Seyed M. Marandi: Iran’s ‘End of Time’ Missile Ready for New War
Glenn Diesen | August 31, 2025
Seyed Mohammad Marandi is a professor at Tehran University and a former advisor to Iran’s Nuclear Negotiation Team. Prof. Marandi argues that another Israeli/US attack is likely coming, and Iran has prepared itself by developing new and more powerful missiles. Prof. Marandi also argues that the only influence the EU had over Iran was the threat of using the snap-back sanctions, and Iran will no longer listen to the EU, as the decision has been made to impose these sanctions.
Iran: Path for Negotiations with US Not Closed
By Kyle Anzalone | The Libertarian Institute | September 2, 2025
A top Iranian official said a deal with the US is still possible, but Washington must drop its demands to limit Tehran’s missile program. Talks between the US and Iran broke off in June when Israel launched an unprovoked war against the Islamic Republic.
On Tuesday, Ali Larijani posted a statement from the Iranian Supreme National Security Council on X. “The path for negotiations with the US is not closed; yet these are the Americans who only pay lip service to talks and do not come to the table; and they wrongfully blame Iran for it,” he wrote. “WE INDEED PURSUE RATIONAL NEGOTIATIONS. By raising unrealizable issues such as missile restrictions, they set a path which negates any talks.”
Since Donald Trump returned to office, the US and Iran engaged in five rounds of negotiations aimed at establishing a new nuclear agreement and lifting sanctions. A sixth round of talks was scheduled, but Israel attacked Iran, halting the diplomatic process. Iranian officials said the talks were progressing towards a deal before the attack.
The US participated in the Israeli war on Iran. Tehran has demanded that Washington give assurances that the US and Israel will not resume strikes on Iran while the talks are ongoing. However, Trump has not responded to Tehran’s demand and has threatened to attack Iran if Tehran restarts its nuclear enrichment program.
Trump has pressed Iran to agree to a new nuclear agreement after he scrapped the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) during his first administration. The 2015 Iran Nuclear deal established a strict inspection regime and limitations on Tehran’s nuclear program.
After Trump broke the agreement and reimposed sanctions on Iran, Tehran exceeded the limits set in the nuclear deal. In response to a series of Israeli assassinations and sabotage attacks, Tehran enriched uranium to a higher level and established a stockpile of 60% enriched Uranium.
Tehran expelled international nuclear inspectors following Israel’s attack on Iran in June.
Belgium announces sanctions against Israel
RT | September 2, 2025
Belgium will recognize Palestinian statehood and impose sanctions on Israel over its war in Gaza, the country’s Foreign Ministry has announced.
The Western European country, which hosts the headquarters of both the EU and NATO, unveiled the measures on Tuesday as pressure grows on Israel to reach a ceasefire with Hamas and allow more humanitarian aid into the besieged Palestinian enclave.
In light of the “humanitarian tragedy in Gaza,” Belgium has decided to “increase pressure on the Israeli government and Hamas terrorists,” Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prevot wrote on X. “This is not about punishing the Israeli people, but about ensuring that their government respects international and humanitarian law and takes action to change the situation on the ground,” he added.
The sanctions include a ban on imports of products from Jewish settlements in the West Bank and restrictions on consular assistance for Belgian nationals living in settlements considered illegal under international law.
Brussels will also review procurement involving Israeli companies and blacklist “two extremist Israeli ministers, several violent settlers, and Hamas leaders,” Prevot said. He added that Belgium would push for the suspension of the EU’s trade agreement with Israel.
Several countries, including France, plan to recognize Palestine at the UN General Assembly later this month, drawing strong criticism from Israel.
Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accused France and Australia of failing to tackle anti-Semitism, arguing that recognition of Palestine would only embolden Hamas.
Israel has rejected UN warnings of famine in Gaza, where more than 63,500 people have been killed since October 2023, according to local health authorities. West Jerusalem has pledged to allow the delivery of aid, but not through distribution points it claims are controlled by Hamas.
Gaza: Over one million people face relocation to overcrowded zone
Palestinian Information Center – September 2, 2025
GAZA – Gaza’s civil defense service has warned of Israeli efforts to evacuate tens of thousands of citizens from Gaza City and northern areas and force them to go to the central and southern parts of the territory.
Spokesman for the civil defense Mahmoud Basal told a news conference on Tuesday that the Israeli plan to forcibly relocate about one million people from their homes in Gaza City and northern Gaza would lead to a major catastrophe.
Basal said that the Israeli occupation army had already destroyed over 85 percent of the homes and infrastructure in Gaza City’s ash-Shuja’iya and al-Tuffah neighborhoods, and about 70 percent of the az-Zeitoun, al-Sabra, Jabalia an-Nazla and Jabalia al-Balad areas.
Basal pointed out that several reports issued by international and UN organization confirm that the so-called humanitarian zone, where the Israeli army plans to relocate the population, comprises no more than 12 percent of the total area of the Gaza Strip.
“This would mean forcing over two million Palestinians to live in a densely packed area lacking the minimum living means,” he said.
UN Assembly Moves to Geneva After U.S. Bars Palestinian Delegation
IMEMC | September 2, 2025
The United Nations General Assembly will convene its September session in Geneva instead of New York, following the United States’ refusal to grant entry visas to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and dozens of senior officials.
The relocation marks a rare institutional challenge to the host nation and reflects mounting global frustration over Washington’s obstruction of Palestinian participation amid Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza.
The U.S. State Department justified the visa denial on grounds of “national security,” accusing the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization of “undermining peace efforts” through legal appeals to the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.
These appeals include formal charges of genocide and apartheid against Israel, claims the U.S. argues breach diplomatic norms and politicize international legal forums.
The decision affects approximately 80 Palestinian officials, although the Palestinian Mission to the UN in New York will continue operating under a limited waiver.
The move has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and international diplomats, who say it violates the 1947 UN Headquarters Agreement, which obligates the host country to facilitate access for all accredited delegations.
In 1988, the UN relocated its session to Geneva after the U.S. denied a visa to Yasser Arafat, then head of the PLO. The current relocation is similarly aimed at ensuring full Palestinian participation, particularly in a scheduled September 22 segment dedicated to Palestinian rights.
European leaders have condemned the U.S. decision. Spain’s Prime Minister described the move as “unjust,” while France reaffirmed that UN platforms must remain accessible to all recognized delegations.
The Geneva session also coincides with growing momentum among several countries, including France, the United Kingdom, and Canada, to formally recognize Palestinian statehood, adding diplomatic weight to the proceedings.
Palestinian officials have denounced the U.S. action as a deliberate attempt to silence their voice at a time when Gaza faces mass displacement, starvation, and what UN experts have described as genocidal violence.
President Abbas is expected to address the Assembly in Geneva, where he will call for international protection, recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, and accountability for war crimes.
The Geneva session is expected to amplify calls for action under the “Uniting for Peace” resolution, which empowers the General Assembly to recommend collective measures when the Security Council is unable to act due to political obstruction or lack of consensus.
Advocacy groups are urging the UN to consider deploying international protection forces to Gaza and to suspend Israel’s privileges within the UN system until humanitarian access is restored.
Beyond its logistical implications, the relocation signals a deeper shift in global diplomacy, where procedural justice and international law are being reasserted against political obstruction.
The Geneva gathering is expected to draw high-level delegations, legal experts, and civil society leaders, all converging to confront the worsening crisis and to chart a path forward for Palestinian self-determination.
Cracks in ranks: No victory, no exit in ‘Israel’s Gaza predicament
Al Mayadeen | September 2, 2025
“Israel’s” military is mobilizing 60,000 additional reservists, adding to the 70,000 already under call-up orders, in preparation for a renewed ground incursion into Gaza City as part of the ongoing “Iron Swords” campaign.
The last major operation to occupy Gaza City came at a high cost. Now, according to Israeli military correspondent Avi Ashkenazi in a report published by Maariv, commanders are warning that the next stage could prove even more dangerous.
The dense urban terrain, vast tunnel networks, and high-rise buildings of Gaza City remain formidable battlegrounds. The report states that Hamas has had months to bolster its defenses, planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs), booby-trapping buildings and tunnels, and deploying snipers and anti-tank units across likely combat zones.
Two-stage strategy, high-stakes caution
According to Maariv, the Israeli military plans to execute the campaign in two phases:
- Encircle Gaza City to restrict movement and initiate the evacuation of remaining civilians
- Deploy ground divisions to enter and attempt to control key urban sectors
This operation is expected to last months, not weeks.
Mounting friction between the military and the government
The report by Avi Ashkenazi highlights growing tensions between military leaders and the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senior Israeli officers reportedly urge continued negotiations, warning against launching another high-risk incursion without exhausting all diplomatic options.
Meanwhile, on the ground, reservists and active-duty soldiers have begun questioning the broader strategy. “What comes after Gaza City?” one soldier reportedly asked, reflecting the skepticism felt across the ranks.
Veterans of recent operations point to Rafah, Khan Younis, Jabalia, Beit Hanoun, and al-Zaytoun, all of which were invaded multiple times but failed to produce a lasting outcome.
An elusive ‘image of victory’
Even if the military succeeds in re-entering Gaza City, doubts persist over whether such an operation will alter the broader course of the war. As Ashkenazi notes, the symbolism of “battlefield achievements” has become increasingly hollow.
In December 2023, a Hanukkah menorah was lit in Gaza’s Palestine Square, a moment widely circulated in the occupation’s media as a symbol of control. Just days later, the Israeli occupation forces showcased their bombing of al-Shifa Hospital, parading it as another so-called milestone.
Yet, as noted by military correspondent Avi Ashkenazi in Maariv, such displays failed to produce the long-promised image of victory. The Israeli occupation continues, the Palestinian resistance endures, and international criticism mounts.
Now, with tens of thousands of reservists once again deployed and Gaza facing another wave of devastation, Ashkenazi and others raise the critical question: Where will “Israel” find its image of victory, and how many lives will it cost this time?
Department of War?
By Ron Paul | September 2, 2025
Last week President Trump took steps to re-name the Department of Defense the “Department of War.” The President explained his rationale for the name change: “It used to be called the Department of War and it had a stronger sound. We want defense, but we want offense too … As Department of War we won everything… and I think we… have to go back to that.”
At first it sounds like a terrible idea. A “Department of War” may well make war more likely – the “stronger sound” may embolden the US government to take us into even more wars. There would no longer be any need for the pretext that we take the nation to war to defend this country and its interests – and only as a last resort.
As Clinton Administration official Madeleine Albright famously asked of Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell when she was pushing for US war in the Balkans, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
So yes, that is a real danger. But at the same time, the US has been at war nearly constantly since the end of World War II, so it’s not like the “Defense Department” has been in any way a defensive department.
With that in mind, returning the Department of Defense to the Department of War, which is how it started, may not be such a bad idea after all – as long as we can be honest about the rest of the terms around our warmaking.
If we return to a “War Department,” then we should also return to the Constitutional requirement that any military activity engaged in by that department short of defending against an imminent attack on the US requires a Congressional declaration of war. That was the practice followed when it was called the War Department and we should return to it.
Dropping the notion that we have a “Defense Department” would free us from the charade that our massive military spending budget was anything but a war budget. No more “defense appropriations” bills in Congress. Let’s call them “war appropriations” bills. Let the American people understand what so much of their hard-earned money is being taken to support. It’s not “defense.” It’s “war.” And none of it has benefitted the American people.
Trump misunderstands one very important thing in his stated desire to return to a “War Department,” however. A tougher sounding name did not win the wars. Before the name change, which happened after the infamous National Security Act of 1947 that created the CIA and the permanent national security state, we won wars because for the most part we followed the Constitution and had a Congressional declaration of war. That way the war had a beginning and end and a clear set of goals. Since World War II the United States has not declared war even though it has been in a continuous state of war. It is no coincidence that none of these “wars” have been won. From 1950 Korea to 2025 Yemen and everything in between.
So go ahead and change it back to the “Department of War.” But let’s also stop pretending that maintaining the global US military empire is “defense.” It’s not.
Putin envoy names two global powers for joint projects in Arctic
RT | September 2, 2025
Russia views both the US and China as potential partners for future oil and gas projects in the Arctic and would consider three-way investment opportunities, according to Kirill Dmitriev, President Vladimir Putin’s aide on international economic affairs.
Moscow and Beijing already cooperate closely on state-sponsored economic initiatives. China has invested more than 700 billion rubles ($8.7 billion) in over 50 projects facilitated by the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF), Dmitriev, its CEO, told reporters on Tuesday in Beijing.
Dmitriev has played a central role in normalization efforts with Washington since US President Donald Trump took office in January. He argues that joint ventures, particularly in the energy-rich and largely untapped Arctic, would offer significant economic benefits, should the two nations overcome their differences.
“Russo-Chinese projects are happening right now. Russo-American projects happened in the past and have the potential to happen in the future,” Dmitriev said, when asked about Russia’s positioning relative to the two rival superpowers.
“Russia is considering potential Russo-Sino-American opportunities, including in the Arctic and in the energy industry,” he added. “Investors could gain value by joining forces. Also, joint-investment can serve as a stabilizing element for future political interactions.”
Successive US presidents have branded China a primary geopolitical rival. Trump administration officials have accused previous governments of driving Moscow closer to Beijing by backing Kiev.
Russia and China describe their partnership as a long-standing strategic choice grounded in shared values. Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated Beijing’s commitment to a fairer multipolar world order during this week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, which Putin attended along with leaders from Asia, Eastern Europe and the Middle East.
Germany “in conflict” with Russia – Merz
By Lucas Leiroz | September 2, 2025
The Russophobic madness of European leaders is leading them to make increasingly controversial statements. Now, the German Prime Minister claims that his country is “in conflict” with Russia, making clear Berlin’s bellicosity and his government’s willingness to maintain an escalatory hostility stance against the Russian Federation. The consequences of such statements could be serious, as they legitimize practical actions that directly impact the war between NATO and Moscow in Ukraine.
According to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Germany is “already in conflict” with Russia. He said that Moscow is “destabilizing” Germany and Europe through tactical actions such as cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, which would be a form of hybrid warfare. Furthermore, Merz suggested that Russia plans to attack EU countries to regain former Soviet territories, again spreading the myth of an “imminent Russian invasion.”
During an interview with the French broadcaster LCI, Merz commented on French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent statement, calling Russian leader Vladimir Putin “an ogre who always wants to eat more.” Merz said he completely agrees with this assessment and sees Putin in precisely the same light as Macron. Merz links Putin’s alleged “hunger” to a supposed Russian ambition for more territory, describing Russia as an expansionist country that “destabilizes European democracies.”
“That’s how I see Putin. He destabilizes large parts of our country. He is interfering everywhere, particularly on social media (…) So we are already in a conflict with Russia,” he said.
As expected, Merz presented no evidence to support his arguments. It has become commonplace for European leaders to publicly accuse Russia and Putin of various crimes without presenting any evidence to support their allegations. Merz’s claims, though serious and provocative, ultimately come across as just another instance of weak rhetoric in the EU’s broader information campaign against Moscow.
However, by stating that Germany is already in conflict with Russia, Merz takes a dangerous step forward in the tense relations between the two countries. This is a serious statement, and, when made by a head of government, it has strong and direct consequences for real policy. Russia has simply been warned by the Germans that the authorities in Berlin consider themselves in conflict with it. If German decision-makers believe they are at war with Russia and implement policies with this in mind, then the Russians must be prepared for a possible escalation of hostility.
In fact, this isn’t the first time a German official has stated that Europe is embroiled in a conflict with Russia. In 2023, then-German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock openly and directly stated that Europeans are “fighting” against the Russians. She also stated that the correct way to fight this war is through the systematic sending of weapons to Ukraine, seeking a total “Ukrainian victory” against Russia. At the time, she was severely criticized by several leaders for this statement, but Baerbock never regretted her words, which were endorsed by the bloc’s Russophobic elites.
“We are fighting a war against Russia (…) Yes, we have to do more to defend Ukraine. Yes, we have to do more also on tanks. But the most important and the crucial part is that we do it together, and that we do not do the blame game in Europe, because we are fighting a war against Russia, and not against each other (…) Obviously, Ukraine needs more military support, but not only by one country like mine or the US, by all of us. We can fight this war only together”, she said at the time.
Both the former top German diplomat and the current chancellor agree that Ukraine must continue to be armed to keep the “war against Russia” away from European borders. Their narrative is that if Ukraine falls, Russia will “invade” the EU, making it vital that support for Kiev be increased to prevent the EU’s collapse. This narrative has been central to legitimizing the sending of billion-dollar military and financial aid packages to the neo-Nazi regime in the eyes of the European public, although fewer and fewer people are believing this fallacious rhetoric.
The “arm Ukraine until victory” plan, however, has already failed. The Ukrainian army is almost completely collapsed, and Russian troops are advancing deeply on the ground, making Moscow’s total victory a mere matter of time. When Russia wins the war in Ukraine and no “invasion” occurs in Europe, the narratives of leaders like Merz, Macron, and Baerbock will be refuted, and European authorities will lose all value among European citizens, triggering a major crisis of legitimacy throughout the bloc.
Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Association, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert.
You can follow Lucas on X (formerly Twitter) and Telegram.
US escalates its crawling aggression on Venezuela as Caracas prepares defenses
By Drago Bosnic | September 2, 2025
The United States Navy (USN) and Marine Corps (USMC) keep increasing their military presence in the Southern Caribbean, more specifically in the vicinity of Venezuela’s coast. The last days of August saw a significant uptick in their activity, including American warships in eastbound transit through the Panama Canal. Only a week prior, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt stated that US President Donald Trump was “prepared to use every element of American power to stop drugs from flooding into [the country] and to bring those responsible to justice”, also insisting that “many Caribbean nations and many nations in the region” supposedly “applauded the administration’s counterdrug operations and efforts”.
Interestingly, Mrs. Leavitt never mentioned which specific countries support such actions, nor did she explain how exactly warships armed with medium-range cruise missiles can be used in the supposed “heightened counternarcotics efforts”. Worse yet, the increasingly belligerent Trump administration is openly accusing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of supposedly “heading a narco cartel”, using it as a pretext to escalate its crawling aggression on the South American nation. The US State Department website unequivocally says that President Maduro allegedly “helped manage and ultimately lead the Cartel of the Suns, comprised of high-ranking Venezuelan officials”. Expectedly, without verifiable evidence.
“As he gained power in Venezuela, Maduro participated in a corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization. Maduro negotiated multi-ton shipments of FARC-produced cocaine; directed the Cartel of the Suns to provide military-grade weapons to the FARC; coordinated with narcotics traffickers in Honduras and other countries to facilitate large-scale drug trafficking; and solicited assistance from FARC leadership in training an unsanctioned militia group that functioned, in essence, as an armed forces unit for the Cartel of the Suns”, the accusation reads.
“In March 2020, Maduro was charged in the Southern District of New York for narco-terrorism, conspiracy to import cocaine, possession of machine guns and destructive devices, and conspiracy to possess machine guns and destructive devices,” the website adds, also claiming: “After initially offering a reward offer of up to $15 million for information leading to the arrest and/or conviction of Maduro in 2020, the Department of State on January 10, 2025, increased the reward offer to up to $25 million. On August 7, 2025, the Department announced the further increase in the reward offer to up to $50 million after the Department of Treasury sanctioned Cartel of the Suns as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist on July 25, 2025.”
The US also brags that “Maduro, as leader of Cartel of the Suns, is the first target in the history of the Narcotics Rewards Program with a reward offer exceeding $25 million”. Once again, there’s zero evidence to support a single claim on President Maduro’s “corrupt and violent narco-terrorism conspiracy”. On the other hand, Washington DC has no qualms about backing actual narco-terrorist entities, such as the Albanian extremists currently based in NATO-occupied Serbian province of Kosovo and Metohia, to say nothing of well over half a century of CIA-run drug-related back ops in virtually every country south of the Rio Grande. However, despite decades of sanctions and other forms of pressure, Caracas refuses to budge.
During his first term, Trump was particularly aggressive toward both Venezuela and Iran. Back in 2017, he threatened that the US has “many options, including a possible military option, if necessary”. He made similar statements with regards to Tehran, although he never acted on either during his previous presidency. However, Trump is now far more belligerent and has attacked Iran. Although it largely failed (despite his insistence that it was a “total success”), this demonstrates his willingness to engage in direct armed aggression. American forces in the region are far too few to allow a full-blown invasion, but they’re enough to be used in limited long-range precision strikes, likely on critical infrastructure (particularly in coastal regions).
Washington DC certainly understands this would be nowhere near enough to defeat the Venezuelan military, but it’s possible that the Trump administration is hoping to destabilize Caracas politically. For instance, destroying or damaging the remaining oil refineries would disrupt normal economic activity and exacerbate the Latin American country’s troubles that stem from illegal US sanctions and constant pressure. In turn, Washington DC probably expects protests to erupt or even a full-blown rebellion. This approach is quite common whenever the US finds it more challenging to invade directly. And indeed, Venezuela’s complex geography effectively makes it a combination of Afghanistan and Vietnam, which is an absolute nightmare for any remotely sensible military planner.
Venezuela already deployed around 15,000 troops in the states of Zulia and Táchira (both bordering Colombia). These units are mostly comprised of special police and military personnel, indicating that Caracas is worried about cross-border raids and infiltration. Such measures are perfectly understandable given America’s propensity to use sabotage and terrorist attacks to undermine targeted countries. Back in 2020, the CIA launched the so-called “Operation Gideon” precisely from Colombia, with two boats carrying approximately 60 insurgents commanded by two former members of the US Army Special Forces (better known as “Green Berets”). Both were employed as mercenaries by Silvercorp USA, a Florida-based PMC.
Such private military enterprises are quite common in the US and are used by the Pentagon in order to maintain plausible deniability in case of failure. Precisely this happened to “Operation Gideon”, which was effectively some sort of Trump’s “mini-Bay of Pigs” moment. This failure was attributed to multiple factors, with several US intelligence services accusing one another of “major security breaches”. In fact, back in January, Jordan Goudreau, the head of Silvercorp (himself a former “Green Beret”), accused the CIA and FBI of “sabotaging the operation”. However, whether that’s true or not is irrelevant, as Venezuela needs to be prepared for any similar incursions, particularly now that such actions might serve as the vanguard of direct US aggression.
Drago Bosnic is an independent geopolitical and military analyst.
Gates-Funded Self-Assembling Microcrystal Implants Mark a New Phase in Population Control
By Nicolas Hulscher, MPH | FOCAL POINTS | April 25, 2025
A new study published in Nature Chemical Engineering titled “Self-aggregating long-acting injectable microcrystals” reveals Bill Gates’s latest investment. As expected, this “innovation” does not improve the health of humanity by any means, but instead seeks to further reduce already-collapsing birth rates.

The technology, dubbed SLIM (Self-aggregating Long-acting Injectable Microcrystals), enables the self injection of microcrystals that self-assemble into a semi-permanent drug implant. The implant slowly releases synthetic hormones like levonorgestrel—a potent contraceptive—over months to years.
While the study frames SLIM as a step forward in medical innovation, closer inspection reveals grave concerns:
- Irreversible implants: Once injected, the microcrystals self-assemble into a dense, solid mass deep in subcutaneous tissue. The study provides no method for removal, raising the possibility that these implants are effectively permanent, particularly in low-resource settings without surgical infrastructure.
- Unknown long-term effects: In rats, the solid implant remained intact for at least 97 days—the full length of the study. In humans, where metabolism is slower and tissue clearance is more complex, these structures could persist for years with unknown consequences.
Widely available, extremely long-lasting anti-fertility implants are a dream come true for depopulationists. Bill Gates, the funder of this study, publicly revealed his preference for reducing the population by 10-15% in order to “get CO₂ to zero.”
“First we’ve got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people, that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, healthcare, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10-15%” – Bill Gates at TED2010
The Gates Foundation also funded a study that was published last year titled “Global fertility in 204 countries and territories, 1950–2021, with forecasts to 2100: a comprehensive demographic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2021.” They estimated irreversible population collapse within the next few decades:
By 2050, over three-quarters (155 of 204) of countries will not have high enough fertility rates to sustain population size over time; this will increase to 97% of countries (198 of 204) by 2100.
Let’s get this straight: The same foundation that acknowledges an inevitable population collapse—without any intervention—is simultaneously funding invasive technologies that would only accelerate it:

We need to reverse the major decline in birth rates to preserve civilization. A few months ago, I identified some key targets:
A study by Aitken found that fertility rate declines are driven by both short- and long-term factors. In the short term, socioeconomic drivers like urbanization and delayed childbearing, as well as issues such as obesity, falling sperm counts, and environmental toxicants (e.g., pollutants, nanoplastics, and electromagnetic radiation), compromise reproductive health. Long-term factors include reduced selection pressure on high-fertility genes due to smaller family sizes and the widespread use of assisted reproductive technologies, which may perpetuate poor fertility genotypes in the population. Addressing these issues is essential to mitigating the ongoing fertility crisis.
Claim of Russian GPS blocking of von der Leyen’s plane false – Flightradar
RT | September 1, 2025
Flight-tracking website Flightradar24 has refuted allegations made by several media outlets and EU officials that the plane of European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen was subjected to GPS signal jamming.
The aircraft that carried the EU Commission chief to Bulgaria on Sunday showed good GPS signal quality along its entire route, the monitoring service wrote on X on Monday. The flight arrived only nine minutes later than scheduled, the service said, noting that some media reports erroneously claimed that “the aircraft was in a holding pattern for 1 hour.”
“The aircraft’s transponder reported good GPS signal quality from take-off to landing,” it added.
The alleged GPS issues were first reported by the Financial Times, which cited unnamed sources who claimed the pilots experienced signal blackouts so severe that they had to use “paper maps” for landing. The sources also suggested Russia was to blame for the alleged incident. Reached for comment by the FT, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said the reported allegations were untrue.
The claims were made official on Monday. Both the EU and Bulgarian authorities pointed the finger at Moscow.
“We can indeed confirm that there was GPS jamming, but the plane landed safely in Bulgaria. We have received information from the Bulgarian authorities that they suspect that this was due to blatant interference by Russia,” EU Commission spokeswoman Arianna Podesta told a press conference in Brussels.
The Bulgarian government also appeared to corroborate the claims the pilots had to rely on alternate navigation tools while landing at Plovdiv International Airport.
“During the flight carrying European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen to Plovdiv, the satellite signal transmitting information to the plane’s GPS navigation system was neutralized,” the government said in a statement. “To ensure the flight’s safety, air control services immediately offered an alternative landing method using terrestrial navigation tools,” it added.
