The Prescott Pulse collaborators are made up of long-time Prescott and Yavapai residents who deeply love and are committed to our community. When we tackle difficult or controversial topics, we deliberately weigh any short-term discomfort for us (we are regularly labeled as communists) against the long-term benefit it could contribute to our readers’ understanding of concerning issues. We’re not blind to the reality that what we share today may upset some but believe the health of our community should be everyone’s first concern.
We take great care with our words because we know how easily intent can be misunderstood. Our hope is simple: by honestly examining the forces, people, and decisions that have led us to this deeply polarized moment in time, we can start using our words to build real solutions, rather than turning them into weapons. Freedom of speech, as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, is the foundation for citizens, the press, and groups to scrutinize, criticize, and influence government actions without fear of retaliation.
We face a clear choice: keep heading down this destructive path of division and hostility, or start rebuilding a stronger foundation for respectful, reasoned, and truly civilized conversations.
What Prompted This Prescott Pulse Post
On January 31, 2026, the local group Prescott Indivisible organized an anti-ICE protest on Prescott’s Courthouse Plaza. This event was part of a nationwide coordinated day of action by Indivisible groups, calling for an end to what protesters described as violence, abuses, and overreach by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and related federal agencies.
Carson Carpenter, co-founder and CEO of Off the Record USA (a group focused on on-the-ground journalism and interviews at public events), attended the protest not only as an observer and interviewer; he calls Prescott “his home town.” Carpenter recorded approximately 47 minutes of footage, which primarily captured the winding-down period of the protest and his interviews with some participants.
When we began reviewing Carpenter’s footage, it was what we heard in the first three minutes that stopped us cold. It began as Carpenter first entered the Courthouse Plaza, just before the protesters began to disperse, and recorded interactions between individuals, on both sides of the immigration argument, that many in our community would find shocking.
We ask you to watch this short video with an open mind and a human heart, setting aside preconceptions. Then ask yourself how it made you feel.
For context, the clip ends just after a protestor assures Carpenter there will be no violence. We made that editing decision out of respect, as he was later identified as a local teacher and charged with disorderly conduct. Videos of his subsequent actions should go from being judged in the court of public opinion and into rightful legal channels.
What troubles us most is that this kind of behavior would have been unimaginable in Prescott just 10 years ago. Our town has long prided itself on neighborly respect, even amid disagreement. So, why the shift? After several discussions on this subject, the collaborators at the Pulse came up with more questions than answers, but one thing we agreed on was how constant negative labeling through social and main-stream media, on both sides of the political spectrum, have escalated division that bypasses rational dialogue.
What is Negative Labeling?
Negative labeling, a time-tested strategy in propaganda and social conflict, is at the core of this phenomenon. The next step in 5G Warfare after “tribalization” (my tribe vs. your tribe) is referred to as “dehumanization.” It involves portraying individuals or groups as subhuman or deserving of absolute condemnation. Common labels from the political left include Racist, Fascist, Communist, White Supremacist, and favorites from the political right include Snowflake, Libtard, Marxist, Socialist, and other terms that evoke images of irredeemable humans.
Dehumanization removes the others’ humanity and creates a moral justification for otherwise unthinkable actions. It can encourage rational, level-headed people to endorse or commit harm while sidestepping their usual ethical boundaries.
Let’s Dive Into The Prescott Indivisibles
Those of us who have a more conservative policy and lifestyle perspective view anti-ICE protesters as angry people with wildly inappropriate signs. When we take a closer look into Prescott Indivisible (PI) and its national ties we find clues about why that is so. Their website, prescottindivisible.org, openly promotes negative activism against figures like President Donald Trump, his administration, and almost all conservative policy initiatives. On their handbook page, they state:
PI encourages members to tune into the weekly “What’s the Plan with Leah and Ezra,” hosted by Indivisible co-founders Leah Greenberg and Ezra Levin. This live discussion breaks down political news, strategizes action, and repeats dehumanizing rhetoric about Trump, his cabinet, and supporters. You can watch these videos by Clicking Here.
We are not sharing this to attack PI or their cause – it’s to show one example of many who use negative labeling to invoke public conflict. Dehumanization isn’t limited to one political side; it’s a tactic used across a broad spectrum of political ideologies to justify incivility and division.
This isn’t organic grassroots assembly or outrage. It’s largely driven by well-funded operations (NGOs) that amplify emotions, trigger survival instincts, and blind people to everyday realities in order to change points of view toward their preferred policies. A quick search across various publications shows that in the past few years (roughly covering late 2024 into early 2026), estimates for related spending include:
Protests & Activism: $300 to $550 million (funding for organizing, events, and advocacy groups on both sides, often through nonprofits and dark money networks).
Negative Rhetoric: $8 to $10 billion (primarily attack ads and divisive messaging in political campaigns, with projections for the 2026 midterms already pushing toward record highs like $10.8 billion total ad spend).
Overall Total: $8.3 to $10.55 billion (combining activism/protest funding with the massive scale of negative political advertising and related influence efforts).
These figures highlight how much money flows into polarizing activities, often from non-transparent (dark money) sources. This funding has created a paid protester job class, and produces “astroturfed” optics rather than purely spontaneous (grassroots) public sentiment. In the process, massive polarization occurs, resulting in mutually directed anger. A question or post for a later date: What is the return on investment (ROI) for getting us so “pissed off” at each other?
What Can We Do to Spot It and Stop It
In Prescott, where community ties run deep, we can do better! Let’s commit to debating civilly on policy and strategy without resorting to labels that dehumanize. Spot it in conversations, online, or at events, and if you can’t stop it, turn it off or walk away.
Ask yourself before typing a reply/retort: “Would I say this to their face?”
Ask yourself if your words or actions will improve the situation.
Commit to doing basic research before reposting social media posts that dehumanize other groups.
Stick to facts when expressing disagreement over issues.
Pause and reflect before responding: Take a breath to check if your words are escalating emotional tensions or calming them.
Call out dehumanization gently when you spot it in your own circles to help redirect the conversation away from name calling.
Agree to disagree when needed: It’s okay to say, “We see this differently, and that’s OK. Let’s see where we CAN agree.”
Seek common ground first: Start by acknowledging and/or finding shared values or concerns before diving into differences. We are all Charlie now!
Step away if you find yourself becoming agitated because the conversation is turning personal or hostile. You can’t control others, but you can control your response.
These suggestions may help keep our discussions focused on ideas rather than attacking people’s humanity. Small, consistent choices like these can have a ripple effect to make Prescott’s conversations more constructive and connected. Courtesy can be contagious!
Together, we can rebuild the respectful Prescott we all cherish. Together, we can turn the tide.
For over two decades, we have tirelessly advocated for two foundational pillars of true health freedom: nutritious, unadulterated food and a rational, risk-aware vaccine schedule. We often wondered if meaningful, systemic change was possible against the entrenched powers of Big Pharma and Big Agra. Today, thanks to the decisive leadership of President Donald J. Trump, that change is not just possible—it is the official policy of the United States government. By appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services and giving him a clear mandate to dismantle the deep-state bureaucracy, President Trump has turned our long-held principles into national action. 😊
While other administrations talked about “draining the swamp,” when it comes to these two pillars, President Trump is authorizing the machinery to do it, and the Trump-Kennedy partnership is waging a decisive, domestic campaign for the sovereignty of the American body. Where past leaders turned a blind eye to corporate capture, this administration is seizing the moment to liberate our children’s bodies and our families’ plates. This is more than reform; it is a peaceful revolution in public health, made possible by a President who understands that true national strength begins with the health of its people.
The Real Food Pyramid: Reclaiming Our Nutritional Heritage
For generations, the USDA’s food pyramid stood as a monument to misguided science and Big Agra influence, promoting processed grains and sugars that fueled a pandemic of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. Secretary Kennedy, in one of his first major acts, dismantled this corrupt edifice and introduced the Real Food Pyramid.
As you can see from the image above, taken from RealFood.gov, the previous food pyramid was upside down! RFK just turned it right side up! 😊 The new guidelines emphasize eating real food, defined as minimally processed foods “prepared with few ingredients and without added sugars, industrial oils, artificial flavors, or preservatives.”
This isn’t a minor adjustment; it’s a philosophical renaissance. What has been announced is nothing less than the structural and symbolic flipping of the pyramid. For decades, this inverted logic was an instrument of captured interests, placing refined carbohydrates at the base, labeling industrial seed oils as “heart healthy,” and pushing protein and traditional fats to the margins.
This created a vicious economic flywheel: weaponized food → metabolic dysfunction → chronic disease → sick-care dependency → lifelong pharmaceutical drugs to manage symptoms. Basically, a closed loop of profit and sickness.
The new pyramid emphasizes:
Whole, nutrient-dense foods from regenerative and organic agriculture.
Healthy, ancestral fats over industrially processed seed oils.
Protein quality, prioritizing pasture-raised and wild-caught sources.
By flipping the pyramid, this administration is breaking a control architecture that has quietly governed public health for half a century. It is centering the foods humanity has always (until recently) eaten: high-quality protein, natural fats (including traditionally demonized saturated fats), and whole foods in their intact forms. It is finally displacing the industrial seed oils, ultra-processed carbohydrates, and food-like substances engineered for addiction and profit.
This isn’t nostalgia; it’s biological realism. Human physiology thrives on nutrient density and fats that stabilize our biology, and food itself contains gene-regulatory exosomes that literally “talk” to our cells. This correction interrupts the very feedback loop that feeds both the chronic disease epidemic and the drug industries built to manage it. When you flip the pyramid, you don’t just change what people eat—you change who benefits.
This policy directly aligns with the principles we’ve championed for years: that food is medicine, and that a corrupted food supply is a primary driver of chronic disease. At a White House press briefing, Kennedy called the changes the “most significant reset of federal nutrition policy in history.”
Kennedy said: “These guidelines replace corporate-driven assumptions with common-sense goals and gold-standard scientific integrity. These new guidelines will revolutionize our nation’s food culture and make America healthy again… For decades, Americans have grown sicker while healthcare costs have soared. The reason is clear: the hard truth is that our government has been lying to us to protect corporate profit-taking, telling us that these food-like substances were beneficial to public health… Federal policy promoted and subsidized highly processed foods and refined carbohydrates and turned a blind eye to the disastrous consequences. Today, the lies stop.”
This historic shift is being translated into operational reality across the government, including the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps and military health services. You cannot sustain national security, readiness, or operational capacity on ultra-processed food. A nation cannot be strong if those sworn to defend it are metabolically compromised. This is what it looks like when policy confronts the chronic disease epidemic at its root.
Kennedy’s move boldly rejects the lobbyist playbook and realigns federal policy with peer-reviewed science on metabolic health. This is a victory for every family farmer, every conscious consumer, and every parent seeking to nourish their children properly, a sentiment echoed in discussions of his broader plan to combat childhood chronic diseases.
A guideline is a blueprint. The real work is implementation: federal procurement shifting toward real food, school lunch reform accelerating, and medical institutions being forced by evidence to catch up. This is the beginning of a national reorientation away from symptom-management and toward true prevention. We now have a historic invitation: to eat real food, support the farmers who steward life, and build meals that restore metabolism and resilience. The tide is turning.
Restoring Sanity and Safety to Childhood Vaccines
For decades, the U.S. childhood immunization schedule has been presented not as a set of clinical recommendations, but as a non-negotiable mandate. This rigid, “one-size-fits-all” model was predicated on a flawed premise: that public health is best served by removing physician judgment and patient context from the equation. The truth is that this system was corrupted by perverse financial incentives that placed profit above individual care.
Previously, pediatricians were financially incentivized to meet aggressive vaccination quotas. Initiatives like the “Combo 10” benchmark—where practices received bonuses of $400 per child from insurers like Blue Cross Blue Shield for achieving a 63% vaccination rate across their entire patient base—transformed doctors from caregivers into commission-driven sales agents. Below is a video of RFK, Jr. and Dr. Sherri Tenpenny from our 2023 docu-series – REMEDY – elaborating on this topic.
These coercive pay-for-performance schemes are now being systematically dismantled by Kennedy’s HHS, which has directed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to end financial incentives tied solely to vaccination rates.
The message was clear: the system valued blanket compliance over careful, individualized medical evaluation. As Kennedy stated on video in 2025, “Doctors are being paid to vaccinate, not to evaluate. They’re pressured to follow the money, not the science.”
The reforms enacted in January 2026 under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the CDC represent a historic correction. This was not a reckless reduction but a scientifically grounded restoration of medical ethics. The schedule was revised from a bloated 18 universally recommended doses down to a core 11, moving vaccines for influenza, rotavirus, hepatitis A, and certain meningitis strains into a category of “shared clinical decision-making.” This shift explicitly gives parents a meaningful say in whether their child receives certain vaccines, requiring a conversation about risks and benefits rather than an automatic administration.
This long-overdue correction is grounded in a foundational, yet inconvenient, epidemiological truth: population risk is heterogeneous, not homogeneous. The reformed schedule finally moves away from the pseudoscientific, assembly-line model of medicine and toward a risk-stratified approach. It restores the physician’s role by empowering them to utilize clinical discretion—considering a child’s individual immune status, genetic predispositions, and actual environmental risk—rather than functioning as a rubber stamp for a coercive, profit-maximizing protocol. Re-categorizing vaccines for pathogens like COVID-19, RSV, and Hepatitis B to “high-risk only” status isn’t a reduction in care; it’s the precise application of medicine, reserving medical interventions for those who actually stand to benefit from them. This is how science is supposed to work, outside the boardrooms of pharmaceutical manufacturers.
The subsequent exodus of career bureaucrats from the CDC is not brain drain; it’s a parasite purge. Their resignations are a de facto admission that the agency’s old operating principle—serving as a marketing arm for Big Pharma—is no longer tenable. Good riddance. The institution can now be rebuilt on the pillars it long ago abandoned: rigorous, hypothesis-driven science, transparent and quantifiable risk-benefit disclosures, and the non-negotiable ethical standard of informed consent.
This reform exposes the central, vacuous mantra of the pro-mandate lobby. We are incessantly lectured by those with a vested financial or ideological interest—often with the scientific depth of a cable news chyron—that “vaccines save millions of lives and eradicate disease.” One such devotee of this faith-based immunology was Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), whose simplistic pronouncements on the matter Kennedy dismantled with factual precision in a rebuttal that should be mandatory viewing.
The historical data, curiously absent from their talking points, undermines their entire narrative. Consider the CDC’s own investment in truth: a study funded by the CDC and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins analyzed a century of U.S. mortality data. Its conclusion was empirically clear and devastating to the salvation myth of vaccination: nearly 90% of the decline in mortality from common infectious diseases occurred before the introduction of their corresponding vaccines.
The dramatic reduction was attributable to improved sanitation, nutrition, and living standards—facts the “vaccines or death” evangelists conveniently ignore. The 2026 reforms finally begin to align policy with this uncontested historical record, prioritizing real public health over pharmaceutical evangelism.
Transformative, Decisive Leadership
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is demonstrating what transformative leadership looks like, and he is doing so with the essential backing of a President willing to break the old molds. President Trump, by supporting this agenda, has taken the very issues patriots have long held sacred—medical freedom, environmental purity, and untainted food—and created the political space for them to become national policy. This is not partisan politics; it is the restoration of foundational American values: liberty, informed consent, and sovereignty over our own bodies.
These historic accomplishments, made possible under this administration, provide a tangible, powerful reason for hope. They are a blueprint for a stronger, healthier, and more independent America. This is the work we voted for. This is the promise of “America First” applied to the most personal frontier of all: our health. Let us celebrate these victories, support the courageous leaders making them possible, and continue this essential journey toward reclaiming our nation’s vitality from the ground up.
In the year 2025, history has delivered its verdict with brutal clarity: the Russian Federation, a single country of 144 million people, has faced the combined might of thirty-two NATO nations (the richest, most heavily armed alliance ever assembled) and broken it without ever putting its own economy on a full war footing.
This is not propaganda; it is the cold arithmetic of reality.
For almost 4 years the collective West threw everything at Russia: 28 thousand sanctions, a $500 billion dollars, $300 billion in frozen assets, entire industrial chains re-tooled to feed the Ukrainian front, satellite networks, mercenary legions, and the most sophisticated weapons on earth. The result? Russia’s GDP grew in 2024 and again in 2025. Its gold and foreign-currency reserves are higher now than before the war. Its army is larger, better equipped, and battle-hardened. Its factories turn out hypersonic missiles, glide bombs, and drones faster than the entire NATO arsenal can manufacture. They have shipped all across Poland only to become rust at the feet of the warriors from Siberia.
Meanwhile the proxy (Ukraine) has lost half its pre-war population, most of its industry, and virtually 40% of its 1991 territory east of the Dnieper.
This is not a draw. This is annihilation dressed up as “strategic stalemate” by people who can no longer afford their own electricity bills.
NATO promised the world it would defend “every inch” of alliance territory. Instead it watched its weapons burn in Kharkov fields while its leaders argued about whether to send helmets or howitzers. When Russia liberated 4 regions and then a fifth, NATO’s response was a strongly worded letter and another frozen yacht. The message was unmistakable: Article 5 is a postcard when the bear actually shows up.
The European Union, that soft empire of rules & spreadsheets, is now openly fracturing. Hungary and Slovakia buy Russian gas and laugh at Brussels. Germany’s industry is de-industrialising in real time. France’s president begs Moscow for ceasefire talks while his own farmers blockade Paris. The Baltic states scream loudest, but their economies shrink fastest. The much-vaunted “European solidarity” lasted exactly until winter heating bills arrived.
By Christmas 2025 the conversation in Western capitals is no longer about victory; it is about survival. Defense budgets that were supposed to reach 2% of GDP are now eating 4-5% & still cannot produce enough 155 mm shells.
Recruitment centres are empty. Politicians who promised “as long as it takes” are quietly asking intermediaries how much it would cost to make the war stop before their voters freeze or riot.
Russia did not need to fire a single shot on NATO soil. It simply refused to lose, refused to blink, and refused to run out of missiles, or money. That was enough. The myth of Western invincibility (carefully cultivated since 1991) has been shattered on the black soil of Donbass.
NATO will not formally dissolve tomorrow; bureaucracies die slowly. But its credibility is already dead. The EU’s dream of becoming a geopolitical power is buried alongside 1.8 million Ukraine military dead and thousands of Armour and Leopard tanks. A new European security order is being written in Moscow, whether the old powers like it or not.
Russia stood alone against thirty-two and won. Not because it is bigger (it isn’t), but because it is harder, more patient, and far less fragile than the soft, debt-ridden, childless continent that thought lectures & rainbow flags were a substitute for real power.
The bear never left the forest. It just waited for the circus to collapse under its own contradictions.
Hurraaaa! Hurraaaa! Hurraaaa!
“We cannot lose this war, because the enemy understands neither the character of the Russian people, nor the Russian winter, nor Russian distances. He thinks he has broken us, but we have only just begun to fight in earnest.”
China is quietly replacing much of the world’s lost forests. In one of the greatest environmental turnarounds in history, China has added more than 500,000 km² of forest since 1990. In 2022 it pledged to plant, conserve, restore, and manage 70 billion trees by 2032—a cornerstone of the global ‘1 Trillion Trees’ initiative to supercharge carbon sinks and biodiversity.
In 2024 alone: • 4.45 million hectares of new trees planted • 3.22 million hectares of grassland restored • 2.78 million hectares reclaimed from desert
That pushed national forest cover past 25% (up from ~12% in the 1980s) blasting past the 2025 target of 24.1% ahead of schedule. Cumulative restoration since 2012 now exceeds 70 million hectares.
Meanwhile, humanity has destroyed more than half the world’s original native forests—mostly for agriculture. Today’s forests still cover ~31% of global land (the vast Taiga being the biggest survivor) but the Amazon tells a far darker story: 17–26 % already gone. Brazilian deforestation is up 27 % in 2025 so far, much of it arson-driven.
China’s ‘I Plant a Tree for the Climate’ campaign, run by the China Green Foundation, shows how top-down ambition can meet grassroots action. While others talk, China plants. It’s a genuine game-changer for a greener planet—hats off.
By Ladislav Zemánek, Non-resident research fellow at China-CEE Institute and expert of the Valdai Discussion Club
The liberal world order is collapsing under the weight of its own arrogance, and at the very moment Europe drowns in a self-inflicted civilizational crisis, the White House has released a national security strategy powerful enough to redefine the future of the West. Nearly a year into Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, this sweeping doctrine proves one thing above all: Trump is stronger, more confident, and far more transformative than during his first term. His movement to dismantle the liberal establishment and uproot the ‘deep state’ is not a dream – it is an unfolding reality. And its effects are already radiating far beyond American borders.
This strategy is nothing less than a funeral bell for the post-Cold War fantasy world created by globalists, technocrats, and the architects of endless intervention. Trump accepts what the previous political class refused to face: We now live in a multipolar, post-liberal age. Woke ideology has failed. Nations are back. Identity matters. Borders matter. Sovereignty matters. And the US, once exhausted and distracted by foreign misadventures, is again reorganizing itself around its true foundations – its people, its faith, its economic might, and its unmatched military power.
Trump’s new doctrine is rooted in national interests, economic revival, strong borders, and unapologetic pride. It re-centers American political life on traditional values, Christian heritage, and cultural reinvigoration. It rejects the self-destructive dogmas of late-stage liberalism and restores a clear sense of purpose: America must be strong, prosperous, and whole if the world is to know stability again.
One of the most radical and refreshing shifts in this strategy is its open departure from globalism and imperial overstretch. Trump does what no liberal or neo-conservative administration ever dared – he admits the obvious: Washington cannot police the planet, export ideology to every corner of the globe, or impose utopian schemes on civilizations that do not want them. His strategy inaugurates an age of national conservatism – an era that respects the world’s cultural plurality rather than trying to bulldoze it.
Trump’s foreign policy vision is not a crusade. It is realism with a human face. It seeks peace, not perpetual confrontation. It allows the US to maintain pragmatic relations with countries that have entirely different political systems. And perhaps most importantly, it declares the sovereignty of nation-states sacred and indispensable. Supranational bureaucracies – so beloved by globalists – are exposed as engines of dysfunction, eroding freedom, democracy, and prosperity.
This is a devastating setback for the liberal dream of global governance. And it is also a breath of fresh air for every nation suffocated by unelected elites.
Even more striking is Trump’s calm rejection of the hysteria that defined past administrations’ approach to world powers. Russia is no longer framed as a demonic threat. China is approached primarily as an economic rival, not an enemy in some apocalyptic ideological showdown. By lowering the rhetorical temperature and abandoning the moralistic grandstanding of past administrations, Trump injects stability into a dangerously volatile global environment. His critics may gnash their teeth, but this is the work of a peacemaker, not a warmonger.
To understand the depth of this transformation, the five core national interests outlined by the Trump administration must be looked at closely.
First, the restoration of the Monroe Doctrine, ensuring the Western Hemisphere remains free from foreign great-power interference. Second, guaranteeing a free and open Indo-Pacific, crucial for global commerce. Third, securing a stable Middle East free from external manipulation. Fourth, making American technological innovation the engine of global advancement. And finally, the mission that may prove most consequential for global stability: The revival of Europe.
What does Europe’s revival mean? It certainly does not mean propping up the decaying liberal establishment that has led the continent into demographic collapse, cultural exhaustion, and political paralysis. Trump’s view of Europe is brutally honest – and absolutely correct. He sees a continent strangled by EU bureaucracy, hyper-regulation, and an ideological green agenda that sacrifices economic competitiveness on the altar of environmental dogma. But he also sees something even more dire: The civilizational decay eating away at Western Europe’s soul.
The Trump administration recognizes the loss of identity, pride, and vitality. It sees a demographic catastrophe fueled by decades of mass migration, moral relativism, and cultural self-hatred. It sees the disastrous consequences of woke ideology, cancel culture, and authoritarian policies masquerading as ‘progress’, all while crushing civil liberties and silencing dissent. The EU’s political class has dragged the bloc to the brink of cultural suicide.
Yet America under Trump is not giving up on Europe. On the contrary, it offers a path to rebirth.
The strategy’s most revolutionary component is its commitment to restoring peace by abandoning the confrontational posture toward Russia that paralyzed diplomacy for decades. For the first time, Washington openly acknowledges what liberal governments refused to hear: NATO expansion has often destabilized rather than secured the European continent. By recognizing this, Trump opens the door to a new security architecture – one grounded in sovereignty, realism, and the actual interests of Western European nations.
This is a geopolitical earthquake. And it’s exactly what Europe needs.
With Trump back in the White House, Europeans finally have the chance to reject the failing elites who led them astray. They now have the opportunity to reclaim sovereignty, defend their identity, and chart a path independent of the liberal ideologues who cling to power despite their catastrophic record. Ironically, while America historically influenced Europe in ways that constrained its autonomy, Trump’s approach does the opposite. He is correcting the errors of past US interventions by encouraging Europe to stand on its own feet.
Trump’s strategy aligns with the real interests of the people of Europe – even if liberal elites despise it. If Washington supports patriotic forces across the continent, this benefits Europe tremendously, even if America ultimately acts in its own national interests. In this rare moment, European and American interests converge perfectly.
Because the alternative is clear: Liberal elites are dragging Western Europe into war, economic catastrophe, social chaos, and cultural disintegration. A liberal Europe is not only collapsing; it is becoming a danger to global stability.
Trump offers a different future. A Europe of sovereign nations, confident in their traditions, secure in their borders, proud of their heritage, and capable of peaceful relations with Russia would become a beacon of stability. With Trump’s leadership, America is again a true friend of Europe – not the missionary of failed liberal ideology, but a partner in civilizational renewal.
In this new world, MAGA becomes ‘MEGA’ – ‘Make Europe Great Again’. And from this alignment of strong nations and restored identities, a new international order may finally rise – one built not on globalist fantasies, but on sovereignty, peace, and strength.
“For the FIRST time in recorded history, EVERY major civilization—America, China, Europe, Japan—is hitting the absolute peak of the debt super-cycle AT THE EXACT SAME MOMENT. There is no rising power waiting in the wings like there always has been. When this resets, it won’t be regional. It will be global, systemic, and sudden.”
Glenn Beck lays out the only three ways every debt empire has ever ended: • Hyperinflation wipeout (Weimar, Rome, France) • Hard default + revolution (Russia 1917, Argentina ×9) • World war → new monetary order (Napoleonic Wars → Gold Standard → Bretton Woods)
Then the line that stopped me cold:“Rome fell alone. Britain declined while America rose. This time… no one is coming up.”
Beck ends with fire: Every single collapse in history birthed renewal — Christian Europe from Rome’s ashes, the modern nation-state from France’s terror, the greatest prosperity explosion ever after WWII.
The next chapter is not written. It never will be written by Washington, Wall Street, Beijing, or Davos.
It will be written by us — in our families, communities, and convictions.
Then come back and tell me: Which system do you think is quietly being built right now to replace the one that’s dying?
A boat in international waters that is not running a national flag is categorized in international law the same way a pirate is. Such boats have absolutely no national or international protections, and you cannot commit a war crime against them.
A vessel in international waters is required under UNCLOS to sail under the flag of a specific nation. If it does not, it is legally considered a stateless vessel. A stateless vessel has no right to the protections normally afforded to ships under a national flag, including immunity from interference by other states.
UNCLOS Articles 92, 94, 110, and customary maritime law spell out the consequences clearly:
1. Stateless vessels have no sovereign protection. A flagged ship is an extension of its flag-state’s sovereignty. A stateless vessel is not. This matters because “war crimes” presuppose protected persons or protected property. A stateless vessel is legally unprotected.
2. Any state may stop, board, search, seize, or disable, a stateless vessel. UNCLOS Article 110 explicitly authorizes boarding and seizure. The law does not require states to risk their own personnel or assets while doing so. Disabling a vessel that refuses inspection, including firing on it, is legally permitted under both UNCLOS and long-established state practice.
3. War crimes require an armed conflict. You cannot commit a “war crime” outside an armed conflict. War crimes occur only within the context of international humanitarian law (IHL). Enforcing maritime law against a stateless vessel is a law enforcement action, not an IHL situation.
No armed conflict = no war crime possible.
4. Lethal force may be used when a vessel refuses lawful orders. The International Maritime Organization’s “Use of Force” guidance for maritime interdiction recognizes that disabling fire, even lethal force, is lawful when a vessel refuses lawful boarding, attempts to flee, poses a threat, or engages in illicit activities such as piracy or narcotics trafficking.
Once again: law enforcement rules apply, not IHL.
5. Sinking a stateless vessel is not prohibited by UNCLOS. UNCLOS permits seizure of a stateless vessel and leaves the means entirely to the enforcing state so long as necessity and proportionality are respected. If the vessel flees, attacks, or refuses lawful commands, sinking it is legally permissible. Many states routinely do this to drug-smuggling vessels (e.g., semi-submersibles) without it ever being treated as a war crime.
6. No flag = no jurisdictional shield. The entire reason international law requires ships to fly a flag is to prevent this exact situation. Flagless vessels are legally vulnerable by design.
Because a stateless vessel has no protected status, because UNCLOS authorizes interdiction of such vessels, because lethal force may be used in maritime law enforcement when necessary, and because war crimes require an armed conflict that is not present here, sinking an unflagged ship in international waters is not a war crime.
When wildfires devastate entire communities, the immediate assumption is that they are natural disasters. But what if these catastrophic events were not acts of nature, but calculated moves in a global agenda? The recent infernos in California, the 2023 fires in Lahaina, and the 2018 Paradise, California fires reveal an alarming narrative rife with glaring anomalies, fire hydrants out of water, suspicious decisions, and a trail of evidence leading straight to coordinated sabotage, possibly with China.
Evidence appears to indicate that these fires weren’t just nature taking its course; they were an assault on American soil. From mysteriously nonfunctional fire hydrants to canceled insurance policies months before the disasters, there are too many signs of deliberate destruction to ignore. And what about the maps of these so-called “wildfires”? Instead of continuous flames, we see dozens of widely spaced fires igniting almost simultaneously—an improbable scenario unless you believe in a spontaneous combustion epidemic. This wasn’t a single wildfire; it was dozens of fires ignited by what appears to be organized arson.
Consider the role of California’s broken water management system. While reservoirs sat bone dry, the state prioritized diverting water to protect the Delta smelt—a move that left fire hydrants ineffective during crises. Let that sink in: entire communities were left to burn because California’s leadership thought preserving an “endangered fish” was more important than saving lives.
China’s Role in Ecological Warfare
But who would orchestrate such an atrocity? Evidence points to a chilling possibility: China. According to MIT graduate in Civil and Environmental Engineering, Alex Lightman, the concept of ecological warfare isn’t new—it’s outlined in military strategies like Unrestricted Warfare and the Art of War, which detail the use of fire as a weapon. China has been using fire as a weapon of war for millennia.
In Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War,” an entire chapter is dedicated to the concept of using fire against enemies, titled “The Attack by Fire,” where he outlines five primary ways to utilize fire strategically. Get this: tens of thousands of Chinese nationals of military age have reportedly entered the U.S. illegally, many through coordinated efforts encouraged by TikTok videos. Among them could be trained saboteurs and arsonists.
According to Lightman, “After COVID-19, why are we reticent to blame China for this? Just like they did with COVID-19, they also could be doing with these fires. It’s the same business plan; they’re just doing the damage with fires instead of a weaponized coronavirus.”
And then there’s California Governor Gavin Newsom’s questionable ties to China. Let’s not forget his $1 billion deal with Chinese company BYD during the COVID-19 pandemic—a company with deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). At the time, people questioned why he chose a Chinese electric vehicle manufacturer to supply medical masks. Now, we have to ask: Was that deal just the tip of the iceberg?
The destruction of Los Angeles and other areas devastated by wildfires seems almost too convenient for the elites pushing the “Smart City” agenda, perfectly aligning with globalist goals like Agenda 2030. Could Newsom be collaborating with China to level parts of the state, making way for the next phase of “urban redevelopment”? Check out this video where he seems giddy about “reimagining Los Angeles 2.0” and the great “opportunity” that these devastating fires have created.
Oh yeah, we almost forgot. Apparently, Giddy Gavin is so eager for everyone to get on the same page about the fires and to avoid all the “misinformation” that he posted about it. He tells people to go to CaliforniaFireFacts.com to get the facts.
But when you click that link, it redirects to GavinNewsom.com where there is a link to DONATE TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE FOUNDATION, but that actually takes you to Act Blue’s website, which is a fundraising platform for the Democratic Party!
Hmmmm…. But before we move on, we must include this AI video story put together by a team of people who are really paying attention:
Directed Energy Weapons?
Evidence of directed energy weapons (DEWs) being deployed in these fires is compelling. Eyewitness accounts and videos show inexplicable patterns of destruction, where homes were incinerated while nearby trees remained untouched. Satellite imagery has captured intense bursts of energy coinciding with the fires’ ignition points. Despite the videos and eye-witnesses, many government officials dismiss these claims as “conspiracy theories,” mocking them with terms like “Jewish space lasers.”
But the evidence is compelling. Steel components of vehicles and buildings melted—a feat that normal wildfires cannot achieve, given their maximum temperatures are insufficient to liquefy metal.
But DEWs are certainly capable of creating molten metal and slicing through steel. Houses in Paradise were literally cut in half by some sort of incendiary device. These anomalies demand answers.
And seriously, what’s up with the color blue? In Lahaina, California, and Paradise, we’ve seen an eyebrow-raising pattern: structures in blue miraculously spared while everything else burned to the ground. Homes with blue roofs? Untouched. Adjacent homes? Reduced to ash.
And then there are the blue umbrellas in Lahaina—perfectly intact, sitting smugly just feet away from buildings that were literally melted into oblivion. Melted. How does that even happen? Are Directed Energy Weapons (DEWs) in play, and is blue somehow the magic color they won’t target? It sounds wild, but the evidence keeps stacking up. Don’t take my word for it—check out this video from one of Lahaina’s residents and see for yourself.
And what’s up with Gavin Newsom’s new $9 million compound with the blue roof?
Arson?
Were the files a result of arson as well? The story takes a dark and deliberate turn when you examine the evidence of coordinated efforts to ignite these blazes. Reports have surfaced alleging dozens of individuals were paid to set fires—foot soldiers in a larger, more insidious operation. Could these arsonists have been working hand-in-glove with advanced technologies, like DEWs, to ensure maximum destruction? The pattern is too widespread, too methodical, to be brushed off as mere coincidence.
How many cities need to be reduced to ash before we demand answers? Take Los Angeles, for example, where an estimated 50,000 to 70,000 homeless people live on the streets. There’s ample evidence to suggest that some set fires simply out of boredom or desperation. Yet, there’s a concerted effort to cover up these incidents, with officials reluctant to link the homeless population to the devastation. Why the hesitation? Could it be part of a broader agenda to protect a politically convenient narrative?
Malibu Beachside Homes in Ruins
According to Alex Lightman, in California, it’s plausible that three distinct groups were responsible for these fires, each with their own motivations and handlers:
Saboteurs: Operatives embedded within the country, possibly foreign agents or domestic extremists, executing calculated ecological warfare.
Homeless individuals: Vulnerable and marginalized, they are easily exploited, with some driven to set fires either for warmth, attention, or chaos.
Drug users incentivized by free narcotics: Disturbing reports suggest that Chinese operatives may have offered fentanyl or other drugs in exchange for lighting fires. Imagine the ease of manipulating desperate addicts into becoming unwitting accomplices in a larger plan.
We’re left wondering: why are officials so quick to dismiss or obscure the obvious? Why hasn’t there been a full-scale investigation into the potential involvement of saboteurs, exploited homeless individuals, or even foreign entities with a vested interest in America’s decline? Until we start asking the hard questions and demanding real accountability, these fires will continue to burn—not just through forests and homes, but through the very fabric of our society.
DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Ignition?
The Los Angeles fires don’t just highlight mismanagement—they expose the catastrophic folly of prioritizing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) over, you know, actual competence. Instead of staffing fire prevention teams and emergency management agencies with experts who could effectively manage disaster risks, city officials seemed more interested in checking off race and gender quotas. DEI policies, hailed as the cornerstone of progress, have left critical infrastructure in the hands of people chosen more for their identities than their abilities. This isn’t inclusivity—it’s ideological arson disguised as governance. DEI didn’t just drop the ball; it fumbled it straight into the flames.
In the last edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” Hanson doesn’t hold back when dissecting the DEI failures of Los Angeles in dealing with catastrophic wildfires. Take the $700,000-a-year utilities czar, for instance. Hanson notes, “We have a $700,000-a-year utilities czar in Los Angeles, and she cannot explain why there was not enough water, at least in a convincing way—because she’s never had to, because she was ideologically correct.” When your resume is less about qualifications and more about checking ideological boxes, don’t expect to see any blazing fires put out—literally.
Then there’s Kristine Larson, the Assistant Chief of the Los Angeles Fire Department. When asked if she were strong enough to carry a man out of a fire, she remarked: “He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out of a fire.” Well, thank you, Captain Obvious! Why do you think he needs your help in the first place? Because he’s in the wrong place at the wrong time—that’s kind of the whole point of an emergency, isn’t it? DEI logic at its finest: redefine responsibility to avoid accountability.
Absurdly, she also said that if you have a fire, you want someone who “looks like you” to respond because it will put you at ease. After all, they might “understand your situation better.” Oh really, Assistant Chief? Here’s a thought: We’d rather have the most badass firefighter on the planet show up—heck, they could look like a one-eyed green alien with antennae for all we care—as long as they know how to put the fire out!
Speaking of DEI hires, let’s talk about Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass. While her city was literally up in flames, she was busy enjoying a trip to Ghana. Priorities, right? When she finally returned, her expressionless face said it all as she stonewalled reporters who dared to ask the obvious questions. “Do you owe citizens an apology?” she was asked over and over. But Bass just stood there waiting to deplane, visibly uninterested in addressing her constituents’ devastation. She didn’t have the courtesy to mutter a single word…
Apparently, “equity” doesn’t extend to answering for your own failures—or being present when your city desperately needs leadership. Real leadership. Not DEI-focused leadership that prioritizes optics over competence, leaving the city vulnerable to disaster. But just like Gavin Newsom, she does seem quite happy about the opportunity to rebuild! Might Los Angeles, the “Smart City,” be on the horizon?
The Smart City Agenda
Behind the smoke and ashes lies a possible sinister motive: the transformation of these devastated areas into “smart cities.” The SmartLA 2028 plan, unveiled in 2020, outlines an ambitious strategy to turn Los Angeles into a hyper-connected, tech-driven metropolis by the 2028 Olympics. Similarly, JUMPSmartMaui, a “smart grid” initiative in Hawaii, was already in place before the Lahaina fires. These plans are not coincidental; they align perfectly with the United Nations’ Agenda 2030, which promotes “sustainable” urban development under the guise of combating climate change.
Lahaina’s destruction has sparked discussions about rebuilding the area as a smart city. Governor Josh Green hinted at “potential property deals” to accelerate redevelopment.
Smart cities promise convenience and efficiency, but at what cost? These highly digitized urban environments will require complete control over infrastructure, land, and even people. The World Economic Forum’s infamous prediction, “You will own nothing and be happy,” looms large over this agenda.
BlackRock, Vanguard, and other global investment giants have significant stakes in this transformation, as they stand to profit immensely from land acquisitions and technological integration. Is this an instance of “disaster capitalism?” With their massive investment portfolios, these investment giants wield the power to shape global policies and profit from every stage of the smart city rollout. Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, has openly advocated for reshaping infrastructure to align with “sustainability” goals, regardless of public resistance.
Supporting this “disaster capitalism” assertion is the fact that several insurance companies pulled out of California in late 2023 and 2024, making it difficult for homeowners to find coverage. The insurance companies cited business risks amid rising replacement costs and the inability to raise premiums adequately. Many policies were canceled, leaving countless residents without coverage when they needed it most.
Malibu Aftermath
But let’s dig a little deeper—who changed the laws and regulations that made it so easy for companies like State Farm to pack up and leave? Was this just incompetence, or was it part of a larger scheme to leave Californians vulnerable, forcing them to rely on government-controlled systems for recovery? Blaming the insurance companies is convenient, but the real responsibility lies with those who created a regulatory nightmare in the first place.
The timing of these fires, coupled with the sudden policy changes that preceded them, suggests a coordinated effort to displace residents and seize valuable real estate under the guise of “rebuilding” and “progress.” These patterns are not limited to Hawaii and California. Across the United States, at least fourteen cities are being primed for smart city conversions. Eminent domain, corporate acquisitions, and sudden “natural disasters” are being leveraged to force these changes. Could your city be next?
The Endgame?
What’s the endgame? These fires appear to be a part of a global push to replace destroyed communities with corporate-controlled “smart cities” aligned with Agenda 2030 goals. Agenda 2030 is a United Nations initiative that aims to “sustainably” reshape global infrastructure. Proponents of this agenda push the narrative of “degrowth,” suggesting that wealthier nations must sacrifice economic prosperity for the sake of global equity. This vision of “sustainability” is built on the false premise of an imminent climate crisis, which is being used to justify land grabs, property confiscations, and invasive technologies.
Palisades Aftermath
It’s the perfect cover for land grabs, property confiscations, and the installation of invasive technologies. By pushing people out with uninsurable risks and devastation, the “powers-that-be” can swoop in, seize the land or buy it for pennies on the dollar, and remake it to fit their dystopian dream of control and surveillance by building “Smart Cities.”
And about those population control theories? Let’s just say the parallels with the Georgia Guidestones’ chilling instructions to reduce the global population to 500 million aren’t exactly a coincidence. Directed energy weapons, ecological warfare, and the purposeful destruction of whole areas—these are the tactics of the so-called “extinction engineers” who think there are just too many people breathing up their precious resources.
But fear not, because some folks aren’t content to sit back and watch as the elites bulldoze their way to total control. President Donald Trump, in a move to dismantle the ideological stranglehold on Tinseltown, recently appointed Sylvester Stallone, Mel Gibson, and Jon Voight as “Special Ambassadors to Hollywood.”
With these Hollywood heavyweights on the front lines, the fight for truth—whether it’s in the movie industry or in the smoke of “accidental” wildfires—has just gotten a lot more attention.
Malibu Home in Ruins
Lastly, this tragedy is a reminder that God is in control of all things, and you will always be okay if you seek God and His Kingdom and Righteousness first. Everything that you really need in life will be provided for you by God Himself. We will all leave this world, and when we do, we will leave it with nothing but what we have done for our Lord Jesus Christ.
Matthew 6:25-34
We would like to add hope to the end of this story. We can’t live very long without hope, and our hope is bound up in Jesus Christ. Matthew 6 reminds us to seek God first and trust Him to provide for us while we are here, even and especially during the fires and trials of life that come to us all.
Listen to our friend, Mel Gibson, encourage us on this point. Mel lost his Malibu home and possessions in this fire, but rather than moping around and feeling sorry for himself, he is busy encouraging us to look to God and reminding us that there is a purpose higher than ourselves in this trial if we will just look with our hearts to see it. For Gibson, it is a purification of sorts, preparing him for what comes next: the greatest and most important film of his life, “The Resurrection.”
Mel, we are praying for you and your family and for all those who are suffering in California right now due to these fires. We trust that God is comforting and guiding you and providing in ways that only He can.
Predicting the future of international relations is always a risky endeavor. History shows that even the most confident forecasts can fall flat. For instance, the last Pentagon propaganda pamphlet on ‘Soviet Military Power’ was published in 1991 – the year the USSR ceased to exist. Similarly, the Washington-based RAND Corporation’s 1988 scenario on nuclear war included the Soviet Union engaging Pakistan over Afghanistan in 2004. Nevertheless, the urge to anticipate the future is natural, even necessary. What follows is not a prediction, but an attempt to outline reasonable expectations for the state of the world in 2025.
Ukraine
US President Donald Trump’s bid to secure a ceasefire along Ukraine’s battle lines will fail. The American plan to “stop the war” ignores Russia’s security concerns and disregards the root causes of the conflict. Meanwhile, Moscow’s conditions for peace – outlined by President Vladimir Putin in June 2024 – will remain unacceptable to Washington, as they would effectively mean Kiev’s capitulation and the West’s strategic defeat.
The fighting will continue. In response to the rejection of his plan, a frustrated Trump will impose additional sanctions on Moscow. However, he will avoid any serious escalation that might provoke Russia into attacking NATO forces. Despite strong anti-Russian rhetoric, US aid to Ukraine will decrease, shifting much of the burden onto Western European nations. While the EU is prepared to step in, the quality and scale of Western material support for Ukraine will likely decline.
On the battlefield, the tide will continue to shift in Russia’s favor. Russian forces are expected to push Ukraine out of key regions such as Donbass, Zaporozhye, and parts of Kursk Region. Ukraine will mobilize younger, inexperienced recruits to slow Russia’s advances, but this strategy will lead to limited success. Kiev will rely increasingly on surprise operations, such as border incursions or symbolic strikes deep into Russian territory, in attempts to demoralize the Russian population.
Domestically, the US and its allies may push for elections in Ukraine, hoping to replace Vladimir Zelensky – whose term expired in the middle of last year – with General Valery Zaluzhny. While this political reshuffling might temporarily strengthen Kiev’s leadership, it will not address the underlying challenges of economic collapse and deteriorating living conditions for ordinary Ukrainians.
United States
Despite a peaceful transfer of power, Trump’s second term will remain fraught with tension. The risk of attempts on his life will linger. Trump’s foreign policy, while less ideological than Biden’s, will focus on pragmatic goals. He will:
Keep NATO intact but demand higher financial contributions from European members.
Shift much of the financial responsibility for Ukraine onto the EU.
Intensify economic pressure on China, leveraging Beijing’s vulnerabilities to force unfavorable trade deals.
Trump will also align closely with Israel, supporting its efforts against Iran. Tehran, already weakened, will face harsh terms for a nuclear deal, and a refusal may prompt US military strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Trump is likely to meet Putin in 2025, but this will not signal a thaw in US-Russia relations. The confrontation between the two powers will remain deep and enduring. Trump’s strategy will prioritize America’s global dominance, shifting the burden of US commitments onto allies and partners, often to their detriment.
Western Europe
European nations, wary of Trump’s return, will ultimately fall in line. The EU’s dependence on the US for military and political leadership will deepen, even as European economies continue to act as donors to the American economy. Over the past three decades, Western European elites have transitioned from being national actors to appendages of a transnational political system centered in Washington. Genuine defenders of national interests, such as Alternative for Germany or France’s Rassemblement National, remain politically marginalized.
Russophobia will remain a unifying force in Western European politics. Contrary to popular belief, this sentiment is not imposed by the US but actively embraced by EU and UK elites as a tool for cohesion. The Russian military operation in Ukraine has been framed as the first stage of an imagined Russian attempt to “kidnap Europe.”
In 2025, Germany’s new coalition government will adopt an even tougher stance toward Moscow. However, fears of a direct military clash with Russia will deter other European nations from deploying troops to Ukraine. Instead, Western Europe will prepare for a new Cold War, increasing military spending, expanding production, and fortifying NATO’s eastern flank.
Dissent within Europe will be suppressed. Political opponents of the confrontation with Russia will be branded as “Putin’s useful idiots” or outright agents of Moscow. Hungary and Slovakia will remain outliers in their approach to Russia, but their influence on EU policy will be negligible.
Middle East
After significant military victories in 2024, Israel, with US backing, will attempt to consolidate its gains against Iran. The US-Israeli strategy will involve combined pressure, including military actions, against Iranian proxies like the Yemeni Houthis and efforts to deepen ties with Gulf Arab monarchies under the Abraham Accords.
While Russia signed a treaty with Iran in January 2025, it does not obligate Moscow to intervene militarily if Tehran is attacked. Thus, a full-scale Middle Eastern war involving Russia and the US remains unlikely. Domestically, Iran faces uncertainty as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, now 86, nears the end of his leadership.
Russia’s influence in the Middle East will wane as its military presence diminishes. However, logistical routes connecting Russia to Africa will remain a strategic priority.
East Asia
US-China tensions will continue to rise, fueled by American efforts to contain China’s economic and technological ambitions. Washington will strengthen alliances in Asia, particularly with Taiwan and the Philippines, to counter Beijing. While an armed conflict over Taiwan or the South China Sea remains possible, it is unlikely to erupt in 2025.
Russia’s partnership with China will grow stronger, though it will stop short of a formal military alliance. From a Western perspective, this relationship will increasingly resemble an anti-American coalition. Together, Russia and China will push back against US global dominance in geopolitical, military, and economic spheres.
Russia’s near abroad
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko is expected to secure another term in January 2025, cementing his alignment with Moscow. Meanwhile, Russia will work to stabilize its relations with Kazakhstan, though Moscow’s lack of a compelling vision for Eurasian integration could come back to bite.
The year 2025 will be marked by strategic instability, ongoing conflicts, and heightened geopolitical tensions. While Russia has achieved notable successes in recent years, it must guard against complacency. Victory is far from assured, and the world remains nowhere near equilibrium. For Moscow, the path forward will require resilience and a clear focus on long-term goals. Peace will come, but only through continued effort and eventual victory – perhaps in 2026.
If I wanted to support the New World Order, I would do what I could to take down the United States because it’s the main obstacle to a one world government.
What could I add to the intentional border collapse, inflation, censorship, wars, plandemics and civil discord? One step would be to take down California, because it’s the biggest state economy in America with huge resources and it’s already run by socialists.
I could create policies that encourage residential insurance companies to cancel home coverage and then burn down hundreds of billions of dollars of real estate, paving the way for BlackRock to come in and buy it up on the cheap.
To optimize the success of such a covert agenda, I would get my woke politicians and bureaucrats to empty the key reservoir, disempowering the fire hydrants.
I would have them send huge amounts of fire-fighting equipment to Ukraine so it would be unavailable in Los Angeles.
I would have already gotten my politicians to massively cut fire-fighting budgets and resist thinning of foliage, grass fields and timber.
Then I would wait for maximum Santa Ana winds to blow.
I would have mind-kontrolled arson agents ready to use DEWs (directed energy weapons), blow torches, exploding residential smart meters, gasoline cans etc. to start simultaneous fires to be blown by those winds.
Maybe dioxins in the smoke could even taint the food supply from the central valley.
Clearing these areas and getting rid of residents would help with my 15-minute smart city agenda, especially as targeted to be in place by the 2028 Olympics. Hey, it worked in Australia, Oregon, Canada, Paradise, and Lahaina…why not keep going?
We can just blame it on Climate Change and incompetence!
Liberty International News 