Politics

Authored by Pepe Escobar,

Until recently, a serious geopolitical working hypothesis was that West Asia and Ukraine were two vectors of the standard Hegemon modus operandi, which is to incite and unleash Forever Wars. Now both wars are united in an Omni-War.

A coalition of Straussian neo-cons in the US, hardcore revisionist Zionists in Tel Aviv and Ukrainian neo-nazi shades of grey is now betting on a Final Confrontation – with several overtones ranging from expanding lebensraum to provoking the Apocalypse.

What stands in their way is essentially two of the top BRICS: Russia and Iran.

China, self-protected by their collective lofty dream of “community of a shared future for mankind”, warily watches on the sidelines, as they know that at the end of the road, the true “existential” war by the Hegemon will be against them.

Meanwhile, Russia and Iran need to mobilize for Totalen Krieg. Because that’s what the enemy is launching.

Undermining BRICS and the INSTC

The total destabilisation of Syria, with heavy CIA-MI6 input, now proceeding in real time, is a carefully engineered gambit to undermine BRICS and beyond.

It proceeds in parallel to Pashinyan removing Armenia from the CSTO – based on a US promise to support Yerevan in a possible new clash with Baku; India being encouraged to ramp up a weapons race with Pakistan; and across-the-board intimidation of Iran.

So this is also a war to destabilize the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), of which the three major protagonists are BRICS members Russia, Iran and India.

As it stands, the INSTC is totally geopolitical risk-free. As a top BRICS corridor-in-the-making, it carries the potential to become even more effective than several of China’s cross-Heartland corridors of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The INSTC would be a key lifeline for a great deal of the global economy in case of a direct confrontation between the US/Israel combo and Iran – with the possible shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz leading to the collapse of a multi-quadrillion pile of financial derivatives, economically imploding the collective West.

Turkiye under Erdogan, as usual, is playing a double game. Rhetorically, Ankara stands by a genocide-free and sovereign Palestine. In practice, the Turkiye supports and funds a motley crew of Greater Idlibistan jihadis – trained by Ukrainian Neo-nazis in drone warfare and with weapons financed by Qatar – who have just marched on and conquered Aleppo, Hama, and possibly beyond.

If this army of mercenaries were real followers of Islam, they would be marching in defense of Palestine.

At the same time, the real picture inside the corridors of power in Tehran is extremely murky. There are factions favoring getting closer to the West, which clearly would have ramifications for the Axis of Resistance’s ability to fight Tel Aviv.

On Lebanon, Syria never wavered. History explains why: from the point of view of Damascus, Lebanon historically remains a governorate, so Damascus is responsible for the security of Beirut.

And that’s one of Tel Aviv’s key motives to propel the current Salafi-jihadi offensive on Syria – after smashing virtually every communication corridor between Syria and Lebanon. What Tel Aviv could not accomplish on the ground – a victory over Hezbollah in southern Lebanon – has been replaced by isolating Hezbollah from the Axis of Resistance.

When in Doubt, Re-Read Xenophon

Wars in West Asia are a complex mix of national, sectarian, tribal and religious vectors. In a sense, they are endless wars; controllable to an extent, but then back again.

The Russian strategy in Syria seemed to be very precise. As it was impossible to normalize a completely fragmented nation, Moscow opted to free the Syria that really matters – the capital, the most important cities, and the Eastern Mediterranean coast – from the Salafi-jihadi mobs.

The problem is that freezing the war in 2020, with direct implication by Russia, Iran and (reluctantly) Turkiye, did not solve the “moderate rebel” problem. Now they’re back – in full force, supported by a vast Rent-a-Jihadi mob, with NATOstan Intel behind them.

Some things never change.

2012. Jake Sullivan, then an aide to Hillary Clinton: “AQ [al-Qaeda*] is on our side in Syria.”

2021. James Jeffrey, special envoy to Syria under Trump (2018-2020): “HTS [Hayat Tahrir al-Sham*] is an asset to the US’s strategy in Idlib.”

There could not be better timing for the revival of the HTS “asset”. HTS if filling an enormous void; beware when that happens in West Asia. Russia is fully concentrated on Ukraine. Hezbollah suffered heavily from Tel Aviv’s bombings and serial killing. Tehran is fully concentrated on how to deal with Trump 2.0.

History always teaches us. Syria is now a West Asian Anabasis. Xenophon – a soldier and writer – tell us how, in the 4th century B.C., an “expedition” (“anabasis”, in Ancient Greek) of 10,000 Greek mercenaries were engaged by Cyrus the Younger against his brother Artaxerxes II, King of Persia, from Armenia to the Black Sea. The expedition miserably failed – and the painful return journey was endless.

2,400 years later, we see governments, armies and mercenaries still plunging into the endless West Asia wars – and extracting themselves now is even more insoluble.

Syria now is tired, attritted, with the SAA becoming complacent with the long freeze of the war since 2020. All that coupled with the vicious starvation siege unleashed by the US Caesar Act, and the impossibility to start rebuilding the nation with the help of at least 8 million citizens who fled the endless war.

Over these past 4 years, problems piled up. There were endless breaches of the Astana process and Israel bombed Syria almost daily with impunity.

China was basically immobile. Beijing simply did not invest in the rebuilding of Syria.

Perspective is sobering. Even Russia – which is a de facto Resistance icon in itself, even if not formally part of the West Asian Axis of Resistance – has taken nearly three years of hard slog in its fight with Ukraine.

Only a cohesive, consolidated Axis of Resistance – after getting rid of countless 5thcolumnists working inside – would have a chance against being picked off one by one by the same consolidated enemy, over and over again.

Sometimes it feels like the BRICS – particularly China – haven’t learned anything from Bandung in 1955, and how the Non-Alignment Movement (NAM) was neutralized.

You can’t beat a pitiless hegemonic hydra with flower power.

Coffee, one of the world’s most beloved beverages, offers more than just a comforting warmth and an energizing caffeine kick.

Increasingly, scientific research has begun to uncover the health benefits associated with coffee consumption, particularly due to its rich content of polyphenols like chlorogenic acid (CGA), which reduce inflammation and help prevent cardiovascular diseases and cancer.

As The Epoch Times’ Amber Young reports, Dr. Chang Chin-Chien, a renowned Taiwanese breast cancer specialist and author of “A Cup of Coffee Fights All Diseases,” outlined the health benefits of coffee and shared the best ways to drink it.

Coffee improves or fights the following 11 conditions.

1. Type 2 Diabetes

Research has found a strong correlation between habitual coffee consumption and a lower risk of Type 2 diabetes. Researchers explain that regularly drinking coffee can help protect liver and beta-cell function during the chronic metabolic stress phase that occurs before the onset of overt diabetes, thereby lowering the risk of developing it.

2. High Blood Pressure

Dr. Chang noted that initially, drinking coffee may lead to higher blood pressure. However, with habitual consumption, it can actually lower it.

A meta-analysis published in 2023 involving 25 studies with 463,973 participants found a negative association between coffee consumption and the risk of high blood pressure. One of the studies indicated that nonsmoking men and women who drank three to four cups of coffee per day had a lower risk of developing high blood pressure, while no significant association was found among smokers.

3. Cardiovascular Diseases

Coffee is beneficial for cardiovascular health. A study published in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology conducted a 12 1/2-year follow-up on 449,563 participants with a median age of 58. The results showed that compared to noncoffee drinkers, individuals who consumed ground, instant, or decaffeinated coffee had a reduced risk of cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality, with the greatest effects seen in those who drank two to three cups of coffee per day. Additionally, the researchers found that both ground coffee and instant coffee were associated with a reduced risk of arrhythmias, while decaffeinated coffee showed no such association.

4. Periodontal Disease

Chronic inflammation of the periodontal tissues can lead to gum recession, alveolar bone loss and, eventually, tooth loss. A systematic review highlighted that daily coffee consumption may help prevent alveolar bone loss. Coffee contains various components with antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties, including caffeine, chlorogenic acid, and caffeic acid. Furthermore, chlorogenic acid acts as an antimicrobial agent, which plays a role in combating periodontal disease. However, some studies have indicated a negative correlation between coffee consumption and periodontal health.

The researchers concluded that because of coffee’s complex composition, regularly drinking an appropriate amount may benefit periodontal health. However, excessive consumption may have a negative impact. The study suggested a daily coffee intake of two to five cups is considered safe.

5. Gout

Coffee can help alleviate gout caused by excessive uric acid. A systematic review found that coffee significantly reduces serum uric acid levels. Specifically, men must drink one to three cups of coffee daily, while women require four to six cups daily to achieve this reduction. The review suggests that moderate coffee consumption could serve as a primary prevention strategy for hyperuricemia and gout in both men and women.

6. Metabolic Diseases

The caffeine in coffee can stimulate metabolism. One study showed that caffeine can counteract the detrimental effects of inflammation and oxidative stress, potentially lowering the risk of various metabolic diseases. Additionally, caffeine intake through coffee benefits metabolism, cognitive function, physical performance, and hormone regulation.

7. Obesity

A study in Nutrients indicates that the bioactive compounds in coffee, such as caffeine, chlorogenic acid, trigonelline, and magnesium, exhibit anti-obesity effects. The researchers noted that drinking coffee can help reduce obesity, particularly for men. However, while coffee can help with weight management, it isn’t as crucial as a balanced diet and physical activity. Given coffee’s protective effects against chronic diseases, the researchers recommend including it as part of a healthy lifestyle to promote overall well-being.

8. Skin Conditions

While some people believe that coffee acts as a diuretic and excessive consumption may lead to drier skin, Dr. Chang suggests that the antioxidants in coffee promote microcirculation in the skin, benefiting skin health.

A study published in May analyzed the potential causal relationship between beverage consumption and facial skin aging. The results showed that higher coffee intake can reduce the risk of this type of aging. Another study showed that caffeine protects the skin from aging induced by oxidative stress by activating autophagy (cell turnover), demonstrating the potential of caffeine in preventing skin diseases.

9. Hair Loss

A review of studies found that caffeine can stimulate hair growth in male pattern baldness, potentially aiding in hair loss treatment. It may also help prevent the risks of rosacea and both nonmelanoma and melanoma skin cancers.

10. Neurological Disorders

Dr. Chang noted that while coffee provides some benefits for neurological conditions such as dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease, he remains cautious about its efficacy in treating depression. However, he highlighted that some analyses suggest coffee consumption can enhance beneficial gut bacteria, which may affect the brain through the gut-brain axis, alleviating anxiety and depression.

According to a study involving more than 145,000 participants, those who consumed two to three cups of ground coffee, milk-coffee, or unsweetened coffee per day had the lowest risk of developing mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.

11. Cancer

Dr. Chang also highlighted the benefits of coffee consumption for specific cancer conditions, including liver, colorectal, oral, and certain types of breast cancers, as well as adult leukemia.

A meta-analysis published in the BMJ showed that high coffee consumption was associated with an 18 percent reduction in cancer risk compared to low coffee consumption. Additionally, drinking coffee was linked to a lower risk of several specific cancers, as well as neurological, metabolic, and liver diseases. The researchers concluded that drinking three to four cups of coffee daily can maximize the reduction of various health risks and that the health benefits likely outweigh the harm.

Optimal Ways to Drink Coffee

People have long advocated drinking black coffee. However, a 2023 study found that when caffeic acid and chlorogenic acid in coffee form adducts with cysteine, an amino acid found in milk, their anti-inflammatory activity is greatly enhanced. This suggests that combining coffee with milk can significantly boost its anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Chang stated that adding milk to coffee not only supplements calcium but also enhances its anti-inflammatory effects. The polyphenols in coffee form complexes with the milk, making compounds more effective at reducing inflammation than black coffee alone.

Regardless, Dr. Chang still recommends black coffee as the preferred option, but he believes it is worthwhile to experiment with adding cinnamon, lemon, oats, or other ingredients to enhance both the flavor and enjoyment of coffee.

As for the best time to drink coffee? Dr. Chang recommends having it at 10 a.m. and during afternoon tea. Consuming coffee immediately after waking up for an energy boost is unnecessary. Instead, drinking coffee around 10 a.m. after working for some time and feeling drowsy can help enhance alertness. For those with a faster metabolism, drinking coffee at 3 or 4 p.m. is fine, as it shouldn’t affect nighttime sleep.

The European Food Safety Authority stated that a daily intake of 400 milligrams of caffeine does not pose a safety concern for healthy adults, excluding pregnant women. Similarly, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration highlighted that consuming 400 milligrams of caffeine per day (equivalent to four to five cups of coffee) generally does not cause dangerous adverse effects in healthy adults. However, it is essential to note that people may vary greatly in their sensitivity to caffeine and how quickly they metabolize it.

Dr. Chang recommends drinking three 3.38-fluid-ounce cups (a little less than half a cup) of coffee daily, each containing about 60 to 200 milligrams of caffeine.

He stated that professor Hsiu-Hsi Chen’s research team from the College of Public Health at National Taiwan University conducted a follow-up study involving more than 150,000 adults. The results revealed that those who drank coffee lived approximately 2.1 years longer than those who didn’t. Additionally, the coffee-drinking group had lower incidences of diabetes, high blood pressure, metabolic syndrome, and colorectal cancer.

In conclusion, coffee’s health benefits, especially through its polyphenols like CGA, are substantial, supporting heart health, metabolic regulation, and antioxidant defense.

Daily moderate coffee consumption reduces the risk of cardiovascular diseases and cancer-related mortality, combats depression and anxiety, and aids the body in resisting COVID-19 infection, studies have found.

However, these benefits can vary based on the coffee type, preparation method, and individual health conditions.

Enjoying coffee in moderation can thus be seen as part of a healthy lifestyle, offering more than just a moment of enjoyment but also a cup of health benefits.

Authored by Josh Stylman via The Brownstone Institute,

With Thanksgiving weekend still fresh in our memory, my gratitude centers not on the usual holiday platitudes, but on something that has become increasingly precious in our artificial age: authentic relationships – both family and lifelong friends – that deepen rather than fracture under pressure. What binds these relationships, I’ve come to realize, isn’t shared opinions or circumstances, but a shared code – an unwavering commitment to principles that transcends the shifting sands of politics and social pressure. I’m particularly grateful for my inner circle – friends I’ve known since elementary school and family members whose bonds have only strengthened through the crucible of recent years.

Like many others who spoke out against Covid tyranny, I watched what I thought were solid relationships dissolve in real time. As the owner of a local brewery and coach of my kids’ sports teams, I had been deeply embedded in my community – a “man about town” whose friendship and counsel others actively sought. Yet suddenly, the same people who had eagerly engaged with me would scurry when they saw me coming down the street. Professional networks and neighborhood connections evaporated at the mere questioning of prevailing narratives. They reacted this way because I broke orthodoxy, choosing to stand for liberal values – the very principles they claimed to champion – by rejecting arbitrary mandates and restrictions.

In this moment of testing, the difference between those who lived by a consistent code and those who simply followed social currents became starkly clear. Yet in retrospect, this winnowing feels more like clarification than loss. As surface-level relationships fell away, my core relationships – decades-long friendships and family bonds – not only endured but deepened. These trials revealed which bonds were authentic and which were merely situational.

The friendships that remained, anchored in genuine principles rather than social convenience, proved themselves infinitely more valuable than the broader network of fair-weather friends I lost.

What strikes me most about these enduring friendships is how they’ve defied the typical narrative of relationships destroyed by political divisions. As Marcus Aurelius observed, “The impediment to action advances action. What stands in the way becomes the way.” Despite taking opposite sides of the dialectic on political and cultural issues over the decades, we found ourselves united in opposition to the constitutional transgressions and rising tyranny of the past few years – the lockdowns, mandates, and systematic erosion of basic rights. This unity emerged not from political alignment but from a shared code: a commitment to first principles that transcends partisan divisions.

In these contemplative moments, I’ve found myself returning to Aurelius’s Meditations – a book I hadn’t opened since college until Joe Rogan and Marc Andreessen’s excellent conversation inspired me to revisit it. Aurelius understood that a personal code – a set of unwavering principles – was essential for navigating a world of chaos and uncertainty. The connection feels particularly apt – like my own friend group, Rogan’s platform exemplifies a code of authentic discourse in our age.

Critics, particularly on the political left, often talk about needing their “own Joe Rogan,” missing entirely what makes his show work: its genuine authenticity. Despite being historically left-leaning himself, Rogan’s willingness to engage in real-time thinking with guests across the ideological spectrum and across a broad variety of topics, his commitment to open inquiry and truth-seeking, has paradoxically led to his estrangement from traditional liberal circles – much like many of us who’ve found ourselves branded as apostates for maintaining consistent principles.

This commitment to a code of authentic discourse explains why organizations like Brownstone Institute – despite being routinely smeared as “far right” – have become a crucial platform for independent scholars, policy experts, and truth-seekers. I witnessed this firsthand at a recent Brownstone event, where, unlike most institutions that enforce ideological conformity, diverse thinkers engaged in genuine exploration of ideas without fear of orthodoxy enforcement. When attendees were asked if they considered themselves political liberals ten years ago, nearly 80% raised their hands.

These are individuals who, like my friends and me, still embrace core liberal values – free speech, open inquiry, rational debate – yet find themselves branded as right-wing or conspiracy theorists merely for questioning prevailing narratives.

What unites this diverse community is their shared recognition that the reality being presented to us is largely manufactured, as explored in “The Information Factory,” and their commitment to maintaining authentic discourse in an age of enforced consensus.

In The Wire, Omar Little, a complex character who lived by his own moral code while operating outside conventional society, famously declared, “A man got to have a code.” Though a stick-up man targeting drug dealers, Omar’s rigid adherence to his principles – never harming civilians, never lying, never breaking his word – made him more honorable than many supposedly “legitimate” characters. His unwavering dedication to these principles – even as a gangster operating outside society’s laws – resonates deeply with my experience.

Like Rogan’s commitment to open dialogue, like Brownstone’s dedication to free inquiry, like RFK Jr.’s determination to expose how pharmaceutical and agricultural interests have corrupted our public institutions: these exemplars of authentic truth-seeking mirror what I’ve found in my own circle. My friends and I may have different political views, but we share a code: a commitment to truth over comfort, to principle over party, to authentic discourse over social approval. This shared foundation has proven more valuable than any superficial agreement could be.

In these times of manufactured consensus and social control, the importance of this authentic foundation becomes even clearer. The 2012 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act, which made it legal to propagandize American citizens, merely formalized what many had long suspected. It represented the ultimate betrayal of the government’s code with its citizens – the explicit permission to manipulate rather than inform. As anyone not under the spell has come to realize – we’ve all been thoroughly “Smith-Mundt’ed.” This legal framework helps explain much of what we’ve witnessed in recent years, particularly during the pandemic – when those who proclaimed themselves champions of social justice supported policies that created new forms of segregation and devastated the very communities they claimed to protect.

This disconnect becomes even more apparent in the realm of charitable giving and social causes, where “virtue laundering” has become endemic. The absence of a genuine moral code is nowhere more evident than in our largest charitable institutions. While many charitable organizations do crucial work at the local level, there’s an unmistakable trend among large NGOs toward what a friend aptly calls the “philanthropath class.”

Consider the Clinton Foundation’s activities in Haiti, where millions in earthquake relief funds resulted in industrial parks that displaced farmers and housing projects that never materialized. Or examine the BLM Global Network Foundation, which purchased luxury properties while local chapters reported receiving minimal support. Even major environmental NGOs often partner with the world’s biggest polluters, creating an illusion of progress while fundamental problems persist.

This pattern reveals a deeper truth about the professional charitable class – many of these institutions have become purely extractive, profiting from and even amplifying the very issues they purport to solve. At the top, a professional philanthropic class collects fancy titles in their bios and flashes photos from charity galas while avoiding any genuine engagement with the problems they claim to address. Social media has democratized this performance, allowing everyone to participate in virtue theater – from black squares and Ukrainian flag avatars to awareness ribbons and cause-supporting emojis – creating an illusion of activism without the substance of real action or understanding. It’s a system entirely devoid of the moral code that once guided charitable work – the direct connection between benefactor and beneficiary, the genuine commitment to positive change rather than personal aggrandizement.

The power of a genuine code becomes most evident in contrast with these hollow institutions. While organizations and social networks fracture under pressure, I’m fortunate that my closest friendships and family bonds have only grown stronger. We’ve had fierce debates over the years, but our shared commitment to fundamental principles – to having a code – has allowed us to navigate even the most turbulent waters together. When the pandemic response threatened basic constitutional rights, when social pressure demanded conformity over conscience, these relationships proved their worth not despite our differences, but because of them.

As we navigate these complex times, the path forward emerges with striking clarity. From Marcus Aurelius to Omar Little, the lesson remains the same: a man gotta have a code. The crisis of authenticity in our discourse, the chasm between proclaimed and lived values, and the failure of global virtue-signaling all point to the same solution: a return to genuine relationships and local engagement. Our strongest bonds – those real relationships that have weathered recent storms – remind us that true virtue manifests in daily choices and personal costs, not in digital badges or distant donations.

This Thanksgiving, I found myself grateful not for the easy comforts of conformity but for those in my life who demonstrate real virtue – the kind that comes with personal cost and requires genuine conviction. The answer lies not in grand gestures or viral posts, but in the quiet dignity of living according to our principles, engaging with our immediate communities, and maintaining the courage to think independently. As both the emperor-philosopher and the fictional street warrior understood, what matters isn’t the grandeur of our station but the integrity of our code.

Returning one final time to Meditations, I’m reminded of Aurelius’s timeless challenge: “Waste no more time arguing about what a good man should be. Be one.”

Authored by Seth Barron via RealClearPolitics,

The Biden-Harris experiment in dissolving the U.S. border has wrought massive changes to American society, most of which will not be understood for years, if not decades. Since 2021, U.S. border officials have had at least 10 million “encounters” with migrants, many of whom were allowed to enter the country. There is no telling how many more aliens entered the country without encountering enforcement agents. The population of the United States may have increased by as much as 15 million people in just a few years.

This massive flow of humanity crosses multiple national borders, involves every mode of transportation, accounts for billions of dollars paid in fees to smugglers, and describes a fantastically complex economy of suffering and hope. In an effort to get a handle on this human tide, noted muckraker James O’Keefe – known for his hidden camera “gotcha” interviews with abortionists, media executives, progressive nonprofit executives, and other degenerate types – traces the migrant onrush from its source, and seeks to trace the machinery of profit and influence that is conducting it from great removes.

“Line In The Sand,” the resulting documentary, is a remarkable and humane exposition, revealing perspectives and images American audiences have mostly been prevented from seeing. O’Keefe and his intrepid team begin on the U.S. side of the Mexican border, where we witness migrants crossing the border through holes that their guides have cut in a fence that serves as a target as much as a barrier. Infrared cameras show dozens of illegal aliens streaming toward “pick-up” vehicles on the U.S. side while smugglers – presumably cartel members – a few feet away taunt O’Keefe and his group. “What if I were to run up to them right now, what would happen?” O’Keefe asks his guide. “I would highly advise you against that,” he is told, in a classic understatement.

The fact that coyotes and other human traffickers are paid to assist northbound migrants with their passage is no scandal; we all know what their motivations are and why they are doing what they do. But O’Keefe documents multiple examples of U.S. Border Patrol agents standing idly by while illegal aliens cross, virtually under their noses. “Why aren’t you doing anything?” he asks. “Have a good day, guys,” a border agent desultorily responds before driving off in the general direction of the episode. Later, a migrant stands in front of a Border Patrol truck, clearly trying to alert the agents of his intention to surrender, but is studiously ignored until O’Keefe and his team call their attention to him.

There is a kind of sad comedy in the operations of U.S. border security, and O’Keefe is not unsympathetic to the absurd position that border agents have been put in. Trained to defend the national border and to serve as the first line of defense of American soil, these agents have been recommissioned as a perverse Welcome Wagon for illegal aliens, charged with making their undocumented and uninvited entrance to the United States as commodious as possible.

Looking to get deeper into the heart of this migratory avalanche, O’Keefe went deep into Mexico, to the city of Irapuato, about 150 miles northwest of Mexico City. Irapuato is a popular railway junction where thousands of migrants climb aboard “La Bestia,” or “The Beast,” a cargo train that chugs northward toward the United States. In the film’s most remarkable footage, O’Keefe and his team join with migrants, mostly from South and Central America, to ride The Beast, also known as “el Tren del Muerto,” or the Train of Death. O’Keefe talks to the migrants without condescension, asking them their destinations and what they plan to do when they get there, and their concerns about the perilous nature of the journey. We see the film crew race to jump on a moving train and clamber on top to sit in a pile of coal; O’Keefe is shocked at how truly dangerous this small element of the trip is and sympathizes with the migrants’ difficult choices. These scenes are among the film’s most affecting, along with the crew’s random encounter with a little girl who had just crossed the border after journeying from Guatemala by herself. There is a human dimension to illegal immigration, and O’Keefe does not ignore it. 

However, there is also an impersonal dimension to this massive population transfer, and O’Keefe determinedly aims to uncover it – to put a face to the institutions and administrators that benefit from the rough injection of millions of people into American society. From government agents to bus companies to nonprofit resettlement groups to private contractors running huge, walled compounds housing thousands of children, O’Keefe doggedly tries to penetrate the mechanics of a system that resolutely hides itself behind a screen of silence, usually in the name of “safety” and “privacy.”

Some of the film’s more comical moments pertain to these segments, such as when the team follows some just-arrived Chinese migrants in San Diego to an employment agency, where other Chinese aliens, already in the country for several months, complain that it’s much harder to live in the United States than they had imagined. O’Keefe tries to sniff out a connection between the owner of the agency and more powerful actors, but it emerges that there really isn’t much going on; in fact, the owner asks O’Keefe if he knows of a way to apply for government grants.

Elsewhere, O’Keefe tries to get information about the operations of several huge residential centers for unaccompanied minors and tries to spin their refusal to give him access to the centers or submit to interviews as evidence of the existence of vast, government-funded child sex trafficking networks. But it seems more likely, though no less troubling, that the open borders policy of the last four years has created a tremendous humanitarian crisis of alien children roaming the continent by themselves, and the government is probably trying to keep them from becoming prey to sex traffickers while they sort out where to send them. Though O’Keefe does not uncover a salacious network of child predators, his vigorous pursuit of the truth does reveal the existence of a large, shadowy, government-funded, and lucrative system of child “welfare.”

So, “Line In The Sand” is correct in the larger sense that billions of dollars are being spent managing this human flow, and many people are getting rich off of it. The last thing these parasitical administrators of the nonprofit industrial complex want is for the border to close. O’Keefe does a great job of capturing in real time the corruption of a local New York City nonprofit called La Jornada, whose leader, Pedro Rodriguez, evidently perpetrates fraud, demanding fees for services that the city provides for free. O’Keefe also sends a Spanish-speaking reporter undercover into the Roosevelt Hotel, New York City’s main processing center for newly-arrived migrants, which offers him free housing, medical care, and even airplane tickets, even though the reporter explains that he has no identification of any sort. How, O’Keefe asks, in our post 9/11 security-obsessed era, are we to make sense of a system that admits millions of unvetted foreigners into the country, and then offers to fly them anywhere they care to go?

“Line In The Sand” is rough in parts, but intentionally so. Its subject is so sprawling and tangled that a neat and clean representation would be a lie. Even with a nine-figure budget – which this film assuredly did not have – a documentary about the border and the 30 million-footed human swarm that has crossed it would be messy and incomplete. But James O’Keefe and his small team have done something remarkable. They have taken on the decade’s biggest story, given it form, and preserved the humanity of its subjects. It is worth watching.

Seth Barron is a writer in New York and author of the forthcoming “Weaponized from Humanix.”

Authored by Jay Solomon via The FP.com,

The ‘Axis of Upheaval‘ is on the march—and the U.S. must figure out how to respond.

If it feels like the world is on fire right now, that’s because it is. From Ukraine to Syria to the Korean Peninsula, a widening array of conflicts is raising questions among defense experts: Is it 1914 again? 1939? Has World War III already started and we’re just now figuring it out?

For retired Lieutenant General H.R. McMaster, who served as Donald Trump’s second national security adviser from 2017–2018, the answer is clear.

“I think we’re on the cusp of a world war,” McMaster told The Free Press. “There’s an economic war going on. There are real wars going on in Europe and across the Middle East, and there’s a looming war in the Pacific. And I think the only way to prevent these wars from cascading further is to convince these adversaries they can’t accomplish their objectives through the use of force.”

That won’t be easy. Consider the facts:

• In Ukraine, thousands of North Korean soldiers have recently joined Russian ground troops to bolster President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of the country. Meanwhile, Russia has opened up a new front in the war by entering the northeast Kharkiv region, as it continues to assault Ukraine’s cities and block its ports.

• A U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Lebanon that forced terror group Hezbollah to retreat from Israel’s northern border is showing signs of unraveling. Meanwhile, the Jewish state is still fighting a war in the Gaza Strip, where around 60 Israeli and U.S. hostages remain. And last month, Israel’s air force destroyed much of Iran’s air defense systems, leaving Tehran’s nuclear facilities exposed to future attacks.

• Rebels in Syria have recently seized key areas of the country that had been controlled for years by dictator Bashar al-Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers. Now that these insurgents have taken Aleppo, they are vowing to march on Damascus.

• In the Baltic Sea, investigators suspect a Chinese ship of sabotaging critical underwater data cables that linked NATO states. Concerns about CCP aggression are mounting amid an emerging consensus in Washington that China would defeat the U.S. in a Pacific war, largely due to Beijing’s naval superiority.

• And on Tuesday, South Korea’s president briefly declared martial law, alleging he needed to fend off a North Korean–backed coup led by the opposition party. Massive protests caused him to back down, and he is now facing impeachment proceedings.

These wars, rebellions, and spy tales may appear disconnected. But in reality, they all point to a widening global conflict that is pitting the U.S. and its allies against China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea—nations all fixated on toppling the West. Strategists have even come up with catchy nicknames for this anti-American coalition, dubbing the bloc the “Axis of Aggressors” or the “Axis of Upheaval.”

Philip Zelikow, who served as executive director of the 9/11 Commission and counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from 2005 to 2007, is among those who think these conflicts are related. “I think there is a serious possibility of what I call worldwide warfare”—meaning a world war that is not as coordinated as past global conflagrations. “It’s not hard to see one of these conflicts crossing over into another.”

As Trump prepares to enter office next month, his primary foreign policy task should be to prevent an actual full-blown World War III, sources told The Free Press—or to stop it from metastasizing if it’s already here.

To do this, the president-elect will have to fortify alliances with NATO, South Korea, and Japan—partnerships Trump has already shown he’s skeptical of. And he will need to stare down a number of American adversaries, including Putin, Chinese president Xi Jinping, and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un—a despot for whom Trump has expressed both scorn and admiration.

At the same time, Trump benefits from his willingness to break from past U.S. policies and institutions that have helped foment these current conflicts. This includes a defense industry that doesn’t produce the right weapons to compete with China or enough munitions to arm Ukraine. Defense strategists in previous U.S. administrations have been blind to the Axis of Aggressors’ moves to expand their global power, sources told me—placing too much faith in global institutions, such as the United Nations, that were incapable of checking them.

Trump, with his nontraditional advisers such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, could potentially revolutionize the way the U.S. builds and projects power, sources told me. SpaceX CEO Musk, in particular, could marry America’s military establishment with Silicon Valley’s start-up culture to produce, at scale, the types of smart airplanes, drones, and submarines needed to deter Washington’s enemies, they said.

But Trump’s desire to shake up Washington and dismantle many of its national security institutions comes with enormous risk. The disruption of the Pentagon, State Department, and FBI could make the U.S. and its allies more vulnerable if these institutions become inoperable or less efficient, current and former officials told The Free Press.

“What he’s gonna need is some agenda to bring the world back together after he pulls things apart,” said David Asher, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, who oversaw U.S. government operations against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran in the George W. Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations.

The threat of a widening global conflict is being driven by factors reminiscent of events before the start of World War I, sources told me. This includes the breakdown in alliances and trading systems and the arrival of disruptive technologies like airplanes, telephones, and mechanized weapons. Today, there is no longer a consensus that free trade will bring countries closer together and forestall future wars. And the Covid-19 pandemic revealed the dangers of reliance on China for medical supplies. Trump’s threats to slap high tariffs on China and other countries also raise the specter of greater conflict.

“What you learn when you study economic history is that long cycles do end and when they do, they end with war,” said Asher, who’s worked on Wall Street and said he has recently briefed financial institutions on the threat of a global conflict.

Both McMaster and Zelikow said that the Syrian civil war that started nearly 15 years ago should have been a major wake-up call to the U.S., Europe, and NATO. The Obama administration tried to oust al-Assad through diplomacy and talks that included Russia and Iran, the strongman’s primary patrons. But then the U.S. and Europe were blindsided in 2015 when Moscow and Tehran propped up al-Assad with both air and ground troops.

“We started talking about great power rivalry and all of that, but we didn’t really do anything to arrest these trends,” said Zelikow, who’s now a senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

This Syrian playbook can now be seen in Ukraine. Iran, North Korea, and China have all been supplying weaponry or technologies to Russia, while Iranian-backed Houthi fighters are now reported to be on the Ukrainian battlefield alongside North Korean troops.

The war in the Middle East, sparked by Hamas’s invasion of Israel on October 7, 2023, has also attracted this broader axis. The Houthis, in support of Hamas, have been attacking international ships in a critical transit strait of the Red Sea. And they’ve been getting guidance from both Tehran and Moscow, according to current and former U.S. officials.

On the north side of the strait, an Iranian general is “directing the Houthis using Russian intelligence,” McMaster told The Free Press. On the south side, “you have an Iranian surveillance ship. And you have a Chinese [naval] port, you know? I mean, that’s not by mistake.”

How will the Trump administration confront this emboldened axis? A significant divide among foreign policy strategists may prove difficult to bridge. In one corner are hawks and traditional Republican conservatives—such as incoming National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, Secretary of State nominee Marco Rubio, and UN Ambassador designee Elise Stefanik—who have called for a muscular defense of Pax Americana. They’re expected to press Trump to continue arming Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan, and even amp up our military support to preserve the Western order.

On the opposing side is an isolationist wing reflected in the public musings of Trump’s eldest son, Don Jr., who tweeted on November 17 about the Biden administration’s decision to provide long-range missiles to Ukraine:

The Military Industrial Complex seems to want to make sure they get World War 3 going before my father has a chance to create peace and save lives. Gotta lock in those $Trillions. Life be damned!!! Imbeciles!

Trump’s vice president J.D. Vance, and his advisers, including Tucker Carlson to Tulsi Gabbard, also believe U.S. military overreach led to catastrophic U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and needless Western provocations of Putin that sparked his invasion of Ukraine. They argue that stepping back, rather than expanding, is the key to global peace.

Some Trump confidantes told The Free Press they’ve been studying U.S. policies that led up to the past two world worlds as guidance for today. They have concluded that Washington was too lenient on Hitler’s Germany leading into World War II, but too committed to European allies in the early 1900s ahead of World War I. And they believe Trump will need to strike a balance between these two postures.

“I think you have to learn the lessons of both wars,” Peter Thiel, the tech investor and close Trump ally, told The Free Press last month. “You can’t have excessive appeasement, and you also can’t go sleepwalking into Armageddon. In a way, they’re opposite lessons.”

*    *    * 

Jay Solomon is an investigative reporter for The Free Press and author of The Iran Wars. Follow him on X at @FPJaySolomon and read his piece, “Inside the Battle over Trump’s Foreign Policy.”

By Jack Phillips of The Epoch Times

Mexican security forces said on Dec. 4 that they had made the largest fentanyl seizure in the country’s history, impounding 1,100 kilograms (1.2 tons) of the synthetic opioid in the state of Sinaloa.

Mexico’s top security official, Omar García Harfuch, said in a statement that more than a ton of fentanyl was seized by officials in Sinaloa state. Several guns were also seized, and two men were arrested, he said.

“This is an investigation that has been going on for a long time, and yesterday, it gave these results,” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said at a press conference on Dec. 4, referring to the fentanyl seizures.

Violence has worsened recently in Sinaloa, where factions of the Sinaloa Cartel have been engaged in bitter fighting that flared after the capture of kingpin Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada in July.

“These actions will continue until the violence in the state of Sinaloa decreases,” Harfuch said.

Sinaloa is home to the powerful drug cartel that bears the same name and was formerly headed by longtime drug lord Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, who is currently incarcerated at the ADX Florence federal prison in Colorado.

Security forces found the fentanyl at two properties in the municipality of Ahome after intelligence work and tip-offs from the public led them to investigate there.

In one building, law enforcement found 800 kilograms (1,763 pounds) of fentanyl, some precursor chemicals, and four vehicles. In the other, they discovered 11 packages totaling about 300 kg (660 pounds) of fentanyl, as well as precursors, scales, and industrial mixers.

Former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who handed over power to Sheinbaum in October, repeatedly denied that Mexico was a center for the production of fentanyl despite significant evidence to the contrary.

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump recently threatened to levy a 25 percent tariff against Mexico and Canada if either country didn’t do enough to curb illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking into the United States.

His warning prompted a phone conversation with Sheinbaum, with the Mexican president later saying that caravans of migrants will be stopped before they reach the U.S.–Mexico border. However, she denied Trump’s claim last week that the Mexican border was closed down.

This week, activists and a Mexican agency said a migrant caravan heading north was dissolved. The Mexican National Migration Institute denied claims that the agency used deceptive tactics and said it had not received “any complaints” from members of the caravan.

Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with Trump at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Palm Beach, Florida, before several top Canadian officials assured reporters that the country would improve its border security with the United States.

Continue reading at the Epoch Times