"This Is Existential": Billionaire Cancer Researcher Says Covid & Vaccine Likely Causing Surge In Aggressive Cancers

   For those who have been following this blog, this is old news. Although now, the consequences are so widespread and catastrophic that it is news again. As was proven again and again over the last 5 years, the spike proteins ARE the poison disrupting people immune system with multiple and diverse nefarious consequences.

"This Is Existential": Billionaire Cancer Researcher Says Covid & Vaccine Likely Causing Surge In Aggressive Cancers

Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong - a transplant surgeon-turned-biotech billionaire renowned for inventing the cancer drug Abraxane - has issued a startling warning in a new in-depth interview with Tucker Carlson.

Soon-Shiong, founder of ImmunityBio ($IBRX) and owner of the Los Angeles Times, claims that the COVID-19 pandemic, and the very vaccines developed to fight it, may be contributing to a global surge in “terrifyingly aggressive” cancers. In the nearly two-hour conversation, the Los Angeles Times owner leveraged his decades of clinical and scientific experience to outline why he suspects an unprecedented cancer epidemic is unfolding. This report examines Dr. Soon-Shiong’s background and assertions, the scientific responses for and against his claims, new data on post-COVID health trends, and the far-reaching implications if his alarming hypothesis proves true.

Dr. Soon-Shiong’s Claims

Soon-Shiong is a veteran surgeon and immunologist who has spent a career studying the human immune system’s fight against cancer. He pioneered novel immunotherapies and even worked on a T-cell based COVID vaccine booster during the pandemic. In the interview, he draws on this background to voice deep concern over rising cancer cases, especially among younger people – something he describes as a “non-infectious pandemic” of cancer. He tells Carlson that in 50 years of medical practice, it was extraordinarily rare to see cancers like pancreatic tumors in children or young adults, yet recently such cases are appearing. For instance, Soon-Shiong was alarmed by seeing a 13-year-old with metastatic pancreatic cancer, a scenario virtually unheard of in his prior experience. 

"I never saw pancreatic cancer in children... the greatest surprise to me was a 13-year-old with metastatic pancreatic cancer," Soon-Shiong told Carlson, adding that he's seen examples of very young patients (even children under 11 with colon cancer) and unusual surges in aggressive diseases like ovarian cancer in women in their 30s. These personal observations of more frequent, aggressive cancers in youth led him to probe what might have changed in recent years.

“We're clearly seeing an increase in certain types of cancer, like pancreatic cancer, ovarian cancer... colon cancer... in younger people."
— Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong

According Soon-Shiong, the COVID era is the obvious change - and suggests that both the SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and the widespread vaccination campaigns could be key drivers behind this cancer spike. He emphasizes the massive scale of human exposure to the virus and its spike protein (via infection or vaccination).

"I don't know how to say that without saying it. It scares the pants off me because I think what we may be, I don' think it's virus versus man now, this is existential. I think when I talk about the largest non-infectious pandemic that we're afraid of, this is it."

“Billions of people – literally billions – had the COVID virus. Over a billion got the spike protein vaccine," said Carlson, adding "So that's like, we're talking like a huge percentage of the Earth's population, unless I'm missing something."

"Now you understand what keeps you awake at night and kept me awake at night for two years, two and a half years," Soon-Shiong replied, suggesting that exposure to both is silently undermining the immune system’s natural defenses against cancer on a global scale.

Soon-Shiong frames COVID-era cancers as potentially virally triggered or exacerbated. In the interview, he described cases of “virally induced cancers” in clinics during the pandemic – patients whose cancers may have been kicked into overdrive by the cascade of inflammation and immune stress associated with COVID-19 (Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong: You’re Being Lied to About Cancer, How It’s Caused, and How to Stop It). COVID infection causes a massive inflammatory response, and some cancers are known to exploit inflammation to grow.

TUCKER: "a lot people have pointed to both COVID, the virus, and to the mRNA COVID vaccines as potential causes. Do you think that they're related?"

SOON-SHIONG: "The best way for me to answer that is to look at history. What we know about virally-induced cancers is well-established. We know that if you get hepatitis, you get liver cancer. Hepatitis is a virus infection. We know if you got human papillomavirus, HPV, you get cervical cancer."

We know that certain viruses directly cause cancer (e.g. HPV, Epstein-Barr), so it’s not unprecedented for a virus to play a role in oncogenesis. While SARS-CoV-2 is not a known oncovirus, Soon-Shiong worries its indirect effects – chronic inflammation, immune exhaustion, or “suppressor cells” that emerge in the wake of infection/vaccination – could be accelerating tumor development. “The answer is to stop the inflammation…clear the virus from the body,” he argues, positing that until we eradicate lingering virus and restore immune balance, we may see mounting cancer cases.

In sum, Dr. Soon-Shiong’s claim is that the pandemic has set the stage for an explosion of aggressive cancers: the COVID virus itself (especially if it persists in survivors) might suppress immune surveillance, and the mRNA vaccines “that didn’t stop it” might inadvertently contribute to an immunosuppressive environment. These effects, in his theory, could be unleashing cancers that the immune system would ordinarily have kept in check.

A number of clinicians and researchers have reported similar worrying observations, though these remain largely anecdotal at this stage. One prominent voice echoing Soon-Shiong’s concern is Dr. Angus Dalgleish, a veteran oncologist and professor at St. George’s, University of London. In late 2022, Dalgleish wrote to the BMJ’s editor after noticing that some cancer patients who had been stable for years experienced “rapid progression of their disease after a COVID-19 booster.” He cited cases of individuals who were doing well until shortly after vaccination – new leukemias, sudden appearance of Stage IV lymphomas, and explosive metastases in patients who had post-vaccine bouts of feeling unwell.

“I am experienced enough to know that these are not coincidental,” Dalgleish wrote, noting that colleagues in Germany, Australia and the U.S. were independently seeing the same pattern. This frontline testimony aligns with Soon-Shiong’s fear: something about the immune system post-vaccination might be removing restraints on latent cancers. Dalgleish specifically pointed to short-term innate immune suppression after mRNA vaccination (lasting for several weeks) as a plausible mechanism. Many of the cancers he saw were ones normally held in check by immune surveillance (melanomas and B-cell cancers), so a temporary post-vaccine drop in immune vigilance could allow a tumor growth spurt. He also alluded to “suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments” – a reference to preliminary studies that found the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein might interfere with key DNA repair or tumor-suppressor proteins in cells. These lab findings (while not yet confirmed in living organisms) lend some biological plausibility to the idea that spike exposure could affect cancer-related pathways.

Beyond individual doctors, some research is probing links between COVID and cancer behavior. For example, a 2022 study in Frontiers in Oncology explored how SARS-CoV-2 proteins interact with cancer cells. It found that the virus’s membrane (M) protein can “induce the mobility, proliferation and in vivo metastasis” of triple-negative breast cancer cells in the lab (Frontiers | SARS-CoV-2 M Protein Facilitates Malignant Transformation of Breast Cancer Cells). In co-culture experiments, breast cancer cells exposed to the viral protein essentially became more aggressive and invasive. The researchers concluded that COVID-19 infection “might promote…aggressive [cancer] phenotypes” and warned that cancer patients who get COVID could face worse outcomes. 

While this is one specific context (breast cancer cells and one viral protein), it underpins Soon-Shiong’s general concern: the virus can directly alter the tumor microenvironment to the cancer’s advantage. 

Another line of evidence involves latent viruses and inflammation. Doctors have documented unusual reactivations of viruses like Epstein-Barr (which is linked to lymphomas and other malignancies) during both COVID-19 and post-vaccine immune reactions. Such reactivations hint at a period of immune dysregulation that might also let nascent cancer cells slip past defenses. 

Or course,fact-checkers and medical authorities argue that there is no credible evidence of vaccines causing meaningful immune suppression. “There isn’t evidence to date that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer or lead to worsening cancer,” one infectious disease expert told FactCheck.org, though they do acknowledge rare side effects like myocarditis or blood clots were found, but not cancer.

While the scientific community debates mechanistic links between COVID and cancer, independent analysts have been parsing population-level data for unusual patterns. One notable effort is by Phinance Technologies, a research firm co-founded by former BlackRock portfolio manager Edward Dowd. Phinance has been analyzing excess mortality and disability data since the pandemic, looking for signals of broad health impacts in the aftermath of COVID and mass vaccination. Their findings reveal concerning trends, especially among younger, working-age populations, that lend some weight to Dr. Soon-Shiong’s general warning of a post-COVID health crisis (though not specific to cancer alone).

Phinance’s “Vaccine Damage Project” examined the U.S. population aged 16–64 (essentially the workforce) and stratified outcomes into four groups: no effect, mild injuries, severe injuries (disabilities), and death. Using official government databases (the CDC, Bureau of Labor Statistics, etc.), they estimated how each category changed starting in 2021 – when vaccines rolled out and COVID became widespread. The results are sobering. According to Phinance’s analysis, by the end of 2022 the U.S. had experienced approximately 310,000 excess deaths among adults aged 25-64 (a ~23% increase in mortality in that group over normal expectations). Notably, they argue that after mid-2021, with vaccines available and the virus itself becoming less deadly (due to immunity and milder variants), COVID-19 should not have been causing such high excess death rates. Therefore, those 310k “unexplained” deaths in 2021–2022 could represent an upper bound on vaccine-related fatalities or other pandemic collateral damage.

Even more striking is the data on new disabilities. Phinance found that from early 2021 through late 2022, about 1.36 million additional Americans (age 16–64) became disabled – a 24.6% rise in disability in that cohort, far above historical trend. This jump in disabilities among the workforce correlates in time with the vaccine rollout (and was disproportionately higher in the labor force than among those not working). The analysts note that the healthiest segment of the population (employed working-age adults) saw a greater relative increase in disabilities after Q1 2021 than the older or non-working groups. This is unusual, since typically health shocks hit the elderly hardest – but here something was impacting younger, healthy people to a significant degree. Phinance investigated further and found a tight relationship between the cumulative number of vaccine doses administered and the rise in disabilities in 2021-22. In fact, for the 16–64 population, they computed a ratio of about 4 new disabilities per excess death in that period, suggesting many survivors were left with lingering health issues even if they didn’t die.

Japanese Carmakers Face Catastrophic Profit Hit From Trump's Auto Tariffs

   Forget Iran, on April 2nd Trump is exploding a "virtual" nuclear bomb on international trade and Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico and Germany will be the main victims. Will it truly happen? It looks like it, in which case the world plunges almost immediately into a deep recession. 1930s on steroid. What happens afterwards is unknowable. Negotiations? Abandonment of the dollar? What is certain is that the world in 2026 will be very different to the one we know now. 

  The article below is about Japan, but the same analysis could be done for Korea and Germany. Let's forget Canada and Mexico which are facing an even deeper downturn. Interesting times ahead!

Japanese Carmakers Face Catastrophic Profit Hit From Trump's Auto Tariffs

As the fallout from Trump’s tariff plans comes into relief, a harsh truth is emerging for the automotive industry: there are lots of losers and not many winners. But foreign automakers, those without US facilities, will be hit especially hard. 

As Bloomberg notes, from South Korea’s Hyundai to Germany’s Volkswagen, and to a lesser extent America’s own General Motors, many of the world’s most prominent carmakers will soon face higher costs from Trump’s new levies on auto imports and key components. That's because about 46% of all new cars sold in the US are imported.

“There are very few winners,” Sam Fiorani, vice president of global vehicle forecasting for AutoForecast Solutions, said in a phone interview. “Consumers will be losers because they will have reduced choice and higher prices.”

One notable winner in the tariff chaos is Elon Musk. His Tesla, which has large factories in California and Texas, churns out all the electric vehicles it sells in the US, although as Elon noted late on Wednesday, the company will also not remain unscathed.

Important to note that Tesla is NOT unscathed here. The tariff impact on Tesla is still significant.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 27, 2025

Ford could also face a less-severe impact than some rivals, with about 80% of the cars it sells in the US being built domestically.

Others will be less lucky: starting April 2, the new 25% tariffs will apply to all imported passenger vehicles and light trucks, as well as key parts like engines, transmissions. 

Not surprisingly, the tariffs give automakers that heavily source parts in the US an edge, and Trump also allowed an exemption: the new levies will only apply to the non-US share of vehicles and parts imported under a free-trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. That may soften the blow for vehicles whose supply lines zig-zag across the continent. 

Tariffs on parts from Canada and Mexico that comply with the trade deal also won’t take effect until the US sets up a process to collect those levies. The US neighbors could use that window to try to stave off full implementation, even if it’s a long shot.

And while NAFTA, pardon USMCA, nations will do everything in their power to be loopholed out, foreign brands heavily reliant on imported vehicles are fresh out of luck. South Korea’s auto giant Hyundai risks being among the hardest hit: although the carmaker and its affiliate Kia have plants in Alabama and Georgia, and just yesterday announced a $21 billion US expansion plan, it imported more than a million vehicles to the US last year, accounting for more than half of its sales in the country, according to figures from Global Data. 

Hyundai “remains committed to the long-term growth of the US automotive industry through localized production and innovation,” the company said in a statement, noting it employs 570,000 people in the US. Unfortunately, according to Trump, it should employ many more, and if the company - which imports almost 60% of the cars it sells in the US - wishes to avoid tariffs, it will have to not only hire more American workers, but build many more US plants. Oh, and this is just the beginning: once the reciprocal tariffs kick in next week, South Korean exporters will find themselves in a world of pain.

What about Japan? Let's take a closer look at the country which historically has been the biggest global auto maker, and which produces 1.3 million (and another 0.4 million tolled in Mexico) of the 16 million annual car sales (Toyota 0.6mn, Subaru 0.3mn, Nissan 0.2mn, Mazda 0.2mn, MMC 0.1mn, Honda 0.01mn). For Japan, autos account for >30% of Japan’s exports to the US, which imports about 46% of all autos sold each year.

Based on an average sales price of US$45,000, the value of imports would exceed US$330 billion, and US import tariffs could have a major impact on sales prices and auto demand. All else equal, they would raise about $100 billion in annual tax revenues. But all else will certainly not be equal, especially once exporting nations slide into recession, and their export industries are crippled.

In an analysis published three weeks ago (report available to pro subs), Goldman looked at one scenario where Japanese cars are hit with 25% tariffs, along with imports from Mexico and Canada. The results were dire. According to Goldman analyst Kota Yuzawa, the potential impact on Japanese auto companies' operating profit - assuming a tariff of 25% on Japan in line with that imposed on imports from Canada and Mexico - is shown below. In this scenario Goldman assumes that sales volumes decline as a result of price hikes made by each company in order to offset the negative impact of tariffs (volume decline of 8-26% based on a 25% price hike for Canada/Mexico/Japan-made vehicles). In that scenario the profit hit will be anywhere between 6% for Toyota to 59% for Mazda.

In terms of exposure, Yuzawa calculates that production volume in US is largest for Subaru (39%), Honda (27%), Toyota (13%), Nissan (13%), Mazda (7%).

In another, far more draconian scenario, Japanese automakers are unable or simply refuse to hike prices to offset volume declines. The consequences are catastrophic and result in the following hit to operating profits: Toyota -¥570 bn, Honda -¥350 bn, Nissan -¥130 bn, and Mazda -¥60 bn. The implied impact on Goldman's FY3/26 operating profit forecasts would be as follows: Toyota -11%, Honda -23%, Nissan -66%, and Mazda -34%, with Nissan and Mazda seeing relatively large impacts given their larger export mix from Canada/Mexico.

That's just the start: in addition to the direct potential impact on finished vehicle exports described above, parts makers also have supply chains spanning multiple countries. Indeed, Toyota-affiliated companies that announced 3Q (October-December) results on January 31 referred to tariff risks. Denso’s sales from Mexico/Canada operations to the US total about ¥220 bn, while Aisin’s are about ¥60 bn. If a 25% tariff were also imposed on parts, Goldman warns forecasts potential profit declines of ¥55 bn/¥15 bn at Denso/Aisin. Toyota Boshoku did not disclose figures but noted a large potential impact, as much of its seat sewing is conducted in Mexico. Parts makers are working to pass on higher costs to automakers. Denso’s management expressed hope that tariff impact would be mitigated to some extent by the possibility of US corporate tax cuts and a weaker Mexican peso.

Ultimately, Goldman's Yuzawa expects price increases to spread across the US auto industry, and after several years of pain, tariffed exports will find some parity with domestic producers: “Automobiles are essential goods, however, and in the longer term we expect demand for them to recover and the negative impact of tariffs on volume to gradually diminish as production of US-made models and procurement of US-made parts increases. In addition, the used car market is also robust. Higher new car prices are likely to lead to higher used car prices, which could also boost vehicle purchasing power through higher residual values. Our economists estimate price elasticity of demand at 1.2-1.5 in the short term and 0.2 in the medium term, and we use the midpoint of 1.35 in our scenario analysis in this report.”

The problem is what happens until the equilibrium point is reached over several years, and how painful will the looming Japanese recession be, because make no mistake: Japan is now almost certainly facing a recession: Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute (NRI), expects an 25% increase in U.S. auto tariffs to push down Japan's GDP by at least 0.2%. 

"The Trump tariff has the potential to immediately push Japan's economy into deterioration," he said.

But what is worst of all for Japan is that the so-called virtuous wage-price cycle in which the perenially deflating nation managed to find itself, is now also doomed. That's because the auto industry has been the driver of recent wage hikes according to Reuters, as automakers distribute the huge profits they reaped overseas to their employees. Starting April 2, kiss those profits goodbye... and if Japanese automakers want to avoid plummeting stock prices, or worse, bankruptcy, what they will immediately do is announce that any future wage increases have been put on hold and, just as likely, are about to hit reverse.

Not surprisingly, Japan’s government has expressed serious concern over the potential fallout from newly announced US tariffs, warning of risks to both bilateral economic ties and global trade stability.

Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshimasa Hayashi said on Thursday that Tokyo is closely monitoring the situation following Trump’s announcement of additional tariffs. Speaking at a press briefing, Hayashi cautioned that the broad-based nature of the U.S. trade measures could have far-reaching consequences.

“We believe that the current measures and other broad-based trade restrictions by the U.S. government could have a significant impact on the economic relationship between Japan and the U.S., as well as on the global economy and the multilateral trading system,” he said.

If only there was anything Japan could do to retaliate.

As forexlive notes, one thing Hayashi didn't mention was that the new tariffs are likely to trim back the prospect of a May rate hike from the Bank of Japan, echoing what we said, namely that "these new tariffs will hit Japan's auto industry hard, and thus economic data."

More in the full Goldman note "Scenario analysis on US tariffs on Mexico/Canada for Japanese automakers" available to pro subs.

BREAKING: 6 STEALTH BOMBERS HEAD TO IRAN! LEADERS IN BUNKER, RUSSIA WARNS ATTACK IMMINENT (Video - 42mn)

  Let's hope this is all hype because the signs are ominous. The US are just now positioning themselves to attack Iran with B2 strategic bombers in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean as well a four nuclear carriers in the Middle East, as the neo-cons have been clamoring for, for ages. 

  Trump brinkmanship? Maybe, let's hope so. But in April the tariffs start and economic war will intensify with Europe, China and many other countries. By early Summer the US will be in a recession and by Fall or at the latest, Winter 2025, the country will be unable to refinance its bulging debt. Something will have to give  this year. A state of war would definitively make difficult decisions easier to accept for the population. 

  Trump has given two months to Iran but many analysts believe that he may move earlier! We may be on the edge of the precipice.

 

British Chat Forums Shutter To Avoid New Internet Policing Law

 

  This most certainly was to be expected. The future of Europe is over controlled and over regulated, like China but without the industrial and economic dynamism. Today the UK, tomorrow the rest of the continent. Add CBDC and some "green" CO2 restrictions to travel and it is not hard to fathom where Europe is headed. 

  I would love to offer a case for optimism but history tells us otherwise. When policies fail as they will in this case, the solution is always to do more of what doesn't work in the first place. Not to reflect and reverse course.

Authored by Owen Evans via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

British chat forums are shutting themselves down rather than face regulatory burdens recently applied to internet policing laws.

On March 17, the United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act, a law that regulates internet spaces, officially kicked into force.

Illustration by The Epoch Times, LFGSS, Lemmy.zip, The Hamster Forum, Dads with Kids/Screenshot via The Epoch Times

The law means that online platforms must immediately start putting in place measures to protect people in the UK from criminal activity with far-reaching implications for the internet.

However, for some forums—from cyclists, hobbyists, and hamster owners, to divorced father support and more—the regulatory pressure is proving too much, and its myriad of rules are causing chat forums that have been operating for decades, in some cases, to call it a day.

Conservative Peer Lord Daniel Moylan told The Epoch Times by email that “common sense suggests the sites least likely to survive will be hobby sites, community sites, and the like.”

‘Small But Risky Services’

The Act—which was celebrated as the world-first online safety law—was designed to ensure that tech companies take more responsibility for the safety of their users.

For example, social media platforms, including user-to-user service providers, have the duty to proactively police harmful illegal content such as revenge and extreme pornography, sex trafficking, harassment, coercive or controlling behavior, and cyberstalking.

But what the government calls “small but risky services” which are often forums, have to submit illegal harms risk assessments to the Online Safety Act’s regulator, Ofcom, by March 31.

Ofcom first published its illegal harm codes of practice and guidance in December 2024 and had given providers three months to carry out the assignment.

Riverside House is seen along the waterfront on Bankside in London on July 27, 2010. It houses the United Kingdom’s Office of Communications. Jim Linwood/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

It was given powers under the law and warned that those who fail to do so may face enforcement action.

“We have strong enforcement powers at our disposal, including being able to issue fines of up to 10 percent of turnover or £18 million ($23 million)—whichever is greater—or to apply to a court to block a site in the UK in the most serious cases,” said Ofcom.

Some of the rules for owners of these sites—which are often operated by individuals —include keeping written records of their risk assessments, detailing levels of risk, and assessing the “nature and severity of potential harm to individuals.”

While terrorism and child sexual exploitation may be more straightforward to assess and mitigate, offenses such as coercive and controlling behavior and hate offenses are more challenging to manage with forums that have thousands of users.

‘No Way To Dodge It’

LFGSS (London Fixed Gear and Single Speed), a popular cycling forum and resource for nearly two decades, shut down in December.

“We’re done ... we fall firmly into scope, and I have no way to dodge it,” the site said, adding that the law “makes the site owner liable for everything that is said by anyone on the site they operate.”

“The act is too broad, and it doesn’t matter that there’s never been an instance of any of the proclaimed things that this act protects adults, children, and vulnerable people from ... the very broad language and the fact that I’m based in the UK means we’re covered,” it said.

Dee Kitchen, the Microcosm forum software developer that was used to power 300 online communities including LFGSS, said he deleted them all on March 16, a day before the law kicked in.

More recently the Hamster Forum shut down.

On March 16, it wrote that while the forum has “always been perfectly safe, we were unable to meet the compliance.”

The resource forum dadswithkids for single dads, and fathers going through divorce or separation—and also teaches how to maintain relationships with their children, also shut down.

UK users are also being blocked from accessing sites hosted abroad.

The hosts of the lemmy.zip forum, hosted in Finland, said to ensure compliance with international regulations while avoiding any legal risks associated with the Act, it has made the difficult decision to block UK access.

“These measures pave the way for a UK-controlled version of the ‘Great Firewall,’ granting the government the ability to block or fine websites at will under broad, undefined, and constantly shifting terms of what is considered ‘harmful’ content,” it said.

‘Not Setting Out to Penalize’

An Ofcom spokesman told The Epoch Times by email: “We’re not setting out to penalize small, low-risk services trying to comply in good faith, and will only take action where it is proportionate and appropriate.”

7 Actions That NATO Countries Are Taking Which Indicate That Something Really Big Is Coming

  The hegemony of the West is being challenged and there will therefore be a response. This is unavoidable. On the current trajectory, Europe and the US are bankrupt sooner than later. They need to create new "growth" opportunities. This is why Canada and Greenland are much less of a joke than people believe. As for Europe, it looks more and more like a suicide pact. The hope was that the Russian "empire" would crumble under pressure. It didn't. Conversely, it strengthen itself by turning away from the West. Now, how do you wage war with a country which has all the resources, military industrial might, cheap energy, nuclear weapons and the will to fight? 

Authored by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog,

If peace is on the way, why are they feverishly preparing for World War III?  It appears to me that NATO countries are convinced that something really big is coming.  Is there something that they know that they aren’t telling the rest of us?  As I discussed yesterday, things in the Middle East are really heating up, and the conflict in Ukraine has reached a very dangerous stage.  If negotiations with Russia fail, both sides are likely to significantly escalate matters in a desperate attempt to win the war, and the Russians could come to the conclusion that a final showdown with NATO has begun.  We do not want the Russians to view the conflict in Ukraine in those terms, because they are already extremely paranoid and it wouldn’t take much to push them over the edge.  Unfortunately, NATO countries continue to do things that will raise tensions instead of easing them.  

The following are 7 actions that NATO countries are taking which indicate that something really big is coming…

#1 France is getting ready to distribute a 20 page survival manual that instructs citizens what to do if a full-blown war erupts…

France is the latest country set to issue an invasion survival how-to guide for its citizens.

The 20-page booklet will give advice to French civilians on how to defend the republic in the face of an invasion by signing up to reserve units or local defence efforts.

It will also have tips on how to create a survival kit with essentials including six litres of water, canned food, batteries, and basic medical supplies.

#2 The French government is also telling their citizens to leave Iran “immediately”…

French authorities on Thursday requested its citizens to immediately leave the territory of Iran.

The French Foreign Ministry has issued a warning to its citizens amid the release of one of its nationals who had been imprisoned in Iran for over 880 days.

#3 It is being reported that military planners in the UK have ordered special forces units to get ready to be sent to Ukraine…

Special Forces units were told to prepare for mobilisation to Ukraine by military planners tasked with readying forces by the Cabinet Office, according to two military sources with knowledge of the directive.

The command centre for UK military planning, the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), was sent directives last week to begin the process for the deployment of personnel and resources.

The orders, which also applied to Special Forces reservists, put personnel on standby in order to ensure military equipment is in working order before receiving a notice to mobilise to Ukraine.

#4 Turkey has announced that it would also be willing to deploy troops to Ukraine “if needed”…

Turkey would be ready to deploy troops to Ukraine as part of a broader peacekeeping mission if needed, a Turkish defence ministry source said on Thursday.

“The issue of contributing to a mission … will be evaluated with all relevant parties if deemed necessary for the establishment of regional stability and peace,” the source said.

The Russians have already stated that they will never accept NATO troops on Ukrainian soil under any circumstances.

So why are these nations preparing to send troops anyway?

#5 Poland is preparing for a showdown with Russia by “conscripting every adult male for military training”…

Warsaw is preparing to face down any invasion by Vladimir Putin by conscripting every adult male for military training.

But the Eastern European nation also wants nukes and President Andrzej Duda has now said the US could send some of its arsenal to his country.

#6 The Baltic states are jointly constructing a massive defense line that includes six hundred bunkers, tank ditches, dragon’s teeth and rocket systems…

The Baltics are building a joint defence line on their border with Russia that will have some six-hundred bunkers across each border.

It will also include tank ditches, forests, dragon’s teeth, hedgehogs, and rocket systems.

Poland and the Baltics have also withdrawn an international treaty banning anti-personnel landmines as they prepare to stop an advancing Russian army in its tracks.

#7 In a letter that was delivered to the Iranians, Donald Trump has given Iran only two months to reach a peace agreement…

President Donald Trump has given Iran a two-month deadline to reach a new nuclear agreement, according to a report by Axios.

A letter sent earlier this month to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned of consequences if Tehran continued its nuclear program while also offering renewed talks. The message, described as uncompromising, made clear that prolonged negotiations were not an option.

According to Axios, it “isn’t clear whether the two-month clock begins from the time the letter was delivered or from when negotiations start”.

Since the Iranians have already said that there will be no negotiations, I would assume that the clock started when the letter was delivered.

So the good news is that the bombing of Iran will probably not happen next month.

But if Trump is serious, there is a very good chance that it could happen before the midpoint of this year.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians just conducted an absolutely massive drone strike on a Russian strategic bomber airfield that is located hundreds of miles from the front lines…

Ukrainian forces backed by Western munitions and technology struck a major Russian strategic bomber airfield on Thursday with drones, 435 miles from the Ukrainian front lines.

The strike ignited a massive explosion and sent a huge blast of fire into the air at Engels-2 airbase in Russia.

Videos posted by Reuters showed a huge blast spreading out from the airfield and wrecking nearby cottages.

Russia reportedly called this the largest drone attack ever.

The Ukrainians keep trying to provoke the Russians into doing something really dramatic.

One of these days, the Ukrainians might just succeed.

The Russians are fed up with the government in Kyiv.  If negotiations with Trump fail, I expect the Russians to bring down the hammer.

We really are right on the verge of an apocalyptic conflict with Russia, and we really are right on the verge of an apocalyptic conflict in the Middle East.

The final exit ramps for both of these conflicts are rapidly approaching, and so let us hope that global leaders make very wise decisions in the months ahead.

"A New World Order With European Values": The Unholy Union Of Globalism And Anti-Free Speech Measures

   Now that you can get cheaper wines in Chile and the manufacturing base is gone thanks to the exorbitant price of "green" energy, the only thing left to export from Europe are European "values"!  

  Africa, with almost 200 years of experience is saying "no thank you!". The Middle East with its own resources likewise. Asia has it's own model which for now works rather well. Latin America is out of reach. We're left with Ukraine and the Eastern front although Russia is a hard nuts to crack. And more ominously the home front which without fail will be the focus of the coming years. But as prosperity vane, so will democracy. So much for the "values" then?

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

“A New World Order With European Values.” Emblazoned across banners and signs, those words met the participants at this week’s meeting of the World Forum in Berlin.

Each year, leaders, executives, journalists and academics gather to address the greatest threats facing humanity. This year, there was little doubt about what they view as the current threat: the resurgence of populism and free speech.

In fairness to the Forum, “a New World Order” likely sounds more ominous for some civil libertarians than intended. While the European Union is a transnational government stretching across 27 nations, the organizers were referring to a shift of values away from the United States to Europe.

As one of the few speakers at the forum who was calling for greater protections for free speech, I found it an unnerving message. Even putting aside the implications of the New World Order, the idea of building a world on today’s European values is alarming for free speech.

Free speech is in a free fall in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions — including for having “toxic ideologies.”

The World Forum has a powerful sense of fraternity, even an intimacy, among leaders who see each other as a global elite — a cadre of enlightened minds protecting citizens from their own poor choices and habits.

There has long been a push for transnational governing systems, and European figures see an opportunity created by the conflict with President Trump. The European Union is the model for such a Pax Europaea or “European peace.”

The problem is that this vision for a new Holy Roman Empire lacks a Charlamagne. More importantly, it lacks public support.

The very notion of a “New World Order” is chilling to many who oppose the rise of a globalist class with the rise of transnational governance in the European Union and beyond.

This year, there is a sense of panic among Europe’s elite over the victory of Trump and the Republicans in the U.S., as well as nationalist and populist European movements.

For globalists, the late Tip O’Neill’s rule that “all politics is local” is anathema. The European Union is intended to transcend national identities and priorities in favor of an inspired transnational government managed by an expert elite.

The message was clear. The new world order would be based on European, not American, values. To rally the faithful to the cause, the organizers called upon two of the patron saints of the global elite: Bill and Hillary Clinton. President Clinton was even given an award as “leader of the century.”

The Clintons were clearly in their element. Speaker after speaker denounced Trump and the rise of what they called “autocrats” and “oligarchs.” The irony was crushing. The European Union is based on the oligarchy of a ruling elite. The World Forum even took time to celebrate billionaires from Bill Gates to George Soros for funding “open societies” and greater transnational powers.

The discussions focused on blunting the rise of far-right parties and stemming the flow of “disinformation” that fosters such dissent.

Outside of this rarefied environment, the Orwellian language would border on the humorous: protecting democracy from itself and limiting free speech to foster free speech.

Yet, one aspect of the forum was striking and refreshingly open. This year it became clear why transnational governance gravitates toward greater limits on free speech.

Of course, all of this must be done in the name of democracy and free speech.

There is a coded language that is now in vogue with the anti-free speech community. They never say the word “censorship.” They prefer “content moderation.” They do not call for limiting speech. Instead, they call for limiting “false,” “hateful” or “inciteful” speech.

As for the rise of opposing parties and figures, they are referred to as movements by “low-information voters” misled by disinformation. Of course, it is the government that will decide what are acceptable and unacceptable viewpoints.

That code was broken recently by Vice President JD Vance, who confronted our European allies in Munich to restore free speech. He stripped away the pretense and called out the censorship.

With the rise of populist groups, anti-immigration movements and critics of European governance, there is a palpable challenge to EU authority. In that environment, free speech can be viewed as destabilizing because it spreads dissent and falsehoods about these figures and their agenda. Thus far, “European peace” has come at the price of silencing many of those voices; achieving the pretense of consensus through coerced silence.

Transnational governance requires consent over a wide swath of territory. The means that the control or cooperation of media and social media is essential to maintaining the consent of the governed.

That is why free speech is in a tailspin in Europe, with ever-expanding speech regulations and criminal prosecutions.

Yet, it is difficult to get a free people to give up freedom. They have to be very afraid or very angry. One of the speakers was Maria A. Ressa, a journalist and Nobel laureate. I admire Ressa’s courage as a journalist but previously criticized her anti-free speech positions. Ressa has struck out against critics who have denounced her for allegedly antisemitic views. She has warned that the right is using free speech and declaring “I will say it now: ‘The fascists are coming.’”

At the forum, Ressa again called for the audience of “powerful leaders” to prevent lies and dangerous disinformation from spreading worldwide.

But the free speech movement has shown a surprising resilience in the last few years. First, Elon Musk bought Twitter and dismantled its censorship apparatus, restoring free speech to the social media platform. More recently, Mark Zuckerburg announced that Meta would also restore free speech protections on Facebook and other platforms.

In a shock to many, young Irish voters have been credited with killing a move to further expand the criminalization of speech to include “xenophobia” and the “public dissemination or distribution of tracts, pictures or other material” from viewpoints barred under the law.

Anti-free speech forces are gathering to push back on such trends. Indeed, Hillary Clinton has hardly been subtle about the dangers of free speech to the new world order. After Musk bought Twitter with the intention of restoring free speech protections, Clinton called upon the European Union to use its infamous Digital Services Act to make Musk censor her fellow Americans. She has also suggested arresting those spreading disinformation.

The European Union did precisely that by threatening Musk with confiscatory fines and even arrest unless he censored users. When Musk decided to interview Trump in this election, EU censors warned him that they would be watching for any disinformation.

For many citizens, European governance does not exactly look like a triumph over “oligarchs” and “autocrats.” Indeed, the EU looks pretty oligarchic with its massive bureaucracy guided by a global elite and “good” billionaires like Soros and Gates.

Citizens would be wise to look beyond the catchy themes and consider what Pax Europaea would truly mean to them. We have many shared values with our European allies. However, given the current laws limiting political speech, a “New World Order Based on European Values” is hardly an inviting prospect for those who believe in robust democratic and free speech values.

Is The EU's New Army The Final Nail In The Project's Coffin?

  It doesn't take much brain to understand that there is something very wrong with the current direction of the European project. We could call it: "Double down or die!" But how far can you go down that road before you actually "die"? Well, since they won't stop, we're about to find out. 

  The financial markets are already squeaking. Soon it will be the people. The billion Euros will have to come from somewhere!

Is The EU's New Army The Final Nail In The Project's Coffin?

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think...

It used to be quite a common thing for people in polite society to say “imagine if women ran the world…we would certainly have less wars, right?”. Wrong. Women are running the world, well, at least the EU world. Three women to be precise. Ursula von der Leyen, EU commission boss, Annalena Baerbock, Germany’s foreign minister and of course, last but not least, the EU’s own foreign affairs chief, Kaja Kallas. And what do all three of these women have in common, apart from having names which sound like sexually transmitted diseases? They all want war.

In line with spectacularly poor decision making right from the beginning of the Ukraine war, with probably Russian sanctions at the top of the list of stupid ideas, the EU has only one way forward in Ukraine. At whatever cost, it must come out at least not looking like it lost. The EU project is very much like an old man on a bike moving very slowly along a Dutch cyclists’ path. The fear from the elites in the EU is that if he falls off the bike, he will never get back on. The constant worry from top EU figures is that if the EU loses its momentum with press coverage and relevance in general, then a pause – any pause – could be devastating. This, you might be surprised to hear, is what EU officials themselves confided in me when I was based in the Belgian capital. Such an expression gives you an idea of how little confidence the EU has in itself as a worthy, stable long-term project.

And so the madness escalates now to such a point where we are actually looking at draining the wallets and purses of our own very poorest people to fund the ultimate EU sex toy going: an EU army.

The idea of an EU army is not new. As a notion, it’s as old as the hills as hard core federalists in Brussels have been arguing for the EU to have its own army for at least twenty years, but until now failed. The main reason for the idea not getting off the ground is that it created too many new, worrying political problems for the EU to wrangle with. In a nutshell, there was always a risk of a new political crisis that an EU army would create as member states argue over which country gets to run it, which nationality is its head, where it would be based and how politically would it be run, based on what decision making structure? (existing EU council, EU commission, member states themselves in a new set up via defence ministries). The concern was always that Germany would have too much power and then this would open an old wound about the country re-arming and rekindling memories of 1939. And we all know where that led.

The EU army idea is actually more complicated than you might think. One of the reasons why it never got off the ground despite several serious attempts is that both the EU and member states are both confused and lack confidence about such a bold plan. They are literally concerned the idea could blow up in their faces. It’s what Americans call ‘blowback’. No, that’s nothing to do with the German foreign minister or even innuendo. It’s a military term for when a gun throws back energy in your face when it discharges and wounds whoever is holding the weapon.

For a long time the EU itself wanted the army to be very much controlled by Brussels but knew that the big guns would not wear that. And so, for them, like those in the European Commission it was about giving power away to a new body, a new layer of EU power, as though there aren’t enough institutions in Brussels which already sap away power from member states. The attitude was somewhat self-defeating. ‘If we (the commission) don’t create this entity, then Germany may well do it on their own anyway, and then we will lose the power’ is the mentality in Brussels. Indeed, Germany for at least a decade has been toying with the idea of having its own EU army, which creates a real headache for Brussels as it gives crucial power to one member state who many would argue already wields quite enough in the first place. The German parliament a few years ago leaked a document suggesting a new international army which Germany would run, which would be sent to troubled hotspots around the world and would be joined by a few allies who would play a supporting role. 

The problem with this is twofold.

One, a good number of Germans would be very unhappy about his and believe that Germany should never be allowed to return to its former military power of the 1930s. 

Secondly, under such a set-up, the EU would suffer considerably as it would throw a spotlight on its own weakness and underline how ineffective Brussels is, given that it has no military edge and that one member state has gone rogue with a geo-military policy. 

And so two scenarios present themselves: 

1. Germany being the main player in an EU army created and apparently run from Brussels – at least in appearance; or

2. Berlin running its own EU army which isn’t called an EU army but the rest of the world will consider it to be one. 

Neither of these scenarios really does the EU any favours.

But it would seem this is what these three ladies have their eye on.

Which is why they have put so much emphasis on 800 billion euros being found among EU member states contributions, so that it will have an EU badge and its centre of power would be Brussels. France, Germany, Italy, Poland and the UK would be part of such a new, shiny EU pillar of NATO. And yet, it is Britain’s role, considered crucial, which will dilute the EU dream of it being entirely a Brussels wet dream project. In many ways, the reaction from these three women follows last year’s conference set up by Macron to create a coalition of EU member states, plus the UK, for big foreign policy ideas which would run parallel to the EU’s foreign thingy in Brussels. Defence spending and sending an EU army – which included the UK and Turkey – to places where the EU felt it could confidently flex its muscles was part of the whole plan.

For these three wicked witches to conjure up such a Macbethian plan to slay Macron and his big idea is worrying on a Shakespearian level, to say the least. It’s hard to say at the moment of writing whether it’s a real plan, as it’s already been blocked by the Netherlands, or it’s a plan on paper designed to impress Trump at a critical moment of negotiations. Does the EU believe that these talks could go on for months, perhaps even a year or more and so therefore to send a few hundred tanks to Kiev would only bolster both Zelenksy’s and the EU’s credibility as players when neither are actually even sitting on the reserves’ bench? Possibly. Have the tanks even been built? Nope.

One witty pundit for RT, a former anchor, opined quite amusingly about the role of the UK, suggesting that London’s ability to be a global military player is out of touch with reality.

“The British defense secretary claims that the need for a weapons shopping spree actually comes from a place of deep, inner hippie-ness” Rachel Marsden wrote. 

“The Ukrainians want peace. We all want peace. And as defense ministers, we have been discussing and we are working to strengthen the push for peace, John Healey said, probably itching to get back home to squeeze into some bell bottoms and smash the bongo drums”.

It reminded me of the 1980s satire puppet show in the UK called ‘Spitting Images’ which cruelly depicted Ronald Reagan muttering “We want peace…a piece of Nicaragua, a piece of El Salvador”.

And what’s wrong with bell bottoms?

The Great Pyramid’s Mystery Unveiled: AI Illuminates Egypt’s Cosmic Cathedral

For 4,700 years, the Great Pyramids have towered over Egypt’s desert east of Cairo, silent sentinels of a lost truth, their purpose buried in sand and time. Now, artificial intelligence pierces that veil, resurrecting the Ancient Egyptians’ intent from the depths of history. Their voices echo once more, and the monuments blaze again—not as mere tombs, but as a radiant testament to the cosmology of the Western world’s first great civilization.

In 450 BCE, Herodotus, the Greek historian, trekked to Egypt, quizzing priests who claimed the Great Pyramid rose in 20 years with 100,000 hands. His tale calcified into “fact”—yet by the time of Herodotus, Egypt’s ancient wisdom was dust. Those priests couldn’t read the old hieroglyphs, their lore a shadow of the Fourth Dynasty’s glory. It took 2,200 years—until Champollion cracked the code in 1824—for Khufu’s cartouche to whisper from the stones: “I am the builder.” Beyond that name and a few scattered scribbles, the pyramids stayed mute.

Visitors across millennia gazed at the long corridors and King’s Chamber, nodding sagely: tombs, of course. Vast sepulchers for pharaohs whose power demanded grandeur. The question wasn’t “why,” but “when?” Egyptology locked in the answer—or so it seemed.

1. Piecing Together the Chronology

Stare at the Great Pyramid, and awe gives way to curiosity: how old is this titan? Without texts, its age was a riddle—until Khufu’s cartouche lit the way. From there, Egyptology played connect-the-dots: each pharaoh, his pyramid, a tidy timeline. Mystery solved, pharaohs decoded.

Here’s the roll call:

Step Pyramid of Djoser, Pharaoh: Djoser, Third Dynasty, Date: c. 2670–2650 BCE Details: Saqqara, 60m high, six stacked mastabas—a rough draft in stone.

Pyramid of Meidum, Pharaoh: Sneferu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2613–2600 BCEDetails: Meidum, 92m high (now rubble), a steep 52° flop—Sneferu’s first swing.

Bent Pyramid, Pharaoh: Sneferu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2600–2590 BCEDetails: Dahshur, 105m, twists from 55° to 43° mid-build—a lesson mid-flight.

Red Pyramid, Pharaoh: Sneferu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2590–2589 BCEDetails: Dahshur, 105m, steady 43°—the first smooth pyramid, Sneferu’s triumph.

Great Pyramid of Giza, Pharaoh: Khufu, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2589–2566 BCEDetails: Giza, 146m high (once), 230m base, 51.5° slope—masterpiece unveiled.

Pyramid of Khafre, Pharaoh: Khafre, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2570–2532 BCE Details: Giza, 136m high (plateau-lifted), 215m base, 53°—no compromise.

Pyramid of Menkaure, Pharaoh: Menkaure, Fourth Dynasty, Date: c. 2532–2500 BCE Details: Giza, 65m, 103m base, 51°—small but deliberate.

Pyramid of Userkaf, Pharaoh: Userkaf, Fifth Dynasty, Date: c. 2498–2491 BCE Details: Saqqara, 49m—fading echo, sun temples rise.

Pyramid of Unas, Pharaoh: Unas, Fifth Dynasty, Date: c. 2375–2345 BCE   Details: Saqqara, 43m—texts bloom, stones shrink.

Pyramid of Pepi II, Pharaoh: Pepi II, Sixth Dynasty, Date: c. 2278–2184 BCE Details: Saqqara, 52m—last gasp, Old Kingdom’s dusk.

2. Cracks in the Chronology

This list looks neat—until you squint. Oddities leap out like desert mirages:

    - Why do early pyramids (Djoser, Meidum) clash in style, while Giza’s trio sync?

    - Why does Sneferu cram three pyramids into one reign—obsession or experiment?

    - Why scatter them—Saqqara, Meidum, Dahshur, Giza—not clustered like the Valley of the Kings?

    - And why shrink after Khufu’s giant—Menkaure’s a dwarf, Userkaf a footnote?

The rhythm’s bizarre: Djoser’s lone stab, a gap, Sneferu’s triple burst, Giza’s trio in tight succession, then a slow fade—centuries of shrinking afterthoughts. It’s no random tomb spree. It’s a curve: a shaky start, a frantic climb, a cosmic peak, then basking in the glow.

3. The Orion Key: A Celestial Blueprint

Enter Robert Bauval’s Orion Correlation Theory (1990s)—the Giza trio isn’t three tombs, but one monument: Orion’s Belt in stone. Khufu (230m base) mirrors Alnitak (magnitude 1.7), Khafre (215m, plateau-boosted) shines as Alnilam (1.69), Menkaure (103m) fits Mintaka (2.23). Their sizes aren’t budget cuts—they track stellar brightness. Southeast tilt? Orion’s exact slant. No skimping—just Egyptians sculpting the sky. This isn’t a pharaoh flex; it’s a constellation carved.

 

4. The Stone Clue: Weathered Witnesses

Zoom in on Giza’s blocks, and another secret winks: uneven weathering. After 4,700 years—digging, blasting, chipping—wear’s expected. But why do neighboring stones differ so wildly? Same limestone, yet one’s pitted, another’s smooth—as if some waited decades under desert sun (0.1–0.5 mm/year erosion) while others rose fresh. Time’s tattooed on the rock, hinting at a deeper tale.

5. Egypt’s Manhattan Project: A Cathedral for the Ages

What if Giza’s trio wasn’t a rush job, but a 200-year odyssey—a cathedral-like quest to etch Orion on Earth? Picture it:

    - First, they learn—Djoser’s mastabas (2670 BCE), a proof-of-concept stack.

    - Sneferu iterates: Meidum’s, 52° collapse, Bent’s 55°-to-43° pivot, Red’s 43° win—tech honed in a generation.

   - Then, Giza rises—stones quarried a century early (c. 2700 BCE), weathering in wait, hauled by a civilization ready at last.

This wasn’t three kings racing. It was Egypt’s Manhattan Project: a vision clear from the start, tools lagging behind. They mastered math (pi, golden ratio), engineering (internal ramps, Houdin’s genius; Grand Gallery “elevator” for 50-ton granite), and writing (from tags to cartouches)—all to freeze their cosmos in stone. Djoser tests, Sneferu refines, Giza triumphs—Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure just stamp the finish.

6. The Truth in the Glow

Pharaohs slapped names on it—Khufu’s cartouche, human vanity—but these aren’t tombs. No sarcophagi clutter the Great Pyramid; Khafre and Menkaure’s burials are side notes. Like Java’s Borobudur locking Buddhism in rock, Giza traps Egypt’s cosmology—Orion (Sah), the horizon (Khut), in eternity. A colossal endeavor where early pharaohs launched what they’d never see finished, built not for death, but for the ages.

But why Orion? 

The answer lies in the heart of Ancient Egyptian belief. The Egyptians didn’t just pick Orion—it was their cosmic lifeline. Called Sah in their language, Orion’s Belt wasn’t just a pretty pattern; it was the soul of Osiris, the god of rebirth, striding across the sky. The Pyramid Texts (Unas, c. 2350 BCE) chant: “Sah rises in the east, Osiris lives.” Giza’s trio—Khufu, Khafre, Menkaure—mirrors those stars not for decoration, but to anchor Egypt to eternity. The Nile mirrored the Milky Way, and Orion guided souls to the Duat, the underworld. Carving it in stone wasn’t just flexing—it was freezing their universe in place, a map for gods and kings to navigate forever. Why Orion? Because for Egypt, it wasn’t just sky—it was salvation.

That’s the next chapter. For now, AI’s lens reveals Giza not as graves, but as Egypt’s soul—shining once more, 4,700 years later.

By Philippe Chaniet 

(Article corrected by Grok-3 and Kimi with the accuracy of the data checked with Grok-3 )