Musk's rocket failures & a Mexican village despairs

Space Race Echoes on Mexico’s Shores: A Coastal Community Grapples with Progress

India Vision

Playa Bagdad, a once-tranquil fishing village nestled along the northeastern coast of Mexico, finds itself at the intersection of ambitious technological advancements and the complex realities of community life. Situated just south of the United States border and within earshot of the din of rocket testing, the village is experiencing profound changes, both environmental and social, as the global space industry expands its reach. The narrative unfolding in Playa Bagdad serves as a microcosm of the broader challenges faced by communities bordering burgeoning spaceports around the world.

For generations, the residents of Playa Bagdad have relied on the Gulf of Mexico for their livelihoods. Fishing has been the lifeblood of the community, passed down through families, and deeply intertwined with the rhythms of the sea. However, the increasing frequency of rocket launches and associated activities has raised concerns about the potential impact on marine life and the overall health of the ecosystem. Noise pollution, vibrations, and the potential for accidental spills are among the anxieties voiced by local fishermen and environmental advocates.

Beyond the immediate environmental concerns, Playa Bagdad is also grappling with the socioeconomic shifts accompanying the space industry’s presence. While some residents see the potential for new jobs and economic opportunities, others fear displacement and the erosion of their traditional way of life. The influx of workers and investment can drive up property values and the cost of living, potentially making it difficult for long-time residents to remain in their homes. Furthermore, there are concerns that the focus on technological development may overshadow the needs of the local community, leading to neglect of essential infrastructure and social services.

The situation in Playa Bagdad underscores the importance of responsible and sustainable development in the space industry. As humanity ventures further into the cosmos, it is crucial to consider the impact on communities located near launch sites and to ensure that their voices are heard. Transparent communication, environmental impact assessments, and community engagement are essential to mitigating potential negative consequences and fostering a mutually beneficial relationship between the space industry and the communities that host it.

The Mexican government, along with international organizations, faces the challenge of balancing the economic benefits of the space industry with the need to protect the environment and the rights of local communities. Finding solutions that promote both technological advancement and social well-being is paramount. This requires a collaborative approach, involving government agencies, space companies, environmental groups, and, most importantly, the residents of Playa Bagdad themselves.

The story of Playa Bagdad serves as a potent reminder that progress should not come at the expense of vulnerable communities. As the space race intensifies, it is imperative that we prioritize ethical considerations and strive to create a future where technological innovation and human well-being go hand in hand. The fate of this small Mexican village, caught between the allure of space exploration and the realities of life on Earth, offers valuable lessons for navigating the complex landscape of the 21st century and beyond.

Hegseth calls for U.S. space dominance

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth delivered an overly confident and aggressive speech at Blue Origin’s Rocket Park in Florida (owned by Jeff Bezos), emphasizing the strategic importance of space in U.S. war-making. 

Speaking to employees and big-wigs, Hegseth declared: 'We will unleash American space dominance'. 

He underscored that space is the ultimate high ground, criticized the Biden administration, and praised the military initiatives of President Trump, highlighting the urgency of American leadership in the 'space race'. 

This is not completely new as the US Space Command (and now the US Space Force) have long been calling for 'America to come out on top' in space.

He said, 'We have a Commander in Chief who is interested in winning'.

The big difference these days is the current level of braggadocio and arrogance inside this administration.

'We are just unleashing the war fighter to be lethal, disciplined, trained, accountable and ready', he claimed.

Hegseth called it his 'arsenal of freedom tour' during the next month across the country. He declared that the administration intends to spend $1.5 trillion this year on war-making. 'We will dominate in every domain', he bragged.

Those funds include $25 billion to start work on Golden Dome - 'total orbit supremacy' he called it. 'We have to dominate the space domain'.  

He congratulated 'America's deterrence in action' at the US border, in Venezuela, Yemen, and Iran.

He described the Pentagon as a place where we 'rip out the bureaucracy....and expedite innovation for the war fighter'.

This aggressive talk reminds me of an Iraq-war era speech by author Thomas Barnett where he told an assembly of Pentagon and CIA reps that America's role in the coming years would be 'security export'. He said at that time that we won't make shoes, cars, refrigerators and the like. It is cheaper to produce those products overseas. Our role under corporate globalization will be to play the role of world policeman. 

Barnett declared that the Pentagon would go into nations not currently under our 'control' with overwhelming force - what he called 'Leviathan'.  But the problem he said, is who will run these countries after we take them over?  

What we need he said is a force to run these nations after the initial take down.  He called this team 'Systems Administration'.  Not too soon after watching his presentation I noticed that Lockheed Martin had received a huge contract to train 'Sys Ad' forces. Barnett said our 'Sys Ad' troops would never come home.

Barnett also claimed that the US would need legions of young people to go into the 'Leviathan' force and they would be easy to find because there are essentially no jobs in this country anymore.  He said that we need to recruit these 'angry young men' who wile away their time playing violent video games.  There is an endless supply of them across America.

Trump's War Department is returning to this illusory vision that hopes to erase the multi-polar world in favor of American global dominance. Thus, despite all the nice talk about negotiating with China, Russia, Iran and other BRICS+ nations, the US is stepping deeply back into the big muddy. This time though it includes a major league arms race in space.

For years China and Russia have been introducing a global ban on weapons in space treaty at the United Nations. The US and Israel have been blocking the development of such a treaty that would close the door to the barn before the horses get out.

Trump appears to want to release all the war horses, and come what may, vainly attempt to make America 'Mr. Big' once again. 

Does his administration understand they are on a crash course with WW3 - total global annihilation?

There is always an Achilles' heel.  In the case of the US it is our crumbling economy. Hegseth declares big dreams for global control. But where will the $$$ come from to pay for it? Do they intend to take Social Security for example?

Time will tell but in the meantime we all need to be on the case.

Protest and survive. Build resilience and hope. Keep paddling.

Bruce 

the funnies

Ukraine’s neutrality is best for Hungary’s peace & security

 

By Magyar Békekör

On its Facebook page, the Hungarian Community for Peace asked its readers to answer the question: What better guarantees Hungary’s security: turning Ukraine into a buffer zone or Ukraine’s neutrality?

The issue is raised by the peace negotiations, since the Russian side wants neutrality, while the Western side wants Ukraine to become a buffer zone between the West and the East. Almost 30,000 people addressed the question, and many answered it.

In the “Let’s talk to achieve results” debate, the Peace Community expressed the following opinion:

Dear Readers!

We are glad that many people answered the question of the Hungarian Peace Community: What do you think guarantees Hungary’s security better, turning Ukraine into a buffer zone or Ukraine’s neutrality?

The question is not a theoretical one, but one posed by life. The Russians want a neutral Ukraine, but the West wants to create a buffer zone between NATO and Russia, keeping Ukraine in its sphere of influence.

Some people answered our question by saying that Ukraine’s NATO membership would be best for Hungary’s security. They ignored the fact that one of the main reasons for the conflict in Ukraine was precisely the fact that NATO wanted to include Ukraine in its ranks. 

The Russian military intervention was precisely triggered by NATO’s rejection of Moscow’s number one security demand, according to which NATO cannot expand to the East and Ukraine cannot be a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Therefore, those who continue to push for Ukraine’s NATO membership would perpetuate a conflict that even NATO’s leading power wants to end. (Trump took Ukraine’s NATO membership off the agenda a year ago.)

Some readers would see the declaration of Ukraine as a buffer zone as the key to our country’s security, because, as they wrote, the Russians must be stopped from occupying Europe. Declaring Ukraine a conflict zone would mean the perpetuation of the confrontation, instead of the mutual security resulting from the compromise. It would not serve the peace or the security of Hungary, because it would be a kind of time bomb in the body of Europe, in our immediate neighborhood. As soon as this bomb explodes and NATO comes face to face with Russia, we could say goodbye to the peace and security of our country. It is part of the picture that the Russians have created conflict zones in the parts of the Donbass bordering Ukraine with the aim of indicating that they do not wish to move further into the areas of Ukraine outside the Donbass. But this does not mean that they have given up on their threefold goal regarding Ukraine: de-Nazification, demilitarization, and declaring Ukraine neutral.

To our question, the vast majority of our readers answered that the peace and security of our country would be best served by Ukraine’s neutrality. 

We agree with them. After all, Ukraine’s neutrality would mean that it would cease to be a source of tension in our neighborhood, and it would have to live in peace and on good terms with both the East and the West. Ukraine’s neutrality must be guaranteed by international law. And such a law depends on a comprehensive East-West compromise. 

Compromise can be reached on the basis of the indivisibility and reciprocity of security, with the unconditional recognition of the equal right to security. The piles were knocked down a long time ago, but NATO did not stick to it. Instead, it expanded to the East, engulfing the former socialist countries and targeting the former Soviet republics as well. That is, NATO violated the principle of the indivisibility of security and strengthened NATO’s security at the expense of Russia’s security. It did this despite the fact that on November 21, 1990, the principle of the indivisibility of security was declared at the summit meeting in Paris of the 34 member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) under the title Paris Charter for a New Europe. According to the unanimously adopted document, “security is indivisible and the security of each participating state is inextricably linked with that of all others”. 

And in November 1999, at the OSCE summit in Istanbul, the principle of indivisibility was expanded by stating that states “cannot strengthen their own security at the expense of the security of other states”. If NATO were to stick to the principles it has adopted, it would have to renounce Ukraine and acknowledge that Ukraine is a “no man’s land”. But Ukraine’s neutral status is closely related to the creation of a comprehensive European, Eurasian security system. In such a new European-Eurasian security system, NATO would no longer be able to dictate the terms, but would have to compromise with Russia, China, India and others on peaceful coexistence. In such a system, Ukraine would be demilitarized on the German model after World War II, and it would receive an internationally recognized non-aligned, neutral status. 

He should live on good terms with both the East and the West. We’re not even close today! NATO is trying to tie the mere ceasefire to the condition of sending troops to Ukraine, and it does not even want to hear about demilitarization. NATO is aware of the ripple effect that Ukraine’s neutrality would have on it. Ukrainian demilitarization and neutrality therefore still depend on military coercion.

Turning Taiwan into another Ukraine

 

Financial Times 

China warned the U.S. that if Washington pushes through with a new batch of weapons sales to Taiwan, it will cancel president Trump’s planned visit to Beijing this April.

The Trump administration is developing a package of four systems for Taiwan to purchase on the heels of the record $11.1bn arms package it unveiled in December, according to eight people familiar with the situation.

China has raised serious concerns about the package ahead of Trump’s planned meeting with President Xi Jinping in April. Three of the people said China had told the US that the arms sales could derail the visit.

Xi raised the Taiwan arms sales issue with Trump in a call on Wednesday. According to the Chinese foreign ministry, he emphasised that the US “must handle the issue of arms sales to Taiwan with prudence”.

Several people familiar with the situation said the package could be as big as $20bn. But others cautioned that the final number was in flux and might be closer to the December figure. Some US officials argue that China is bluffing and will not cancel the visit, according to two of the people.

The package will include four systems. In addition to Patriots, used to destroy incoming missiles, the US will allow Taiwan to buy more NASAMS, an advanced surface-to-air missile, and two other weapon systems.

Several people familiar with the matter said the administration had been planning to notify Congress about the package this month. But some experts believe Trump will postpone the move until he returns from China.

Under the Taiwan Relations Act, the US is obliged to sell weapons to Taiwan to provide for its own defence.

“As it has been for more than 40 years, the policy of the United States is to maintain Taiwan’s defensive capability relative to that of China,” a White House official said. “Credible deterrence has ensured peace and stability for many years — and will for many more. We do not comment on the specifics of pending sales.”

The arms sale package comes as frustrations are mounting in Washington about political wrangling in Taipei that is delaying the approval of a defence budget that would provide funds to buy weapons from the US.  

How Arms Control went out the window

 

Moon of Alabama

Yesterday the last nuclear treaty between the the United States and the Russian Federation expired. It is the first time in 64 years that there will be no limits on each side’s nuclear forces.

The New START Treaty had been limiting the number of deployed strategic nuclear weapons and weapon carriers. Other nuclear related treaties like the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Open Skies Treaty have previously been ended by various U.S. presidents.

Russia had offered and asked for prolonging the New START Treaty but the U.S. had, until today, not responded to that request.

Most of these treaties were designed to limit the number of weapon system on both sides to roughly equal numbers. They prevented arms races where one side would produce an overwhelming amount of weapons to destroy the other side in a surprise attack. They guaranteed Mutual Assured Destruction as both sides would be destroyed in an all out nuclear war.

But the real value of these treaties were in their verification elements. Verification allowed to build trust between both sides:

To enforce the [New START] treaty, each side had to notify the other of any activity involving its strategic weapons, including missile test launches and heavy bomber movements, share data about the numbers of deployed missiles and delivery systems, and allow on-site inspections. 

One example is that under the treaty all strategic bombers of each side had to be parked in the open, not in shelters, so that the other side could see them in satellite pictures. It guaranteed that there were no ‘secret forces’ hidden somewhere. (Ukraine abused this feature when it launched drone attacks against Russia’s strategic bombers.)

The U.S. has never given any good reason why it wanted the treaties to end.

The Bush administration claimed that the ABM treaty was hindering building missile defenses against ‘rogue states’. In reality it wanted to build a missile defense system that would disable a Russian [retaliatory] nuclear attack and thereby give the U.S. the capability for a first strike which Russia would not be able to answer.

Russia, in consequence of the ending of the treaty, built new weapons like the Poseidon nuclear-powered underwater vehicle as well the Sarmat missile, which can not be stopped by missile defenses.

When the first Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Treaty [INF] it claimed, without providing evidence, that one specific Russian missile test had exceeded the range limits defined in the treaty. Russia responded to the end of the treaty by developing and deploying the Oreshnik system as a new intermediate range missile.

The U.S. excuse for leaving New START is that a new strategic weapon treaty is needed which will have to include limits on China’s strategic missile forces. China rejects to be part of such a treaty because it has less than 20% of the strategic nuclear weapons that Russia and the U.S. each deploy.

It is unlikely for now that the end of New START will lead to a race to acquire more and more strategic nuclear weapons even as the military-industrial complex will demand more missiles.

But the end of the treaty will lead to less knowledge of what the other side is doing and will over time erode any trust in ones own capabilities as the real capabilities of the opponent will be increasingly unknown. This insecurity and what might follow from it is the real danger.

Over the last hours news has come out of an informal prolongation of the parameters of the New START treaty:

President Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner negotiated on New START with Russian officials on the sidelines of Ukraine talks in Abu Dhabi.

The treaty will still formally expire on Thursday, and the extension will not be legally formalized, a U.S. official said. “We agreed with Russia to operate in good faith and to start a discussion about ways it could be updated,” a U.S. official said.

Another source said the practical implications were that both sides would agree to observe the deal’s terms for at least six months, during which time negotiations on a potential new deal would take place.

[Earlier on Thursday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said that Moscow suggested sticking to the treaty’s provisions for another year but its initiative “remained unanswered.” Russia will “keep its responsible attentive approach in the field of strategic stability [and] nuclear weapons” but will be always “primarily guided by its national interests,” he said.]

If I were in Russia’s position I would not trust the U.S. to stick to any such informal commitment. Any such agreement will need to be verified.

Russia should test if the U.S. is willing to allow for the verification of its informal commitment to New START limits.

Real story about Epstein-Israeli control

 

Lowkey outlines the case around Epstein's operations to control global government and corporate leaders.

Don't let this story die.  

We must bring down this international cabal of criminality, pedophilia, murder, demonic ritual, bribery, endless war and mind-blinding corruption.

They use our tax monies to run these ugly evil operations. 

The worst of humanity are ruling over us.

Thailand fed up with zionist tourists & land grabbers

Recent fighting stopped (between Cambodia & Thailand) thanks to the good efforts of Malaysia but I’m seeing videos from border areas that show Thailand bulldozing Cambodian houses. In addition Thai soldiers are stealing Cambodian's scooters, cars, jewelry and cash. This might still escalate.

Did you know Thailand is one of the places Israel sends IDF soldiers to relax? 

There are some islands that have become dominated by Jewish people. Lots of drug use by IDF soldiers and illegal operation of businesses through Thai fronts.

In just one week, four criminal incidents were committed by Israelis in Thailand:

Charges of counterfeiting US dollars, stealing money designated for one of the local temples, operating hotels, gift-selling kiosks, and shops without a license, & hosting noisy parties and drug use.

IDF soldiers are taking over Thailand, changing business signs to Hebrew, and harassing locals:

“My money build your country“

Several restaurants and shops in Thailand, particularly on the popular tourist island of Koh Phangan, have begun refusing service to Israeli tourists and placing signs rejecting their presence, according to Israeli Channel 12.

Bangkok Post reported: 

SURAT THANI — An Israeli woman was reprimanded by a staff member at a Thai restaurant on Koh Phangan after refusing to remove her shoes before entering. In response, she claimed that her financial contributions helped build Thailand. Her comment sparked discontent among Thais.

Haaretz  reports: 

Arrests, informants, fines and deep disappointment: As Thailand shifts from turning a blind eye to strict enforcement of land ownership laws, Israelis who dreamed of building their homes or striking it rich in Koh Phangan are keeping a low profile, and some are leaving altogether.  

US Empire is Going SUPERNOVA

Simplicius

We are witnessing this now with Trump’s instructive actions against Venezuela and his own allies: the nation’s ‘father’ figure imparts the lesson on his people that taking others’ possessions is a purely righteous act simply by virtue of its ‘economic benefits’. The people of the nation thereby become spiritually sickened by this inhuman approach to national selfhood, inured to a sense of exceptionalism and racism: that they are the only “chosen and worthy” ones, while all other people of the earth are merely resources to be extracted after ‘righteous’ pillaging.

This begets the slow descent and decay of the entire concept of nationhood into terminal moral decline to the point where the very fabric of society itself begins to reflect this debasement of values until there is nothing of worth left. A nation which celebrates greed and rapaciousness as pillars of virtue will eventually die from this very spiritual poison: the people thereof become deracinated, spiritless vessels of corporate values, and nothing more, and they reflect these values onto each other as well, which becomes evident in the breakdown of civility and neighborliness. In short, we are witnessing the civic and cultural debasement of the entire populace by the ‘shared values’ instilled of the corrupted political class.

Trump is bringing a business-industry cut-throat thuggishness to world and domestic politics, which he views as some kind of revolutionary ‘patriotism’ he calls ‘America First’. Trump’s treatment at the hands of his Democrat opponents may have also warped his sense of risk-reward. Having survived the various slings and arrows, which include assassination attempts, he may now feel ‘entitled’ to take whatever he wants from the world, achieving glory at any cost simply because he’s now “owed” his greatness by the travails he had fought and suffered through; it is a kind of warped messianic victim-persecution complex at a universal scale that is both dangerous yet, perhaps ultimately, useful to the world.

Such an escalation spiral has no real exit strategy, because the further Trump doubles down, the more enemies and bad-will he engenders which increasingly condemns his future to an unenviable fate: his opponents will likely hunt him for life for all the perceived legal iniquities he committed, both domestic and international. The only way to escape such a spiral is by burning the whole system down behind himself, a kind of anarchic Sunk Cost pedal-to-the-mettle policy of turbo-escalation. Push the system to the breaking point until there is nothing left to “chase him” after he’s done, whether he succeeds in his aims or not; logically speaking, it’s at least a sound strategy.

And through this natural arc, in the spirit of the supernova, the American Age seems to be going supercritical by the combustion of its own runaway excesses. It’s a process that can only stampede forward and may end up engulfing the entire world before it settles because there is far too much blood in its trail for the drivers of the process to ever be able to stop and turn back.

Again, despite how it may sound, this is not a generic slam against Trump because he’s the product of a system, and a long-running culmination of things set into motion long before him. He merely serves as the apostle of a terminal age of American decline, and in some ways cannot be personally blamed since he’s a kind of logical byproduct of everything that the American system has been building toward for decades. Now all we can do is strap in, enjoy the ride, and hope that—in the spirit of true anarchy—he at least takes down the bad along with the good, for all our sakes.

~ Reprinted in part