Posted originally on Sep 17, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene voiced a harsh truth: America is a divided nation. These differences appear irreconcilable, and Greene is proposing “a peaceful national divorce.” Which state will file the papers first?
The computer system warned long ago that the United States would not remain as one country indefinitely. The cycle of political disintegration is in motion. The question is not if, but when. History repeats because human nature never changes. People assume the United States will last forever because it has existed for nearly 250 years. But no empire, no republic, no government in history has ever escaped the cycle of political disintegration. Rome divided, the British Empire collapsed, the Soviet Union disintegrated. The United States will be no different.
Divisive politics have created a crack in the union that cannot be united. Each side believes the other wants to dictate how they must live, and therefore, each side believes that the other is a danger to democracy. The unified culture that was once the United States has vanished as extreme beliefs on both sides cannot coexist. Civil unrest has turned into a looming civil war.
Each state has its unique culture and customs. One cannot compare Washington to Texas, or Florida to Colorado. California believes it is already its own country. The law varies drastically from state to state, and those policies are now coming to a head. The Supreme Court no longer reigns as it starts to interpret rulings independently.
The Founding Fathers never created a “democracy.” They created a Republic, where the states were sovereign and the federal government was a creation of the states. That balance has been destroyed. Washington has usurped the role of the states in nearly every matter – taxation, regulation, trade, healthcare, and even education. This erosion of states’ rights is precisely what lies the groundwork for separatism.
Decentralization has begun. Our Economic Confidence Model has targeted 2032 as the final political collapse of confidence in government. This is not limited to the United States; the European Union is destined to fail, as are other governments throughout the world that are propped up on perpetual debt and coercive politics. The total loss of confidence in government will be a global event that will not begin in America. But once it spreads like a contagion to America, we will see states demand succession as they fight against federal power. Greene believes this can be done in a peaceful manner, yet history says otherwise.
I’ve discussed this matter in depth in the report “How Empires & Nations Divide,” which is perhaps one of the most fascinating pieces I have penned.
Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Most people have no idea, but the entire speed limit is a scam simply to raise money. On January 2, 1974, effective January 6, 1974, during the whole OPEC oil crisis, to conserve gasoline during the 1973 oil embargo and resulting energy crisis, Congress came up with the nonsense of reducing the speed limit to reduce fuel consumption. They repealed the federal law in 1995, returning speed limit authority to the individual states. They did not change in most cases because they would collect fewer fines.
If you drive for 5 hours at 55 mph, consuming 30 mpg, and then at 75 mph, you get there in 3.6 hours at 24mpg, you used 11.46 gallons compared to 9.17 for the same distance, but you saved about 1.5 hours.
Nevertheless, nobody cares about safety. The idea that you are travelling at 65 instead of 55 has nothing to do with safety. It is all about money.
Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
President Donald Trump believes that companies should cease reporting on a quarterly basis and switch to semiannual reports instead. Trump said that the concept is “subject to SEC approval” and would “save money, and allow managers to focus on properly running their companies.”
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Warren Buffett also once voiced support for semiannual reporting. “In our experience, quarterly earnings guidance often leads to an unhealthy focus on short-term profits at the expense of long-term strategy, growth and sustainability,” the pair wrote in an op-ed piece for the Wall Street Journal in 2018.
The SEC currently has a 3-1 Republican voting majority, but why does this seem to be a bipartisan issue? The issue is global, in fact, as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund recently proposed switching to semiannual reporting, and the UK and Europe do not currently require quarterly reports. Providing the consumer and investor with less, infrequent information alludes to bad news. Companies would willingly share praise of quarterly earnings with the public if they were bullish on their future, but in the current stagflationary trend, companies are cautious. Those at the top are losing confidence in their company’s ability to meet or exceed expectations.
Dimon and Buffett argued that the public’s attention should be on the long-term results. That aligns with Buffett’s buy and hold strategy but does not work for most portfolios that require investment strategy changes based on incoming data. In Trump’s personal predicament, the price adjustments due to tariffs are a reason to halt quarterly reporting.
Still, lowering transparency raises market risk, and the markets do not respond well to volatility. Columbia Law Schoolpublished an article that looked at the 2017 regulatory adjustment on the Tel-Aviv Exchange (TASE) when small-cap firms switched from mandatory quarterly reports to semi-annual updates. “The stocks of firms that chose that option dropped an average of 2 percent in price in a window of (-5,+5) days,” the analysis found. “Conversely, the stock of firms that chose to continue quarterly reporting rose an average of 2.5 percent over an immediate window of (-5,+5) days.”
The study also noted that while compliance costs dropped by 19.8% by eliminating two annual reports, the firms that chose to maintain four annual reports did not see a significant change in audit fees. There was a clear trade-off between cost reduction and maintaining investor confidence, the study noted.
The US markets cannot be compared to the TASE, and that 2% reduction in investment would likely rise for US firms, as consumer confidence is absolutely paramount. The proposition of semi-annual reports stems from the belief that companies will be unable to provide optimistic earnings reports. Reducing reporting fees is not the concern, and the repercussions are vast as massive portfolio shifts would ensue as investors and money managers need to reduce risks and would be less likely to take short-term risks if the data is unavailable to them. Reducing transparency would shake up confidence in the markets overall, and as mentioned, capital does not like volatility.
Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
After months of legal turmoil, the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the United States can secure its borders and has the right to end the temporary legal protections granted to migrants under the Biden Administration.
Joe Biden provided 430,000 migrants from Haiti, Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua with temporary protected status (TPS). Biden later expanded this status to those from Sudan, Ukraine, and El Salvador. People from Myanmar (Burma), Cameroon, Haiti, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Somalia, South Sudan, Syria, and Yemen were also often granted TPS status. “We are glad the Biden Administration has committed to protecting the citizens of four troubled countries, including 190,000 Salvadorans who have worked and contributed to this country for decades. […] Citizens of Honduras and Nicaragua, among other countries, deserve TPS extensions also, and they are still waiting. Like other immigrants, they will face great danger when the next president takes office. The current administration needs to protect them, too,” the TPS Alliance stated ahead of Trump’s presidency.
Basically, anyone from a less than desirable nation was suddenly permitted to live and work in America without going through the proper immigration process. Open border policies at their finest. Over one million migrants enjoyed the protections granted to them under TPS, until now.
The Trump Administration has been attempting to reverse this policy since March, arguing that the protection was only meant to be temporary and the Department of Homeland Security should have the authority to expel those who overstayed. The purchased courtrooms ruled that each case needed individual due process, which could never feasibly happen.
Now, the court has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security can revoke TPS status for over 430,000 migrants, or less than half who are in the nation. This status was originally meant to last for two years, but once someone enters the United States, the legal system makes it very difficult for them to leave involuntarily. The entire intent of open border policies was to flood the nation with as many migrants as possible to alter elections, prop up the dollar, and replace the declining working class. There was no plan or budget and the American people will be paying for open border policies for generations to come. Mass deportation is the only way to prevent the United States from becoming Europe. Import the third world and you become the third world.
The best and worst of humanity have revealed themselves in the week following the death of Charlie Kirk. Over 800 Americans have been forced to resign from their jobs after spewing hate online. Suddenly, harassing conservatives and inciting violence has consequences.
Democrats are continuing to use Kirk’s untimely passing as a method to promote gun safety. In his own words, Kirk explained that the right to bear arms has a deeper meaning than merely personal safety. The Second Amendment exists for the citizens to protect themselves against tyrannical governments. No actual dictatorship would permit the people to bear arms. No real communist or socialist regime would permit the people to bear arms. Lethal protection against government was precisely the intend of the Founding Fathers.
“Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty,” Kirk explained, comparing gun ownership to the risk of driving as everything comes at a price. “You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you’re not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen,” he continued.
“Does it take shooting a conservative to start to realize the gun scourge? I hope they realize it,” Rep. George Latimer (D-NY) commented. “Pass some gun laws!” Rep. Jahana Hayes screamed during the moment of silence for Charlie Kirk. “I believe that anyone who has committed their entire career to obstructing gun safety legislation in this House has no right to blame anyone else for the consequences of their actions,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) chimed in.
Criminals do not abide by the law. The majority of these shooters obtain firearms illegally. It is also curious that we do not hear of conservatives shooting down liberals for discussing their views. Conservatives are not setting buildings on fire or vandalizing property in the aftermath of Kirk’s death, and yet, the media continues to portray the right as dangerous. Every aforementioned representative parades around Washington D.C. with armed security. They want YOU to be disarmed and unsafe while they enjoy the protection offered under 2A.
Kirk argued that places with armed security—banks, sporting events, airports—do not have shootings. Why? Law-abiding citizens are exercising their right to bear arms and ensure law and order. Disarming the public only enables the government to have blanket control over the population. It’s what they did in China, Cuba, the Soviet Union—the list could go on. The historical evidence is glaringly clear that gun ownership is the best protection against tyranny.
Here is the full transcript of Charlie Kirk’s dialogue:
AUDIENCE QUESTION: How's it going, Charlie? I'm Austin. I just had a question related to Second Amendment rights. We saw the shooting that happened recently and a lot of people are upset. But, I'm seeing people argue for the other side that they want to take our Second Amendment rights away. How do we convince them that it's important to have the right to defend ourselves and all that good stuff?
CHARLIE KIRK: Yeah, it's a great question. Thank you. So, I'm a big Second Amendment fan but I think most politicians are cowards when it comes to defending why we have a Second Amendment. This is why I would not be a good politician, or maybe I would, I don't know, because I actually speak my mind.
The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government. And if that talk scares you — "wow, that's radical, Charlie, I don't know about that" — well then, you have not really read any of the literature of our Founding Fathers. Number two, you've not read any 20th-century history. You're just living in Narnia. By the way, if you're actually living in Narnia, you would be wiser than wherever you're living, because C.S. Lewis was really smart. So I don't know what alternative universe you're living in. You just don't want to face reality that governments tend to get tyrannical and that if people need an ability to protect themselves and their communities and their families.
Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price. 50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That's a price. You get rid of driving, you'd have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving — speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services — is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road. So we need to be very clear that you're not going to get gun deaths to zero. It will not happen. You could significantly reduce them through having more fathers in the home, by having more armed guards in front of schools. We should have a honest and clear reductionist view of gun violence, but we should not have a utopian one.
You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won't have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It's drivel. But I am, I, I — I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational. Nobody talks like this. They live in a complete alternate universe.
So then, how do you reduce? Very simple. People say, oh, Charlie, how do you stop school shootings? I don't know. How did we stop shootings at baseball games? Because we have armed guards outside of baseball games. That's why. How did we stop all the shootings at airports? We have armed guards outside of airports. How do we stop all the shootings at banks? We have armed guards outside of banks. How did we stop all the shootings at gun shows? Notice there's not a lot of mass shootings at gun shows, there's all these guns. Because everyone's armed. If our money and our sporting events and our airplanes have armed guards, why don't our children?
Posted originally on Sep 16, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Keith Kellogg’s stupid statement that Russia’s war in Ukraine would end very quickly if Beijing withdrew its support for Moscow. He made the comments at a security conference in Kiev. He called Russia the “junior partner” to China and said it is losing the war in Ukraine. Such a statement is just insane. Like Iraq, nobody ever asked, if Ukraine defeats Russia, what would happen in Russia? This would be like saying What if Mexico invaded the USA and won?
After Germany lost World War I, there was a revolution that overthrew the monarchy, and the Weimar Republic was born, which then ended in hyperinflation. Even the Russian Revolution of 1917 was enabled by Russia’s disastrous performance in WWI, including massive casualties and economic collapse, which sparked widespread strikes and mutinies. The Tsar abdicated in March 1917, ending 300 years of Romanov rule; the Bolsheviks then seized power in November, leading to civil war and the Soviet Union.
Austria collapsed in 1918 after losing World War I. The empire’s multi-ethnic collapse after defeat led to ethnic revolts and declarations of independence in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere. The monarchy ended in November 1918, fragmenting into nation-states amid famine and military desertions.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire also took place after World War I. The Turkish War of Independence and the abolition of the sultanate (1919–1923) unfolded. Allied occupation post-armistice fueled nationalist resistance led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. The sultanate was abolished in 1922, and the caliphate in 1924, birthing the Republic of Turkey after revolutionary reforms.
Xinhai Revolution (1911) followed the defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War of 1895. Humiliating territorial losses to Japan exposed the dynasty’s weakness, sparking anti-Manchu sentiment and Sun Yat-sen’s republican movement. The last emperor abdicated in 1912, ending over 2,000 years of imperial rule and ushering in the Republic of China.
Franco-Prussian War of 1870 saw the Paris Commune and fall of the empire (1870–1871). Napoleon III’s defeat led to the Third Republic’s proclamation. Radical workers then revolted in the Paris Commune, which was brutally suppressed, but the monarchy was permanently ousted.
These modern historical events illustrate a pattern without having to catalogue all the countless such events throughout human history. Wars drain resources, erode legitimacy, and amplify grievances (e.g., food shortages, casualties), creating fertile ground for revolutionaries. Not all post-war unrest leads to full regime change—e.g., Bulgaria’s monarchy survived WWI initially, only falling later in 1944. Nonetheless, these are clear instances of direct causation between revolution and the loss of a previous war.
In a post on his Telegram channel, Medvedev made the realistic statement that granting NATO members permission to down Russian drones operating in Ukrainian airspace would mean “war between the Alliance and Russia.” His comments followed growing calls in Europe and NATO to intervene in the war, demanding stronger Western action against Russia for its drone incursions while supporting Ukraine to use Western long-range missiles to attack even Moscow. On Sept. 12, Bundestag Defense Committee Chair Thomas Röwekamp urged NATO to begin intercepting Russian drones over Ukraine.
I have repeatedly stated that the psychological war tactic is that you MUST claim that an adversary has attacked you to get people to sign up. The support hasn’t been this low since 2022. This is why false flags are so important. They are used to claim you have been attacked, and then the common people will sign up to die on the battlefield for a noble cause.
That works on all sides. A new poll made by the independent Russian institute Levada shows that the Russians are growing tired of the war in Ukraine. The poll showed that 66%, or roughly two out of three, of the participants want the Kremlin to engage in peace negotiations with Ukraine. That is the highest number since 2022, when the war began. If NATO attacks Russia using a false flag, this will support the Rally Around the Flag for Russia. Let’s face it. Russians are treated with disdain as were the Jews before World War II. That is not a scenario that implies world peace lies ahead.
Senior military leaders from NATO member states have publicly assessed that the alliance would prevail in a conventional war against Russia relatively quickly due to overwhelming advantages in personnel (over 3.4 million active troops vs. Russia’s 1.3 million), aircraft (22,000+ vs. 4,000), ships (1,100+ vs. 400), defense spending (3.5 times Russia’s), and GDP (20 times larger).
In a February 2024 speech, UK Chief of the Defence Staff Admiral Sir Tony Radakin stated that “NATO would defeat Russia quickly,” citing Russia’s struggles in Ukraine as evidence of its military weaknesses and NATO’s growing strength with the addition of Finland and Sweden. Similarly, analyses from outlets like Al Jazeera and The Week conclude that NATO’s integrated command, superior training, and equipment would lead to a “quick” conventional victory. However, they warn that this could escalate to nuclear risks if Russia faces total defeat. As I have said, if I have a gun and you break into my house and threaten to kill me, I think I may shoot back.
Sensational claims, such as NATO submarines “destroying Russia in 30 seconds,” appear in YouTube videos and informal discussions but stem from hyperbolic speculation about nuclear scenarios, not official statements. Recent X posts echo debates on NATO’s superiority but often tie it to broader geopolitical tensions without referencing its past defeats. Overall, while NATO officials project confidence in deterrence, they prioritize avoiding direct war over public victory projections.
This push for war with Russia leaves out TWO critical factors
(1) China will support Russia because it knows it will be next, as they plainly told Kallas.
(2) This will turn nuclear, and Europe, with all its conventional power, can be turned to dust in minutes, not days.
“Europe is ready to take a step forward. We are ready to take control of the changes that are inevitable. Because we can’t let history push us around. This means that it is necessary to act now. Acting on a large scale is an indispensable condition for speed, scale and strength by 2030 … By 2030 Europe should have a strong European defense structure,” Ursula said.
This drone shot down in Poland from EVERY source I have states that this is a FALSE FLAG and there is no evidence that this every invaded Polish airspace. They desperately need to create a False Flag, get gullible people to sign their own death wish, so these failed EU leaders can keep their pensions. Ursula told the EU Parliament with great theatrics:
“Battle lines for a new world order based on power are being drawn right now,” von der Leyen told the European Parliament in her annual State of the EU address.
“So, yes, Europe must fight. For its place in a world in which many major powers are either ambivalent or openly hostile to Europe,” she said.
Putin is the smartest and responsible world leader at the table today. Remove him, and we will get an emotional leader like Medvedev. Speculating on a post-Putin Russia is inherently uncertain, as the regime’s opacity and Putin’s tight control over security services make a smooth transition debatable. An overthrow—whether via coup, elite infighting, or sudden death—would likely trigger a power struggle among siloviki (security elites), oligarchs, and technocrats, potentially leading to instability or even fragmentation. I would emphasize that no apparent clear heir exists, and the outcome depends on the circumstances: a managed handover (unlikely in an overthrow) versus chaotic removal.
I would list the potential replacements, prioritize loyalty to the current system, hawkish stances on Ukraine/NATO, and control over key institutions like the FSB, military, or economy, which will all come into play. Dmitry Medvedev is indeed a contender due to his proximity to Putin, but he’s not the top pick—his role is often seen as that of a “bad cop” provocateur rather than a unifying leader. Perhaps, but we are looking at an outright statement from the EU that Russia must be defeated and obliterated. We are not talking about just pushing Russia out of Ukraine.
Kaja Kallas, a ruthless Neocon, openly calls for the total destruction and breakup of Russia. This is the total destruction of the country. That is not something that should be taken lightly. That is the justification for nuclear war. Kallas is a greater threat to the EU than Putin.
MY LIST OF CONTENDERS:
Mikhail Mishustin, Prime Minister Nikolai Patrushev, Deputy Chair, Security Council (former FSB head) Sergei Sobyanin, Moscow Mayor Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chair, Security Council Andrei Belousov, Defense Minister Alexei Dyumin, Tula Governor (ex-bodyguard) Sergei Kiriyenko, First Deputy Chief of Staff
Medvedev’s name surfaces due to his history (tandem with Putin in 2008-2012) and recent high-profile positioning him as a “nuclear-ready” hardliner who could rally nationalists. X discussions often call him the “natural successor” for stability. However, he’s rarely ranked #1 in expert assessments—his provocative style (e.g., 2025 threats sparking U.S. sub deployments) makes him a Kremlin mouthpiece, not a consolidator. Others see him as a fallback, not a frontrunner, due to reputational damage from past “liberal” image and scandals. In an overthrow, elites might prefer Mishustin or Patrushev for their institutional grip.
Keep in mind that Khruschev was overthrown in a coup, and he was usurped by Bresnev because of his reckless handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Post-Stalin USSR saw infighting; a similar “vicious struggle” would be likely if Russia were defeated in Ukraine, with FSB vs. military clashes. No democratic shift should be expected. Any successor would most likely double down on authoritarianism and anti-West policies, and any hope of world peace will be completely obliterated.
Then, for a coup, any replacement inherits a quagmire; hardliners like Patrushev or Medvedev might escalate, while technocrats like Mishustin seek de-escalation for economic relief.
In summary, Mishustin or Patrushev edge out as most probable for their balance of competence and control, but Medvedev remains a wildcard—loyal enough for continuity, radical enough for drama. Russia after Putin looks more like Putinism 2.0 than reform. This is all upset if NATO pushes its agenda to destroy Russia and break it up, strip mining its assets. This goal, as articulated in part by Kallas, warrants a fight to the death with nukes, and in this case, I would put my money on Medvedev, who has the high-profile that would become more valuable when confronted with the destruction of Russia, not with just pushing it out of Ukraine.
Posted originally on Sep 15, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: I believe you have said that the United States practices the law of tyrants, conspiracy, which only proves a thought crime, not that you committed a crime. Is this why you say we are doomed, because nobody will do real legal reform?
Wes
ANSWER: Our legal system adopted the tyranny of the king and replaced him with the Department of JUST US. Its combination of the Pinkerton rule, broad federal statutes like RICO, and the strategic, frequent use by prosecutors makes American conspiracy law one of the most potent and expansive in the world. The United States has the most anti-human rights legal system on the planet. For example, under Canon Law used in France, they cannot compel any family member to testify against you. In the United States, they can imprison your children until they testify against you. The only privilege is granted to a spouse or a priest. Then they will use a divorce to get around the spouse rule. Under the Canon law of the Catholic Church, the sanctity of the family unit comes first. Under English Common Law, precedent takes precedent. We had a revolution against the king’s tyranny, replacing him with local tyranny.
They love to call Russia and China authoritarian and communist. But look at the stats. You have a 340% greater chance of going to jail in the United States compared to China. The United States has the highest percentage of its population in prison of any country in the world, so much for liberty. Suppose you lie to a government official; that is perjury, punishable by up to 5 years. If a government official lies to you, that is legal.
Without the rule of law, civilization crumbles. Courts rule in favor of the government. Rarely will you find a judge who will truly defend the Constitution, and good luck in prosecuting a judge or a prosecutor.
Posted originally on Sep 15, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
QUESTION: Marty, you have said it. This is the worst crop of leaders in Europe in all history. Now they are pushing for WWIII ASAP. They are calling for a no-fly zone over Ukraine. They have been saying that since they can protect Israel and shoot down Iranian missiles and drones, the West should do the same in Ukraine. Given your last blog’s focus on the stock market, gold, and the dollar’s rise, it seems to be pointing to war. Do you see this coming to a head by November?
Rosco
ANSWER: This is not looking good at all. I cannot confirm rumors that they captured several Russian drones and sent them over Poland to justify a false flag. I would not put it past them. They need the false flag to get the people to sign up for war. People will not volunteer to invade Russia to save Ukraine. This is the typical “rally around the flag” strategy.
They claim that the recent Russian drone attacks on Poland not only demonstrate that Vladimir Putin is trying to see how far he can push NATO. He already knows that NATO is clamoring to start WWIII. This can be easily stopped within 24 hours. Order Zelensky to honor the Minsk Agreement, which all of Europe signed, and this war will be over in 15 minutes. I am concerned that tensions are on track to escalate from September into November 2026.
I am pushing as hard as I can. President Trump has dismissed Zelensky’s latest appeals for advanced weaponry, including long-range missiles and air-defence systems, suggesting that Ukraine has been ill-advised. We have to keep the USA out of this European nightmare. They need war because the EU is crumbling. The choice is stark: either war as a diversionary tactic from the sovereign debt crisis, or the people will be storming their parliaments with pitchforks when they realize the Eurozone is collapsing economically.
I strongly disagree with Trump on sanctions and his latest theory, which is always a favorite among neocons. He said if all NATO countries refused to buy oil from Russia, the conflict could be put to a stop. He also suggested placing tariffs on China of 50% to 100% for its purchases of Russian petroleum. He suspects it “will break that grip” between the two countries, which have a strong alliance. Screwing with the economies of China and Russia rather than demanding the Minsk Agreement be honored will only PERMANENTLY create a hostile world. What planet he is on, I do not know.
There is absolutely no way that even China is prepared to see Russia lose in this conflict. You will have Russian Neocons seize power, and then you will have WWIII. Stop the bullshit and look long-term. We started this damn war – fess up to the facts and the timeline. You might as well make Victoria Nuland Secretary of State with supreme power to push the button.
I have heard the stupid argument that we were happy to shoot down Iranian drones and missiles aimed at civilian targets in Israel, but not in Ukraine. Iran was not capable of creating World War III. Russia and China are. I have never seen such stupidity on the geopolitical front in the 50 years I have been doing this. Thank God I am not 18. It’s hard enough dealing with this for just a few more years, let alone another 50.
This reminds me of Frank Sinatra’s Send in the Clowns. Don’t bother – they are here.
Posted originally on Sep 15, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Albania has adopted the world’s first AI “minister” in an attempt to combat corruption. Diella, the female-voiced AI entity, will be a “member of the Cabinet who is not present physically but has been created virtually,” Prime Minister Edi Rama stated, adding that the robot would ensure that “public tenders will be 100% free of corruption” since current government employees cannot be trusted.
Microsoft helped to assemble Dinella—red flag number one. The robot will receive access to 1 million digital documents, including sensitive government information. The advancements in AI are ingenious but not sentient. Dinella has been programmed and, therefore, is prone to biases.
The irony is that in turning to artificial intelligence, the people are acknowledging that human government has completely failed. I have said before that many have proposed replacing judges, regulators, and even politicians with AI, as if a machine will somehow be impartial. The problem, of course, is not the hardware but the software. Who writes the code? Who programs the “ethics”? If government controls the AI, then it is nothing more than an automated extension of the same corruption. AI becomes a weaponized bureaucracy, enforcing whatever the ruling elite rules.
Rama’s Socialist Party has its eyes set on European Union membership, believing it can rid its nation of corruption ahead of negotiations in 2027. It is unclear if lawmakers will have the ability to vote on Diella’s post as minister, or whether the public will have an opportunity to vote for AI-driven politicians.
Society has fallen to the point that robots are trusted more than human beings. Do people believe that a robot can properly represent them or lead? “[The] Prime Minister’s buffoonery cannot be turned into legal acts of the Albanian state,” said Gazmend Bardhi, parliamentary group leader of the Democrats.
AI is only as honest as its programmer, and if Microsoft is involved, I have little hope of Dinella’s moral coding. Appointing a robot as minister is an extremely desperate move by the Albanian government to restore public trust. This is not a technological milestone but a glaring warning of lost confidence in a failing political system.
Posted originally on Sep 15, 2025 by Martin Armstrong |
Business flees when it feels it is unwanted, and the Labour Party has created an environment that repels capital. A wave of pharmaceutical companies are pulling out of the United Kingdom due to a climate that has become “uninvestable.”
AstraZeneca has become one of the latest companies to pull back on investments due to excessive regulation and taxation. “We constantly reassess the investment needs of our company and can confirm our expansion in Cambridge is paused. We have no further comment to make,” a spokesperson said. The company decided to pause a 200 million pound ($271.26 million) investment in Cambridge that was slated to created 1,000 new jobs. The company first terminated a 450 million pound investment in northern England back in January, citing a lack of support from the UK government.
Merck Pharmaceuticals terminated a £1bn (US$1.35bn) research and development project in London and called the UK “uninvestable.” The drugmaker plans to abandon its London Bioscience Innovation Centre and the Francis Crick Institute by the end of the year due to the lack of investment in the life science industry and the overall undervaluation of innovative medicines and vaccines by successive UK governments.”
“Simply put, the UK is not internationally competitive,” a Merck spokesperson stated.
The NHS tightly regulates drug prices, yet spends only 9% of its budget on medicines compared to other OECD nations that spend between 14-20%. Only 37% of new drugs are fully reimbursed for their licensed use, whereas the figure is 90% in Germany and likely higher in the US. The government expects businesses to pay them a large portion of their revenue. Drugmakers face a 23.5% levy on new drugs as of 2025. Why would a pharmaceutical company research and develop new products in a nation that demands nearly a quarter of the profits?
Foreign investment in life sciences is down 58% since 2017 across the UK. Comparatively, investment in research and development (R&D) fell 1.9% on a global basis. Tight price controls, high government levies, and regulatory red tape have caused multi-billion-dollar investments to flee. Drugmakers are beginning to pour investments into the US instead, where they receive generous incentives and lower taxes.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 