dimgeoch

Authored by Tilak Doshi via Substack,

The recent Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit in Tianjin, China, offered vivid optics of a shifting global order. Images of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping sharing smiles and warm embraces spoke volumes about a realignment that few could have predicted at the start of 2025. Against the backdrop of a “binding memorandum” for the Power of Siberia 2 (POS-2) pipeline supplying Russian natural gas to China, this summit was no mere public relations exercise.

The summit marks a profound shift in global energy geopolitics, one that underscores Europe’s slide into irrelevance, the competitive headwinds facing US LNG exports and the spectacular failure of former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s vision of US strategic supremacy over Russia largely constructed during the tumultuous 1990s. The United States, in its pursuit of Eurasian hegemony, has alienated a critical ally in India, pushed Russia and China closer together, and left Germany — once an industrial powerhouse — prostrate. This is a tale of hubris, miscalculation and unintended consequences.

The Tianjin Summit: A New Energy Axis

The Tianjin summit crystallised a new geopolitical reality. The warm camaraderie among the leaders of India, Russia, and China —three of the world’s five largest economies — signalled a growing alignment, not just in rhetoric and optics but in tangible energy partnerships. The “binding memorandum” for POS-2, a 50 billion cubic meter pipeline to deliver gas from Russia’s Yamal fields to China via Mongolia, is a cornerstone of this realignment.

Unlike the existing Power of Siberia 1, which draws gas from Irkutsk (north of Mongolia), POS-2 taps into the same Arctic reserves in Yamal that once fuelled Germany’s industrial might for half a century. For decades, German prosperity rested on a bargain: cheap Russian gas in exchange for high-value German manufactured exports. This was the essence of Willy Brandt’s Ostpolitik and the foundation of Germany’s rise as Europe’s economic powerhouse.

Russia’s pivot to Asia – accelerated by Western sanctions since 2014 (after the annexation of Crimea) and intensified after the 2022 Ukraine invasion – is now consolidating. With POS-2 and the expansion of existing pipelines, Russia could supply China with up to 100 billion cubic metres (bcm) of gas annually after 2030 when the new pipeline would be up and running.

This is significantly less than the 150 bcm Russia once exported to Europe at its peak. Furthermore, the price for Russia’s natural gas sold to a price-sensitive China will be materially less than what it received from its European customers. But this re-orientation, while costing Russia lost revenues from lower prices and volumes, significantly alleviates Russia’s economic security after the Nordstream pipeline sabotage.

It also reduces China’s reliance on seaborne LNG, which is typically two to four times as expensive as piped gas. Critically, this reduces China’s vulnerability to US naval dominance in chokepoints like the Strait of Hormuz and Straits of Malacca through which all Middle East gas exports to China must pass through.

For India, the Tianjin summit was a stage to assert its defiance. Reeling from the Trump administration’s decision to double trade tariffs from 25% to 50% — a punitive measure targeting India’s purchase of Russian crude oil — Prime Minister Modi has signalled a shift. Reports of Modi repeatedly refusing phone calls from President Trump are unprecedented. Few global leaders turn down a call from the president of the US.

India, the world’s fourth-largest economy in nominal GDP terms, has not only deepened diplomatic ties with Russia and China but is set to increase its imports of Russian oil this month in defiance of the US secondary sanctions. This underscores India’s refusal to be cowed by what its Foreign Minister S. Jaishankar called hypocritical US policy during his recent visit to Moscow. The Minister pointed out that China imports significantly more Russian oil and Europe remains the largest buyer of Russian gas, yet India alone faces such draconian tariffs. Three years into the Ukraine war, the US and European Union still import billions of dollars’ worth of Russian energy and commodities ranging from liquefied natural gas to enriched uranium.

The results of the sanctions regime have been contrary to what was predicted. In 2022, European Commission President Ursula Von Der Leyen said that the “Russian industry was in tatters” and it was “taking chips from dishwashers and refrigerators to fix their military hardware”. Von Der Leyen is eating crow now as Germany, France and the UK teeter on the edge of economic and political collapse while Russian shows little sign of being in “tatters”.

Russia has pivoted East to forge energy and trade ties with China and India as well as other countries such as Turkey and Brazil. The POS-2 deal, though not yet a finalised sales and purchase contract between buyer and seller, signals Russia’s success in finding alternative markets for its gas. The “binding memo” still lacks details on price, ‘take or pay’ terms, tenor of the long-term contract and relative contributions to capital costs. Nevertheless, the POS-2 memorandum signed in Tianjin shows that China is now willing to overcome its longstanding reservations over greater dependence on Russia’s energy resources. The gas that powered German factories and made the country the world’s manufacturing export powerhouse will now underpin China’s ambitions for continued economic dominance.

The US has gained a vassal in Germany, but at what cost? A deindustrialising Germany lacks the economic and diplomatic heft to bolster its own interests, let alone those of the US effectively. Meanwhile, the Tianjin summit showcased an alternative constellation of interests. China, India and Russia, despite their historical rivalries, are finding common cause. Border tensions between India and China persist, as do Russia’s fears of being dominated by China’s economic might.

Yet, the West’s aggressive posture — sanctions on Russia, tariffs on India and hostility towards China — has pushed these powers toward cooperation. Fuelled by the West’s own missteps, the BRICS grouping is gaining momentum with its focus on reducing dependence on the US dollar and the US-dominated SWIFT inter-bank payments system.

India: The Diplomatic Blunder of the Century

Perhaps the most egregious error in this saga is the U.S. treatment of India. For two decades, U.S.-India relations had been warming, driven by shared interests in countering China’s rise and India’s growing economic clout. During Modi’s visit to the U.S. during Trump’s first term, the prospect of a closer strategic partnership seemed bright. Since 2014, strategic cooperation between the two nations has deepenedand India was declared a “Major Defense Partner” of the United States in 2016. India and the United States had also stepped up their cooperation among multilateral groups such as the Quad.

India, with its deep defence ties to Russia, was seen by the US as a potential strategic partner to the West, weaning it away from Moscow’s orbit. President Trump’s decision to add an additional 25% tariff rate on Indian exports to the U.S. for buying Russian oil—a move not applied to China or Europe, despite their larger imports from Russia—is difficult to understand. And if Indo-American relations are not salvaged soon, it may backfire spectacularly.

Jaishankar’s pointed remarks in Moscow highlight the absurdity of this policy. Why single out India, a critical ally, when others engage in larger energy trade volumes with Russia? The tariffs, perceived as bereft of logic, have alienated India at a time when its geopolitical weight is growing. Modi’s presence at Tianjin, alongside Putin and Xi, was a deliberate signal: India will not be bullied.

By increasing Russian oil imports, India is not only defying U.S. sanctions but also aligning closer with the BRICS framework which potentially offers an alternative to Western-dominated financial and trade systems. The US risks pushing India—a democracy of 1.4 billion people and a rising economic power—into the arms of Russia and China. The U.S. may thus squander a strategic opportunity, turning a potential ally into a wary partner. As David Blackmon notes in his Substack, India’s geopolitical choice may already be made, driven by the West’s own miscalculations.

Europe’s Self-Inflicted Wound

Europe’s plight is equally instructive. The EU, in its zeal to punish Russia, has “managed to pull off one of the greatest self-owns you could ever imagine”, as veteran journalist Brian MacDonald puts it. By severing ties with Russian gas — available at its doorstep at competitive prices — Europe has condemned itself to expensive LNG imports. Western sanctions intended to cripple Russia have instead crippled Europe’s economic vitality. The POS-2 deal exacerbates this.

Germany, once the engine of European growth, now faces deindustrialisation and rising unemployment. The loss of cheap Russian gas has forced reliance on costly US and Qatari LNG, driving up energy costs and eroding competitiveness. German standards of living are declining, burdened by debt and an overstretched welfare state. Western sanctions on Russia have boomeranged, creating an energy and food crisis that has hit Europe hardest. While the end of cheap Russian gas is not the only factor in the economic malaise and social divisions facing Europe, it’s certainly a major contributor.

By redirecting Yamal gas to China, Russia not only secures a new market but also undermines US LNG exports. China’s reduced reliance on seaborne LNG — estimated at up to 40 million tons per annum (mtpa) once POS-2 is operational in the 2030s — deals a blow to US energy export ambitions. For context, 40 mtpa represent just over half of China’s total imports of LNG in 2024. US tariff threats against China and talk of future military confrontation have only accelerated Beijing’s pivot to Russian gas, which is cheaper and secure from Western sanctions.

In a further twist, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright told the Financial Times in an interview published on Monday that the European countries must halt imports of Russian oil and gas if they expect Washington to escalate sanctions against Moscow. He said that the Trump administration is prepared to invoke more sanctions on Putin and Russia, but it is contingent on EU countries halting their ongoing purchases of Russian oil and gas. Furthermore, the EU would also need to commit similar secondary sanctions as the US.

Whether the EU – with Germany, France and the UK teetering on the edge of economic and political crises – is capable of imposing secondary sanctions on large countries such as China, India, Brazil etc., without bringing even more harm on itself, is doubtful. Under current EU plans, the bloc will phase out Russian oil fully by 2028. It is also important to note that not all EU member states are on board in cutting energy links with Russia.

However, it would be ironic to blame Putin for German deindustrialisation, even though much of what passes for analysis in the mainstream media these days are variations of ‘Putin did it’. Germany was on the ‘green’ road to reducing the use of fossil fuels well before the Ukraine war. Cutting back on fossil fuels was a top priority of Energiewende (energy transition) policies adopted in 2010. German deindustrialisation is a process of economic suicide at which the German ruling class was already hard at work towards achieving since the Green party became a political force in the 1980s and 1990s.

The Unravelling of Brzezinski’s Legacy

At the heart of the geopolitical shifts signified in the Tianjin summit lies the failure of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s vision articulated in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard. This vision became a central tenet of America’s neocon movement which straddled both Democrat and Republican administrations.

Brzezinski – National Security Advisor in the Carter administration – argued that US hegemony over the Eurasian landmass required severing the natural economic complementarity between Germany and Russia. The former provided manufacturing prowess in exchange for the latter’s cheap energy and other natural resources. By disrupting this relationship, the US aimed to prevent the emergence of a Eurasian Berlin-Moscow axis that would challenge its dominance.

The sanctions on Russia, escalated since 2014 (after the annexation of Crimea) and intensified after 2022 (after the invasion of Ukraine), were designed to cripple Russia’s economy, isolate it diplomatically, and pave the way for confronting China. The sanctions regime hasn’t worked, and the Russian economy is neither crippled nor isolated. There also seems to be no let-up in Russian advances on the Ukrainian battlefront.

Brzezinski’s strategy has unravelled. By weaponising the US dollar and SWIFT, the West incentivised Russia, China, India and others in the Global South to diversify their financial systems as much as possible. By targeting Russia’s energy exports to Europe, the US handed Moscow the impetus to forge closer ties with Asia. And by alienating India with hypocritical tariffs, the US has pushed a key ally toward its adversaries.

It is not as if the historical and political differences among the three great Eurasian powers – China, India and Russia – will all be resolved quickly under the pressure of US and EU sanctions policies. Fundamental bilateral tensions among them will remain as limits to potential cooperation. But now, in the face of EU and US provocations on trade and political relations, the level of converging national interests among the three giant neighbours in Eurasia has created a new energy terrain on the ground.

The Tianjin summit and the POS-2 memorandum are not the end but the beginning of a realignment in energy flows in Eurasia. The permanent deflection of Russia’s Yamal gas supply – which was meant for Western Europe under Ostpolitik – to China reflects Brussels’s decline into geopolitical irrelevance and Germany’s vassalage to US interests. For the US, POS-2 puts a big hole on its LNG exports outlook as it loses a major market in China to Russian pipeline gas.

Brzezinski’s vision of US dominance in Eurasia – long the tenet of the US foreign policy establishment – has given way to a resilient Russia, a defiant India and a China poised for growing dominance in global manufacturing. The West’s hubris has sown the seeds of its own marginalisation, and the global energy map has changed irrevocably.

Authored by Kyle Anzalone via AntiWar.com,

President Donald Trump refused to approve a proposed arms package to Taiwan. Trump views the breakaway Chinese region as prosperous enough to purchase American arms.

Five sources speaking with The Washington Post confirmed that Trump had rejected a $400 million military aid package for Taiwan. The source described the proposed assistance as "more lethal" than the arms given to Taipei under President Joe Biden. 

Last year, Congress gave Washington $1 billion in Presidential Drawdown Authority funds for Taiwan. The PDA allows the President to send arms from US stockpiles directly to foreign countries. 

Biden used $571 million to send weapons to Taipei before leaving office, meaning Trump could send Taiwan about $430 million in arms before the US fiscal year ends at the end of September. 

While President Biden officially used the PDA to transfer US arms to Ukraine and Taiwan, Trump has been a vocal opponent of military aid. Trump has also stopped using the PDA to arm Kiev, but has allowed NATO countries to purchase American weapons for Ukraine. 

Sources told The Post another reason Trump did not sign off on the military aid package is that he believes it will help facilitate a trade agreement with China. 

Last month, US and Taiwanese officials met to discuss an arms sale. The Post reports that the sale would involve “asymmetric” military equipment, including drones, missiles, and sensors. Taipei is planning to pass a supplemental defense spending bill to pay for the weapons. A Congressional aide told the outlet that the White House notified the Capitol of a potential $500 million arms sale to Taiwan this week. 

The sources speaking with The Post also said that Trump was hesitant to approve the aid package to Taiwan as he looks to make a trade deal with China. Beijing views Taipei as a renegade region of China. Beijing views Washington’s giving arms to Taipei as a violation of the “One China Policy” and encouraging Taiwanese independence. 

However, the White House and the sources who spoke with The Post said it was still possible for Trump to reverse course and sign off on the arms package for Taiwan. 

On Thursday, Chinese Defense Minister Dong Jun condemned “external military interference” in Taiwan. “We will never allow any separatist plot for Taiwan independence to succeed, and we stand ready to thwart any external military interference at any time,” he said. Dong went on to condemn Washington’s “Cold War mentality, hegemonism and protectionism.”

Taipei is also working to bolster its military with domestically produced missiles. On Thursday, Taiwan’s largest arms manufacturer released a prototype of a “low-cost autonomous cruise missile.” The new munition was co-developed with the American arms firm Anduril. Anduril is owned by Palmer Luckey, a large donor to President Donald Trump’s campaigns. 

Authored by Leslie Corbly via American Greatness,

Conservative influencer Charlie Kirk’s assassination forces Americans to confront the dark side of progressive values. This confrontation is fundamentally reshaping society by exposing the hatred harbored behind plateaus of love and tolerance.

Decades of cultural messaging have focused on the harms caused by religious, conservative belief systems. Individuals and groups who fall on the margins of conservative ideology have been studied in universities, profiled in elite magazines, and their plights have been sympathetically portrayed in Hollywood.

The word “bigotry” has long been associated with backward, conservative values. Manhattan Institute Fellow Colin Wright captured the left’s lurch towards extremism in a viral meme, updated after Kirk’s assassination:

Kirk’s assassination comes at an inflection point in American culture and politics. Donald Trump’s political career, and the corresponding progressive response, have revealed the degree to which leftist cultures can serve as incubators of hatred. Casual progressive dehumanization has spread into disturbing displays of gruesome violence. In just the past year, the public witnessed Trump’s attempted assassination, an anti-Trump transgender slaughter of Catholic school children, and a gruesome stabbing in Charlotte.

While each individual is responsible for their individual actions, the media and other left-wing responses to violent incidents paint a clear and troubling picture. Violence on the left tends to be minimized, while rhetoric on the right is treated as synonymous with violence itself.

That Kirk was assassinated on a college campus—a sanctuary of left-wing thought—is profound. Progressive students sought to silence Kirk by petitioning the college to deplatform him on the grounds of hate speech just prior to his death.

In light of the left’s unchecked, ideologically based dehumanization of their political opponents, words like “bigot” and “fascist” are simultaneously losing their stigma and morphing in meaning. People no longer assume the person labeled a bigot is morally corrupt. Instead, the individual hurling the insult is suspect.

In true 1984 fashion, words have inverted meaning. The public implicitly knows the angry anti-fascist is more threatening than a conservative, church-going man with a microphone.

Creating language for leftist intolerance

The numerous assassination attempts against prominent right-wing figures over the past year did not arise in a vacuum. To understand the left, it is necessary to dissect its prejudice. This is the subject of my first nonfiction book. Progressive Prejudice blends autobiography and cultural commentary to give voice to challenges to progressive ideas by giving voice to the pain caused by progressive hatred.

Books like these are vital. To combat the hatred of the left, it is essential to name the moral deficiencies of progressive ideology. This includes an honest and complete conversation of the people the left loves to condemn, marginalize, and kill.

Understanding the dark side of the left is essential because all worldviews have victors and victims. The inability to confront the hatred of any ideology, particularly one dominant in culture and society, creates conditions ripe for polarization, mistrust, and violence.

The left has monopolized righteous superiority by painting their opposition as extreme, morally reprehensible, and narrow-minded. Among the most effective tactics of their movement has been storytelling. By controlling the framing of narratives, the left guaranteed that people and groups they scorned were appropriately reviled.

However, society is not static, and in the 20th century, secular progressivism transformed from a marginalized set of ideas to the establishment. From the Ivory Tower to DC, Hollywood, media, and law, progressive beliefs set the benchmark for moral goodness.

Now that these ideas are facing serious challenges, the mask of hatred is falling, revealing the dehumanization and authoritarianism that those on the left love to deny.

Turning towards the good

Our culture is at a critical crossroads. Societies are composed of people, and the wheels of history move according to the emotional logic of humanity. No matter the governing ideology, there is a cap on the oppression people are willing to tolerate. The left’s iron grip on the moral imagination of the nation is slipping. And, as that grip loosens, progressives lash out in anger, determined to control the public they claim to liberate.

To avoid sustained social ruin, America must return to goodness, order, beauty, and peace. But this reorientation cannot occur under the value system of radical progressives. The ideology itself is rooted in force, coercion, and the destruction of human dignity.

Charlie Kirk contended with progressive prejudice, and it got him killed. Still, regardless of the risks, the danger, hatred, and prejudice of progressive culture must be boldly proclaimed. For the body may be killed, but truth overcomes the grave.

Via American Greatness,

A coalition of 27 state Attorneys General have filed a multi-state brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up and overturn a Washington State ban on so-called “high capacity” firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Breitbart reports that four separate amicus briefs have been filed with the Supreme Court in regards to the case of Gator’s Custom Guns, Inc. v. Washington which challenged Washington state’s ban on standard capacity magazines that are not limited to an arbitrary number of rounds.

That case is currently on appeal from the Washington state Supreme Court which upheld the ban, following a Cowlitz County judge overturning the state law earlier this year.

In upholding the ban, a majority of Washington Supreme Court justices held that commonly-owned firearm magazines do not qualify as “arms” which are protected by the Second Amendment.

An amicus brief filed by the National Rifle Association states:

District of Columbia v. Heller’s plain text analysis expressly concluded that “[t]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.” This Court should intervene to clarify that firearm magazines—regardless of capacity—are bearable arms that are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.

The states of Montana, Idaho, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the Arizona Legislature are arguing that the Washington Supreme Court failed to show how a ban on “plus-ten magazines” comports with the 2022 Bruen decision.

The U.S. Supreme Court will also likely be debating whether to grant certiorari in the California case of Duncan v. Bonta which challenges California’s magazine ban.

If the High Court grants certiorari, it will most likely consolidate the two cases.

Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador accused California and Washington state courts of attempting to rewrite the Second Amendment by excluding standard capacity magazines from its protection.

Labrador said, “These rulings would let anti-gun states ban virtually any firearm component by declaring the Constitution irrelevant, threatening every American’s ability to defend their family. We’re asking the Supreme Court to reject this infringement and ensure law-abiding citizens in every state can exercise their inalienable constitutional rights.”

Authored by Ken Silva via Headline USA,

Alleged Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson used the pseudonym “Donald Trump” while playing on the gaming platform Steam, according to a Thursday report from Bloomberg.

The factoid about Robinson’s gamer name came in a report that also revealed that the Secret Service is investigating the assassin, even though Kirk wasn’t under the agency’s protection.

“Agents are working with the FBI to study Robinson’s behavior and online activity, including his use of Trump’s name on Steam, as part of a profile they are building,” Bloomberg reported, citing anonymous sources.

“The aim is to understand how suspects form grievances, how they select targets and whether their actions signal broader risks to current or former officeholders.”

According to Bloomberg, Robinson’s Steam account is 11 years old.

“It lists an account that appears to belong to his partner as a friend. Some comments on the account were disabled shortly after Bloomberg reached out to Valve [the company that runs Steam] for comment,” Bloomberg added.

The government has falsely linked assassin’s to Steam in the past.

Indeed, days after the July 13 assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Congress was provided information from the FBI that Thomas Crooks “previewed” his attack on Steam.

However, FBI Director Christopher Wray told Congress weeks later that the Steam account in question did not, in fact, belong to Crooks. Wray admitted that his own agents were duped by a fake account—meaning that the FBI briefed Congress with fake evidence in the crucial hours following an assassination attempt against the presidential frontrunner.

“That’s a situation where in our effort to give real-time information, since we’ve provided that information, we’ve since learned that the July 13 ‘premier’ profile page on the gaming platform—it turns out, it was not the shooter. It was some other individual, who as a sick joke, after the shooting created the profile page pretending to be the shooter,” Wray said in response to questions from Rep. Benjamin Cline, R-Va.

“That person has since admitted to it,” Wray said, referring to the hoaxer. “Among the other challenges we as investigators have, we have people creating accounts pretending to be somebody when it’s not the actual person.”

Wray did say that Crooks had multiple accounts on gaming platforms.

“We do believe he was a gamer and that he did have different types of gaming accounts,” Wray said.

The FBI has yet to release any information on Crooks’s gaming account.

The House Oversight committee has subpoenaed the heads of Steam, Discord, Twitch and Reddit to testify in a hearing about the radicalization of online forum users, including instances of open incitement to commit politically motivated acts.

Authored by Ryland Engelhart via The Epoch Times,

Let the beauty we love be what we do.

There are hundreds of ways to kneel and kiss the ground.

Story continues below advertisement

—Rumi

This line inspired the founding of Kiss the Ground, a nonprofit built on the belief that caring for the Earth begins with the soil beneath our feet.

At the time—around 2010—“regenerative agriculture” was barely on the map. It wasn’t in the media, taught in schools, or considered in major corporate or political circles. It was more of a whisper, an idea that human beings could work in harmony with nature and restore what had been broken.

In 2020, that idea reached the world stage through the Netflix documentary “Kiss the Ground,” narrated by Woody Harrelson. The film introduced more than 10 million people to the concept of soil regeneration as a way to achieve climate resilience, economic revitalization, and ecological balance. The recently released sequel, “Common Ground,” now streaming on Amazon Prime, expands the conversation with the voices of ranchers, farmers, scientists, and policymakers across the political spectrum.

And now, in a moment that few of us could have predicted 15 years ago, the largest fast-food chain in the world has joined that conversation. McDonald’s has committed $200 million to regenerative agriculture.

Fifteen years ago, I was building a nonprofit website in the back alley of our Venice bungalow, not far removed from the moment I first heard the term “regenerative agriculture” on a trip to New Zealand. If you searched it on Google then, the results were sparse. Maybe a TED Talk by Allan Savory and a couple of obscure blogs.

I still remember giving a TEDx talk at UCLA, clutching my cue cards, and saying: “Imagine if companies like McDonald’s, General Mills, or Dole transitioned from conventional to regenerative agriculture.”

It was a dream. A reach. A seed of possibility. Today, that seed has sprouted.

McDonald’s USA announced its investment through a program called the Grassland Resilience and Conservation Initiative. The initiative is a partnership with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service, and McDonald’s beef suppliers.

The goal is to restore and steward up to 4 million acres of U.S. rangeland using regenerative grazing and land management practices that improve soil health, increase biodiversity, and protect water systems.

Of course, it is reasonable to ask questions and ensure accountability. But this is not a small gesture. This is real capital moving toward real stewardship from one of the most iconic American brands.

This is not a finish line. But it is a watershed moment for agriculture, for policy, and for culture.

Those who have followed my path know I was a supporter of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. I was drawn to his decades of environmental advocacy, principled independence, and willingness to speak uncomfortable truths.

What I did not expect was the surprising political turn: RFK Jr. joining forces with Donald Trump, leading to the Make America Healthy Again movement, a call to revitalize the nation’s food system, farming communities, and natural resources.

*  *  * Speaking of regenerative farming *  *  *

Then came the images: Trump in a McDonald’s apron, handing out fries at a drive-through. A photo aboard Air Force One, where Trump, RFK Jr., and Elon Musk shared a McDonald’s meal.

To many, this looked like contradiction or satire. To me, it represented something real. Culture often shifts through unlikely alliances. You may not expect soil health to emerge from a fast-food window or a presidential jet, but that is where the cameras were. That is where the conversation reached millions.

We are not celebrating fast food. We are asking it, and those who lead it, to take responsibility. We are not aligning with political celebrities. We are aligning with the land, the farmer, and the possibility of restoration.

So when McDonald’s, a symbol of industrialized food, pledges $200 million toward ecological restoration, it is not just about optics. It is a signal that regeneration has entered the mainstream, and that stewardship is no longer limited to niche circles or grassroots groups.

Yes, it is messy. Yes, it raises complex questions. But this is not about perfection. It is about progress and possibility on a scale that matters.

And yes, in some indirect way, it reflects the cultural impact of the handshake between Trump and RFK Jr., two political figures who put healthy soil, clean food, and rural revitalization into national focus.

I have never eaten a McDonald’s hamburger. In fact, I did not eat my first hamburger until I was 35. Why? Because I believed in a future where food came from the land, not factories. But I also realized that ruminants like cows, when properly managed, are one of the most powerful tools for restoring degraded land. When integrated into regenerative systems, cattle can rebuild topsoil, store carbon, and support healthy ecosystems.

This is not about ideology. It is about land-based, science-backed solutions that work.

We once scribbled the words “regenerative agriculture” on whiteboards in our garage. Now those words are appearing in corporate press releases, federal conservation initiatives, and presidential debates.

Some might call me a dreamer. But I know I am not the only one. This dream of regeneration is becoming real.

After all these years, I still believe in the good news of soil. Because this movement, at its core, is about repairing what is broken. It is about returning to principled stewardship, where the land is cared for not just for profit, but for future generations.

It is about honoring our role in creation, not as exploiters, but as caretakers.

Through microbial life, plant roots, grazing animals, and human hands, we can rebuild the very ground that feeds us.

That is the invitation. That is the responsibility. And this McDonald’s moment, unlikely as it may seem, is part of that larger story.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.

Authored by Jon Fleetwood via substack,

In New Jersey, even the dead are being drafted into the climate agenda.

Governor Phil Murphy (D) signed a bill into law on September 11 legalizing “natural organic reduction,” better known as human composting.

The legislation “[a]llows for natural organic reduction and controlled supervised decomposition of human remains.”

The Garden State is now the 14th state to sanction the controlled decomposition of human bodies into soil.

Proponents of the bill justify the macabre practice because the state is “running out of space.”

“They explained it to me and I was like—OK, the most important takeaway is it gives everybody another dignified avenue to take of their loved one’s remains,” said Hudson County Assemblyman Julio Marenco, who championed the bill.

“In New Jersey, we are one of the biggest markets available to them. And also because we’re so densely populated, a state that is running out of space.”

Governor Murphy’s office said that “by establishing regulated and supervised processes, human remains composting provides New Jersey families a respective and environmentally conscious end-of-life option.”

Turning Bodies Into Dirt

The process is as eerie as it sounds: a human corpse placed in a steel vessel, covered with straw, wood chips, or alfalfa, and sealed inside while warm air circulates.

Over the next 45 to 60 days, the body decomposes into a pile of what promoters call “nutrient-rich soil.”

Families can then choose whether to scatter it like ashes, dump it in a garden, or use it to feed a houseplant.

This isn’t metaphor.

This is literally grinding down the human body until it’s indistinguishable from fertilizer.

‘Green’ Death as Climate Policy

New Jersey’s new law is not just about death care—it’s about politics.

Supporters frame human composting as an “eco-friendly” burial option, claiming it cuts back on carbon emissions, reduces cemetery land use, and avoids embalming chemicals.

New York made this connection explicit when it legalized human composting in 2022, tying it to the state’s carbon elimination goals of cutting emissions by 2050.

The same rationale is spreading nationwide.

Climate activists now argue that decomposing bodies in compost piles is a necessary step in “saving the planet.”

Funeral industry groups have begun marketing it as a guilt-free alternative for families who want to avoid the supposedly destructive footprint of traditional burials or cremation.

A Disturbing Trend

There’s a macabre irony here.

What was once reserved for trash heaps, barnyard animals, and yard waste is now being elevated as a “sustainable” future for human remains.

Death itself is being industrialized under the banner of environmentalism.

Proponents describe it in soothing terms—“gentle transformation,” “nutrient-rich soil,” “life from death.”

But strip away the marketing gloss, and human composting looks less like reverence for the dead and more like commodification of the body.

Religious & Ethical Concerns

Many religious leaders condemn the practice as a degradation of human dignity, incompatible with traditions that view the body as sacred.

Opponents warn that reducing humans to fertilizer treats the body as raw material rather than a vessel worthy of respect in death.

The Archdiocese of Newark released a statement in opposition of the new law:

“The Catholic Church does not support human composting because the practice does not respect the human body in a manner consistent with our faith or reflect our hope in the resurrection,” the statement read.

Yet despite deep ethical objections, the trend is accelerating.

Washington legalized the practice in 2019.

Now, in just six years, 14 states have followed: Colorado, Oregon, Vermont, California, New York, Nevada, Arizona, Delaware, Maryland, Minnesota, Maine, Georgia, and now New Jersey.

Bottom Line

Behind the soft marketing lies something darker: a society that has begun to treat the dead as compost heaps in service to climate ideology.

Whether framed as “eco-friendly,” “cost-saving,” or “gentle,” the reality is that Americans are being conditioned to view human bodies as little more than fertilizer for the green agenda.

In the Garden State, even in death, people are now expected to “go green.”

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr said in an interview that ABC’s “The View” could be investigated after Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show, “Jimmy Kimmel Live!”, was suspended earlier this week over remarks he made about the late Charlie Kirk.

“I would assume you could make the argument that ‘The View’ is a bona fide news show, but I’m not so sure about that,” Carr said on “The Scott Jennings Radio Show” on Sept. 18.

“And I think it’s worthwhile to have the FCC look into whether ‘The View’ and some of the programs that you have still qualify as bona fide news programs and therefore exempt from the equal opportunity regime that Congress has put in place.”

“The View,” a daytime talk show, is hosted by Whoopi Goldberg, Joy Behar, Sunny Hostin, Sara Haines, Alyssa Farah Griffin, and Ana Navarro.

ABC suspended “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” indefinitely after a group of ABC-affiliated stations said it would not air the show following comments Kimmel made about the assassination of Kirk, a conservative influencer, during an episode earlier this week.

Kimmel appeared to suggest that the suspected assassin, Tyler Robinson, was a supporter of President Donald Trump and the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement.

Prosecutors have said that Robinson allegedly had left-wing and pro-transgender views.

Carr said that Kimmel was attempting to mislead the public with his on-air statements.

“The issue that arose here, where lots and lots of people were upset, was not a joke,” Carr told CNBC on Thursday.

“It was appearing to directly mislead the American public about a significant fact.”

Under the FCC’s jurisdiction, ABC, CBS, and NBC have special requirements to “operate within the public interest,” Carr said on Sept. 17.

“Broadcasters are different than any other form of communication.”

Carr said his agency had a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC, and network parent Walt Disney Co. accountable for spreading false information.

Prominent Democrats, including former President Barack Obama, were critical of Kimmel being suspended by ABC and other broadcasters.

“After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like,” Obama said in a post on X.

President Donald Trump said that Kimmel was removed partially because of a “lack of talent,” along with his recent comments on Kirk.

“Kimmel is not a talented person; he has very bad ratings more than anything else, and they should have fired him a long time ago,” Trump said during a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the UK on Sept. 18.

“You can call that free speech or not—he was fired for lack of talent.”

In posts on Truth Social this year, including one last month, Trump also suggested that the FCC go after the broadcasting licenses held by ABC and NBC.

Kimmel has not issued a public statement on his suspension, and it’s unclear whether he will return to the show he’s hosted since May 2002.

The Epoch Times has contacted ABC for comment.