Tariffs on Mexico: A Battle Against the Cartels
The tariffs imposed on Mexico by President Donald Trump are fundamentally different from those placed on Canada. While the tariffs on Canada are intended to push the country away from its far-left policies and toward a more nationalist, self-sufficient stance, the reasoning behind tariffs on Mexico is entirely separate. The primary motivation for tariffs on Mexico is the increasing power and control of the country's government and economy by drug cartels.
The Drug Cartels: A Threat to National Security
Mexico's cartels have grown so powerful that they effectively control vast portions of the country, including government officials, law enforcement, and major industries. The Mexican government, rather than being a sovereign authority, has become a mouthpiece for cartel interests. The President of Mexico, along with many other high-ranking officials, is owned by the cartels and serves their interests rather than those of the Mexican people. The level of corruption is so deep that it is no longer a matter of simply addressing crime—it is a national security threat that extends into the United States.
Trump’s Response: Military Action and Economic Pressure
In response, President Trump has taken a hardline stance, closing down sections of the U.S.-Mexico border and deploying the military to stem the tide of drugs, human trafficking, and illicit money flows. Tariffs on Mexican imports serve as an additional measure to pressure the Mexican government into taking action against the cartels—or, at the very least, making it clear that the United States will not tolerate the continued spread of cartel influence across the border.
The Necessity of U.S. Military Intervention
The Mexican cartels have reached a level of organization and firepower that rivals some national militaries. The only entity capable of effectively dismantling them is the U.S. military. While local and federal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. fight cartel-related crime, the scale of the problem demands a larger and more forceful intervention. Trump’s administration is making it clear that no option is off the table when it comes to confronting the cartels head-on.
Anticipated Blowback: Violence on U.S. Soil
However, this fight will not be without consequences. Due to the previous administration's negligence, the cartels have already established extensive networks within the U.S., ensuring that any significant crackdown will result in violent retaliation. As the U.S. military and law enforcement agencies take the battle to the cartels, American citizens may experience an uptick in cartel-driven violence.
The Root of the Problem: Domestic Demand for Drugs
While aggressive tactics can weaken the cartels, they are ultimately fueled by the demand for drugs within the United States. As long as Americans continue to seek out illicit narcotics, cartels will find a way to operate. While the complete eradication of cartels may not be feasible, aggressive action can significantly diminish their power. The United States may never fully eliminate the cartel problem, but by mowing the lawn—continuously cutting down their influence and operations—we can keep them in check and protect national security.
The tariffs on Mexico are not about shifting political ideology, as they are with Canada. They are a strategic move in an ongoing battle to bring the cartels to heel, secure the U.S. border, and protect American lives from the devastating consequences of cartel-driven crime. Through military intervention, economic pressure, and a sustained fight against cartel influence, the U.S. is making it clear that it will not tolerate a lawless, cartel-controlled Mexico.
https://m.primal.net/ONbU.webp Canada First: How Trump is Forcing Canada to Stand on Its Own
Trump’s Tariffs: A Push Toward Canadian Nationalism
President Donald Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Canada is not simply about trade disputes—it is part of a broader strategy to push Canada from its far-left policies toward a more nationalist, self-sufficient stance. Trump is effectively trying to encourage Canada to adopt a "Canada First" approach, urging its people and government to prioritize national interests over globalist ideals.
Canada’s Border Crisis: The Fentanyl Problem
One of the major challenges Canada faces is the security of its southern border. The influx of fentanyl and other illicit drugs crossing from the United States is a crisis that has yet to be adequately addressed. A stronger border policy and enhanced enforcement measures are necessary to curb this dangerous flow. President Trump’s tough stance on border security serves as a model for Canada to follow, pushing the Canadian government to take the crisis more seriously.
A Military in Decline
Another critical issue is Canada’s underfunded and underdeveloped military. While Canada has long relied on the protective umbrella of the United States, Trump’s approach signals that it’s time for Canada to take greater responsibility for its own defense. A stronger military presence would not only bolster Canada’s sovereignty but also serve as a deterrent against global threats.
A Hub for Terrorist Money Laundering
Canada has become a major hub for terrorist money laundering, a problem that has been widely ignored due to weak financial oversight. Its lenient banking and real estate sectors have made it a prime location for illicit funds to be moved undetected. Without stronger measures to crack down on financial crime, Canada risks becoming a key enabler of global terrorism. President Trump’s pressure aims to force Canada to implement stricter regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
Wasted Natural Resources in the Name of Climate Goals
Canada is one of the richest nations in terms of natural resources, yet it is failing to capitalize on its potential due to stringent climate policies. Its vast oil reserves, mining capabilities, and timber industry are underutilized as the government prioritizes unrealistic environmental goals over economic growth. Trump’s policies challenge Canada to reevaluate its stance and harness its natural wealth to ensure national prosperity.
Dependence on the United States: A Need for Economic Independence
Canada’s economy is deeply intertwined with the United States, but this dependence creates vulnerabilities. Trump’s tariffs serve as a wake-up call for Canada to diversify its economy and become more self-sufficient. By focusing on domestic production, strengthening its industries, and reducing reliance on U.S. imports, Canada can establish itself as an independent economic powerhouse rather than a subordinate trading partner.
Canada First: A New Direction
President Trump’s actions may seem confrontational, but they ultimately serve to push Canada toward a more nationalist and independent path. A "Canada First" movement would strengthen national security, boost the economy, and position Canada as a sovereign, self-reliant nation. If Canada takes this moment seriously, it has the opportunity to shift from its current trajectory and embrace a future where it prioritizes its own people, industries, and security above all else.
Violence: The Language of the Middle East
Understanding Cultural Differences Between the Middle East and the United States
The Middle East and the United States operate under fundamentally different cultural paradigms, particularly when it comes to governance, identity, and conflict resolution. While the United States is built upon a national identity that unites diverse backgrounds under the banner of American identity, the Middle East is predominantly structured around tribal affiliations. This stark difference explains why violence has remained the prevailing method of maintaining order and governance in the region.
The American Identity: Unity in Diversity
In the United States, individuals come from various ethnic, religious, and cultural backgrounds, yet they are united by the shared concept of being American. This identity is not based on tribal affiliation but on a common national ethos—liberty, democracy, and the rule of law. While internal political and social divisions exist, they are generally addressed through democratic processes, legal institutions, and a shared national framework that prioritizes the rights of the individual over the collective.
The Middle East: A Tribal Society
Conversely, the Middle East has long been structured around tribalism, where loyalty to family, clan, and sect takes precedence over national identity. This tribal mindset creates a fractured political landscape where alliances shift, and rivalries often result in conflict. Unlike in the United States, where a strong national identity acts as a unifying force, Middle Eastern societies are inherently divided, with competition for power among various factions.
Why Strongmen Rule the Middle East
Due to the deeply entrenched tribal divisions, the only forms of governance capable of maintaining order in the Middle East have historically been monarchies or authoritarian regimes. In a society where tribes naturally vie for dominance, a singular, forceful leader—a king or a dictator—is often the only power capable of keeping warring factions in check. These rulers act as arbiters of stability, using violence or the threat of violence to suppress internal disputes and external threats.
This is why democratic experiments in the Middle East have often failed. Without a strong central authority, tribal and sectarian conflicts resurface, plunging nations into chaos. Examples like Iraq, Libya, and Syria demonstrate how the removal of an authoritarian leader can create a power vacuum, leading to prolonged civil wars as different factions struggle for supremacy.
The Russian Parallel: A Tsarist Tradition
A similar pattern can be observed in Russia, a nation historically composed of multiple ethnic tribes and diverse regional identities. To maintain unity, Russia has consistently relied on strong central figures, from the Tsars to Soviet rulers, to modern-day leaders like Vladimir Putin. Russian governance has always depended on the presence of a strongman who can impose order upon a vast and diverse empire. Without such leadership, fragmentation and internal conflict become inevitable.
Violence as the Language of Stability
In the Middle East, violence is not just a tool of oppression—it is the mechanism through which order is maintained. The use of force is often necessary to prevent tribal rivalries from spiraling into full-scale wars. Western ideals of negotiation and democracy frequently fail in the region because they do not align with the historical and cultural context of Middle Eastern societies. In a system where power is contested among deeply entrenched factions, only the strongest can rule.
Conclusion: The Reality of Governance in the Middle East
The idea that democracy can flourish in the Middle East without a unifying identity or a powerful central authority is a Western misconception. Unlike the United States, where national identity transcends ethnic divisions, the Middle East remains deeply tribal. This reality necessitates strong leadership—whether in the form of a monarch or a dictator—to maintain stability. Violence, while often viewed negatively in the West, remains the primary language through which order is upheld in the Middle East. Understanding these differences is crucial for any foreign policy approach that seeks to engage with the region effectively.
The Case for Pragmatic Nationalism Over Isolationism
Why the U.S. Must Engage Strategically, Not Withdraw
In an increasingly unstable world, the United States cannot afford to adopt a policy of isolationism. While some argue that withdrawing from global affairs would save resources and prevent unnecessary conflicts, the reality is that such a strategy would embolden adversaries, destabilize key regions, and put American national security at serious risk. Instead, the U.S. must adopt a foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism—one that prioritizes maintaining strong relations with allies, avoids subsidizing hostile nations, and ensures that any foreign intervention serves direct U.S. interests or those of our closest partners.
The Naïve Belief That Wars Would End
Some believe that if the United States withdraws from the world, wars would suddenly stop. This is a naïve and dangerous assumption. Wars have been a part of the human condition since the beginning of time. The United States did not create war; conflict has existed since the dawn of civilization. If America retreats from the global stage, wars will not cease—they will simply shift to our doorstep. The enemies we ignore abroad will eventually bring the fight to our shores, and by then, we will have lost the strategic advantage. America will not be left alone; it will be left vulnerable.
The Dangers of Isolationism and Middle East Destabilization
Isolationism, if implemented, would allow for the rapid deterioration of the Middle East. Without U.S. involvement, Iran would have a free hand to expand its influence and aggressively pursue nuclear weapons, which would trigger an arms race in the region. Iran ultimately wants nuclear weapons to tip missiles capable of striking American cities. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. If Iran successfully acquires nuclear weapons, it would not only destabilize the Middle East but also pose a direct existential threat to the American homeland. The idea that the U.S. can ignore Iran’s ambitions and remain safe is a dangerous delusion.
This power shift would not only weaken American influence but also empower authoritarian regimes that oppose Western values. Turkey, seeing an opportunity, could pursue expansionist ambitions, further increasing instability and heightening tensions between rival factions. Wars would inevitably break out across the region, leading to global economic repercussions, increased terror networks, and the eventual spillover of violence into the United States itself.
Backing Israel: A Strategic Necessity
Israel serves as a proxy army for the United States, allowing the United States to strike its adversaries through indirect means. Israel conducts military operations that the U.S. cannot engage in directly, providing Washington with plausible deniability while still advancing strategic objectives. By backing Israel, the United States can exert power in the region without direct involvement, leveraging Israel’s military strength to neutralize threats posed by Iran, terrorist organizations, and other hostile actors.
Economic Consequences and Oil Prices
One of the most immediate effects of a destabilized Middle East would be a sharp increase in oil prices. The U.S. and its allies depend on a stable energy market, and any major conflict in the region could send crude prices soaring. This would not only impact American consumers at the pump but also drive up the costs of goods, manufacturing, and transportation. An unstable oil market could trigger a global recession, making life more difficult for American families while benefiting adversarial economies like Russia, which thrives on high oil prices.
Higher oil prices also translate to weakened economic competitiveness for U.S. businesses. Without stable energy sources, the cost of production skyrockets, leading to mass layoffs, inflation, and declining economic growth, putting every American’s financial security at risk.
The Rise of Terrorism and Direct Threats to America
Without U.S. presence in the Middle East, terrorist organizations would have the freedom to regroup and expand their operations. Countries that once relied on U.S. intelligence and military assistance to suppress these groups would be overwhelmed, allowing radical Islamist factions to take over entire regions. This would create new safe havens for extremists to train and plan attacks against the West.
With no force actively countering terrorism in the Middle East, the threat to American citizens would increase exponentially. Terrorist networks would be free to export violence directly to the U.S., leading to mass casualties and further undermining national security. Isolationism would effectively invite these dangers to our doorstep. Without proactive engagement, America would become a primary target, and its citizens would pay the price in blood.
China’s Growing Ambitions and Global Power Shift
A withdrawal from the Middle East would not only embolden Iran and Russia but also China. If the U.S. allows its allies to collapse in the Middle East and does the same in the Asia-Pacific, it would send a signal of weakness. China would take advantage of this perceived American retreat by expanding its influence, threatening U.S. allies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.
Beijing would become the dominant superpower, exerting control over global trade, the South China Sea, and critical supply chains. The U.S. economy would suffer as China dictates global trade norms and technology standards, making America increasingly dependent on an adversary.
The American Bullseye
Once American global influence is diminished, every American citizen—at home and abroad—becomes a target. Adversaries would no longer fear U.S. retaliation, making terrorist attacks and direct military conflicts more likely. The world’s worst regimes would see America as weak and fractured, and they would exploit that weakness to destroy American interests. Isolationism does not create peace; it creates a vacuum that enemies are eager to fill, and it would put a bullseye on the back of every American citizen.
A More Pragmatic Approach: Strategic Engagement and Economic Returns
The alternative to isolationism is a Pragmatic Nationalist foreign policy—one that ensures the U.S. only intervenes when it benefits our direct interests or those of our allies. This policy requires maintaining strong alliances, deterring adversaries, and ensuring that any war the U.S. is forced to fight results in economic returns.
If America is drawn into conflict, it should no longer bear the costs alone. The resources of enemy nations should be seized as reparations to pay for U.S. military efforts. No more spending trillions rebuilding nations that attacked us—our resources should go to American veterans, their families, and rebuilding American infrastructure instead. America’s military might should serve the interests of its people, not the financial stability of foreign adversaries.
Conclusion: Strength Through Engagement, Not Isolation
The world is not a safe place, and retreating into isolationism would only make it more dangerous. A foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism ensures that the U.S. engages strategically, not recklessly. By maintaining alliances, preventing the rise of hostile powers, and securing economic benefits from any necessary conflicts, America can remain the dominant global force and safeguard its citizens.
Isolationism is a fantasy that leads to chaos. A strong, engaged America is the only way to ensure global stability and national security. Anything less is surrendering the future of the nation and putting every American in direct danger.
The Case for Pragmatic Nationalism Over Isolationism
Why the U.S. Must Engage Strategically, Not Withdraw
In an increasingly unstable world, the United States cannot afford to adopt a policy of isolationism. While some argue that withdrawing from global affairs would save resources and prevent unnecessary conflicts, the reality is that such a strategy would embolden adversaries, destabilize key regions, and put American national security at serious risk. Instead, the U.S. must adopt a foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism—one that prioritizes maintaining strong relations with allies, avoids subsidizing hostile nations, and ensures that any foreign intervention serves direct U.S. interests or those of our closest partners.
The Naïve Belief That Wars Would End
Some believe that if the United States withdraws from the world, wars would suddenly stop. This is a naïve and dangerous assumption. Wars have been a part of the human condition since the beginning of time. The United States did not create war; conflict has existed since the dawn of civilization. If America retreats from the global stage, wars will not cease—they will simply shift to our doorstep. The enemies we ignore abroad will eventually bring the fight to our shores, and by then, we will have lost the strategic advantage. America will not be left alone; it will be left vulnerable.
The Dangers of Isolationism and Middle East Destabilization
Isolationism, if implemented, would allow for the rapid deterioration of the Middle East. Without U.S. involvement, Iran would have a free hand to expand its influence and aggressively pursue nuclear weapons, which would trigger an arms race in the region. Iran ultimately wants nuclear weapons to tip missiles capable of striking American cities. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. The regime in Tehran sees nuclear capability as a means of deterring the U.S. while expanding its influence unchecked. If Iran successfully acquires nuclear weapons, it would not only destabilize the Middle East but also pose a direct existential threat to the American homeland. The idea that the U.S. can ignore Iran’s ambitions and remain safe is a dangerous delusion.
This power shift would not only weaken American influence but also empower authoritarian regimes that oppose Western values. Turkey, seeing an opportunity, could pursue expansionist ambitions, further increasing instability and heightening tensions between rival factions. Wars would inevitably break out across the region, leading to global economic repercussions, increased terror networks, and the eventual spillover of violence into the United States itself.
Backing Israel: A Strategic Necessity
Israel serves as a proxy army for the United States, allowing the United States to strike its adversaries through indirect means. Israel conducts military operations that the U.S. cannot engage in directly, providing Washington with plausible deniability while still advancing strategic objectives. By backing Israel, the United States can exert power in the region without direct involvement, leveraging Israel’s military strength to neutralize threats posed by Iran, terrorist organizations, and other hostile actors.
Economic Consequences and Oil Prices
One of the most immediate effects of a destabilized Middle East would be a sharp increase in oil prices. The U.S. and its allies depend on a stable energy market, and any major conflict in the region could send crude prices soaring. This would not only impact American consumers at the pump but also drive up the costs of goods, manufacturing, and transportation. An unstable oil market could trigger a global recession, making life more difficult for American families while benefiting adversarial economies like Russia, which thrives on high oil prices.
Higher oil prices also translate to weakened economic competitiveness for U.S. businesses. Without stable energy sources, the cost of production skyrockets, leading to mass layoffs, inflation, and declining economic growth, putting every American’s financial security at risk.
The Rise of Terrorism and Direct Threats to America
Without U.S. presence in the Middle East, terrorist organizations would have the freedom to regroup and expand their operations. Countries that once relied on U.S. intelligence and military assistance to suppress these groups would be overwhelmed, allowing radical Islamist factions to take over entire regions. This would create new safe havens for extremists to train and plan attacks against the West.
With no force actively countering terrorism in the Middle East, the threat to American citizens would increase exponentially. Terrorist networks would be free to export violence directly to the U.S., leading to mass casualties and further undermining national security. Isolationism would effectively invite these dangers to our doorstep. Without proactive engagement, America would become a primary target, and its citizens would pay the price in blood.
China’s Growing Ambitions and Global Power Shift
A withdrawal from the Middle East would not only embolden Iran and Russia but also China. If the U.S. allows its allies to collapse in the Middle East and does the same in the Asia-Pacific, it would send a signal of weakness. China would take advantage of this perceived American retreat by expanding its influence, threatening U.S. allies like Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea.
Beijing would become the dominant superpower, exerting control over global trade, the South China Sea, and critical supply chains. The U.S. economy would suffer as China dictates global trade norms and technology standards, making America increasingly dependent on an adversary.
The American Bullseye
Once American global influence is diminished, every American citizen—at home and abroad—becomes a target. Adversaries would no longer fear U.S. retaliation, making terrorist attacks and direct military conflicts more likely. The world’s worst regimes would see America as weak and fractured, and they would exploit that weakness to destroy American interests. Isolationism does not create peace; it creates a vacuum that enemies are eager to fill, and it would put a bullseye on the back of every American citizen.
A More Pragmatic Approach: Strategic Engagement and Economic Returns
The alternative to isolationism is a Pragmatic Nationalist foreign policy—one that ensures the U.S. only intervenes when it benefits our direct interests or those of our allies. This policy requires maintaining strong alliances, deterring adversaries, and ensuring that any war the U.S. is forced to fight results in economic returns.
If America is drawn into conflict, it should no longer bear the costs alone. The resources of enemy nations should be seized as reparations to pay for U.S. military efforts. No more spending trillions rebuilding nations that attacked us—our resources should go to American veterans, their families, and rebuilding American infrastructure instead. America’s military might should serve the interests of its people, not the financial stability of foreign adversaries.
Conclusion: Strength Through Engagement, Not Isolation
The world is not a safe place, and retreating into isolationism would only make it more dangerous. A foreign policy of Pragmatic Nationalism ensures that the U.S. engages strategically, not recklessly. By maintaining alliances, preventing the rise of hostile powers, and securing economic benefits from any necessary conflicts, America can remain the dominant global force and safeguard its citizens.
Isolationism is a fantasy that leads to chaos. A strong, engaged America is the only way to ensure global stability and national security. Anything less is surrendering the future of the nation and putting every American in direct danger.
The Coming Lebanon Civil War: Iran’s Proxy War and Global Implications
https://m.primal.net/ONWz.webp
The Middle East is once again on the brink of war, and at the heart of the conflict is Iran’s relentless push to fund Hezbollah despite economic sanctions. Lebanon is on the verge of a civil war that will fragment the country, drawing in Israel and the United States. The Iranian regime is the root cause of instability in the region, and until it is removed, peace will remain an illusion.
Iran’s Role in Destabilizing Lebanon
Iran is looking for ways to keep Hezbollah financially viable as sanctions cripple its economy. Hezbollah’s growing control in Lebanon is forcing the country into a violent confrontation that will fracture it along sectarian lines. This war will not be contained; it will drag Israel into direct military engagement, with the United States supporting Israel as its proxy force. The reality is that the United States will likely supply weapons and intelligence to ensure Israel can eliminate Hezbollah and push back against Iranian influence.
The ultimate solution for Middle Eastern stability is the removal of the Iranian regime. A regime change, likely by fomenting an internal uprising, could result in reinstating the Shah or another pro-Western leadership. A new power dynamic, where Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia work together, would stabilize the region and end Iran’s use of militant proxies.
The Syrian Factor and Turkey’s Role
Syria’s leadership is now composed of former ISIS elements, making them a dangerous wildcard. These groups, backed by Turkey, are assets used to push Ankara’s influence further into the Middle East. Turkey, a supposed NATO ally, is acting in direct opposition to Western interests by backing Islamist forces. This instability adds another layer of complexity to the regional war, where alliances are shifting and old enemies are gaining new ground.
The Religious War and the Islamist Threat
At its core, this is not just a political struggle but a religious war. Islamist factions have a clear goal: genocide against the Jewish people, control of Jerusalem, and eventual conquest over Christians. This ideological battle will not end unless confronted with overwhelming force. The United States and its allies must recognize that ignoring the problem will only allow it to grow more dangerous.
America’s Strategic Role and Return on Investment
The United States has repeatedly fought wars in the Middle East, expending blood and treasure, only to rebuild the very countries that forced it into conflict. This cycle of destruction and reconstruction must end. If the U.S. is drawn into another war, it must ensure a return on investment—taking control of resources and using the revenue to pay for the wars rather than funding reconstruction efforts for hostile states. This revenue should be redirected to support American veterans and their families, ensuring that sacrifices made in war serve the nation’s long-term interests.
The Global Stakes: Middle East and Beyond
While the United States must manage the Middle East, its strategic focus must pivot toward Asia, where China is rising as the primary global threat. President Xi has ordered his military to prepare for war with the United States by 2027. America cannot afford to be bogged down in endless Middle Eastern conflicts when the true challenge lies in countering China’s expansion.
The Fate of Western Civilization
The survival of Western civilization rests solely on the United States. Without American leadership, Europe would succumb to leftist, communist-driven policies that echo Hitler’s vision of a European superstate. The European Union has become a bureaucratic monster that suppresses national identity and individual sovereignty. If America does not stand firm, the global order will collapse into chaos.
Conclusion: War is Coming
The United States does not want war, but war may want us. Whether it begins in the Middle East or a full-scale confrontation with China, the world is heading toward another major conflict. Plato once said, “Only the dead have seen the end of war.” It is time for the United States to prepare for the inevitable and ensure that any war it fights serves its national interest first and foremost.
https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1886142701361393829
Get in here now.
Talking about Trump Tariffs and the War against BRICs
https://x.com/stealthmedical1/status/1886142701361393829
Get in here now.
The Jalisco New Generation Cartel: A Powerful and Expanding Criminal Empire
The Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) is one of the most powerful and dangerous criminal organizations in the Western Hemisphere. Known for its military-style operations, extreme violence, and global drug trafficking network, the cartel has rapidly expanded over the past decade. But just how large is CJNG? Understanding the scale of its operations and membership is crucial to assessing the threat it poses.
Estimating the Size of CJNG
Due to the secretive nature of criminal organizations, obtaining precise numbers regarding cartel membership is challenging. However, various studies provide insights into the scale of CJNG’s influence:
Overall Cartel Membership in Mexico: A 2022 study published in Science estimated that Mexican cartels collectively have between 160,000 and 185,000 active members, making them the fifth-largest employer in Mexico (science.org).
CJNG’s Estimated Size: Within this framework, CJNG is estimated to represent approximately 17.9% of the total cartel membership, meaning it could have anywhere from 28,600 to 33,100 members (justiceinmexico.org). This makes it one of the most formidable criminal organizations in the country.
Leadership and Background
The leadership of CJNG is composed of highly dangerous individuals, many of whom have backgrounds in law enforcement, military, or intelligence operations, giving the cartel an edge in combat and strategy. The key figures include:
Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes ("El Mencho") – The supreme leader of CJNG, El Mencho was born in Aguililla, Michoacán. He illegally entered the U.S. in the 1980s and was involved in the drug trade before being deported. Upon returning to Mexico, he briefly worked in law enforcement before turning to cartel operations, using his knowledge of police tactics to evade capture.
Erick Valencia Salazar ("El 85") – A co-founder of CJNG and a former member of the Milenio Cartel. While there is no confirmed military or police training in his background, his strategic role within CJNG’s early expansion suggests a deep understanding of tactical cartel operations and logistics.
Martín Arzola Ortega ("El 53") – A key figure within CJNG, Arzola Ortega was responsible for overseeing cartel operations in various regions. He began his criminal career in the 1990s and played a significant role in orchestrating violent cartel rivalries. There is no publicly available evidence of formal military training.
Emilio Alejandro Pulido Saldaña ("El Tiburón") – Another early member of CJNG, he was instrumental in the cartel’s expansion and may have had connections with other criminal organizations before joining forces with El Mencho. Reports suggest he later aligned with factions of the Sinaloa Cartel.
A Vast and Complex Network
CJNG is not a monolithic structure but rather a highly organized, multi-tiered network that operates in a paramilitary fashion. The cartel's membership includes:
Core Leadership: Led by Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes ("El Mencho"), CJNG has a structured command hierarchy that controls different factions across Mexico and beyond.
Regional Commanders: These individuals oversee CJNG’s operations in key territories, managing drug production, logistics, and violent enforcement.
Foot Soldiers and Hit Squads: The cartel recruits thousands of operatives responsible for carrying out assassinations, kidnappings, and extortion schemes.
Financial and Cyber Operatives: CJNG employs skilled individuals who specialize in money laundering, cryptocurrency transactions, and cyber espionage to evade law enforcement detection.
Global Expansion and Military Capabilities
CJNG is not confined to Mexico. The cartel has expanded its reach to the United States, Europe, Asia, and South America, operating lucrative drug distribution networks. Its paramilitary forces, equipped with military-grade weapons, drones, and armored vehicles, make it one of the most well-armed criminal groups in the world.
The Growing Threat
With an estimated 30,000 members and growing, CJNG continues to pose a serious threat to Mexican national security and U.S. law enforcement. Its ability to recruit, train, and expand suggests that without decisive action, the cartel will remain one of the dominant forces in the global drug trade.
Efforts to combat CJNG require a multi-faceted approach, including military intervention, intelligence operations, financial targeting, and international cooperation. As the cartel continues to grow, tackling its influence will be a top priority for both Mexico and the United States.
Conclusion
CJNG’s size, organization, and military capabilities make it a paramilitary criminal empire rather than just a drug cartel. With an estimated 28,600 to 33,100 members, it is one of the largest and most dangerous criminal organizations in the world. Addressing this growing threat will require strategic military, intelligence, and law enforcement efforts on an international scale.
CJNG: A Terrorist Threat Requiring Full-Scale U.S. Military Intervention
The Rise of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG)
The Jalisco New Generation Cartel (Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación, or CJNG) has risen to prominence as one of the most dangerous and well-armed terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere. No longer just a drug cartel, CJNG operates as a paramilitary insurgency, using brutal violence, high-grade weaponry, and sophisticated tactics to control territory and challenge national governments.
Founded by Nemesio Oseguera Cervantes, also known as "El Mencho", CJNG has built an empire through mass executions, assassinations, and coordinated attacks on law enforcement and military personnel. The group's terroristic tactics include IED bombings, drone strikes, public massacres, and targeted killings of politicians, journalists, and security officials.
CJNG’s expansion and increasing firepower make it a national security threat, not just to Mexico, but to the United States as well. To effectively dismantle this terrorist organization, full-scale U.S. military intervention is the only viable solution.
CJNG’s Military Training and Capabilities
What separates CJNG from traditional criminal syndicates is its military training, advanced weaponry, and combat strategies that rival those of national armed forces. Unlike typical cartels that rely on brute force, CJNG operates like a terrorist insurgency, with training camps, special forces-style units, and a command structure modeled after military organizations.
CJNG’s Tactical Capabilities Include:
Elite Military Training: Many CJNG operatives are former members of GAFE (Grupo Aeromóvil de Fuerzas Especiales), Mexico’s elite special forces unit, trained in counterterrorism, jungle warfare, and urban combat.
Sophisticated Arsenal: The cartel possesses military-grade rifles, RPGs, anti-tank weapons, and even surface-to-air missiles.
Drone Warfare & Cyber Operations: CJNG utilizes weaponized drones for aerial attacks and operates on encrypted networks to evade surveillance.
Guerrilla Warfare Tactics: The group carries out IED ambushes, armored vehicle assaults, and coordinated night raids.
Propaganda and Psychological Warfare: Similar to ISIS or Al-Qaeda, CJNG uses graphic propaganda videos to instill fear and intimidate rivals and governments.
With thousands of heavily armed foot soldiers, advanced tactics, and a global financial network, CJNG has become a paramilitary terrorist organization that can no longer be treated as just another drug cartel.
Why CJNG Can’t Be Defeated Without U.S. Military Force
The Mexican government has failed to dismantle CJNG due to corruption, underfunded security forces, and a lack of military capability to match the cartel’s firepower. Despite multiple high-profile arrests and raids, CJNG remains stronger than ever.
Traditional law enforcement is insufficient. To eliminate this terrorist organization, a full-scale U.S. military intervention is necessary.
A Full-Spectrum U.S. Military Operation is Required
To neutralize CJNG, the U.S. must deploy its most elite military forces, cyber capabilities, and precision airpower. This would include:
U.S. Marine Corps – Conducting direct urban combat missions against CJNG’s strongholds.
U.S. Army Rangers & Green Berets – Specializing in counterterrorism raids and jungle warfare to hunt down cartel leadership.
SEAL Team 6 (DEVGRU) & Delta Force – Targeting high-value CJNG figures for capture or elimination.
U.S. Cyber Command & Intelligence Agencies – Disrupting CJNG’s money laundering, communications, and digital networks.
Drone Warfare & Air Strikes – Deploying MQ-9 Reaper drones, AC-130 gunships, and F-35s for tactical strikes.
Missile Strikes – Using Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles to destroy CJNG’s military compounds and drug production centers.
Urban & Jungle Warfare Strategy
CJNG operates in cities, mountains, and remote jungles, requiring a multi-theater approach. The U.S. military has extensive experience in counterinsurgency operations from wars in the Middle East and Latin America, making it uniquely qualified to wipe out CJNG through precision strikes, ground operations, and psychological warfare.
Crippling CJNG’s Financial and Political Influence
Beyond direct combat, economic and cyber warfare must be a priority. Freezing cartel assets, hacking its financial networks, and dismantling its crypto-based money laundering operations will cripple its ability to sustain operations.
The Challenges of a Military Operation in Mexico
A full-scale U.S. military campaign would face logistical and political obstacles:
Sovereignty Issues – Mexico’s government may resist direct military intervention, though it has historically accepted U.S. counterterrorism assistance.
Civilian Casualties – Urban warfare must be conducted with surgical precision to avoid unnecessary collateral damage.
Cartel Retaliation on U.S. Soil – CJNG has operatives within the U.S., making counterterrorism efforts at home equally crucial.
https://m.primal.net/ONNQ.webp
Despite these challenges, CJNG is a clear and present danger to regional stability. The U.S. has defeated terrorist organizations worldwide and must apply the same approach to eradicate CJNG before it expands further.
Conclusion: The Time for Action is Now
The Jalisco New Generation Cartel is not just a drug cartel—it is a terrorist organization that threatens North American security. Its advanced military training, financial empire, and brutality rival groups like ISIS and Al-Qaeda.
The only viable solution is a full-scale U.S. military intervention, utilizing Special Forces, drone warfare, cyber attacks, and precision air and missile strikes. By eliminating CJNG leadership, dismantling its infrastructure, and crippling its finances, the U.S. can end this terrorist threat once and for all.
The question is no longer whether CJNG needs to be stopped—it’s whether we are willing to unleash the full force of the U.S. military to eradicate them permanently.
Catastrophe Theory: Understanding Sudden Shifts in Complex Systems
https://m.primal.net/OLyC.webp
Catastrophe Theory is a branch of mathematics that explores how systems can undergo sudden, dramatic changes due to small, continuous shifts in underlying conditions. Unlike traditional models of change that assume gradual transitions, catastrophe theory provides a framework for understanding nonlinear, discontinuous shifts in diverse fields like physics, psychology, economics, and even consciousness studies.
Originally developed by French mathematician René Thom in the 1960s, catastrophe theory describes how seemingly stable systems can abruptly transition into entirely new states when they reach critical tipping points. These shifts—called bifurcations—are fundamental in understanding everything from market crashes and structural failures to political revolutions and altered states of consciousness.
How Catastrophe Theory Works
At its core, catastrophe theory deals with control variables (factors influencing a system) and behavior variables (the system’s response). While changes in control variables are often gradual, they can reach a threshold where the system suddenly shifts into an entirely new state, sometimes irreversibly.
Bifurcation and Phase Transitions
Bifurcation occurs when a system reaches a critical point where multiple stable states exist, forcing it to "choose" between different outcomes.
This can lead to phase transitions, much like water suddenly turning to ice when temperature crosses 0°C, even though cooling was gradual.
Such dynamics explain why small tensions in a political system can suddenly erupt into revolution, or why a minor economic downturn can spiral into a full-blown market collapse.
Types of Catastrophes
René Thom categorized seven fundamental types of catastrophes, each describing different ways systems can suddenly change:
Fold Catastrophe – A system shifts suddenly when a variable passes a tipping point (e.g., an overloaded bridge suddenly collapsing).
Cusp Catastrophe – A system has two possible stable states and can switch between them suddenly (e.g., a person switching between calm and panic).
Swallowtail Catastrophe – Involves more complex shifts with multiple potential outcomes (e.g., rapid changes in financial markets).
Butterfly Catastrophe – Describes systems with multiple interacting forces that can lead to unpredictable shifts.
Hyperbolic, Elliptic, and Parabolic Catastrophes – More complex models used in physics and higher-dimensional systems.
Among these, the cusp catastrophe is particularly relevant in psychology and sociology as it explains hysteresis—where a system can remain in a new state even after the initial cause of change is removed. This helps explain why post-traumatic stress remains even after danger has passed, or why political uprisings persist even after initial triggers are addressed.
Real-World Applications of Catastrophe Theory
1. Physics & Engineering
Structural Failures – Buildings, bridges, and aircraft can collapse suddenly after accumulating stress.
Phase Transitions – Matter undergoes abrupt shifts (e.g., boiling water turning to steam).
2. Biology & Medicine
Heart Attacks – Atherosclerosis builds gradually but can trigger a sudden cardiac event.
Epidemics – Disease transmission reaches a tipping point and spreads uncontrollably.
3. Psychology & Neuroscience
Sudden Mental Breakdowns – Stress builds over time but can suddenly trigger psychotic breaks.
Altered States of Consciousness – Near-death experiences or enlightenment moments can occur abruptly rather than gradually.
4. Economics & Finance
Market Crashes – Minor downturns can trigger panic, leading to a total collapse.
Consumer Behavior Shifts – Sudden brand boycotts or fads taking off overnight.
5. Social & Political Science
Revolutions and Social Movements – Societal stress can accumulate until a tipping point leads to mass uprisings.
Regime Collapses – Small changes in political pressure can lead to sudden governmental overthrows.
Catastrophe Theory and Consciousness
Beyond external events, catastrophe theory also applies to the study of consciousness. Many philosophers, neuroscientists, and systems theorists propose that consciousness is not a single stable state but a dynamic system capable of sudden phase transitions.
For example:
Sudden Realizations or "Eureka" Moments – Learning can feel gradual until a critical threshold is crossed, leading to an instant insight.
Near-Death Experiences – Consciousness can shift abruptly under extreme conditions, leading to profound changes in perception.
Meditative or Psychedelic States – Practices like deep meditation or psychedelics may push the brain toward bifurcation points, leading to altered awareness.
These ideas align with the notion that consciousness reconfigures itself through phase transitions and attractor states, influenced by both internal neural dynamics and external environmental pressures.
Why Catastrophe Theory Matters
Understanding catastrophe theory helps us predict and manage sudden shifts in various systems. Whether in engineering, economics, psychology, or social sciences, it provides crucial insights into how and why seemingly stable systems can undergo massive, irreversible changes.
With applications ranging from preventing structural collapses to forecasting political revolutions, catastrophe theory remains one of the most powerful frameworks for studying nonlinear, complex, and emergent phenomena.
As we continue to explore both consciousness and systemic changes, catastrophe theory will likely play a vital role in understanding transformation at both an individual and societal level.
Hamas-Style Tunnel Found at U.S.-Mexico Border Triggers Immediate Action from Trump
https://m.primal.net/OLvQ.webp
The discovery of a clandestine tunnel along the U.S.-Mexico border—designed with structural similarities to Hamas' underground warfare tunnels—has raised alarm in Washington, prompting former President Donald Trump to order the immediate sealing of the border. Officials believe the tunnel, which was found connecting Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, to El Paso, Texas, was primarily used for smuggling operations. However, its advanced design, including sharp 90-degree turns to evade missile strikes, has sparked concerns about evolving security threats.
The Tunnel Discovery and Its Significance
Border security forces conducting routine surveillance near El Paso detected an anomaly underground, leading to the discovery of a reinforced tunnel stretching across the border. Officials noted several advanced features commonly found in Hamas' tunnel network beneath Gaza:
Reinforced Concrete Walls – Providing durability and protection from collapse.
Deep Subterranean Construction – Built at a depth of 65 to 100 feet to avoid detection.
Ventilation and Electrical Systems – Indicating a long-term operational purpose.
90-Degree Turns – A design feature specifically intended to neutralize the effectiveness of missile strikes and aerial bombardment.
The presence of these strategic design elements suggests that tunnel engineering, historically used by militant groups for asymmetric warfare, has now been adapted for border smuggling operations.
Why 90-Degree Angles Matter in Tunnel Design
One of the most sophisticated elements of Hamas' tunnel networks is their use of sharp 90-degree angles at strategic points. This engineering choice serves multiple critical functions:
Neutralizing Cruise Missile and Airstrike Effectiveness – Traditional bunker-busting missiles and guided munitions rely on direct penetration. A straight tunnel can be obliterated with a single precision strike. However, when a tunnel has abrupt turns, the shockwave and debris from an explosion become confined to a single section, preventing further damage beyond the turn.
Structural Reinforcement – These angles act as load-bearing points, reducing the likelihood of full-scale collapse when parts of the tunnel are attacked.
Security and Tactical Use – In Hamas' Gaza-based tunnels, these sharp angles provide cover for fighters, making it harder for enemy forces to advance in a straight line. In the context of the U.S.-Mexico border, this same feature could allow smugglers to evade law enforcement if engaged in underground pursuits.
Trump’s Response: Immediate Border Sealing
Following the discovery of the tunnel, former President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the immediate sealing of key U.S.-Mexico border crossings to prevent further unauthorized entry and illegal tunnel activity. His directive emphasized national security concerns, citing the tunnel as evidence of increasing sophistication in border breaches.
“This is no longer just about illegal immigration or smuggling,” Trump said in a statement. “When you find tunnels built to military-grade specifications at our border, you have to ask: Who is funding this? Who is really behind it? This is an act of national security negligence, and I’m shutting it down.”
Homeland Security officials have since ramped up tunnel detection efforts, deploying ground-penetrating radar and seismic sensors along high-risk areas of the border. The administration has also called for increased collaboration with Mexican authorities to dismantle these tunnels before they reach U.S. soil.
Security Implications Moving Forward
The discovery of a Hamas-style tunnel at the border raises urgent security questions:
Are Cartels Adopting Military-Grade Tunnel Engineering? – The sophistication of this tunnel suggests that Mexican drug cartels and other criminal organizations may be employing specialized engineers to develop escape-proof smuggling corridors.
Potential for Terrorist Exploitation – While the tunnel was primarily used for smuggling, security experts warn that similar infrastructure could be exploited by terrorist organizations looking to infiltrate U.S. territory undetected.
Policy Shift on Border Security – The border sealing ordered by Trump could mark a turning point in U.S. immigration and security policy. Calls for tighter restrictions, increased surveillance, and even military intervention at key border crossings are growing louder.
Conclusion: A New Era of Border Security Threats
The discovery of an underground tunnel mimicking Hamas’ warfare infrastructure signals an alarming shift in border security challenges. No longer are these tunnels rudimentary smuggling passages—they now incorporate advanced military-style engineering meant to evade detection and resist destruction.
Trump’s decisive action to seal the border underscores the gravity of the situation, but questions remain: How many more of these tunnels exist? And what will it take to secure the border against this evolving threat?
As security officials continue their investigations, one thing is clear: The battle for border security has gone underground—literally.
Jonathan Birch on Sentience and Intelligence
https://m.primal.net/OLtk.webp
Introduction
In The Edge of Sentience (Oxford University Press, 2024), philosophy professor Jonathan Birch examines the concept of sentience, particularly its relationship to intelligence. He explores how sentience is identified in various species, including invertebrates and insects, and discusses the challenges of distinguishing true sentience from complex behavior. His work presents a structured approach to evaluating sentience and draws conclusions about its presence in both animals and artificial intelligence.
Sentience and Intelligence: A Methodological Connection
Birch makes a clear distinction between sentience and intelligence, noting that while intelligence can aid in detecting sentience, the two are not equivalent. Sentience refers to the capacity to experience sensations like pain and pleasure, whereas intelligence relates to problem-solving and learning abilities.
“Crucially, we need to be open to the possibility that animals which fail to set the world alight with their intelligence may nonetheless be sentient.” (p. 239)
He explains that intelligent animals, such as octopuses, can use their cognitive abilities to demonstrate behaviors that indicate sentience. However, he cautions against assuming that less intelligent animals—such as crabs and lobsters—lack sentience simply because they do not display advanced problem-solving skills.
Invertebrate and Insect Sentience
Birch argues that sentience should not be restricted to vertebrates and suggests that certain invertebrates and insects may also experience sensations. He highlights the central complex in insects as a potential structure linked to conscious processing and proposes that all adult insects should be considered "sentience candidates."
“It would be a double standard to restrict our precautionary thinking to just some insects while extending it to all fishes.” (p. 272)
This perspective challenges traditional views that limit sentience to mammals, birds, and some highly intelligent invertebrates like octopuses. Birch suggests that research on invertebrate and insect sentience should continue, using behavioral and neurological criteria.
AI and the Challenge of Detecting Sentience
Birch also explores the question of sentience in artificial intelligence, noting that AI presents a unique challenge. Unlike animals, AI systems can be trained to mimic human emotional responses, making it difficult to determine whether they truly experience sensations or are merely simulating them.
“With AI, by contrast, two explanations compete: maybe the system has feelings, but maybe it is just responding as a human would respond, exploiting its vast reservoir of data on how humans express their feelings.” (p. 16)
This distinction raises questions about whether current methods for assessing sentience are sufficient when applied to artificial systems. Birch suggests that while animals provide direct behavioral and neurological evidence for sentience, AI systems require a different approach to evaluation.
Scientific Approach and Conclusions
Birch emphasizes a scientific approach to studying sentience, rejecting broad philosophical assumptions such as panpsychism (the belief that everything is conscious) or biopsychism (the belief that all living things are sentient). Instead, he argues that sentience should be assessed based on empirical evidence, including neurological structures and behavioral indicators.
His conclusions suggest that:
Sentience can exist without advanced intelligence.
Invertebrates and insects should be further studied as possible sentient beings.
AI presents unique challenges in assessing sentience due to its ability to imitate human behavior.
Conclusion
Jonathan Birch’s The Edge of Sentience provides a structured analysis of sentience and its relationship to intelligence. His work challenges assumptions about which animals may be sentient and highlights the need for continued research into both biological and artificial systems. By distinguishing sentience from intelligence and focusing on scientific evidence, Birch contributes to a growing discussion on the nature of conscious experience across different forms of life.
How Putin’s Justification for Invading Ukraine Could Be Used to Justify a Chinese Invasion of Russia
Introduction
Since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Vladimir Putin has repeatedly invoked historical claims to justify the aggression. He has argued that Ukraine is an artificial construct, that its land historically belonged to Russia, and that past agreements do not negate Russia’s right to "reclaim" lost territory. However, these very arguments—historical ownership, past treaties, and cultural ties—are far more applicable to another geopolitical scenario: China reclaiming Outer Manchuria from Russia.
Outer Manchuria, now part of Russia’s Far East, was once under Qing Chinese control and was ceded to Russia under the unequal treaties of Aigun (1858) and Peking (1860). If China were to adopt the same historical rationale that Putin uses for Ukraine, it would have a strong case for reintegrating this region, which includes the strategically vital city of Vladivostok. Given that Vladivostok is a crucial seaport for Russia’s Pacific fleet and a key component of its nuclear deterrence, the implications of such a move would be profound.
Putin’s Argument: A Blueprint for China?
Putin’s main justifications for invading Ukraine can be summarized as follows:
Historical Ownership – Putin claims that Ukraine was historically part of Russia and was only separated due to Soviet policies.
Treaties Do Not Erase Sovereign Claims – He argues that previous agreements, such as the Soviet-era recognition of Ukraine’s independence, do not override Russia’s historical rights.
Ethnic and Cultural Ties – He insists that the Russian-speaking population in Ukraine provides a justification for intervention and reintegration.
Each of these points, however, applies even more forcefully to China’s claims over Outer Manchuria:
Outer Manchuria Was Once Qing Chinese Territory – Unlike Ukraine, which had a distinct identity and governance prior to Russian rule, Outer Manchuria was explicitly taken from China via unequal treaties at a time when China was militarily weak.
Past Treaties Do Not Override Historical Claims – If Russia dismisses past treaties as irrelevant when it comes to Ukraine, why should China consider the Treaty of Aigun and Treaty of Peking permanent?
Cultural and Linguistic Links – The Chinese population in the Russian Far East has been growing, and economic ties with China far exceed those with Moscow. A future Chinese government could claim to be “protecting” ethnic Chinese living in these regions, much as Putin claims to protect Russian speakers in Ukraine.
The Strategic Value of Vladivostok and Russia’s Nuclear Deterrence
One of the key reasons Russia cannot afford to lose Outer Manchuria is its strategic importance, particularly Vladivostok. Originally known as Haishenwai (海参崴) before its annexation by Russia, Vladivostok is Russia’s largest Pacific port and home to its Pacific Fleet. This fleet is crucial for Russia’s nuclear triad, as it houses nuclear-armed submarines that provide a second-strike capability.
If China were to reclaim Outer Manchuria, Russia would be left with no significant warm-water Pacific ports, dramatically weakening its nuclear deterrence and global power projection. Without Vladivostok, Russia’s ability to maintain a credible presence in the Pacific would collapse, leaving it vulnerable in both military and economic terms.
Could China Make a Move?
For now, China is content with its growing economic dominance over Russia, and it has little incentive to challenge Moscow directly. However, if internal instability weakens Russia—whether due to prolonged war in Ukraine, economic collapse, or political upheaval—China could seize the opportunity. Given the demographic and economic reality that China already dominates the Russian Far East, a future Chinese government could justify a move on Outer Manchuria using the exact same rhetoric that Putin uses against Ukraine.
Conclusion
By claiming that history justifies territorial expansion, Putin has set a dangerous precedent—one that, if applied consistently, would justify China reclaiming Outer Manchuria. Russia’s most important Pacific port, and a key component of its nuclear deterrence, could easily fall under the same logic that Putin applies to Ukraine. While China may not act now, the foundation has already been laid for a potential future crisis in the Russian Far East.
If Putin insists that historical claims override modern sovereignty, then he may find that Russia itself is not immune to the very reasoning he has used to justify his own war of aggression. https://m.primal.net/OLqF.webp
Hakeem Jeffries Must Apologize for His Dangerous Rhetoric Against President Trump
https://m.primal.net/OLkg.webp
Political discourse in America has always been passionate, but there must be a clear line between vigorous debate and outright incitement. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries recently crossed that line when he declared that his supporters would “fight” against President Donald Trump’s agenda “in the streets.” His reckless words demand an immediate and unequivocal apology.
A Call to Violence?
During a press conference in Brooklyn, Jeffries outlined his opposition to the Trump administration’s policies, stating:
“We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. And we’re going to fight it in the streets.”
While some may argue that Jeffries was speaking metaphorically, in today’s heated political climate, words have consequences. Public officials must be aware that calls to ‘fight in the streets’ can easily be interpreted as a justification for real-world violence.
The White House Responds
The Biden administration was quick to condemn similar language when it came from Trump supporters, labeling strong rhetoric as dangerous and inflammatory. Now, the same standard must be applied to Jeffries. The White House has called on Jeffries to apologize, denouncing his statements as a “disgusting threat.” If the Biden administration truly stands for peace and unity, they should demand accountability from their own party’s leadership as well.
A Troubling Pattern of Escalation
This is not the first time Jeffries has used such rhetoric. Previously, he has spoken about engaging in a “street fight” to oppose Trump’s policies. Given recent history—where politically motivated violence has already occurred—it is irresponsible and reckless for a leader in Congress to frame political opposition in these terms.
Holding Politicians Accountable
The double standard in how political rhetoric is judged must end. If conservatives are expected to rein in their speech, then Democrats must be held to the same expectations. The call to “fight in the streets” is not the language of responsible leadership—it is the rhetoric of division, chaos, and potential violence.
Jeffries should publicly retract his words and apologize to the American people. His constituents—and the nation—deserve a leader who chooses words carefully and promotes peaceful discourse, rather than stoking the flames of unrest. Anything less is unacceptable.
The Rebranding of DEI: A New Name for the Same Divisive Agenda
For years, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has embedded itself in corporate America, academia, and government institutions, presenting itself as a necessary and benevolent force for fairness and opportunity. However, as public skepticism has grown and legal challenges have begun dismantling DEI initiatives, its advocates are now engaged in a strategic rebranding effort to preserve and continue their ideological mission under new names and frameworks.
Make no mistake—DEI is not being disbanded; it is being disguised. And unless the public remains vigilant, these policies, which promote discrimination under the guise of fairness, will persist in reshaping American institutions.
A New Name, But the Same Divisive Practices
Across the country, companies and universities are quietly renaming their DEI programs. “Inclusion and Belonging,” “Culture and Talent Development,” “Workplace Equity Initiatives”—these new labels are an attempt to escape the growing backlash against DEI. But beneath the surface, these programs continue to enforce the same divisive, race-based policies that reward or penalize individuals based on identity rather than merit.
This is not progress—it is simply a repackaging of the same ideological framework that divides Americans rather than unites them.
DEI: A New Form of Racism
The core tenets of DEI are fundamentally opposed to the principles of equality and meritocracy. DEI does not simply advocate for equal opportunities—it seeks to engineer equal outcomes by granting preferential treatment to certain groups while penalizing others. It operates on the assumption that disparities in outcomes can only be the result of systemic oppression, rather than individual choice, talent, or effort.
“Equity” is not equality—it is the forced redistribution of resources, opportunities, and advantages based on race, gender, or other identity markers.
Hiring and admissions policies favoring one group over another are not fairness—they are discrimination.
Mandatory DEI training sessions do not unify—they indoctrinate, compelling employees and students to conform to a rigid ideological worldview.
These are the same tactics used by authoritarian regimes throughout history—dividing people into groups, assigning collective guilt, and forcing ideological compliance under the banner of “justice.” America has seen this before, and it must be rejected once again.
How to Stop the DEI Rebranding Effort
Those who oppose DEI must understand that its rebranding is a survival strategy, not a retreat. To truly eliminate DEI’s influence, the following actions must be taken:
Expose the Name Changes: Whenever an institution rebrands its DEI program under a new name, call it out. Demand transparency on whether race-based policies and quotas remain in place.
Hold Leaders Accountable: Whether in government, corporations, or universities, demand answers from leadership about whether their organization is still engaging in DEI-based hiring, training, or admissions practices.
Challenge It Legally: The Supreme Court has already struck down race-based college admissions practices. Further lawsuits must challenge any policy that discriminates based on identity.
Reject DEI Compliance Training: Employees and students should not be forced to participate in ideological training sessions that push racial division and identity politics. Push back against mandates.
Promote Meritocracy: The best way to defeat DEI is to champion true equal opportunity, where individuals are judged solely on their character, qualifications, and hard work—not on arbitrary identity categories.
A Crossroads for America
The push to rebrand DEI is a recognition that the ideology has lost public trust. Its advocates know that outright support for racial preferences and discrimination is no longer palatable, so they are attempting to sneak their policies through under new branding.
But a rebrand does not change the reality of what DEI is—a divisive, race-obsessed framework that undermines unity, erodes meritocracy, and fosters resentment. Americans must not fall for the deception.
The fight against DEI is far from over, but with awareness and action, this attempt to disguise and preserve it can be stopped.
Reshaping the Bureaucracy: President Trump’s Effort to Align Government with His Mandate
https://m.primal.net/OLjc.webp
As President Donald Trump embarks on his second term, his administration is undertaking a significant restructuring of the federal government. These changes, which include the reassignment and removal of certain federal employees, are being pursued with the goal of ensuring that the executive branch is aligned with the President’s policy objectives and vision for the country.
From the administration’s perspective, this is not about a so-called “purge” but rather about bringing the federal workforce in line with the mandate given to the President by the American people. In a democracy, elected officials are expected to carry out the policies they campaigned on, and for that to happen, they need a bureaucracy that is willing and able to implement those policies efficiently.
Ensuring the President’s Agenda Moves Forward
Every administration makes personnel changes to ensure that those in key positions share the President’s priorities. The Trump administration believes that entrenched bureaucratic resistance has been an obstacle to implementing its agenda, and this restructuring is intended to remove such barriers.
Supporters of these changes argue that the executive branch should reflect the leadership of the elected President rather than operate as an independent, unaccountable entity. If government agencies are staffed with individuals who actively resist the administration’s directives, it creates a bureaucratic roadblock that slows down policy execution and undermines the democratic process.
By making these adjustments, the administration is ensuring that federal agencies are more responsive to the will of the voters, rather than acting as a separate power structure that operates outside of electoral accountability.
Streamlining the Federal Workforce
Another key aspect of this effort is efficiency. The federal government is a massive institution, and over time, bureaucracy tends to grow in ways that slow down decision-making and hinder responsiveness. The administration is focusing on streamlining operations, reducing redundancies, and ensuring that those serving in government are committed to carrying out the policies that won at the ballot box.
The offer of buyouts and voluntary resignations has been one mechanism to facilitate this transition. Rather than forcing a one-size-fits-all approach, these measures allow federal employees who may not align with the administration’s vision to step aside voluntarily.
A Government That Reflects the People’s Choice
Ultimately, this restructuring effort is about ensuring that government works for the people, not against them. When Americans vote for a President, they expect that President’s policies to be implemented—not stalled or undermined by bureaucratic inertia.
The President is entitled to surround himself with a team that believes in his mission and is willing to work toward the objectives he was elected to achieve. This is not about loyalty in a political sense—it’s about having a government that is functional, responsive, and aligned with the policy priorities of the American electorate.
As this restructuring continues, it will serve as a realignment of power within the federal government, ensuring that those entrusted with carrying out the administration’s policies are committed to the task. In doing so, the President is fulfilling his duty to deliver on the promises made to the voters and ensure that their voices are reflected in the policies of the nation.
The Media Divide: How News Sources Shape Perceptions of President Trump
One of the most fascinating observations I’ve made over the past few years is how strongly a person’s opinion of President Donald Trump seems to correlate with where they get their news. It’s almost as if people are living in two separate realities, shaped not by their direct experiences but by the media they consume.
This realization hit me with full force recently when I attended a Trump rally. Being there in person, I saw the energy of the crowd, the enthusiasm in the air, and the President delivering his speech in a way that resonated with many of the people around me. By my account, it was a strong performance—one that his supporters seemed to appreciate.
However, when I checked the coverage in legacy media the next day, I was struck by how radically different their portrayal was. The same event that I had witnessed firsthand was filtered through a lens of negativity. Headlines and commentators focused on supposed gaffes, fact-checking minutiae, or their interpretations of the crowd’s reactions. They painted a picture of an event that bore little resemblance to what I had actually experienced.
This wasn’t the first time I had noticed this phenomenon, but it was perhaps the most blatant example of it. It reinforced something I had suspected for a long time: that a person’s stance on Trump is often not so much a reflection of their own independent analysis but rather a byproduct of the media ecosystem they inhabit.
The Two Media Worlds
In one world—the legacy media ecosystem comprising outlets like CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, and The Washington Post—Trump is portrayed as reckless, dishonest, and a threat to democracy. His speeches are dissected with the assumption that they are misleading, dangerous, or outright false. If he makes a strong policy point, it is often ignored or reframed in a way that downplays its significance.
In the other world—alternative media, including independent journalists, podcasts, and platforms like Rumble or Substack—Trump is presented as a populist leader taking on the establishment. His words are given more leeway, his policies are analyzed with a presumption of rational intent, and his opponents’ motives are scrutinized more aggressively.
The divergence between these two perspectives creates a kind of media-induced polarization. Those who rely on mainstream outlets tend to develop overwhelmingly negative opinions of Trump, while those who engage primarily with alternative media sources tend to view him more favorably. It’s not just a difference in interpretation—it’s a difference in what is even considered reality.
The Power of the Narrative Filter
The rally experience made me realize just how powerful the media’s narrative filter is. If I had not attended the event myself, I might have believed the legacy media’s version of events. And I suspect that many people who rely solely on those sources take their framing at face value, never questioning whether there might be another perspective.
This phenomenon isn’t unique to Trump, of course. It applies to many political and cultural issues where the media plays a gatekeeping role in determining what is “acceptable” discourse. But Trump is perhaps the most extreme case, serving as a kind of Rorschach test for media bias.
If two people are drawing conclusions about the same person but are basing their views on completely different sets of information, can they really be said to be debating the same reality? And more importantly, how does a society function when its members are being fed such drastically different narratives?
Breaking Out of the Bubble
The key takeaway from all of this is the importance of consuming a variety of news sources. If one only listens to legacy media, they will see Trump through a negative lens. If they only consume alternative media, they will see him through a more favorable one. The truth, as always, is likely somewhere in between.
But the only way to see past the distortions is to recognize that they exist in the first place. My rally experience taught me that direct experience is often the best antidote to media manipulation. Seeing things firsthand, or at least comparing sources critically, is crucial to understanding what’s really going on.
Ultimately, the media divide is not just about Trump—it’s about how information is shaped, filtered, and presented to the public. And as long as people remain locked within their respective media bubbles, their opinions will continue to be shaped by forces beyond their own firsthand observations.
The question is: how many are willing to break free and think for themselves? https://m.primal.net/OLic.webp