Ukraine, which has been destroyed, and which has witnessed all of its strong young men killed in futile battles and massacres, and from which one-half of its population has fled, never to return, has also been soldto Western investment funds. If Israel goes bottoms-up, expect to see millions of Israelis move to Ukraine — now ‘a land without people for a people, yet again, without land’. ABN
This is an interesting and curiously unmentioned diplomatic contrast.
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer had a two-hour dinner with President Donald Trump after the U.K leader delivered a speech to the United Nations in New York. However, intentionally unnoticed by U.S. media, the Prime Minister immediately left the U.S. following the lengthy meeting with President Trump, and never met with Kamala Harris.
The extensive discussion and dinner took place in New York, apparently at Trump Tower. There is an aspect of typical British worry woven throughout British media reporting on the meeting because U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, also attended the meeting. Lammy once called President Trump a “woman-hating, neo-Nazi sympathizing sociopath.”
Undoubtably, when the priority of the dinner is overlaid with the U.K position on Ukraine; keep in mind a meeting with Zelenskyy followed the next morning; PM Starmer appears a little worried. There is a massive amount of geopolitical embarrassment possible right around the corner when, not if, President Trump wins – and the position of the British govt toward Ukraine leaves them dancing alone when the music stops.
On the evening of December 10, 2018, Michael Kovrig was out for dinner in Beijing with his six-months-pregnant partner, unaware it was the last time he’d enjoy her company for more than two and a half years.
Strolling home, the couple climbed a spiral staircase in front of his apartment building.
“And boom … I come out of the stairs and there’s a dozen men in black, cameras on them, dressed identically, but no … markings, no badges, no nothing, surrounding us, shouting in Chinese, ‘That’s him,'” he told CBC News Chief Correspondent Adrienne Arsenault in an interview airing Monday.
He said a woman stepped forward and held up a piece of paper he wasn’t given a chance to read.
“Apparently in Chinese it had a warrant for my arrest on it,” he said. “They grabbed me. They grabbed my phone so I couldn’t make a call. They pinned my arms.”
The men pulled his partner away from him. His number one concern, he said, was her safety and the safety of their unborn child.
This starts well be descends into moralistic woo woo, all of which I agree with abstractly but know is not realistic because so many people are simply too stupid. The only ‘realistic’ hope I can see for our human mundane future is digital babies leading to consciously controlled digital evolution, which even if it is not wise or entirely humane may work in the end simply because whole populations of people 3X smarter than anyone who has ever lived would probably understand the value of morality and probably be better able than us to agree what it is and live by it.
Consciously controlled digital evolution would work sort of like IVF today but with vastly more choices. Within 100 years it is probable people will be able to genetically augment their own gametes enough to produce children that are mostly the same as them, or at least built on their genetic framework, but vastly smarter, healthier, and better looking. This technology does not need to be coercive. Who would refuse to remove genetic illnesses from their bloodlines while also doubling IQ and athletic ability? ABN
Ordinarily the opinions of one tech billionaire would, perhaps, not matter much to the life of an ordinary American. However, in this era of 2024 election and the Technocracy influence, maybe this interview discussion carries a different set of values.
Tech entrepreneur Peter Thiel, the founder of Palantir, an AI enhanced data processing system that streamlines the organization of technological surveillance methods, gives his views on a variety of current political aspects.
I find the interview as little interesting from a few perspectives. First, while generally supporting President Trump, Peter Thiel says he is choosing to stay out of the political influence game in the 2024 general election. Considering the scale of Thiels prior advocacy and specific action he undertook to put JD Vance into office and then into the VP nominee position for Trump – this decision to now ‘step back’ from 2024 seems a big disingenuous.
Second, and directly related to the first point, Thiel -through Palantir contracts- is now directly enmeshed in the Intelligence Community effort to capture and organize surveillance metadata of Americans. Perhaps, just perhaps, this new financial dependency plays a role in influencing his ‘step back’ decision.
Other points worth noting relate to how Thiel outlines his perspectives on geopolitical events. When you look at Thiel’s communication abilities and perspectives it really shows you how shallow, small and generally naïve these top-tier influence agents can be.
American Buddhist Net 