丙午年，有些什么事发生？

有的，道家 和 道教 的英文翻译不同，而且区别很重要，对应的是中国语境中“哲学传统”与“宗教体系”的差别。 一、道家 的英文翻译 ✅ Daoism / Taoism (philosophical Daoism) 最常见、也最规范的译法是： Daoism（拼音式，现代学术界主流） Taoism（威妥玛拼音，旧式但仍常见） 👉 当“道家”指思想流派、哲学传统时，常用： Philosophical Daoism （哲学道家） 使用场景 老子、庄子 《道德经》《庄子》 无为、自然、齐物、反功利 作为哲学、思想体系讨论 📌 示例： Laozi and Zhuangzi are central figures of philosophical Daoism. Daoism emphasizes wu wei (non-action) and harmony with nature. 二、道教 的英文翻译 ✅ Daoism / Taoism (religious Daoism) 道教在英文中仍然用 Daoism / Taoism，但必须加限定语，否则容易混淆： Religious Daoism （宗教道教） 使用场景 张道陵、天师道 道观、道士、符箓、斋醮 内丹、外丹、炼气、神仙体系 宗教组织、仪式与信仰实践 📌 示例： Religious Daoism developed elaborate rituals, priesthoods, and cosmology. Daoist temples are important centers of religious Daoism. 三、为什么英文容易混淆？ 因为英文里只有一个词： Daoism / Taoism 而中文有清晰区分： 道家 → 思想 / 哲学 道教 → 宗教 / 制度 / 修行体系 所以在严肃写作中，英文通常通过 修饰语 来区分。 四、常见但不推荐的译法 ⚠️ 中文 错误 / 不推荐译法 原因 道家 Daoist Philosophy School 不地道 道教 Tao Religion 学术上不用 道家 Lao-Zhuang School 太局限 五、最规范的对照总结表 中文 标准英文 说明 道家 Philosophical Daoism 老庄思想 道教 Religious Daoism 宗教体系 道 Dao (Tao) 核心概念，不翻 道士 Daoist priest 道观 Daoist temple 六、学术语境中的一句“标准说法” Scholars usually distinguish between philosophical Daoism (associated with Laozi and Zhuangzi) and religious Daoism, which developed organized rituals, institutions, and pantheons. 如果你愿意，我也可以： 帮你润色一段英文学术文本，避免道家/道教混淆 或比较 Confucianism / Ruism（儒家） 的类似翻译问题 丙午年，有些什么事发生？ “丙午年”每 60 年一次，所以你这个问题要看指的是哪一个丙午年。历史与民间讨论中，最常被提及的是 1966 年丙午，其次是 1906、1846 等。我按常见理解 + 历史脉络给你一个清晰说明。 一、最常被问的：1966 年（丙午年，火马年） 这是现代中国语境里影响最大、讨论最多的丙午年。 1️⃣ 重大历史事件 文化大革命正式开始（1966–1976） 5 月《五一六通知》 红卫兵运动兴起 教育、文化、政治体系剧烈震荡 中国社会结构发生深层断裂 知识分子、传统文化遭到系统性冲击 👉 在历史研究中，1966 丙午年常被视为一个时代的断裂点。 2️⃣ 民间说法：「丙午火马年，不吉」 这是民俗层面，不是科学结论，但影响非常大。 常见说法包括： “火马年多灾多难” “丙午年出生者命硬、克父母” 因此 1966 年出生率明显下降 📌 这个现象在人口统计学上是真实存在的，但原因是： 社会动荡 民俗恐惧 政策与现实压力 而不是“天命”。 3️⃣ 命理象征（文化解释层面） 丙：阳火 午：火 丙午 = 火上加火 在传统象征体系中： 火 → 变动、激烈、破坏、更新 因而被后人事后解释为“应验” ⚠️ 但要强调： 这是文化解释，不是历史因果。 二、其他重要的丙午年 🔹 1906 年（丙午） 清末危机加深 列强势力扩张 革命思潮高涨（距辛亥革命仅 5 年） 铁路、工业、学生运动开始活跃 👉 常被视为旧帝国崩溃前的加速期 🔹 1846 年（丙午） 清道光年间 社会矛盾严重 鸦片问题加剧 为之后的**太平天国运动（1851）**埋下伏笔 三、为什么“丙午年”总被记住？ 不是因为“天干地支有魔力”，而是： 历史选择性记忆 大事件发生后，人们会回头寻找“象征” 丙午 = 火极 → 容易被用来解释“剧烈变化” 一句话总结： 不是丙午年导致动乱，而是动乱发生后，人们记住了丙午年。 四、一句话总结 丙午年 = 每 60 年一次 1966 年丙午：文化大革命开始，影响极深 “火马年不吉”是民俗心理 + 历史创伤的叠加 从学术角度看： 👉 社会结构决定事件，纪年只是标签 如果你愿意，我也可以： 从 道家 / 易学 / 历史社会学三个角度分别解释丙午 或专门分析 1966 丙午为何成为“集体记忆中的禁忌年”

The History of Tantra

In the New York sector, only Ganesha truly understands the history of Tantra. When Ba’Ba’ visited Taiwan and delivered this talk, Ganesha was beside Him. These photographs were presented to demonstrate the antiquity of Chinese civilization. When we interpret the concept of “civilization,” we do so according to the Chinese understanding, rather than the Western definition or framework. When ancient Chinese thinkers explained “civilization,” they consistently approached it from spiritual and mental dimensions, with little or no emphasis on physical or material perspectives.

为什么美国害怕委内瑞拉、伊朗和俄罗斯联盟？

There exists A fundamental principle in international relations that has governed empires for millennia. No hegemonic power can maintain its global dominance while simultaneously losing control over its own strategic periphery. It's a law as ancient as Rome, as verifiable as the fall of the British at Suez. For 75 years, since the end of World War 2, the United States defied this principle. They controlled Europe through NATO, dominated the Middle East through oil, and kept Latin America as their backyard. Through the Monroe Doctrine, 3 Continents 1 master. But this week, something changed. And what the corporate media doesn't want you to know is this. In Caracas, Venezuela's Oil Minister Pedro Telechea signed energy cooperation agreements with Iran worth $4 billion simultaneously. Russian warships docked at the port of La Guira, less than 2000 kilometers from Miami. Washington's response? Deafening silence. No new sanctions, no military threats, no Pentagon statements. Why? Because for the first time in 75 years, the United States can't do anything. About it. And that impotence reveals something that transcends Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. It reveals the collapse of the very architecture of American power in the Western Hemisphere. I worked for years analyzing capital flows in emerging markets for international financial institutions and what you're about to hear. Won't appear on CNN, nor in the Washington Post, nor in any corporate media outlet that depends on Washington's official narrative. Today, we're going to dismantle the hidden truth behind this alliance that terrifies Pentagon strategists. Let me take you back to 2017. Then President Donald Trump declared that Venezuela represented a threat to US National Security, not because Venezuela had nuclear weapons, not because Venezuela had a fleet capable of threatening US territory, but because Nicolas Maduro refused to sell Venezuelan oil exclusively in dollars. Washington's response was brutal and systematic. First aggression In August 2017, the United States imposed the first financial sanctions against Venezuela, prohibiting US institutions from participating in any Venezuelan debt transaction. The immediate impact was a loss of $11 billion. And access to capital markets. Second aggression. In January 2019, the United States declared that Juan Guido, a deputy that most Venezuelans didn't even know, was the legitimate president of Venezuela. There were no elections. There was no transition. Simply a declaration from Washington. And with that declaration came the freezing of $7 billion in Venezuelan assets in U.S. banks. 3rd Aggression In March 2020, the US Department of Justice formally accused Nicolas Maduro of drug trafficking and offered a reward of $15 million for his capture, $15 million for the head of the elected president of a sovereign nation, as if he were an outlaw from the Old West. 4th Aggression In June 2020, the United States physically confiscated an Airbus A340 aircraft belonging to Venezuelan state airline Conviasa while it was undergoing maintenance in Argentina valued at $70 million. It wasn't a legal seizure, it was state piracy. Shift Aggression oil sanctions imposed since 2019 reduced Venezuelan oil exports from 1.5 million barrels per day to less than 400,000 barrels per day. This property I acquired a couple of years ago, it was going to be my son's college fund. I heard about this pad split idea. So I was like, yeah, I'm gonna try that with this property. And I was able to cash flow, I mean, significantly more. And just doing a long term. And so, I mean, it really was a numbers game. I work here in Portland and I moved out here for a job opportunity. And so it's been kind of easy to be able to come here studying for school, go to class pass. But it has allowed me to be really flexible as far as on finances. I get paid weekly and I have to pay my rent. So it's like as soon as I get paid, I just go ahead and pay my passport rent and then boom, I have different finances to be able to do whatever else I want to do in the city. So what I have enjoyed most about living in a Pats Blade house is how unexpectedly nice like it's been. Like, you know, like when I was moving in, I noticed that the the railing. On the stairs was loose and she had to like, fixed within a couple of days. And it's like in, you know, in apartment complexes, it's hard to get stuff like that done that fast. So that was pretty cool. I really don't do any advertising. As soon as the room opens up, it's booked. I think my record is 20 minutes. Possibility with payments is especially helpful, like the fact that it's rented out weekly and we've had different movie nights, different potlucks, we've listened to music together. Using passport has been a great way to over 10X by cash flow. This is probably if not the nicest place I've ever lived one of. The cumulative economic impact, according to studies by independent economists, exceeded $232 billion in GDP losses between 2017 and 2023. Sixth, aggression the United States pressured more than 50 countries not to recognize. The 2018 Venezuelan presidential elections in which Maduro won with 67% of the vote. They declared the elections fraudulent before they even occurred. Now, let me be absolutely clear about what these sanctions really mean. When the United States sanctions a country's oil sector, they're not sanctioning. The politicians, they're sanctioning the civilian population. Sanctions against Venezuela directly contributed to shortages of medicines, medical equipment, and food. A study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research documented that sanctions caused approximately 40,000 deaths between 2007. Seen in 2018 due to lack of access to medicines and medical treatments. Sanctions kill people. That's their function. It's not a side effect, it's the objective. So what happened? Venezuela didn't collapse. There was no color revolution. There was no democratic transition. There was no regime change. Instead Venezuela. But did something Washington never anticipated. It found new partners. And those partners had something the United States had lost long ago. The ability to operate outside the dollar controlled financial system. Iran, which had been sanctioned by the United States for 45 years, taught Venezuela. How to build refineries that processed heavy crude oil without American technology? Russia provided S300 anti aircraft defense systems and military training. China bought Venezuelan oil paying in yuan and provided direct investment in mining infrastructure. And suddenly Venezuela became something more. Dangerous than an enemy, it became a successful laboratory of how to survive and thrive outside the American system. Now I want you to understand the position Washington finds itself in at this precise moment. And for that I need to introduce you to someone, Admiral Craig Fowler, who until 20/21 was the commander of. US Southern Command responsible for all U.S. military operations in Latin America and the Caribbean. In March 2020, Admiral Fowler testified before Congress and said something extraordinary. Russia, China and Iran are coordinating efforts to undermine US. Influence in the Western Hemisphere, and Venezuela is the center of that coordination. His job wasn't to protect democracy in Latin America. His job was to maintain US hegemonic control over an entire continent. And he was publicly admitting that control was crumbling. Why? Because the United States. Has lost the three traditional tools it used to keep Latin America under control tool #1 the IMF and the World Bank. For decades, when a Latin American country faced economic crisis, it had no choice but to turn to the International Monetary Fund, and the IMF came with conditions. Privatization, austerity, opening markets to US corporations. It was debt converted into political control. But look at what has happened. Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia under **** all have rejected IMF loans. And what happened? They didn't collapse because. China offered loans without political conditions. The BRICS Development Bank offered financing for infrastructure. Russia offered credit lines for energy and defense. The IMF monopoly was broken, and with it Washington's ability to convert debt into obedience tool #2. SWIFT and the dollar payment system. When the United States wanted to punish a country, it disconnected it from the SWIFT system, the messaging system that enables international bank transfers. It was like cutting off economic oxygen. But then Russia was disconnected from SWIFT in 2022. After the military operation in Ukraine and instead of collapsing, Russia built its own system called SPFS. China already had SIPS, its alternative interbank payment system. Iran had developed SAPAM after decades of sanctions, and all these systems are now interconnected. Venezuela can receive payments from China through ships, from Russia through SPFS, from Iran through SAPAM without touching a single U.S. dollar tool #3 the direct military threat. This is the most important one and the most devastating for Washington in the 1000. 980 seconds. the United States invaded Grenada with 7600 soldiers in 1989. They invaded Panama with 27,000 soldiers. For decades, the simple threat of you. Come to love, There is now a ceasefire in Gaza and with your support, humanity wants to ramp up its operations to ensure that we are able to help our relationship as much as we as military intervention was enough to keep Latin American governments aligned. But today that threat is hollow. Why? For three devastating reasons. Reason one, the United States has approximately 800 military bases around the world with significant presence in 80 countries, but its force projection capability is compromised after 20 years in Afghanistan with spending of $2.3 trillion. A humiliating withdrawal After the debacle in Iraq, the American public has no appetite for more military adventures. Reason 2. Venezuela now has Russian S300 anti aircraft defense systems capable of shooting down US aircraft at 200 kilometers away it has Yakan. Coastal missiles that can sink US warships. It has Iranian drones that cost $20,000 each but can neutralize US tanks that cost $9 million. An invasion of Venezuela wouldn't be Grenada, it would be Vietnam in the tropics. Reason 3. And this is the absolute comedy of the situation. The United States can't risk a war with Venezuela because Venezuela has something the United States desperately needs, oil. Yes, you read that right. The country that the United States has tried to destroy for seven years now possesses the largest oil reserves on the planet, 303 billion barrels of proven reserves. More than Saudi Arabia, more than Russia, more than the United States. And here's the master stroke in 2022, after the United States and Europe sanctioned Russian oil. Guess what the Biden administration did? They quietly sent you S delegates to Caracas. To negotiate the purchase of Venezuelan oil, the country that had put a $15 million bounty on Maduro's head was now begging for his oil. You can't declare war on your own energy supplier. That's the trap the United States finds itself caught in. And now with Iran providing refining technology. Russia providing military protection and China buying all the production Venezuela can export. Washington is watching its former backyard become a fortress of its strategic adversaries. Now I want to mention here John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago and one of the most respected. Geopolitical strategists of the last four decades, Mearsheimer developed what is known as offensive realism theory, which holds a simple but devastating premise. In an anarchic international system, great powers are condemned to compete for power, and regional hegemony is the primary objective of any great. In his book The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, Mearsheimer argues that the United States spent more than a century ensuring that no rival power could dominate Europe or Asia precisely because the United States had already achieved hegemony in the Western Hemisphere. Here's the prophetic part. But your Shimmer wrote in 2001 that if China continues its impressive economic growth, the United States and China will likely engage in intense security competition with considerable potential for war. This was 20 years before the US China rivalry became the central axis. Of global geopolitics. But there's something else Mere Simer said, that is directly relevant to what we're witnessing with the Venezuela, Iran, Russia alliance. In various conferences and interviews, Mere Scheimer has argued that the US attempt to maintain global hegemony rather than limiting. Itself to hemispheric hegemony is fundamentally overloading its strategic capacity. And here's the devastating irony. While the United States spends resources trying to contain China and Asia, contain Russia and Europe, and maintain military presence in the Middle East, it's losing control. Over its own hemisphere, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and increasingly countries like Bolivia and potentially Brazil under certain scenarios, are operating outside the US orbit. What Mere Seimer predicted about imperial overstretch is now happening in real time. And the Venezuela, Iran, Russia alliance is the physical proof of that strategic collapse. Now, I want you to see the complete picture of what's really at stake here. Because the Venezuela, Iran, Russia alliance isn't just about three countries cooperating. It's about the dismantling of the two fundamental pillars that have sustained. American power for 80 years. Pillar #1 the Petro dollar. Since 1974, when Henry Kissinger negotiated the agreement with Saudi Arabia, every barrel of oil sold in the world had to be bought in U.S. dollars. The result? Massive artificial demand for dollars. Any country. That wanted to buy energy needed to accumulate dollar reserves. This gave the United States an extraordinary privilege. They could print dollars, and the world was obligated to accept them because they needed those dollars to buy oil. For 50 years, this magic trick worked perfectly. But look at what's happening now. Managing multiple rentals You need a smarter way to fill your vacancies. Meat furnished Finder the go to platform real estate investor. Venezuela sells oil to China and receives yuan. It sells oil to India and receives rupees. Iran sells oil to China, completely bypassing the SWIFT system. Russia sells gas to China and. Yuan and rubles In March 2023, Saudi Arabia announced it was considering accepting Chinese yuan for oil sales. Saudi Arabia, the country that created the Petro dollar, is contemplating abandoning it. The dollars monopoly on global energy trade is collapsing, and when it collapses, the artificial demand. For dollars disappears, and when that happens, the United States loses the ability to finance its $1.7 trillion deficit by printing money that the rest of the world is obligated to absorb. Pillar #2US Treasury bonds as a global store of value. For decades, you U.S. Treasury bonds were considered the safest asset on the planet. Every country accumulated U.S. Treasury bonds as their international reserves. China had more than $1 trillion in Treasury bonds. Japan had a similar amount. This allowed the United States to borrow. Almost without limit, because there were always buyers for its debt. Foreign central banks that needed dollars for international trade. But then the United States committed the biggest strategic mistake of the 21st century. In 2022, they froze $300 billion of Russian reserves that were deposited. In U.S. Treasury bonds and Western bank accounts. Read that again. the United States confiscated the reserves of a foreign central bank. The message to the rest of the world Your dollar reserves aren't yours. They're geopolitical hostages if you ever challenge Washington. They can confiscate your national wealth with the click of a mouse. China immediately began reducing its Treasury bond holdings. Saudi Arabia did the same. India accelerated its D dollarization strategy. And here's the systemic problem if foreign central banks stop buying U.S. Treasury bonds. Who's going to finance the $1.7 trillion deficit that the United States accumulates every year? The answer is devastating. The Federal Reserve will have to print money to buy U.S. government debt. That's called debt monetization, and the inevitable result is massive inflation. The emerging alternative? Meanwhile, Bricks is building something completely new. They're not trying to destroy the dollar. They're simply building a lifeboat for when the Titanic finally sinks. The BRICS New Development Bank has issued more than $32 billion in loans since 2015, half of them in local currencies, not in dollars. China and Russia conduct more than 90% of their bilateral trade in UN and rubles. India buys Russian oil in rupees. Brazil and Argentina are negotiating trade in local currencies. the United Arab Emirates joined bricks in 2024 and is actively promoting oil trade in multiple currencies. We're not talking about small. Countries. We're talking about 3.5 billion people, 36% of global GDP and 43% of the world's proven oil reserves. And Venezuela, Iran and Russia are the testing grounds for this new system. Every transaction they make outside the dollar is another nail in the coffin of the American. Monopoly. Washington knows it. The Pentagon knows it. Wall Street knows it. That's why they're so afraid of the Venezuela, Iran, Russia alliance. It's not just about three countries. It's about the end of 80 years of American monetary privilege. It's about the transition from a unipolar. Through a multipolar order, and that transition won't be orderly or peaceful. Are you enjoying the analysis? If this content is opening your eyes to what's really happening behind the corporate headlines, I need you to do something for me right now. Hit that subscribe button. Join the more than 13. 1000 subscribers who are waking up to the reality of the new World order that's emerging. This kind of deep analysis, unfiltered, without Washington's official narrative. You won't find it in the mainstream media. They'll tell you Venezuela is a dictatorship. They'll tell you Iran is a terrorist state. They'll tell you Russia is an existential threat. But they won't tell you why these three countries are cooperating, and they won't tell you that cooperation represents the collapse of the system that has allowed the United States to live beyond its means for 80 years. Your support helps us bring this kind of geopolitical analysis that the established powers don't want you to hear. Second. Don't forget to like this video. YouTube's algorithm is brutal and every like tells the algorithm that this content is worthwhile, that it should be shown to more people who are searching for the truth about international geopolitics and 3rd. And this is really important to me. Tell us in the comments. Where you're watching this from? Are you in Latin America, In Europe, In Asia? In the United States? I'd love to know. Craigslist helped me land this Airbnb listing. Yes, Craigslist. Now here's the craziest part from which part of the world our community is following this analysis? Because what we're witnessing isn't just a US or Latin American issue. It's a global tectonic shift. And people on every continent are feeling it in different ways. If you're in Europe, you're seeing how energy prices skyrocketed when they cut off Russian gas. If you're in Latin America, you're seeing how your governments are negotiating more with China than with Washington. If you're in Africa or Asia, you're seeing how bricks. Offers a real alternative to the IMF and World Bank. We're all connected in this historic transition. So please let me know in the comments, where are you watching from? And while you're there, share your thoughts on this analysis. Do you agree? Do you see things differently? Honest debate is what builds real. Understanding. Now, let me take you to the conclusion of all this, because what I'm going to tell you now directly affects your life, no matter where you live, whether you're watching this from Mexico, Spain, Argentina, Colombia, or the United States. What's happening with the Venezuela, Iran, Russia? Alliance has direct consequences for your wallet, for your savings, for your economic future. Let me be brutally honest with you. When dollar privilege collapses, when the United States can no longer print money that the world is obligated to absorb, there are only two options for Washington's default on its 34. Trillion dollar debt or inflate the debt until it disappears. History tells us they'll choose inflation. They always choose inflation. And what does that mean for you? It means your dollar savings will lose purchasing power. Your groceries will become more expensive. Your energy will cost more, your housing. Will be less accessible. This means the price of saving the empire will be paid by your savings, by your purchasing power, by your standard of living. This is the tax of the declining hegemon. We'll all pay for its fall. But here's the other side of the coin. And it's important you understand this. The end of the dollar. Monopoly doesn't have to be the end of the world. In fact, for billions of people living outside the United States and Europe, the rise of a multipolar world is a liberation. It's a return to balance. It's a return to sanity for 80 years, a country that represents 4% of the world's population. Has consumed 25% of the planet's resources and spent more on military than the next 10 countries combined. That's not sustainable. It never was. The multipolar world that's emerging with bricks as a counterbalance with alternative payment systems, with trade and local currencies. Isn't a threat. It's a necessary correction for the countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia. It means less interference, fewer CIA funded coups, fewer sanctions that kill innocent civilians, fewer wars for resources disguised as humanitarian interventions for Venezuela. Specifically, the alliance with Iran and Russia means survival, reconstruction, and finally, real sovereignty over its own resources. Is it perfect? No. Are Iran and Russia model democracies? Of course not. But here's the uncomfortable truth that Western media won't tell you small. Patients can't choose to ally with Saints, they can only choose between empires. And if your choice is between an empire that put a bounty on your president, that confiscated your assets, that sanctioned your economy to the point of killing 10s of thousands of your citizens, or an empire that offers you trade. Technology and respect for your sovereignty. Without demanding regime change, what would you choose? My advice to you is simple. Stay alert, stay informed. Don't believe everything traditional media tells you about Venezuela, Iran, Russia, China or bricks. Always ask yourself. Who benefits from this narrative? Watch who countries are signing trade agreements with. Watch what currencies they're using. Watch which countries are being sanctioned and which countries are prospering despite those sanctions. Because the unthinkable deals making the news this week are just the beginning. The transition toward a multipolar world. Will accelerate, and with that acceleration will come. Instability will come. Resistance from established powers will come. Massive propaganda trying to convince you that chaos is preferable to change. But the truth is this. The transition has already happened. The world just hasn't. Realized it yet? Venezuela survived the most brutal sanctions of the 21st century and found new partners that alone rewrote the rules of the geopolitical game. Iran demonstrated that you can operate outside the Western financial system for decades and not only survive but develop nuclear technology. Advanced drones and missile systems Russia demonstrated that being disconnected from swift isn't an economic death sentence when you have raw materials the world needs and partners willing to trade in alternative currencies and the alliance of these three countries in the United states backyard is the physical proof that the unipolar. Empire has ended. This is the moment we're living in. This is the inflection point of history. And you, watching this now, are witnessing how the foundations of the world order are being reorganized before our eyes. The question isn't whether it will change. The question is, will you be prepared? And it does. Stay informed, question everything, and above all, don't let them tell you that the world that's emerging is more dangerous than the one we're leaving behind because 800 U.S. military bases around the world, 5 active wars, sanctions that kill millions of civilians, and a financial system. That can confiscate any nation's reserves with a click. That's the world we're leaving behind. And frankly, it was about time.

Venzuela

Good evening, December 2025. Three hours flight time from Miami. That's the distance between the United States mainland and the Caribbean waters where Washington just deployed the world's largest aircraft carrier, 15,000 troops, nuclear submarines, and enough firepower to flatten a small nation. The target? Venezuela, a country of 28 million people sitting on the world's largest oil reserves, now led by Nicolas Maduro, a regime Washington calls a narco terrorist state. The justification? Restoring the Monroe Doctrine, reclaiming America's sphere of influence and driving out Chinese. The Russian presence from our backyard. It sounds decisive. It sounds strategic. It sounds like America finally waking up to great power competition in its own hemisphere. But here's what terrifies me about this operation. It's the perfect example of how empires make fatal mistakes while believing they're demonstrating strength. Trump. Thinks he's containing China by securing Venezuela. In reality, he's handing Beijing the most valuable gift imaginable, proof that American power is overstretched, distracted, and incapable of focusing on the one theater that actually matters. While we deploy carrier groups to intimidate Maduro, China tightens. Its grip on Taiwan expands across the South China Sea and watches Washington make the same mistake every declining hegemon makes, fighting everywhere except where it matters most. Let me be direct about what's happening in the Caribbean right now. This isn't a minor operation, the USS Gerald R Ford. Displacing over 100,000 tons sits off Venezuela's coast. F35 fighter jets patrol Venezuelan airspace. Special operations forces conduct raids against drug trafficking routes. The State Department designated Venezuela's Cartel de Lowell as a foreign terrorist organization. Giving Trump legal justification for military strikes inside Venezuelan territory. The E Pentagon calls it Operation Southern Spear, framing it as counter narcotics and anti trafficking. But nobody believes that cover story. This is about regime change. This is about removing Maduro. And installing a government friendly to Washington. And beneath the surface, this is about something bigger, preventing China from establishing a permanent military and economic foothold in Latin America, 100 miles from American shores. The logic seems compelling at first glance. Venezuela hosts Russian military. Advisors, billions in Chinese investment, Cuban intelligence operatives and Iranian Technical Support. It's become what some call a forward operating base for adversarial powers. Beijing buys Venezuelan oil at discount prices, gaining energy security while thumbing its nose at American sanctions. Moscow supplies weapons systems and political cover at the UN throne, shares surveillance technology for Washington. This looks like hostile powers coordinating right in America's backyard, violating the fundamental principle that has guided US strategy since 1823. No great power interference in the Western Hemisphere. Trump's National Security Strategy explicitly revives what it calls the Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, declaring the hemisphere America's first priority. The document argues that securing our own region is prerequisite for competing globally. It says that Chinese and Russian presence in Venezuela. Represents direct threats to American National security, and it concludes that the United States must act decisively to expel these rivals and restore American primacy in Latin America. But offensive realism teaches us to look beyond stated justifications to underlying power dynamics. And when you analyze this operation through that lens, the picture becomes deeply troubling. First, consider what we're actually committing. A carrier strike group doesn't just appear overnight. It requires logistics, planning, sustained presence. The Ford alone needs a battle group. Destroyers, cruisers, submarine supply Ships then add the 15,000 troops, the air assets, the intelligence networks, the diplomatic coordination with regional partners. This represents a massive diversion of military resources from the Indo Pacific where our actual peer competitor operates. Every ship in the Caribbean is a ship not watching. China. Every F35 over Venezuela is 1 not deterring Beijing near Taiwan. Every special operations team hunting drug labs is a team not preparing for high intensity conflict in the South China Sea. We're trading strategic focus for tactical action. We're prioritizing symbolic victories over structural advantages. Second, consider the regional dynamics. Latin America isn't the compliant backyard Washington remembers from the Cold War. Brazil, Argentina. Colombia, Mexico. These countries pursue independent foreign policies now. They trade extensively with China. They accept Chinese infrastructure investment. They buy Chinese technology, and they resent American interference in regional affairs, even when that interference targets governments they dislike. When Trump threatens military action against Venezuela, he doesn't just isolate Maduro, he alienates the entire region, pushing them toward precisely the alternative. Partnerships Washington claims to oppose Brazil sees American carriers near Venezuela and concludes that dependence on Washington carries risks. Argentina watches US pressure and accelerates USA denominated trade deals with Beijing. Columbia hears Trump threatened military strikes over cocaine production. And remembers decades of American intervention that solved nothing. The more aggressively Washington acts in Latin America, the more attractive Chinas model becomes. Economic partnership without political demands. Infrastructure investment without military threats. Trade relationships without regime change requirements. 3rd and most critically, consider what China is doing while America focuses on Venezuela. In December 2024, Beijing conducted its largest naval operation since 1996, deploying 90 warships around Taiwan in an unprecedented show of force, the People's Liberation Army Navy. Demonstrated it could sustain complex formations in contested waters, coordinate across multiple task forces and operate with precision. That suggests they're rehearsing for actual invasion scenarios. During the same. China signed a zero tariff trade agreement with Venezuela's deepening economic ties. Even as Washington deployed military assets, Beijing announced infrastructure investments across Africa's expanded Belt and Rd. Initiative partnerships in Central Asia, and continued building artificial islands in the South China Sea. While American attention fixated on Caribbean drug cartels, China advanced. Its strategic position across multiple theaters simultaneously. This is the asymmetry that should concern every strategic planner in Washington. We're reacting to tactical problems while China executes strategic campaigns. We're deploying overwhelming force against weak adversaries. While Beijing positions itself against peer competitors, we're fighting the last war securing the Western Hemisphere like its 1965. While China shapes the global order for 2050, the Venezuelan operation reveals A fundamental misunderstanding of how great power competition works in the modern. Era Trump believes that controlling your near abroad is essential for competing globally, and historically, he's correct. Great powers do secure their adjacent regions first. But that logic applies when you're near abroad is actually contested by peer competitors. The Western Hemisphere isn't contested. Russia and China are not militarily threatening Latin America. They're economically engaging it, yes, but economic engagement isn't military threat. Beijing isn't building military bases in Venezuela. Moscow isn't positioning invasion forces in Cuba. Iran isn't deploying missiles. In Nicaragua, what's happening is that these countries are offering Latin American nations alternatives to American dominance, trade deals, infrastructure projects, political support without demanding submission. And here's the cruel irony. By responding with military force, Washington validates the narrative that American leadership means. American domination, Every carrier we deploy, every threat we issue, every regime change operation we contemplate proves to Latin America that the Chinese model respectful engagement without interference, is superior to the American model of pressure and ultimatums we're defeating. Ourselves. Now let's discuss what this means for the actual strategic competition that matters, preventing Chinese hegemony in Asia. Taiwan sits 7000 miles from California and 100 miles from mainland China. Geographic proximity gives Beijing overwhelming advantages. They can concentrate. Of course, faster, sustain operations longer, and escalate more credibly than we can. Defending Taiwan requires the United States to project power across the Pacific, maintain sea control in contested waters, and convince Beijing that will risk great power war over territory. We don't control, and that isn't vital to American security. That mission is already at the edge of American capability. Now add the Venezuela distraction. When Trump deploys a carrier strike group to the Caribbean, he removes it from potential Pacific contingencies when he tasks special operations Forces with counter narcotics missions in Latin America, he diverts them from Taiwan Defense planning. When he focuses diplomatic energy on isolating Maduro, he weakens coordination with Asian allies who need reassurance about American commitment. China watches this dispersion and draws obvious. Conclusions Washington cannot maintain strategic focus, American military power, while still formidable, is being diffused across too many theaters against too many adversaries and most importantly, the United states prioritizes symbolic gestures over strategic necessities. If Beijing were planning a Taiwan scenario, they would want. American attention focused elsewhere. They would want US carrier groups in the Caribbean. They would want special operations forces hunting drug traffickers instead of preparing for Pacific contingencies. They would want Washington believing that securing the Western Hemisphere is strategic priority because every resource America commits to. Venezuela is a resource unavailable for Taiwan. Trump's Venezuela operation gives China everything it could want. The National Security Strategy claims this approach reflects offshore balancing, securing our hemisphere first, then projecting power globally from a position of strength. But that's not offshore. Balancing that selective primacy, true offshore balancing, means we prevent hostile hegemony in strategically vital regions without trying to dominate those regions ourselves. It means we focus ruthlessly on peer competitors, China, potentially Russia, while minimizing commitments to peripheral conflicts. It means we distinguish between areas where American presence is essential and areas where regional powers can maintain their own balance. Venezuela isn't strategically vital. Latin America has abundant capacity to handle its own security challenges. Brazil alone has sufficient economic and military power. The balance against external influence in South America. Mexico can secure its own borders. Colombia can fight its own drug war. These countries don't need American carrier groups. They need respectful partnerships and economic engagement. But we're offering military threats instead. Meanwhile in the Indo Pacific. Where American presence actually matters, where no regional power can balance against China alone, where geography and economics and technology combined to create genuine threats to the international order that enables American prosperity there we're dividing our attention, stretching our resources. That signaling that we can be distracted by secondary concerns. This is strategic incoherence masquerading as decisive leadership. The broader pattern here should alarm anyone who studies how Haggai man's decline. Empires don't collapse because they're defeated by stronger adversaries. They collapse because they. Overextend themselves, commit to defending interests that exceed their resources, and lose the ability to distinguish between vital and peripheral concerns. Rome fell because it tried to defend borders it couldn't hold against adversaries it couldn't defeat. While internal cohesion eroded, Britain lost its empire. Because two world wars exhausted its capacity to maintain global commitments even as rivals emerged who could challenge British power regionally, the Soviet Union collapsed because it spent itself trying to compete globally while its economic foundation crumbled. The pattern is consistent declining. Haggai. Conn's accelerate their decline by refusing to retrench, by clinging to commitments they can no longer afford, by believing that demonstrations of force and peripheral theaters will restore their position. And every time, they're wrong. Trump's Venezuela operation fits this pattern perfectly. We're demonstrating that. American power can still deploy overwhelming force against weak adversaries. We're proving we can still project military strength in our own hemisphere. We're showing rivals that we won't tolerate challenges to our influence in Latin America. But these demonstrations are irrelevant to the actual strategic competition. China doesn't care if we can intimidate Venezuela. Beijing cares whether we can defend Taiwan, whether we can maintain alliance cohesion in the Pacific, whether we can sustain the technological advantages that currently give U.S. military edge. And the answer to those questions grows more uncertain every year we disperse. Our attention across multiple theaters. Now, some will argue I'm being too pessimistic, that America can handle multiple challenges simultaneously, that securing our hemisphere doesn't preclude focusing on Asia. But resources are finite. Attention is finite, political will is finite. Every dollar spent on Caribbean. Operations is a dollar not invested in Pacific capabilities. Every day our strategic community spends planning Venezuela contingencies is a day not spent modeling Taiwan scenarios. Every diplomatic capital we burn threatening Latin American countries is capital we can't spend coordinating with Japan, South Korea. Australia and India on Chinas strategy. The trade-offs are real and pretending they don't exist doesn't make them disappear. Furthermore, the Venezuela operation creates long term costs that extend beyond immediate resource allocation. If we succeed in removing Maduro, and that's far from certain, we own the aftermath. Venezuelan reconstruction, political stabilization, economic recovery all become American responsibilities. We've seen this movie before. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. We topple regimes, declare victory, and then spend years managing the chaos we created. Do we really want to add Venezuela to that? List Can we afford another long term occupation in Latin America while simultaneously competing with China in the Pacific? History suggests we cannot. And if we fail, if Maduro survives, or if the operation triggers broader regional instability, we've demonstrated weakness while exhausting resources. That's the worst possible outcome. We commit significant military power, achieve no strategic objective, and signal to rivals that American threats are hollow. Let me be clear about the correct strategy here. If we're serious about competing with China, if we genuinely believe Beijing represents a peer. Competitor that could challenge American security, Then we must prioritize ruthlessly. That means accepting uncomfortable realities about Latin America. Venezuela under Maduro is problematic, yes. Chinese economic influence there is growing, yes, but neither represents existential threat. To American security, they're irritants, not catastrophes. The rational response is containment through economic and diplomatic pressure, support for regional partners who can counterbalance Venezuelan influence, and acceptance that we cannot control every outcome in every country deploying carriers. Strike groups and planning regime change operations is disproportionate response that creates more problems than it solves. Instead, those resources should concentrate on the Indo Pacific. Every available carrier should patrol Asian waters. Every diplomatic effort should strengthen alliances with Japan South Korea, Australia, India, Philippines, every dollar of defense spending should prioritize capabilities relevant to high intensity conflict against near peer adversaries. This is offshore balancing. We prevent Chinese hegemony and Asia through forward presence and alliance coordination while accepting that other regions will develop their own. Power dynamics without American micromanagement. But Washington won't adopt this strategy because it requires admitting that American power has limits, that we cannot shape every region simultaneously. That strategic focus means accepting losses in peripheral theaters. American political culture rewards expansive commitments and punishes retrenchment. Any president who explicitly abandoned Latin America to focus on Asia would be destroyed politically. So we will continue the current approach. Rhetorical focus on China combined with practical over extension everywhere else. Strategic documents that acknowledge limits alongside operational commitments that ignore those limits and steady drift toward confrontation with China. Without the focus preparation that successful competition requires, the Venezuela operation will likely succeed in the narrow sense Maduro's regime. This week, isolated and potentially on the verge of collapse, American military superiority in the Caribbean is overwhelming. We can probably remove him if we commit to that objective, But that tactical success will obscure the strategic failure. Because while we're celebrating regime change in Caracas. While we're declaring victory for the Monroe Doctrine, while we're proving that American power still matters in our own hemisphere, China will be consolidating its position in Asia, advancing its technological capabilities, expanding its economic influence, and preparing for the confrontation that actually determines the future. Of the international order. And when that confrontation comes, when the crisis over Taiwan erupts, when we face the choice between humiliating retreat and catastrophic war, we will discover that all our operations in Venezuela, all our demonstrations of force against weak adversaries, all our commitments to defending. Peripheral interest. None of it prepared us for the challenge that matters. Trump's Venezuela gambit isn't strategic masterstroke, it's strategic distraction. It's the symptom of an empire that has lost the ability to distinguish between vital and peripheral interests, that believes demonstrations of force substitute for strategic focus. That prioritizes the appearance of dominance over the reality of power. The Monroe Doctrine made sense in 1823, when European powers posed genuine military threats to the Western Hemisphere and when America lacked capacity to project power beyond its own region. It makes no sense. 2025 when our peer competitor is China, when the contested theater is Asia, and when every resource we commit to Latin America is a resource unavailable for the Pacific. China understands this asymmetry and exploits it brilliantly. They don't need to match American. Military power globally, they just need to ensure we disperse that power across multiple theaters while they concentrate on the one theater that matters to them. Venezuela's perfect for this strategy. It's close enough to America that we feel threatened, weak enough that we believe we can win quickly and connect it enough to narratives about spheres of influence. That we justify massive commitments. Beijing couldn't design A better trap if they tried. This is America's fatal mistake, and we're walking into it with eyes wide open, convinced we're demonstrating strategic wisdom.

Marx was right

A group of people get together in an office, a store, a factory, and by complicated coordination of work, they transform raw material, say a lumber and glue into a finished product. Let's call it a chair. And then they sell that and get the money. And what do they do with the money? They use a portion of the money to replace the lumber and the glue and the hammers and the nails that go into production that have been used up. They use another part of the revenue they get from selling chairs to pay the workers their salaries. And then there's a residue. It's called the profit. Sometimes it's called a surplus. It's what's left over when you've sold the chair, taken care of replacing tools and equipment used up, and paying the workers. It's what it's the part that goes to the capitalist, the owner, the entrepreneur, the person who's running the business. And of course, the people who are running the business have every interest in minimizing what they spend on tools, equipment, and raw material, and minimizing what they pay their workers, because the more they minimize those things, the more they'll maximize what's left over. Which goes to them. And to whom do these people give the leftover profits? Well, of course, they give it mostly to themselves. That's why we have rich people, not-so-rich people, and poor people. If you're a worker, you get a wage. If you're a capitalist, you get your cut of the profit. If businesses run to maximize profits, that's what the economics profession says it should be. Well then, the system is run to benefit the profit earners, not the others. The profit earners of 3% of our people. That's what the US Census Department says the capitalists are. The other 97% are the ones who are not the objects of how this system works. Capitalism makes the capitalist rich, and we all know, as Marx shows us, the results. The capitalists want capitalism to spread. They want to get more and more workers working to produce what is left over for them. They are expanding. They don't care what the cost of expansion is. That's their income. They squeeze the worker every chance they get. Long hours, lousy pay, no breaks, and minimal conditions. You know the story you're already living in. And then the capitalists will become very wealthy by getting the profits and having their whole system focus on maximum profits for them. They understand they're surrounded by a sea of people who are not rich, and they worry about those people's envy and bitterness. So they don't want to let those people have the vote. They fought against it. The workers finally got it. When America began as an independent country, only a minority was allowed to vote. You should know that workers had to fight everywhere. And once work of had the vote, now the capitalists said they're the majority. They're 97%. We're 3. We'd better control the politics. So they went and took their money and bought the politicians. We know all about that. Marx did too, and talked about it. The system is very unstable because these workers, these capitalists, may or may not invest their money. It's their freedom, free enterprise. But if they don't invest their money, there are no jobs for the people who depend on them. This is a system of unfairness built into it. Injustice is built into it. Marx was right about something else. He said this system is built, and has built into it expansion. These capitalists are always trying to get more workers build their in industry. If they can't get more workers, if they can't sell the output that they're making, they'll charge output, a new kind of output. They’ll come up with something else. They'll pay people to invent new things so they can hire people and get the profit. Because the more profit you have, the safer you are. The more politicians you can buy, the more protection you have. So the system grows, Marx pointed out. It will produce a world, the unified economy, it's done that. Just like Marx said. He was right again. But he said the way it's gonna do it is contradictory. It's gonna blow itself up even as it grows. Well, how did capitalism grow globally? The answer: Colonialism. The early capitalist countries, Britain, Western Europe, North America, Japan became domineering countries that had to carve up Asia, Africa, and Latin America to control them. You know, we're seeing it again now with Mr. Trump's new interest in Latin America, making the folks down there tremble. They've been here before. And Marx said eventually this domination, this capitalist use of Asia, Africa, Latin America, simply for the labor you could get there for the raw materials, using them for the wealth of Europe and North America. That's why the world looks the way it does today. Very rich in a few places, very poor in most of the others. We have an inequality in the world that's like what you had in ancient Egypt. Capitalism hasn't freed us from inequality; it's just reorganized an inequality, which Marx said it would. And then he predicted that eventually the colonial territories would say we're not tolerating this anymore. Marx also said that the working class in a capitalist country wouldn't tolerate it anymore either. One of them would make labor unions and fight the battle that way. That's in the advanced countries. Another would make colonial revolutions. You know what shook Asia, Africa and Latin America? Still does. Bitter, horrible fights between a colonial power trying to control and the people who don't want to be controlled. If you need an example today, try Gaza. See how that fits or not. Marx was right about most of these things. He was right that capitalism would be technologically very dynamic. Every capitalist has to worry that he'll be outcompeted by another one as long as there's competition. So to get a jump on the one who's trying to get a jump on him. They'll compete, and they'll develop new technologies, particularly the kind that's save on workers, replacing a lot of workers with your machine. Of course, that's horrible for the workers. But as Carl Marx kept showing, capitalism is not designed for the workers. That's a mythology. It tries to create in the mind of the worker, fearing that if the worker understands what's actually going on, they will be anti-system, anti capitalist too. Which is indeed what Marxists have tried to cultivate for the last 150 years with considerable success. Marx was right about a lot. This is a system, Marx said, that carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Might the United States that we're living in. Now, be experiencing through the decline of our empire. The decline of our social solidarity as a nation, the bitter divisions racking the country. The fact that the last half dozen wars that the United States has been involved in, the United States has lost. Are these signs of the seeds of your own self-destruction that Marx pointed to? The goods and services we all depend on to lead our lives. The food, the clothing, the shelter, the transportation, education, medical care, all of it. If you look closely at the production, here's how it works. A group of people get together in an office, a store, a factory, and by complicated coordination of work, they transform raw material, say a lumber and glue into a finished product. Let's call it a chair. And then they sell that and get the money. And what do they do with the money? They use a portion of the money to replace the lumber and the glue and the hammers and the nails that go into production that have been used up. They use another part of the revenue they get from selling chairs to pay the workers their salary. And then there's a residue. It's called the profit. Sometimes it's called a surplus. It's what's leftover when you've sold the chair, taken care of replacing tools and equipment used up, taking care of paying the workers. It's what it's the part that goes to the capitalist, the owner, the entrepreneur, the person who's running the business. And of course, the people who are running the business. Have every interest in minimizing what they spend on tools, equipment, and raw material, and minimizing what they pay their workers, because the more they minimize those things, the more they'll maximize what's leftover. Which goes to them. And to whom do these people give the leftover the profits? Well, of course they give it mostly to themselves. That's why we have rich people and not so rich people and poor people. If you're a worker, you get a wage. If you're a capitalist, you get your cut of the profit. If businesses run to maximize profits, and that's what the economics profession says it should be. Well then the system is run to benefit the profit earners, not the others. The profit earners of 3% of our people. That's what the US Census Department says the capitalists are. The other 97% are the ones who are not the objects of how this system works. Capitalism makes the capitalist rich, and we all know, as Marx shows us, the results. The capitalist want capitalism to spread. They want to get more and more workers working to produce what is leftover for them. They are expansion. They don't care what the cost of expansion is. That's their income. They squeeze the worker every chance they get. Long hours, lousy pay, no breaks, minimal condition. You know the story you're already living in. And then the capitalists will become very wealthy by getting the profits and having their whole system focus on maximum profits for them. They understand they're surrounded by a sea of people that are not rich, and they worry about those people's envy and bitterness. So they don't want to let those people have the vote. They fought against it. The workers finally got it. When America begins as an independent countries, only a minority are allowed to vote. You should know that workers had to fight everywhere. And once work of had the vote, now the capitalist said they're the majority. They're 97%. We're 3. We better control the politics. So they went and took their money and bought the politicians. We know all about that. Marx did too, and talked about it. The system is very unstable because these workers, these capitalists, may or may not invest their money. It's their freedom, free enterprise. But if they don't invest their money, there are no jobs for the people who depend on them. This is a system of unfairness built into it. Injustice built into it. Marx was right about something else. He said this system is built, has built into it expansion. These capitalists are always trying to get more workers build their in industry. If they can't get more workers, if they can't sell the output that they're making, they'll charge output, a new kind of output. They’ll come up with something else. They'll pay people to invent new things so they can hire people and get the profit. Because the more profit you have, the safer you are. The more politicians you can buy, the more protection you have. So the system grows, Marx pointed out. It will produce a world, the unified economy, it's done that. Just like Marx said. He was right again. But he said the way it's gonna do it is contradictory. It's gonna blow itself up even as it grows. Well, how did capitalism grow globally? The answer? Colonialism. The early capitalist countries, Britain, Western Europe, North America, Japan became domineering countries who had to carve up Asia, Africa, Latin America to control them. You know, we're seeing it again now with Mr. Trump's new interest in Latin America, making the folks down there tremble. They've been here before. And Marx said eventually this domination, this capitalist use of Asia, Africa, Latin America, simply for the labor you could get there for the raw materials, using them for the wealth of Europe and North America. That's why the world looks the way it does today. Very rich in a few places, very poor in most of the others. We have an inequality in the world that's like what you had in ancient Egypt. Capitalism hasn't freed us from inequality, it's just reorganized an inequality, which Marx said it would. And then he predicted that eventually the colonial territories would say we're not tolerating this anymore. Marx also said the working class in the capitalist country, they wouldn't tolerate it anymore either. One of them would make labor unions and fight the battle that way. That's in the advanced countries. Another would make colonial revolutions. You know what shook Asia, Africa and Latin America? Still does. Bitter, horrible fights between a colonial power trying to control and the people who don't want to be controlled. If you need an example today, try Gaza. See how that fits or not. Marx was right about most of these things. He was right that capitalism would be technologically very dynamic. Every capitalist has to worry that he'll be outcompeted by another one as long as there's competition. So to get a jump on the one who's trying to get a jump on him. They'll compete and they'll develop new technologies, particularly the kind that's save on workers, replace a lot of workers with your machine. Of course, that's horrible for the workers. But as Carl Marx kept showing, capitalism is not designed for the workers. That's a mythology. It tries to create in the mind of the worker, fearing that if the worker understands what's actually going on, they will be anti system, anti capitalist too. Which is indeed what Marxists have tried to cultivate for the last 150 years with considerable success. Marx was right about a lot. This is a system, Marx said, that carries within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Might the United States that we're living in. Now. Be experiencing through the decline of our empire. The decline of our social solidarity as a nation, the bitter divisions racking the country. The fact that the last half dozen wars that the United States has been involved in, the United States has lost. Are these signs of the seeds of your own self destruction that Marx pointed to?

黎智英

黎智英：（这个人该死在监狱）美国的视频, 他参加一个美国的论坛他怎么说美国应该考虑用和动用和属性攻击中国来保卫香港民主. 这种是人讲的话吗？ 有时候政治斗要有一点界线在，这种话怎么会讲出来？在论坛公开讲，讲的面不改其色，我说难听一点的话，汪精卫也不过如此。我本来对他印象是没有特别好，没有特别坏中性。我不敢相信，我亲耳听到，还在论坛上这样讲，如果视频是别人发的，我还怀疑不是美国媒体发的，是讲英文，他英文也不差。我英文也不差，我听得懂，可以吗？ 我想怎么会有这种人呢！

Racism coup in Prama

Racism coup in Prama led by Visha Mitra and Ramesha.Last year, when I had a conflict with Annitsha, Visha Mitra and Ramesha did not ask me what had happened or inquire into the details. They simply announced my punishment. They said that Ganesha could not attend the HOA meeting. I did not know there was a private courthouse in Ananda Marga. Their behavior made me very furious with them. But what could I do? The only thing I could do was ask them what law they were basing their decision on. Then they realized they had no legal basis to make this kind of decision. From their actions, I could see that they were very used to operating their own “private courthouse.”