From Trump to Crash Test Dummy, Hegemon’s “policies” have managed quite a feat.
It must have taken eons of Taoist patience for President Xi Jinping to tell a few self-evident facts of life to a mediocre imperial functionary such as U.S. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan.
Xi’s key takeways:
“China is ready to be a partner and friend of the U.S.” Even as the reverse is highly doubtful – as China is considered by Washington as an existential “threat”.
China focuses on the well-being of all mankind: that’s the core of Beijing’s concept of a global “community with shared future.
China and the U.S. should be both responsible for history; for the people; and for the world. That’s the “three responsibilities” concept.
The last thing a unipolar Hegemon is responsible for is the world at large: unipolarity by definition profits only the Empire’s own plutocracy.
Little Sullivan also pushed for direct, over the phone military-to-military communications at a working level. Of course, because the Hegemon has less than zero paid moles infiltrated in key nodes of the Chinese system – so at least they will be able to hear little tidbits on and off from the Chinese military.
Yet the key takeway on the military dossier came during Little Sullivan’s session with General Zhang Youxia, the vice chairman of China’s Central Military Commission.
Gen Zhang bluntly told Sullivan, in no uncertain terms, to stay away from Taiwan. Sullivan looked like a headless chicken after the meeting.
As headless as after his meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi:
“The United States and China have not made progress in negotiations to find a solution to the Ukrainian crisis.”
Of course not. Beijing sees through the whole imperial “ceasefire” machinations – in parallel with the U.S. trespassing all Russian red lines. Moscow has not responded in a devastating manner – yet – because Putin bears as many Taoist traits as Xi.
China is back: get over it
The Beijing leadership’s meetings with the envoy of an ultra-lame duck U.S. administration may have been only a pro forma exercise. After all what really matters is business.
China’s export to the U.S. represent less than 2% of China’s GDP. That’s negligible. China is the top global trading/commerce powerhouse – and real, strong business ahead is not with the West, but with the Global Majority. China has been playing this Long Game to perfection.
So much perfection that imperial media has been literally freaking out about how deep China has integrated all across the Global Majority, challenging what is the de facto liberal-totalitarian what-we-say-goes international “order”. See, for instance, here.
From Trump to Crash Test Dummy, Hegemon’s “policies” have managed quite a feat.
Included in the package is giving away the world’s biggest tech market – China – exclusively to Chinese manufacturers; chasing away at least 75% of top Chinese scientists back to China from the U.S.; and giving the entire Russian market – over 100 million consumers – to China, in parallel to Beijing buying loads more of cheap energy from Russia.
And this is just the beginning. Hegemon sanctions were actually instrumental in helping Beijing develop even faster the Made in China 2025 set of policies – becoming a leader or second best in 10 high-tech sectors. And the next stage is the several simultaneous steps towards de-dollarization – including the expansion of the petroyuan.
A crack Chinese scholar summed it all up in his delightfully blunt stye (“having the Leviathan-esque advantage of being crystal clear”): China is really back – and will stay on for a very, very long time.
No wonder this is beyond anathema for the imperial plutocracy and its Atlanticist vassals.
We are slowly and surely advancing towards the establishment of a new world-system managed by Sovereign Civilizational States: China, Russia and Iran are at the forefront.
The road though will be long and thorny – with plenty of nasty setbacks. And that brings us to the current Pavel Durov judicial-tech-geopolitical saga.
How Telegramis geopolitics
Pavel Durov is now essentially a high-level hostage in one of NATOstan’s key nodes, France.
NATO’s military intel/surveillance/economic matrix finally got the leverage they actively sought for so long. For the moment there’s no answer to the key question: what did Durov offer his captors to be “rewarded” with a temporary semi-freedom regime after posting bail that for his standards amounts to pocket money?
Durov is essentially accused of not “collaborating” or “cooperating” with Western intel. Their single-minded obsession is to control Telegram’s content moderation set up; have total back door access; and eventually ban all Russian channels – which have been instrumental to carry the real stories on the ground developing from Ukraine to sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.
Telegram is the social network of choice of the Global Majority. Telegram is at the heart of geopolitics. So this is yet another chapter of the no holds barred Hybrid War by the Collective West against the Global Majority.
Telegram also happens to be extensively used in Russia by public and military bodies. It’s a near certainty that Pavel does not have Telegram’s fabled encryption keys; yet his math genius brother Nikolai does.
As it stands, no one knows the terms of the deal leading to Pavel’s semi-freedom. What is clear is that some sort of concessions were made – Durov has not been turned into Assange 2.0. These concessions might include handing over selected information in a classic “judiciary” mode that would not compromise Russian state secrets.
The Durov brothers are certainly aware that any information leading Western intel to harass bloggers and channels for their political stance would fatally compromise the credibility of Telegram.
Depending on how the French mega-bureaucracy “investigation” proceeds, and whether the system decides to take Durov to trial or even to block Telegram in the EU, that will only benefit Telegram globally.
The saga is just beginning. As it stands, the world is waiting for a word by Pavel Durov himself. On Telegram.
In 1818, the English writer Mary W. Shelly (1797-1851) published her gruesome novel Frankenstein: The Modern Prometheus, which became world famous. In the story, the scientist Dr. Victor Frankenstein pieces together a human-like creature from cadaver parts in his laboratory and succeeds in breathing life into its body. But Frankenstein would immediately like to eliminate the monster he has created. He sees it as a demon, calling it a “disgusting monster,” a “cursed Satan.” The monster immediately realized that it is excluded, outcast from human society.
It becomes bitter and vengeful, bringing great misfortune, death, and destruction.
Shelly’s Frankenstein has undergone many interpretations over the years. One is that the transgression of boundaries—such as Frankenstein’s ungodly urge to want to create life like God—ends in disaster. Linked to this, the elevation of man above what is assigned to him, his arrogance, the uncontrollability of human creation contrary to nature, come to a bad end.
If you reflect a little longer and look at the recent past, Shelly’s Frankenstein book somehow reminds us of the euro—the supranational single currency that was “released from the laboratory” on January 1, 1999.
The euro was created artificially by declaring the previously fixed exchange rates of the participating currencies irrevocable among themselves and against the ‘euro’ as an artificial unit and then merging them into it. The national currencies such as the Deutschmark, French franc, Austrian schilling, etc., were absorbed into the euro, and the euro was pieced together from them, so to speak.
The national currencies themselves were all fiat currencies. In other words, they represented state-monopolized money that was literally created out of nothing. All of them were therefore thoroughly and literally unnatural types of money—unnatural or contrary to nature, especially in the sense that they did not come into existence through voluntary cooperation. In fact, they were enforced top-down by the state’s monopoly. And the economic and ethical defects of the national fiat currencies are now inherent in the fiat euro, the conglomerate of the underlying national fiat currencies.
It is true that the creators of the euro made all kinds of promises and drew up rules and laws to make the public believe that their euro creature would be a reliable money. For example, the Maastricht Treaty stipulated that the European Central Bank (ECB), which was henceforth to monopolize the euro money supply, should be politically independent. Moreover, the ECB was said to ensure “price stability” (a euphemism for “low price inflation”), and that it should not finance the participating countries’ budget deficits with newly created euros.
Euro area member states were also to be placed in a “fiscal straitjacket”: they were not allowed, it was said in the run-up to the creation of the euro, to take on new debt by more than 3% of GDP per year and their debt burden was not allowed to exceed 60% of GDP. But all the “good things” that the creators of the euro promised the public have not materialized. On the contrary, their euro creature has been causing one problem after another, leading to wide-spread economic misery. For example, economic growth in the countries that adopted the euro from the outset was much lower on average than in the period before the euro.
Additionally, Euro area member states have not adhered to the debt rules. On the contrary, their debt levels have continued to trend upwards in the last 25 years. The net taxpayers in the countries that are still relatively better off have to pay for the mismanagement of the less economically successful countries. A de facto debt mutualization has been brought about. For example, the so-called European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was set up in 2013, and its purpose is to hold net taxpayers liable for dizzying amounts of money for bailing out financially irresponsible member states. The ECB is now gearing its interest rate policy to the needs of ailing state finances, that is, financing member states’ debt issuances with newly created euros—preferably through ever-new government bond purchase programs.
The euro currency union is now deeply divided, as the increased Target 2 balances show, documenting a breath-taking redistribution of wealth between the euro countries. The Target 2 deficit countries are financed at the expense of the productive citizens of the Target 2 surplus countries. The inhibition to let the electronic printing press rotate has dwindled more and more. If necessary, the ECB provides de facto unlimited amounts of credit at favorable interest rates, especially to financially struggling states and commercial banks.
In the course of the politically dictated lockdown crises of 2020 to 2022, the ECB drastically expanded the money supply in the hands of the general public, causing very high price inflation that devalued people’s purchasing power and savings.
In sum, the euro, almost as soon as it was released from the laboratory, caused severe problems, even economic disaster. It has taken on an uncontrolled life of its own, just like Frankenstein’s monster. The euro single currency creates one crisis after another because—like Frankenstein’s monster—it is literally unnatural.
The euro is fiat money, and fiat money is known to have blatant economic and ethical defects. It is inflationary, socially unjust, causes financial and economic crises, drives national economies into over-indebtedness, and allows the state to grow unchecked at the expense of the freedoms of citizens and entrepreneurs. It can even be said that the fiat euro has greatly exacerbated the defects inherent in any national fiat currency.
Economic theory, had it been consulted, could have diagnosed this from the outset. No better, reliable and ethically sound money can be created from individual national fiat currency parts by merging them. On the contrary, merging them creates something even worse. And the attempt to preserve the euro creature at all costs only makes it even more evil. The damage it causes will foreseeably ruin the wider population in the eurozone in the truest sense of the word.
Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s monster grew out of a fatal aberration, which Frankenstein immediately recognized shortly after his deed. However, he failed to undo his work. The creators of the euro—unlike Dr. Frankenstein—show no signs of regret. This is either because they do not recognize the euro for what it is—bad money that is gradually destroying the free economy and society (or what is left of it). Or because some of them are quite happy with the consequences of the euro, because they see it as having a planned effect, namely, it turns freedom into unfreedom, paving the way towards full-blown socialism. At the same time, many people do not see the euro as a monstrosity, do not recognize it as a disaster and do not hold it responsible for the damage it causes.
In the end, Mary Shelly has Frankenstein’s monster die in the Antarctic and go up in flames. Frankenstein himself dies shortly afterwards, having passed on his story to posterity. The end of the euro creature cannot be deduced from this, but from an economic point of view it is clear that the euro will not have a happy ending either.
You may now say: the euro is not a human-like creature like Frankenstein’s monster was, so we should not associate the euro with the story of Merry Shelly’s sinister creature. In response to this objection, it can be said that the comparison is not flawed if one realizes that both cases are ultimately about human attitudes, about human ideas. They underlie the “unauthorized” deeds—such as the arrogance of wanting to create something unnatural, or perhaps bringing something disastrous into the world under the pretext of good.
Seen in this light, the root of evil is the bad idea, and the Frankenstein monster and the euro are only the respective symptoms that human action, instigated by bad ideas, produces. In order to put a stop to the euro creature, people need to change their way of thinking, to realize that a uniform, politicized, dictated, centralized fiat currency is not a good idea, but rather that the good idea is that people must have unrestricted freedom in their choice of money so that they can have good money. So it makes sense to link the Frankenstein monster and the euro creature, to think about them in the way that has been done in this little essay.
The purpose of NATO involvement in the Ukraine War has, to me, always appeared obvious. Ukraine has nothing to do with the interests of the western public, nothing to do with the security of Europe and nothing to do with the economic advancement of the United States. Yet, NATO and the globalists have been politically interfering in the region since at least 2014 and preparing the ground for an eventual war with Russia.
To be clear, I don’t favor Russia any more than I favor Ukraine. The Kremlin has long had its own ties to the globalists, as I have outlined in numerous articles. How deep those ties go is up for debate – Maybe the honeymoon is over and Russia is truly done trying to get a seat at the globalist table. What I do know is that western elites want a world war and they have done everything in their power to start one.
Look at it this way: What if you were to make a list of all the covert and overt NATO operations in Ukraine and then flipped script? What if Russia was pursuing all the same agendas of destabilization, control and arms proliferation in Mexico (as the Soviets did in Cuba in the 1960s)? If the US invaded Mexico preemptively it would be completely understandable.
Whether or not Putin is acting in the best interests of Russia doesn’t really matter. The war was inevitable anyway because NATO made sure it was impossible to avoid. But what purpose does such a proxy war serve? Well, it doesn’t serve much purpose at all…unless the goal is to instigate a wider world war between the East and the West. In that scenario the globalists benefit greatly.
They get a scapegoat for the economic collapse they’ve already set in motion. They multiply the global fear factor and make the public desperate for the political elites to step in and solve all their problems. And, they can get rid of their domestic enemies (conservatives and patriots) by accusing them of “working with Russia” to undermine the war effort if they dare to rebel against unconstitutional mandates.
Beyond that, they also get an opportunity to send young men (who might rebel) off to the meat grinder in Ukraine so that there’s no new generation of freedom fighters to deal with. World War III is a win-win-win for the Davos crowd, as long as it doesn’t go full-on nuclear holocaust and wipe out their carefully crafted surveillance states.
But how do they turn the proxy war into a world war without looking like the bad guys? That’s the trick, isn’t it?
The proxy (in this case, Ukraine) would have to take actions that provoke Russia into an explosive outburst. Russia would have to utilize tactics or weaponry that puts a vast number of civilians at risk, requiring greater NATO involvement and perhaps even UN intervention. They need Russia to level a major city containing hundreds of thousands of civilians. They need Russia to drop MOABs or nukes. They need a dramatic war crime; otherwise, the western public is not going to support boots on the ground or agree to a military draft.
Popular support for monetary and military aid in Ukraine is waning quickly and Ukraine knows they are about to lose. The Kursk offensive looks like an act of desperation triggered by this reality.
The Kursk region has almost no modern strategic value. It’s a rural agricultural area with a limited industrial base. It does have natural gas pipelines that send energy to Europe, but that doesn’t help Ukraine. They’re already in trouble with Germany for blowing up the Nordstream pipeline. There is also a nuclear power plant in the area but it’s too far away for Ukraine’s troops to seize it (They could try to destroy it with drones and cause a nuclear incident, but this would have to be done covertly without Ukraine taking direct credit).
Mainstream strategists argue that the Kursk operation was designed to force Russia to move crack troops away from the Donbas front where they are making impressive gains. This would allegedly slow down Russia’s attrition based offensive and change the direction of the war. But if that was the plan, it failed miserably.
Ukraine’s troops in Kursk have reportedly been contained. Using NATO-style maneuver tactics to invade Kursk has also done nothing to slow Russia’s advance as they are now primed to take the key city of Toretsk. They are also approaching Pokrovsk (the main staging ground for Ukraine’s forces in the east). These areas are heavily defended with long term entrenchments, but Russia is rolling right through them. The lines beyond these cities are thin or non-existent. Ukraine would immediately be forced to negotiate a cease fire.
Russia also launched the largest missile and drone strikes of the war in fifteen Ukrainian oblasts, causing even greater disruptions to utilities. This proves two things: The Russian military has NOT been diminished or crippled and they still have ample long range ordnance, despite what NATO officials originally claimed
There’s a reason why Kursk was so lightly defended by Russia – It’s not worth anything to Ukraine in terms of winning the war. That said, I would like to offer an alternative theory on why Ukraine made such a move…
The moment Ukraine crossed onto Russian soil the media and political narrative changed. The word today is that the Kremlin’s “red lines” are meaningless and that Ukraine has proven that Putin is “all talk” when it comes to nuclear weapons and metropolitan strikes. The discussion has turned to the use of US and European long range missiles deep into Russian territory. The Ukrainian government (with NATO behind it) is demanding that US and European officials allow them access to the big-boy toys.
Again, the Biden Administration has to at least appear resistant to this idea. They know if they openly give the green light to offensive ATACM strikes on Russian soil beyond the front that they will be seen as stepping over the line of logistical “support” into the realm of direct warfare with the Russians. Yes, I’m well aware that NATO intel and “advisers” have been on the ground in Ukraine since before the war began. The point is, it’s not official policy because the public would not accept it.
Long range strikes into Russia, I believe, will set in motion more Russian strikes on major cities in the west of Ukraine where the majority of the population lives. These areas have gone largely untouched during the duration of the war. Putin, despite what the media claims, has been careful to limit the targeting of larger civilian centers. That will end if NATO missiles hit Russian cities.
Kursk may have been an attempt to embarrass Russia into wild strikes on civilian targets, thereby giving NATO a reason to intervene. That’s one theory. Another theory is that the Kursk operation is designed to convince western policy makers and the public that there will be no nuclear repercussions; that Putin is all bluster and Ukraine should be given more advanced tools to bomb Moscow.
This narrative is largely promoted by the Atlantic Council, a globalist think-tank with ties to the World Economic Forum and the “Three Seas Initiative.” The Atlantic Council directly advises the Ukrainian government on all aspect of the war, including strategy through their Eurasian Center. They also advise NATO through their Scowcroft Center. As their website notes:
“The Eurasia Center has worked tirelessly to respond to the Kremlin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, using our well-respected and high-visibility platform and leveraging relationships in government, civil society, and the media to have great impact. The Eurasia Center offers recommendations directly to the U.S. administration and Congress, senior Ukrainian officials, European leadership, international media, and civil society. The Center tracks the military and political situation within Ukraine and advocates for stronger, faster measures to stall and mitigate the damage of the Kremlin’s war on Ukraine.”
I would argue that the Atlantic Council is the primary globalist “influencer” in the Ukraine war – The source for the majority of strategic decisions and propaganda. Their support of the ‘Three Seas Initiative” since 2014 has been the driving force in the effort to bring Ukraine into the EU and NATO (the primary reason why the war started in the first place).
Lindsay Graham, a Neo-Con and rabid proponent of using Ukraine as a proxy to ignite a war with Russia, has been participating in Atlantic Council projects since at least 2010.
It’s the Atlantic Council and their media contacts, in my opinion, that are pushing for large scale missile strikes into Russia. They are also the source for the claim that Putin’s red lines are a fake out. They state on their website:
“Ukraine’s offensive is now posing serious questions about the credibility of Russia’s saber-rattling and the rationality behind the West’s abundance of caution. After all, the Ukrainian army’s current invasion of Russia is surely the reddest of all red lines. If Russia was at all serious about a possible nuclear escalation, this would be the moment to make good on its many threats. In fact, Putin has responded by seeking to downplay the invasion while pretending that everything is still going according to plan.”
This is the same propaganda that has been spreading into most establishment media platforms in recent weeks. (As a side note, the Atlantic Council was also heavily involved in the funding of covid mandate and vaccine propaganda during the pandemic scare).
The idea that ballistic volleys into Russia using NATO supplied missiles won’t result in Putin using MOABs or nukes is truly insane. Keep in mind, long range strikes into Russia will do nothing to change the conditions on the ground in the Donbas.
Even if the globalists can’t convince western populations to give the thumbs up for ballistic attacks on Russia using weapons paid for with our tax dollars, the powers-that-be have a contingency plan. Ukraine has recently announced that they have developed their OWN long range ballistic missile, and those weapons supposedly don’t fall under the supervision of the US and Europe.
Eventually these kinds of strikes will lead to a Russian response that will appear brutal; and western warhawks will squeeze that event for all it’s worth. They’ll run with it straight to the Pentagon and demand a plan for US military conscription. If this is the agenda then they’ll need to make it happen BEFORE the elections in November.
Donald Trump is looking increasingly likely to be the winner of the presidential race. I have long held that the globalists will wrap up an economic collapse or a world war and throw it in Trump’s lap. They already tried to do the same thing with the covid pandemic and the inflationary crisis.
The timing of the Kursk offensive and the call for missile strikes on Russia is not a coincidence. Trump claims that his intention is to end the Ukraine war as quickly as possible once he enters office. This will likely mean a leveraged peace settlement that will involve Ukraine giving up the Donbas region to Russia. If Trump is sincere, then there are many elites in the Atlantic Council, the WEF and NATO that will not be happy.
They need to escalate the war into something bigger, something that can’t be undone. Right now, the war can be ended – All it takes is some diplomacy and forcing Ukraine to understand that they’re not going to get the Donbas or Crimea back no matter how many lives they sacrifice. But if there are massive civilian casualties on either side, the situation becomes irreversible. I suspect this is what the globalists want.
* * *
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
Musk was responding to a post that posited X could be suspended in America as it has just been in Brazil by a leftist judge acting to censor his political opponents.
“When we attempted to defend ourselves in court, Judge de Moraes threatened our Brazilian legal representative with imprisonment. Even after she resigned, he froze all of her bank accounts,” the post from X Global Government Affairs notes.
It adds that “Our challenges against his manifestly illegal actions were either dismissed or ignored. Judge de Moraes’ colleagues on the Supreme Court are either unwilling or unable to stand up to him.”
Musk urged that this situation could easily unfold in the U.S. should Trump not be elected.
Musk followed up with a post highlighting previous footage of Kamala Harris demanding that Trump be suspended from the old Twitter.
“Freedom of speech is under massive attack around the world,” Musk declared.
Harris has a track record of censoring social media for political clout.
* * *
Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.
China Is Expanding Its Nuclear Arsenal Faster Than Any Other Nation
The first time a nuclear weapon was used in war was August 6, 1945, when the United States detonated an atomic bomb above Hiroshima, Japan. By year’s end, an estimated 140,000 people had been killed, the majority of whom were civilians. Three days later, the U.S. detonated a second nuclear bomb over Nagasaki, killing tens of thousands more.
While these were the first – and so far only – uses of nuclear weapons in war, the production, deployment and stockpiling of them hasn’t stopped.
As Statista’s Anna Fleck reports,currently, there are estimated to be 9,585 nuclear warheads in military stockpiles for potential use across nine countries, with Russia and the U.S. accounting for 8,088 of these.
There are also an estimated 2,536 retired warheads that are yet to be dismantled.
China has added 90 nuclear warheads to its arsenal since January 2023, increasing from 410 warheads to 500.
This is according to data from the peace research institute SIPRI. India and North Korea have also expanded their arsenals, bringing their total figures to an estimated 170 warheads and 50 warheads, respectively.
A Missouri man is facing federal charges following a series of alleged violent threats made via social media against former President Donald Trump, Republicans at large, and law enforcement officers, according to a criminal complaint filed in the Western District of Missouri on Aug. 30.
Justin Lee White, 36, is accused of using interstate communication to spread a slew of online threats to injure Trump, Republicans, and law enforcement in violation of federal law, culminating in a multi-agency investigation led by the FBI, according to the complaint.
The FBI said in the criminal complaint that from late July to August, White allegedly posted multiple messages on platforms like TikTok and Facebook threatening violence if his demands regarding supposed electoral fairness were not met.
According to the complaint, one of White’s videos around July 31 said, “This goes to every Republican out there. You don’t start playing fair with them votes, I’ll start showing up with a gun, I promise you. I’ll show you what real [expletive] violence is, and I’m not afraid to kill you or a [expletive] cop. So, if you want to play dirty at the votes this year, in 2024, just remember, where I come from, we get physical. So, if you Republicans don’t play fair, there will be guns and violence involved this year.”
The TikTok video was captioned, “This is a message to Donald Trump and the Republicans. If you don’t play…”
The Springfield, Missouri, Police Department received a tip about the TikTok video—and forwarded the tip and video to the FBI for further action.
Upon closer examination, law enforcement said they discovered additional threatening posts on the suspect’s Facebook page.
In one post dated Aug. 22, White allegedly included a photograph of a firearm and ammunition, warning that any police officer who approached his residence would be met with violence. The complaint describes these posts as containing explicit threats to “kill” and “beat the [expletive] life out” of police officers.
The tip led to a search warrant being executed at White’s residence on Aug. 29, where FBI agents said they recovered firearms, ammunition, and further evidence supporting the charges.
During his subsequent arrest and interview, White allegedly admitted to creating the threatening posts and expressed regret, adding that he had “[expletive] up” in posting the content out of anger.
Authorities said he described getting into a shooting altercation with a police officer when he was around 16 or 17 years old, saying he “beat” the case because the officer had allegedly shot at him first. He allegedly said that this incident and other videos where cops were allegedly “aggressive or violent toward members of society” made him hate cops.
White is in custody and faces up to five years in prison if convicted and/or a fine of $250,000, according to the complaint. A preliminary and detention hearing is set for Sept. 5.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Missouri had no further comment at this time, and an attorney listed as representing White did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times before publication.
Last week, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) organized the World Robot Conference – where they showcased the latest advancements that China’s robotics industry has produced over the past several years.
According to the CCP, China’s humanoid robots are “catching up fast with global rivals,” with advances such as the incorporation of AI into some of its robots that have military capabilities.
We’re picturing mindless robot patrols enforcing the next ‘welded in’ pandemic lockdown, with deadl(ier) results.
As Anders Corr notes in The Epoch Times, China’s humanoid robots on display at the conference could easily be equipped with weapons and probably already have been. The People’s Liberation Army has demonstrated armed flying drones and quadruped AI robots that resemble dogs with machine guns mounted to their backs. The killer robot dogs can reportedly fire their weapons autonomously.
China’s rapid rise in robotics is state-directed and subsidized to the tune of over $1.4 billion, according to an official announcement in 2023. In 2012, China installed fewer than 15 percent of industrial robots globally. By 2022, that number increased to over 50 percent, with China installing over 250,000, the most in the world. By comparison, Japan and the United States installed just about 50,000 and 40,000, respectively.
In 2016, a Chinese company bought Germany’s Kuka, one of the world’s three leading industrial robot makers. The other two are Japan’s Fanuc and Switzerland’s ABB. Tesla is also a leading robot maker. It plans to deploy 1,000 humanoid Optimus robots in Tesla factories in 2025. Given the close connections of all four of these companies to China, there is a significant risk of technology transfers and IP theft, further driving China’s rapid rise in the robotics space.
On March 25, a Chinese company called LimX Dynamics revealed an advanced biped robot that navigates rocky, grassy, hilly, and other challenging terrains in a mountainous region of China. A video shows the biped being pulled and beaten around the legs by a trainer with a club, but it rapidly adjusts to such attacks and maintains its stance. While the robot is relatively short at just 2.5 feet, it could easily be scaled to smaller or larger sizes depending on the intelligence, military, or crowd-control application.
The regime in China has mandated that robots be human-friendly, including safeguarding human dignity and not threatening human security. It promotes robots as domestic help, caregivers to the elderly, and doctors that will reportedly treat 3,000 patients a day. However, the CCP has novel interpretations of such concepts as human rights, which it regularly subordinates to its primary goal of regime stability and the expansion of its own power.
This raises concerns about whether the CCP will use its vast number of industrial, humanoid, canine, and other robots for such authoritarian purposes, including abroad to the extent that the robots are exported. Experts are already concerned that internet-connected electric vehicles (EVs) could be hacked and transformed into remote-controlled weapons. China’s exported EVs and robots could be seen in Beijing as a dual-use sleeper army of sorts that can surveil or attack an adversary. Some of China’s domestic robots can already engage in martial arts. They could also be designed with hidden military capabilities and security backdoors that would make them hackable and militarily effective for the regime in Beijing.
This is of concern given that China is already exporting inexpensive dog robots equipped with cameras and microphones for as little as $540 each. That price puts them within reach of almost any consumer from the United States and our allies. Humanoid household helper robots can now be had for as little as $16,000 apiece. Consumers in the United States and our allies may want to purchase these robots, but experts say they could be hacked and used to harm or kill an owner.
If hacked on a mass scale, a sleeper army of insecure robots in the United States, Taiwan, or other countries could assist the CCP in extending its authoritarian influence, violating human rights, committing genocide, or executing a military conquest such as over Taiwan. U.S. robotics firms, such as Boston Dynamics, have released videos of robots that are potentially more advanced than those found in China. However, Beijing could hack these robots as well.
The CCP may be hiding its robotics capabilities as much as it hides its superior supercomputer capabilities. The CCP can use Boston Dynamics as inspiration. It has already consciously used companies with more advanced technologies, like Tesla, as a “catfish” to spur more rapid development in China.
If AI were to ever escape human control in a breakout, which many AI experts worry about, it could potentially hack many of the world’s robots and much of the world’s Internet of Things (IoT), thus expanding AI’s ability to surveil the environment and act in it physically and autonomously.
Even if the risk of an AI breakout or mass CCP hack of U.S. robots and IoT has a low probability of ever becoming a reality, its high cost is such that regulations and legislation are being proposed in the United States and elsewhere. These are meant to address what is known as a “black swan” event that is of low probability but high cost and, therefore, a risk to be mitigated.
Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), for example, recently proposed an amendment requiring an annual Pentagon report on threats to the United States from China’s AI military technology, including armed AI robot dogs. The amendment passed the House without a single opposition vote from either party.
Deterring China’s use of the dangerous combination of AI and military robotics—and the arms race it starts—requires more than just military innovation on our part. It requires removing the CCP from its control of the world’s most powerful manufacturing base in China so that all countries can back away from the brink of developing ever more powerful and unregulated AI-enabled military robotics. Given that the CCP is averse to arms control and can’t be trusted even if it is welcomed as much, that can be done through no less than an ethical sea-change in China that most likely will require its democratization.
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
Recent articles by The New York Times attacking Shen Yun Performing Arts, an arts group run by Chinese dissidents, are flawed to the point of requiring retraction, according to a recent report.
The paper’s longest article, at 5,000 words, “overtly employs the basic tools of a propaganda hit piece,” including “emotionally manipulative language and imagery,” the report states.
“The extent to which the Times’ reporting achieves the goals of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is also worth noting and deeply disturbing,” it states.
The CCP has targeted Shen Yun since the company was founded in the United States in 2006 by a group of Chinese expats who practiced Falun Gong, a Chinese spiritual discipline based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion, and tolerance. The practice has been brutally persecuted by the CCP for the past quarter-century.
The performing arts company has become a cultural phenomenon, with eight dance troupes and orchestras that perform for about a million people every year. Its stated mission is to revive traditional Chinese culture free of communist influence. Some of its dance pieces cast a spotlight on the ongoing persecution of Falun Gong in China.
The company is based at a campus in upstate New York along with two affiliated religious schools, Fei Tian College and Fei Tian Academy of the Arts.
On Aug. 16, The New York Times ran its main article alleging Shen Yun abuses its performers, mainly by forcing them to perform while injured.
The article was followed by four shorter pieces that rehashed and summarized the same allegations.
The Epoch Times previously documented a litany of problems with the main article, including what appears to be breaches of The New York Times’ own journalistic standards.
An Aug. 27 report by the Falun Dafa Information Center (FDIC), a nonprofit monitoring the persecution of Falun Gong, found even more problems.
“The findings raise serious concerns about why the Times would engage in reporting that breaches journalistic ethics, while obviously harming a religious minority that is persecuted in China,” the report said, calling on the paper to retract the articles and investigate how it was possible they were produced in the first place.
In an earlier report, the center detailed its research of the CCP’s more than 120 attempts to sabotage Shen Yun. That report included information gathered from interviews with more than 100 current and former Shen Yun performers and others who worked with the company.
Upon the publication of the New York Times articles, the FDIC interviewed yet more current and former Shen Yun artists.
It concluded that The New York Times “disregarded repeated and good-faith attempts by Shen Yun and others to provide information that ran counter to its preconceived narrative, used highly problematic sources and a small sample size to build a particular storyline, ignored a wide-range of experts, did not disclose critical information to readers, and continued a decades-long pattern of grossly distorting the beliefs of Falun Gong practitioners.”
A New York Times spokesman said its main article “was thoroughly reported, fact-checked and edited.”
“We stand behind its publication,” he told The Epoch Times via email.
Shen Yun has already received threats in the aftermath of the articles, according to FDIC.
One message to the Shen Yun website, it said, demanded a statement the company issued in response to the articles be removed or else “Shen Yun Performing Arts and Fei Tian school employees, and family members very likely will have some inexplicable car accidents, their houses will unexplainably catch fire and burn, and also may be attacked by New York gangsters.”
By its own admission, The New York Times didn’t develop the idea for the article on its own initiative.
While interviewed by the paper about the article, Hong suggested the original idea came from a “tipster” that approached the paper last year, claiming to be “familiar with the inner workings of Shen Yun” and ready “to share information about the group’s operations.”
Hong acknowledged that she previously didn’t know much about Shen Yun.
The “tipster” then introduced the reporters to the first former Shen Yun performer, apparently one with a negative story to tell.
The Epoch Times spoke to several people approached by the reporters for the article who were left with the impression that Hong and Rothfeld already had a negative story framed.
The FDIC report states that the New York Times journalists “were not engaged in an honest investigation of the conditions of Shen Yun dancers,” but rather “were pursuing negative accounts.”
In mid-August, Shen Yun representatives offered the reporters a chance to interview some artists who had had their injuries treated. That was a significant concession, as several months prior, they declined interview requests over concerns that the reporters were acting in bad faith. The reporters didn’t take advantage of the offer, according to email communications published by the FDIC.
Over Shen Yun’s 18 years of existence, more than 1,000 artists have passed through its ranks. Many of the former performers can be easily reached on social media or through other publicly available contact methods.
“We checked with more than a dozen former artists, who hold very positive perspectives on their experience in Shen Yun and were easily accessible—they say they were never contacted by the reporters,” the FDIC report reads.
“On the contrary, at least a dozen former artists who were asked to leave Shen Yun or departed on bad terms were all contacted by the reporters.”
One former dancer who suffered a knee injury responded to the reporters with a lengthy email explaining that she did receive treatment and that this was the norm at Shen Yun. She suspected she was contacted because she didn’t complete her treatment, but she said in her email that it was her personal decision and “it can’t represent Shen Yun’s attitude for injuries.”
The reporters included one quote from her email praising Shen Yun, but did not include any of her concerns about the narrative they appeared to be following in their reporting.
At least two other former Shen Yun performers sent the reporters emails expressing concern over bias.
“I hope you double-check all your facts, and especially your innuendos … what you choose to quote, and what you choose to omit. Once the full story of Falun Gong, China, and the CCP come to light—including the full background of those that contributed to this story—I just think you all will have a lot of very difficult questions to answer,” one of them wrote to the reporters, in an email provided to The Epoch Times.
“I really have no interest in doing an interview for anti-Falun Gong activists who masquerade as journalists.”
The reporters wholly omitted these emails from their articles.
The New York Times article alleges that 14 former performers either experienced injuries without seeking treatment or saw such a thing happen to others. Some said they felt they would be criticized for seeking treatment, but none alleged that anyone was denied treatment by the company.
The article said some serious injuries were treated, but that “such interventions were rare.”
That appears to be false, according to the FDIC.
“According to our findings, while some Shen Yun dancers do suffer injuries in the course of training or performing, none of the artists we spoke to indicated the company discouraged them from seeking medical treatment,” its report reads.
“Several doctors who practice medicine in towns near Shen Yun’s headquarters in New York say they regularly treat Shen Yun performers.”
Dancers of Shen Yun’s caliber might push through some aches and pains, but wouldn’t ignore significant injuries, if only because it would compromise the show’s quality, the FDIC said based on multiple interviews.
“If it will cause a lasting injury or is too painful, of course, we don’t perform,” Piotr Huang, a lead Shen Yun dancer and instructor, told FDIC.
“We have a responsibility to our audience and only want to show our best, therefore we would never perform with a serious injury, and Shen Yun wouldn’t allow it anyway.”
Earlier this year, the FDIC obtained information from three whistleblowers familiar with the CCP’s internal activities. They provided notes from a meeting of the Chinese Ministry of Public Security on a provincial level as well as from an internal report produced by a major CCP-controlled investment fund.
Based on the notes, which The Epoch Times reviewed, the CCP has launched a new campaign to target Falun Gong overseas. The main goals of the campaign are to create internal divisions within the Falun Gong community and to seed allegations with the greatest potential to prompt investigations by U.S. authorities.
The main vehicles for the operation are social media influencers who spread anti-Falun Gong and anti-Shen Yun messaging outside China, according to the whistleblowers.
Meanwhile, the regime is seeking to “mobilize central state media resources, university think tanks and other unit resources [to] actively share defamatory information about Falun Gong with overseas media,” one of the whistleblowers wrote.
One of the influencers mentioned in the notes by name is a U.S.-based YouTuber of Chinese descent whose online content is dominated by unsubstantiated allegations against Shen Yun and Falun Gong, interspersed with grandiose ruminations about his efforts to “destroy” them.
Some Falun Gong practitioners in China have reported to the FDIC that the CCP police is using the YouTuber’s content in “brainwashing classes” meant to force Falun Gong detainees to give up their faith.
“I was the one who introduced people [ex-performers] to the New York Times, especially for the initial interviews. They found additional people through that,” the YouTuber wrote on X following publication of the New York Times articles.
In a separate post, the YouTuber thanked the New York Times reporters for their “hard work.”
Connections to Beijing Dance Academy
At least three of the performers the YouTuber spoke to have mentioned online that after leaving Shen Yun, they traveled to China and were invited to the Beijing Dance Academy (BDA), a CCP-run dance school that views Shen Yun as a main competitor.
The BDA-linked dancers formed the backbone of the New York Times main article, and were photographed and quoted multiple times, according to the FDIC.
One of the performers operates a dance studio in Taiwan that runs a collaboration with the BDA.
She spoke highly of Shen Yun after she left, according to Facebook messages she exchanged with a Fei Tian professor.
“I have no regrets in this life. These are all given by the school! Without school, I would not be where I am today. Without teachers, my history would not be possible. … You have worked hard! Thank you everyone,” she said in one of the 2020 messages, which were quoted in the FDIC report.
That same year, she asked about returning to Fei Tian and invited the professor to her wedding.
In April 2024, however, she wrote to the professor that she was “not doing that well” and complained that her husband, who runs the dance studio with her in Taiwan, was “doing everything.”
“He manages my life kind of strictly,” she said, noting that she had to find an excuse to go outside so she could message freely because her husband didn’t allow her to use Facebook.
Several parents with children at the dance studio in Taiwan told FDIC that the studio asked all families that practiced Falun Gong to leave the studio in March 2024. The dancer’s husband told parents that they need to “pick a side,” the report quoted the parents as saying.
Shen Yun and FDIC representatives warned the New York Times reporters about issues with their sources, including the BDA connections.
“None of these conflicting interests were noted in the article,” the FDIC said.
The New York Times articles did not disclose the dancer’s ties to BDA.
The CCP launched its campaign to “eradicate” Falun Gong in 1999, after estimates placed the number of people practicing the spiritual discipline at 70 million to 100 million, outstripping the CCP membership. Overnight, the regime flooded the airwaves with hate propaganda against Falun Gong.
The New York Times parroted the regime’s propaganda in dozens of articles, especially in the early years of the persecution, the FDIC noted in a previous report. The paper’s new articles on Shen Yun resurrect core CCP propaganda tropes against Falun Gong.
The FDIC said that the paper displays “anti-religious bias” as far as its coverage “sensationalizes Falun Gong beliefs that are common among many religious traditions, such as the idea that suffering is a consequence of sin or karma, that the universe has a benevolent Creator, and a concern with uplifting the soul toward spiritual salvation.”
The “inability, or unwillingness” of the paper “to contextualize Falun Gong’s teachings within theological and, in particular, Buddhist and Taoist traditions, demonstrates religious ignorance, intolerance, and explicit bias,” it said.
The New York Times article said that Shen Yun performers approach their art with “a fierce sense of obligation” toward an “urgent spiritual mission.”
Dozens of Shen Yun artists told The Epoch Times that their aim is to promote traditional Chinese culture and that they also consider it crucial to expose the persecution their fellow Falun Gong practitioners face in China.
“We get to be part of this big mission to revive traditional culture. And also, for me, as a Falun Gong practitioner, I get to tell people through my art the truth about what’s happening in China,” Shen Yun percussionist Alice Liu told The Epoch Times.
The artists do consider this mission to be urgent, and this attitude is reflected in the Falun Gong community more broadly.
The New York Times maintains a long record of downplaying or outright ignoring the persecution, noted the FDIC, which earlier this year produced a detailed report outlining the history of the paper’s coverage.
The paper’s main article on Shen Yun only mentioned the persecution in passing and gave no indication that countering the abuses in China could be a motivating factor for Shen Yun performers.
Instead, it claimed that Shen Yun’s mission pertains to “an approaching apocalypse”—a long-debunked CCP propaganda theme.
Current and former Shen Yun artists and Falun Gong practitioners interviewed by The Epoch Times said they do not hold a belief that the world is about to end.
Several informed the New York Times reporters that they felt the reporters were going wrong in their portrayal of Falun Gong’s beliefs, including in emails to the reporters published by the FDIC.
“The way you single us out, criticize our religious beliefs, and paint a false narrative to make us look bad, [it’s] just like what the CCP and [its] state-run media [do] to us,” one former Shen Yun dancer wrote in an email to the reporters.
“I’ve never seen NYT do that to other groups of faith … and yet you do that to us? It seems hypocritical, and these false narratives of us can generate real [animosity].”
Her email was wholly omitted from the articles.
School Policies
The New York Times’ main article cast as “ostensibly oppressive” Fei Tian school policies “that are, in fact, industry standard practices, or at least increasingly common approaches at schools in the United States,” the FDIC said.
The school requires minor students to gain permission to leave campus, and the school limits smartphone use and time spent online, which is an increasingly common policy at American schools, the FDIC said.
Fei Tian provides all its students full-ride scholarships for education from middle school through post-graduate studies, “along with free room and board, a cash stipend for program expenses, and opportunities to travel the world,” the FDIC said.
“Such arrangements are common in ballet and other performing arts companies, although Shen Yun’s package is more substantial than many,” it said.
But The New York Times framed such benefits “as tools of exploitation and emotional manipulation,” the report said.
The article also cast as abusive the requirement for dancers to maintain optimal weight, the FDIC noted.
“But that is common among professional dancers, athletes, and models. It is not only for aesthetic reasons but also to reduce the risk of injuries, as extra weight can put additional stress on joints and bones,” it stated.
The FDIC criticized The New York Times for failing to follow its own editorial standards and for failing to ensure “that foreign influence operations by malign actors are not at play.”
“Such decisions have consequences,” the report reads.
“Within China, the CCP’s propaganda apparatus has already begun making widespread use of the articles in its own campaign to demonize Falun Gong, a campaign which fuels violence against millions of innocent people—including family members of Shen Yun performers. Outside China, such reporting inevitably turbo-charges Chinese diplomatic efforts to pressure theaters not to book shows, while putting performers in physical danger.”
It called on the paper to retract the articles, “launch an internal investigation,” and “implement corrective measures to ensure these failures do not repeat in future reporting about Shen Yun or Falun Gong.”
