton Holdredge, 26.
“I’ve just been very fortunate in my life, and I don’t ever want to take that for granted,” O’Neill said.
Kaylor, who had traveled to Venice, Florida, with her husband to spend the holiday with his siblings, is thankful that her psychotherapy clients allowed her to counsel them via video so she could work remotely while away from home.
Jaskirat Singh, 26, of Ontario, Canada, celebrated Canadian Thanksgiving on Oct. 14 but continues to be grateful for his job as a truck driver. “We’re making good money, Singh said. “I’m able to fulfill my wishes and able to help others who are in need.”
Singh practices the Sikh religion, which emphasizes charity. “We always try to donate 10 percent of our income to charity,” Singh said, adding that his job enables him to do so.
The Help of God, Family, and Friends
It’s important to practice gratitude even during challenging times, according to Miami-based psychologist Carolina Estevez.
“Gratitude shifts our focus from what we’re lacking to what we already have, helping us find meaning and connection in everyday moments,” Estevez told The Epoch Times.
That involves a journey for some, like Ann Uchida, 60, of Noblesville, Indiana, who lost her husband of 29 years to cancer nearly seven years ago.
“I am most thankful for the love and grace of God, for without it, my present blessings of family, friends, provision, church community, and abundant life would not be possible,” Uchida said. “I think I’m starting now to see some of the fruit that God has brought into my life as a widow.
“I wasn’t willing to look for a long time.”
The same was true for Crystal Scott, 51, of Noblesville, Indiana, who said she’s most thankful for the wisdom gained from hardship.
“As a young kid, I may have said I am thankful for the new toy or something that one can materialize,” Scott said.
“I am thankful that as I grow older, I have become more aware of the gratitude I have for experiences with loved ones, memories made, and knowing God has had my path mapped out all along.”
Scott said it took years to reach this point of gratitude. That journey involved the death of a spouse, which ultimately led to a turning point in life, a new business, and a second marriage.
Others expressed thankfulness for the support of family and friends, which enabled them to overcome hardship.
“I’m deeply thankful for the blessings of friends, family, and my work, which have truly shown me the power of community,” said Suzan Brandt, 52, of Birmingham, Alabama.
Natalie Pennycuff, 45, a single mom from Fishers, Indiana, is thankful for her family’s support during recent financial difficulties.
“I’ve been through some things this year. My family has come through for me after the loss of a job,” she said. “They helped me out with groceries and rent.” Pennycuff shared her thoughts while on her way to work at a new job.
“I am thankful for my parents, who raised me to develop my strength and believe in myself,” said Anne Harrington, 62, of Noblesville, Indiana. She added that this early foundation in life has enabled her to support her children after the death of their father this year.
Nov. 28 marks the 235th national day of Thanksgiving, which was first proclaimed by George Washington in 1789. Americans established the practice well over a century earlier. The first known observance of a day of Thanksgiving took place near Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619. The more familiar celebration at Plymouth, Massachusetts, was held in 1621.
11-28-2024 Messages
#1 Happy Thanksgiving, Hope, Alex, Nadya & Katya !
We're so incredibly grateful to have such wonderful neighbors and friends like you.?
Your kindness, guidance, and support have enriched our lives in countless ways.?
We feel so lucky to have you as part of our lives. You have a special place in our lives & in our hearts.
Wishing you a joyous and blessed Thanksgiving filled with love, laughter, and delicious food!
With love and gratitude,
Ravi Santwani & Family
#2 Dear Hope,
Your PDF today brought ''happy tears'' to my eyes. Boris's words to you were powerful and very well deserved and I am guessing that they made you feel wonderful. Your tireless efforts have not gone unnoticed and we all appreciate the dedication and sacrifice you have made over the years. On this day of thanksgiving, I am giving thanks to the Lord for sending you to us.?
Keep well and happy and enjoy your time with family and friends. We love you, Hope.?
?Bonnie
#3 Querida Esperanza y Alex: Happy Thanksgiving
I hope to return home next Friday. Cannot wait to have more laughs and memories at Bonnie’s celebration. Esperanza, I pray you find out what your health issue is and then you can move forward with treatment. Hugs, Tu amiga, Enid
#4 Happy Thanksgiving Day & Blessings, Love you, Miriam
#5 Felicidades Espe, Tios Alcides & Celina Perez
#6 Happy Thanksgiving Espe, The Klines
#7 Happy Thanksgiving Hope, Martha & Rick Gonzalez
#8 Dear Hope,? This is excellent news. We have to give thanks to Our Lord for answering our prayers.? In 2025 we will have excellent local and national leaders. Dreams do come true! We are truly blessed! Thank you dear Lord!?
Happy Thanksgiving. Tina
#9 Happy Thanksgiving Hope, Maria Santelices
#10 Happy Thanksgiving Hope, Greetings from New York! Ed Vidal
#11 Happy Thanksgiving V. Medel
#12 Rodolfo Blanco... Where are you? We are Chelas!
#13 From Brazil... Happy Thanksgiving Hope, Luiz
#14 Claudia Luces: You deserve some time off Hope... Thank you for keeping us all informed! Have a Happy Thanksgiving
#15 Georgina Luces: Happy Thanksgiving Hope, feel better & rest
#16 Rocio... Happy Thanksgiving!
Do you remember the movie Around the World in 80 days?
Well, Nellie Bly traveled around the world in 72 Days
Taking Off From Jersey"I started from Hoboken, on my trip around the world, November 14, 1889. ...(It would be) only a matter of twenty-eight thousand miles, and seventy-five days and four hours before I would be home again..."
(She, of course, made it home in even less time than that!)