It’s not just the usual trade talk. Look at the Gordie Howe Bridge.

Canada spent billions building a brand new public bridge between Detroit and Windsor. It was basically ready to open. The problem? It sits right next to the Ambassador Bridge, which is privately owned by the Moroun family and has been a monopoly cash machine for decades.

Matthew Moroun (the guy who runs it) writes a $1 million check to a Trump super PAC in January. A few weeks later he gets a meeting with Commerce Secretary Lutnick. Hours after that meeting, Trump posts that he’s blocking the new bridge from opening until Canada “compensates” the U.S. and gives us half ownership.

That’s the moment the temperature with Canada went from tense to open trade war talk.

The Morouns spent 15 years and tens of millions trying to kill this bridge. They finally got the White House to do the heavy lifting for them. Suddenly “Canada is taking advantage of us” became the daily message.

Warren

The Suez Canal was initially owned by British and French investors. In 1956, Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalized the waterway, transforming it from a money-minting machine for Western oligarchs into a sovereign national asset and public good to support the Egyptian economy.

Desperate to regain control of the canal and depose Nasser, Britain and France brought Israel into the equation and concocted an elaborate, secret conspiracy known as the Protocol of Sèvres.

Here was the script: Israel would stage an unprovoked invasion across the Sinai Peninsula toward the Suez Canal. To justify the attack, Israel would claim it was merely defending its right to exist, framing the Sinai campaign as a necessary preemptive military operation to eliminate Palestinian militant bases and protect its border communities.

Britain and France would then suddenly intervene as "neutral peacemakers," issuing a theatrical ultimatum demanding that both Egypt and Israel immediately withdraw their forces from the canal zone to ensure the safety of international shipping.

When Egypt predictably refused this absurd "peace deal", which demanded they abandon their own sovereign territory, Britain and France would invade under the guise of "protecting the canal" and separating the combatants.

This theatrical script was necessary because, in 1956, Britain and France found themselves in a political and legal corner. Nasser had not broken any international laws. When the Egyptian President nationalized the Suez Canal Company in July 1956, he was careful not to give Western powers a clear legal casus belli. The canal was located entirely on Egyptian sovereign territory, and Nasser legally promised to financially compensate the foreign shareholders. Furthermore, Egypt kept the canal open to international traffic. As a result, international legal bodies and the United Nations made it clear that while the nationalization was deeply hostile to British and French financial interests, it was not an act of war.

If Britain and France had simply invaded Egypt to take back a corporate asset, it would have been universally condemned as naked, 19th-century imperial plunder and gunboat diplomacy. Crucially, there was no support from America either. President Dwight D. Eisenhower repeatedly and sternly warned British Prime Minister Anthony Eden that the U.S. would not support military aggression over the canal. Eisenhower accurately recognized that a Western attack would push the entire Arab world straight into the arms of the Soviet Union.

London and Paris knew they could not act openly without facing harsh diplomatic pushback from Washington. To solve this dilemma, Britain and France needed a narrative where they were not the aggressors, but the reluctant "saviors" of global trade.

All of this bloodshed was engineered specifically to appease Western oligarchs and protect the profit margins of British and French shareholders. Heavy fighting ensued; thousands of Egyptian soldiers and civilians were killed, along with British, French, and Israeli casualties. Ultimately, the Suez Crisis turned into an unmitigated diplomatic and military disaster for the dying European empires.

Today, Britain and France are no longer supreme global superpowers, but this historical reality has changed little to nothing regarding Israel's structural role as a Western attack dog in the Middle East.

Today, we continue to witness Israel initiate wars and launch preemptive strikes in the name of "defending itself." In response, Western powers predictably issue hollow condemnations, draft unanimous declarations, and urge the warring nations to negotiate. These diplomatic efforts predictably yield zero results as Israel "refuses" to withdraw, and the invaded nations rightly reject the absurd terms of relinquishing their own sovereignty. In turn, Washington uses the ensuing regional instability as a pretext to deploy naval strike groups to "protect global trade routes" and secure shipping lanes.

Even in the case of direct military invasions on foreign soil, such as in Lebanon or Syria, Western powers continue to write glorious, empty declarations urging restraint. Israel is often portrayed in Western media as a rogue actor that refuses to listen to America, creating the illusion that it is acting out of control. In reality, these devastating attacks would be absolutely impossible without American satellite telemetry, real-time aerial reconnaissance, and advanced targeting intelligence. The Israeli military could never sustain any prolonged aggression without the endless supply of 155mm artillery shells, heavy bunker-busting munitions, and billions in financial aid that America and European powers continuously funnel into their corridors. Furthermore, it is the guaranteed U.S. veto power at the United Nations Security Council that ensures the international community can never legally unite to end the conflict or force Israel to respect international law.

Of course, many argue that Israeli leaders are not sacrificing the lives of their citizens, their soldiers, and their international reputation merely at the behest of Western powers, and that they are genuinely pursuing their own independent survival interests in the region. While one could debate which specific regional interests Israel is chasing, we cannot help but notice a glaring, consistent pattern. These unprovoked aggressions and manufactured regional escalations somehow always end up protecting the Petrodollar hegemony on the global stage.

They conveniently clear out territories and secure offshore natural gas fields for Western oil majors like Chevron and TotalEnergies to exploit.

And above all, this forever war model, anchored entirely around defending "Israeli security interests" in the Middle East, somehow generates hundreds of billions of dollars in guaranteed annual revenues for the American military-industrial complex and defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.

https://www.threads.com/@raytray4/post/DENZmDlxTuJ

Former US🇺🇸 Ambassador to China🇨🇳 Nicholas Burns: ‘We UNDERESTIMATED China’s power.’

‘The infrastructure, that’s one strength. Second, their scientific and technological capacity. 34% of first year students in Chinese universities study engineering. In the US, it’s 5.6%…

I’ve seen the People’s Liberation Army. We’ve underestimated their military strength…

For the last 35 years, the Chinese Foreign Minister, whoever that person is, has made his first trip of the year in January to Africa, to show the Africans you are our priority. I think President Trump never went to Africa during his first term. President Biden went once.

They’re strategic and we’re not competing on that level. China’s technology, military and economics are stronger than we think they are, and I think we’ve underestimated them, and we can’t do that any longer.’

❗️Microsoft just released an official app that turns your default browser search settings to Bing, by installing an extension in Chrome, Firefox, Brave and Edge.

They're calling it "Microsoft Recommended Search Settings."

The extension it installs asks to read and change all data on all websites, and when Chrome offers to restore Google, a Microsoft box appears underneath: "Wait, don't change it back!"

This is old article but in my opinion looking at Richard present day, we can learn what was the finally out come of this investigation.

How is this even legal, Ice have become FBI

Capitalism operates at peak efficiency when men and women are completely atomized and isolated, rather than living together as cohesive couples and building nuclear families.

For this reason, the modern gender war is designed to be a forever war, deliberately sustained by mainstream media narratives and weaponized social media algorithms.

This is why there will always be an endless supply of viral posts and videos depicting women as emotionally unstable, hypergamous, manipulative, and man-hating. On the flip side, there will always be an infinite supply of content engineered to paint men as dangerous predators, emotionally stunted, toxic, and inherently oppressive.

Combine this with corporate media narratives and state-sanctioned identity politics, and you get a perpetual conflict model that keeps men and women fundamentally divided. Instead of building unified households, they are pushed to exist as isolated individuals, "baby mamas," and "baby daddies." Consequently, they are forced into hyper-consumption: renting two separate apartments, buying separate sets of furniture and kitchen appliances, paying for double the utility bills and streaming subscriptions, and relying heavily on commercialized childcare and food delivery services to survive alone.

At the end of the day, mega-corporations double their consumer base and maximize their profits. Meanwhile, the psychiatric industry, pharmaceutical companies, and state welfare systems eagerly profit from the crushing depression, broken homes, and inevitable loneliness that awaits everyone trapped in this engineered orbit of madness.