Author: VD

Another Failed Critique

The Kurgan discovers that AI critiques of Probability Zero cannot be relied upon.

In going over the summaries I did of your work and getting AI to check I have fairly represented what you say, I got the following, which I believe to be a narrative/adjacent/hallucination type of error AI is very prone to, as I have now become very familiar with. But I have not had time to review your latest updates, so I thought it best to get it direct from you.

The issue I am having is the text the AI spat out below when I basically said its objections didn’t make sense. It tried to say that not ALL models assume 100% replacement per generation as if that somehow invalidate your conclusions, (it had to concede almost all do use 100% replacement) So, I told it : “But in any case, even if a model does NOT assume 100% replacement that just makes Vox’s point even more valid.” This was its reply:

Does an incomplete-turnover model make Vox’s point more valid? No — and this is the part I have to be straight with you about, because it’s a vulnerability sitting in plain sight.

There are two claims tangled together:

1. Turnover is incomplete — generations overlap, not everyone is replaced each generation.
2. Incomplete turnover slows evolution, by something like a factor of d.

Claim 1 is trivially true and nobody disputes it — and yes, the Moran model “agrees.” But the entire force of the Selective Turnover Coefficient rests on Claim 2, and Claim 2 is precisely what the overlapping-generation models refute. Work evolution out in the Moran model — the rigorous overlapping-generations treatment — and you do not get a 1/dslowdown. You get essentially Wright–Fisher dynamics, and for drift, if anything, slightly faster. The unambiguous version: the substitution rate of neutral mutations equals the mutation rate whether or not generations overlap (Kimura’s result is model-independent), and a beneficial allele still fixes with probability ≈ 2s (Haldane). The engine runs at the same speed regardless of what fraction turns over per nominal “generation.”

What the d ≈ 0.45 factor actually is, is a units problem, not a biological brake. If only 45% of the population is replaced in what you’re calling a “generation,” then your “generation” is just shorter than the real mean generation time — you’ve relabelled the clock, not slowed it. The real biology (births, deaths, selection per year) is untouched, and mainstream models already handle it by using the actual generation time. There’s no hidden 1/d penalty waiting to be recovered.

So the strategic position: the moment you correctly narrow the claim to “Wright–Fisher,” you’ve conceded overlapping-generation models exist — and a population geneticist’s very next sentence is “right, and the Moran model does overlapping generations and produces no turnover slowdown, so where does the Bio-Cycle Fixation Model’s 1/d actually come from?” The burden then falls on Vox’s model to explain why it diverges from the standard overlapping-generation result, and I don’t think it can.

Error 1: “Kimura’s result is model-independent.”

This is false. The book addresses this explicitly. The derivation of k = μ goes:

k = 2N · μ · 1/(2N) = μ

The cancellation depends entirely on the initial-frequency theorem: the fixation probability of a new neutral allele equals its initial frequency, which is 1/(2N). And that result depends on exchangeability — every gene copy in the population must have the same probability of being the ancestor of the entire future population. In a Wright-Fisher model with discrete generations, exchangeability holds by construction. In a real sexual population with overlapping generations, it fails, because gene copies carried by a 20-year-old with forty years of reproduction ahead of her are not equivalent to gene copies carried by a 55-year-old with two years left. Their probabilities of fixation differ because their expected reproductive contributions differ. Once exchangeability fails, the fixation probability is no longer 1/(2N), the cancellation doesn’t go through, and k ≠ μ.

The critic asserts model-independence without engaging the assumption on which the derivation depends. That’s not a refutation. It’s a restatement of the claim being challenged.

Error 2: “The Moran model does overlapping generations and produces no turnover slowdown.”

The Moran model replaces one individual per time step — one birth, one death, chosen uniformly at random. It is “overlapping” in the trivial sense that not everyone dies at once. But it preserves exchangeability by construction: every individual is equally likely to be chosen for reproduction and equally likely to be chosen for death. There is no age structure, no differential reproductive value, no biological reality in which a grandmother and a teenager have different expected future contributions to the gene pool.

The whole point of the Selective Turnover Coefficient is that real overlapping generations are not Moran-style overlapping generations. In a real human population, individuals who were already adults in generation N are still reproducing in generation N+1, and they carry their existing allele frequencies forward, diluting the effect of selection on the new cohort. The Moran model abstracts this away by making every individual interchangeable at every time step. Citing it as evidence against d is citing a model that assumes exchangeability to refute an argument that exchangeability fails. That’s circular.

Furthermore, the Moran model isn’t the one that is relied upon by any biologists anyhow. The Moran model is a less-effective attempt to correct for the very Kimura-Wright-Fisher model that is the standard in population genetics.

Error 3: “d is just a units problem — you’ve relabeled the clock, not slowed it.”

This is wrong, and the book explains exactly why.

If you redefine the “generation” to be longer (so that 100% turnover occurs per redefined generation), you get fewer generations over the divergence interval. The math doesn’t change because d enters the calculation twice and in the same direction: it reduces both the effective selection per generation (Δp ≈ d · s · p(1-p)) and the number of effective generations (G_eff = G · d). You can’t escape this by rescaling one without rescaling the other. The total selective work done over the divergence period is d² times what the discrete model predicts, not d times, and no unit conversion eliminates a squared factor.

More importantly, the “units problem” claim is empirically falsified. If d were merely a relabeling, then the standard Kimura model and the Bio-Cycle model would produce the same predictions for allele frequency trajectories. They don’t. The book tests both models against three independent ancient DNA time series — LCT, SLC45A2, and TYR — using published selection coefficients. Kimura systematically overpredicts, driving alleles to near-fixation when observed frequencies are substantially lower. The Bio-Cycle model with d ≈ 0.45 for the Neolithic reduces prediction error by an average of 69% across all three loci. Three independent loci, different selection pressures, different time periods, different geographic regions, all converging on the same correction factor. A “units problem” doesn’t produce systematic overprediction in one model and accurate prediction in the corrected model. A real biological constraint does.

The AI critic’s objection follows a familiar pattern. It defends k = μ by citing models (Wright-Fisher, Moran) that assume the very thing being contested (exchangeability), calls the correction a relabeling rather than a physical constraint, and never engages with the empirical validation that distinguishes the two models. It is, in short, exactly the kind of narrative objection that sounds rigorous until you check whether it actually addresses the math — at which point you discover it doesn’t.

DISCUSS ON SG

Watch the Wives

The British Prime Minister is still refusing to step down despite having no support left within the Labour Party because his wife won’t allow it. That’s not a loyal wife. That’s a handler:

Over the past 24 hours, the PM’s allies have fanned out to brief that she will be the decisive voice in determining whether he steps down, or opts to fight on. With the consensus conveniently being that she will urge him to dig in.

‘Vic is of the view, “You need to keep on going,”’ one pro-Starmer aide briefed. Another claimed she is ‘his rock’. ‘You hear second-hand she’s really pushing for him to stay.’

OK. But with the greatest respect to Lady Starmer, that’s not her decision to make.

It’s obviously natural that any senior politician would discuss the issue of their impending resignation with their close family members. But that is not what Starmer’s inner circle are briefing. According to them, Lady Starmer effectively has a veto of whether her husband stays in office or steps down. And she shouldn’t have. She is not a member of the Cabinet. She is not a Member of Parliament. She has no formal advisory role.

Until this point Downing Street has strenuously insisted she is entirely divorced from the Government’s political affairs, and should be afforded due privacy as a result. Yet we’re suddenly being told she is second-guessing the elected Cabinet, elected MPs, the tens of thousands of people who voted in the Makerfield by-election and the millions who voted in the recent local elections, and is ordering Sir Keir to stick his head in the sand.

Starmer’s fate was sealed the moment Andy Burnham got back into Parliament by winning the by-election and becoming eligible for a Labour Party leadership challenge. And I think we’ll see Britain cease to be quite so bellicose in both the Middle East and Russia once Starmer is forced out of office, which is probably why he’s being made to fight, and inevitably lose, an ignominious battle he cannot win.

DISCUSS ON SG

The New Definition of “Quote”

QUOTE verb (used with object)

quotes, quoted, quoting

  1. to repeat (a passage, phrase, etc.) from a book, speech, or the like, as by way of authority, illustration, etc.
  2. to repeat words from (a book, author, etc.).
  3. to use a brief excerpt from.The composer quotes Beethoven’s Fifth in his latest work.
  4. to cite, offer, or bring forward as evidence or support.
  5. to commit an antisemitism by reference

It’s fascinating to see how the definition of antisemitism is now being expanded to include accurately quoting something that a Jew has said about his genuine intentions, motivations, and objectives. Especially when we’re now reaching the stage that a comparison of current Israeli rhetoric with historical National Socialist rhetoric is unfair to the latter, as evidenced by the recent genocidal rantings of Israeli National Security Minister Ben-Gvir:

For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep. All of Lebanon must burn!

With all due respect to the Americans, Israel must make it clear to the entire world that the blood of our sons and the security of our citizens are not forfeit. All of Lebanon must burn. Our supreme duty is to protect the citizens of Israel and the soldiers of the IDF, and this commitment takes precedence over every other consideration.

I told the Prime Minister, even in our private meetings: For every tear of an Israeli mother, a thousand Lebanese mothers must weep.

Enough with the ping-pong. In the Middle East, you don’t win with measured responses and restraint—you need to go berserk. To obliterate. To crush the terror.

Remember, this is the same group of military geniuses who declared that after Iran was defeated, Turkey was next. But they are no more victims than is the serial killer who was abused as a child. And it makes absolutely no difference how some of their relatives were historically treated on a different continent in a different century, history is not a license for psychopathy or genocide.

If I ran around scalping people and offered the defense that it was justified because my relatives had been massacred in previous centuries, as they quite literally were, I would likely be declared insane. So anyone, and particularly any Christian, who still entertains the idea that God will bless them for supporting this murderous psychopathy needs therapy and quite possibly an exorcism.

And if you’re going to accuse everyone who is unabashedly sane, anti-satanic, and anti-psychopathic of being anti-semitic, well, you should probably stop and think very hard about the unavoidable implications of your accusation. While you’re at it, you would also do well to look into the linguistic etymology of “the accuser”.

DISCUSS ON SG

Deboomering the Slow Way

The day will come when the Boomer will cry out and beg for The Day of the Pillow:

Like the protagonist in his taboo novel, former doctor-turned-author Yo Kusakabe believes chopping off elderly patients’ useless limbs could help prevent a potential collapse of super-aging Japan’s overstressed care industry. Now his extraordinary ideas are on display on the big screen, with the book’s film adaptation attracting huge controversy since its release last month in Japan.

But “Haiyoshin (Useless Body)” — which sees a young doctor advocate for “A-care (Amputation Care)” — has also focused attention on the struggling care sector in a country with the world’s second-oldest population.

Kusakabe, a former geriatric specialist from Osaka, explained to AFP the thinking behind his shocking proposition, saying removing paralyzed limbs would make patients lighter and “reduce the burden on caregivers” in case the care industry reaches crisis point. He sees it as a potential game changer, provided patients in the real world give consent. He argues that patients’ immobile arms and legs are nothing but an impediment to caregiving: they dangle like dumbbells, get stuck in pajamas and require more bathing.

“If you cut them off, a female carer would have less difficulty lifting a hefty male patient or suffer less back pain,” the 70-year-old said.

And people wonder why I adore Japanese culture. It’s the perfect, logical solution to deal with Boomers who refuse to move on with the natural order of things. Whatever infinitesimal fragment of concern Ie ever had for them vanished the moment that the first child was vaccinated against Covid in order to “protect their grandparents”.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Banned Article

Russia’s Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, was asked to write an article for a European political magazine, but it was pulled from publication at the last minute. Here is the article that Clown World didn’t want Europeans to read:

Some reflections on resolving the Ukrainian crisis, Europe and global security

At a meeting in London on June 7, 2026, the leaders of Britain, France, and Germany, as well as Vladimir Zelensky, laid out five preconditions for Russia to secure a “just and lasting peace” in Ukraine. United Europe now presents this list of demands as the basis for dialogue with Moscow.

More than two decades of negotiations with Europe, as part of the collective West, lead to only one conclusion: engaging Russia in dialogue has served as a diplomatic smokescreen for the geopolitical expansion of Western institutions, above all NATO and the European Union, eastwards, right up to Russia’s borders.

Europe’s complicity in fueling the Ukrainian crisis is undeniable. Together with the United States, European countries orchestrated the Orange Revolution in Kiev in 2004. To create an anti-Russian bridgehead in Ukraine, they spent years buying off politicians and entire parties, rewriting history and educational curricula, cultivating and nurturing Ukrainian nationalism, and going to great lengths to pull Ukraine away from Russia.

In 2013, the European Union outright rejected our proposal for a compromise on the association agreement – a deal Brussels had long been pressing Viktor Yanukovich to sign. It is worth recalling that Ukraine was offered unilateral market opening without reciprocal commitments – terms that would have proved incompatible with Kiev’s continued membership in the CIS free-trade zone. When Viktor Yanukovich requested a deferral, the Europeans incited street riots that swiftly escalated into a coup d’état in Kiev in February 2014.

Germany, France, and Poland then proved themselves to be equally treacherous. Having guaranteed that the agreement reached between the opposition and Viktor Yanukovich would be honored, they washed their hands of it the moment that same opposition, their own handiwork, took power. “Democracy,” they shrugged, “takes unexpected turns.”

Europe thereafter lent its backing to the new authorities. In Odessa on 2 May 2014, the burning alive of dozens of innocent supporters of closer ties with Russia did not draw a single word of condemnation from European capitals.

As co-guarantors of the 2015 Minsk Agreements, France and Germany effectively encouraged the Ukrainian regime to sabotage its own commitments. As Angela Merkel and François Hollande later conceded – after the special military operation had already begun – Kiev’s implementation of the Minsk Agreements, unanimously approved by the UN Security Council, was never genuinely intended. The objective, they admitted, was merely to buy time: to shore up the Armed Forces of Ukraine and flood them with Western weaponry.

Russia, for its part, explored every diplomatic avenue to defuse Europe’s security crisis. However, in January 2022, the United States and NATO rejected Russia’s proposal for legally binding mutual security guarantees. European NATO members actively endorsed that rebuff.

Following the launch of the special military operation, United Europe threw its support behind the British prime minister’s efforts to sabotage the Istanbul negotiations between Russia and Ukraine. Boris Johnson’s appeal to Kiev – “don’t sign anything, just fight” – slammed the door on genuine diplomacy for the foreseeable future.

Current situation

So what has prompted European leaders to suddenly shift their rhetoric and start talking about negotiations, and what are they aiming to achieve with these statements? For instance, EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas has stated that the purpose of any dialogue with Russia is to dictate Europe’s terms. These include paying “reparations” to Ukraine; withdrawing troops from Transnistria and the South Caucasus; abolishing the “foreign agents” law; and accepting strict limits on the size of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces. In her framing, “there can be no just and lasting peace without accountability for Russia.” During the UN Security Council session on 19 May 2026, an EU representative made the point unequivocally: “Supporting Ukraine militarily does not contradict the pursuit of peace, but rather serves as a fundamental prerequisite for any credible, good-faith negotiations.”

Europe’s plan is to talk with Russia while simultaneously pressing ahead with a campaign of legal warfare orchestrated through the Council of Europe. Within this once-respected organization, an entire infrastructure is being assembled for the express purpose of “holding Russia accountable”: a Register of Damage, a Claims Commission, and a Special Tribunal.

The European Union has also given the green light to detaining merchant vessels on the high seas. Several incidents have already taken place in the Baltic and the Atlantic. At the same time, the West studiously averts its gaze from the terrorist acts of sabotage perpetrated by the Armed Forces of Ukraine in the Black and Mediterranean Seas.

The real objective of Europe’s leaders, then, is not to negotiate with Russia. It is to shore up the Zelensky regime and preserve it as a launchpad for continued confrontation against Russia. With this in mind, European leaders are scrambling to secure a ceasefire as quickly as possible and for one reason only: to prevent the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on the battlefield. The plan is to “freeze” the conflict without addressing its root causes, and then rapidly deploy military contingents from the Anglo-French “coalition of the willing” onto Ukrainian soil.

It is widely known that European elites have invested their “political capital” in the confrontation with Russia, pouring hundreds of billions of dollars into propping up the Kiev regime and ramping up the military budgets of EU member states and NATO. Europe now aims to achieve “defense readiness” against Russia by 2030. Until then, they mean to buy time by whatever means are available. In a strikingly candid remark this April, Belgium’s chief of staff put it bluntly: “We still have a few years. Thanks to the courage and blood of the Ukrainians, who are buying us that time.”

United Europe continues to dream of expansion. It intends to absorb Ukraine and Moldova while pulling Armenia into its sphere of influence. NATO has already expanded eastward, swallowing up Finland and Sweden. As for Ukraine, it is increasingly being eyed as the “striking fist” of a future European military force, independent of the United States and independent of NATO.

Risks to global security

This state of affairs poses serious threats to global security. A direct confrontation between NATO and Russia could rapidly escalate into an exchange of nuclear strikes, with catastrophic consequences.

Under the banner of “strategic autonomy,” Europe is witnessing a significant build-up of its military capabilities, including in the nuclear sphere. Paris’s intention to extend its “nuclear umbrella” to several EU and NATO member states is a source of deep concern. This will do nothing to strengthen the security of France itself or of the recipients of its so-called protection.

For all that, Europe’s political and military establishment continues to attribute aggressive plans to Russia – plans that, they claim, reach far beyond Ukraine. The Russian president has stated on numerous occasions that all of this is nonsense, provocation, and disinformation, aimed solely at extracting budget funds for the fight against Russia. That is scarcely the climate for substantive dialogue.

Russia’s position

As for negotiations, Vladimir Putin reiterated at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that Russia is not opposed to contacts with any party. We see Europe, however, as a party bent on Russia’s defeat – a stance the Europeans themselves openly avow. Dialogue with Europe, therefore, cannot be conducted as though it were an impartial third-party observer.

Russia would prefer to achieve the goals of the special military operation through diplomacy.

That requires reliably guaranteeing security along Russia’s western borders and ensuring respect and dignity for our citizens and compatriots, including the right to speak their native Russian language and practice the Orthodox Christian faith. Further military, political, and economic expansion by the West is unacceptable: it runs counter to the imperatives of a multipolar world.

European leaders should recognize that the model of regional security built in Europe over decades, ever since the adoption of the Helsinki Final Act in 1975, has been destroyed by their own hands. And it will never be restored. We must now move toward creating a continent-wide security architecture open to all Eurasian countries and reflective of today’s multipolar reality.

The principle of equal and indivisible security, trampled upon by the Euro-Atlanticists, can be embodied within a new Eurasian architecture. When the time is ripe, Europe too will be able to join this great effort.

The key point is that meaningful dialogue requires the restoration of trust, shattered by the anti-Russian actions of the West, and Europe as part of it, in the post-Cold War era. Trust can be recovered only through concrete steps that demonstrate a sincere commitment to moving away from using diplomacy as a cover for expansionist ambitions. Trust cannot be restored, nor can dialogue be resumed, through ultimatums such as the one issued to Russia in London on 7 June 2026.  It is noteworthy that the London ultimatum was unequivocally reaffirmed by the ambassadors of Britain, France, and Germany at the meeting at the Russian Foreign Ministry on 11 June 2026 – a meeting they had so insistently requested.

DISCUSS ON SG

Players Unions vs Pride

It’s time for the NFLPA and the other professional sports unions to use their collective power to stamp out all the satanic Pride propaganda. Because at least some owners are making it clear that publicly serving Satan is more important to them than actually fulfilling their primary purpose of playing the sport.

York Revolution, a minor league baseball team in Pennsylvania, forfeited a game on Thursday that was scheduled to be played during its annual Pride Night event. The Revolution, who play in the North Division of the Atlantic League of Professional Baseball (ALPB), announced the news in a statement released late Wednesday night.

“This decision was not reached lightly. Unfortunately, several of our players have refused to wear the scheduled Pride Night jersey and the club decided that hosting the event is more important than forcing players to wear jerseys they are not comfortable with and playing the game,” the statement read.

“As a result, and out of respect for the Pride Community and the York community as a whole, the York Revolution has decided that the game on Thursday, June 18 will be forfeited and that Pride Night will continue on as the feature element of the evening at WellSpan Park.”

It’s reached the point now that the players are going to have to put a stop to it. And there are certainly enough Christians in the NFL to make it happen. Even the most corrupt members of the league office and the ownership will back down once it becomes clear that there is no way the players are going to bend the knee for anyone except Jesus Christ.

Fewer than nine players on the 28-man roster were willing to wear uniforms that featured a rainbow design on their sleeves, a team official said.

They shouldn’t settle for opt-outs or allowing players not to wear the satanic imagery. No Pride, no rainbows, no rhetoric or nobody plays.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Understanding


The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, jointly and in good faith, agreed on the following on June 18, 2026:

1. The Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States of America, and their allies in the current war, by signing this memorandum of understanding, declare an immediate and permanent cessation of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon, and commit not to initiate any war or military operation against each other henceforth, to refrain from threats or use of force against each other, and to guarantee the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon.  The final agreement will confirm the permanent end of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon, and the other provisions of this clause.

2. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to respect each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and to refrain from interfering in each other’s internal affairs.

3. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America commit to conduct negotiations and reach a final agreement within a maximum of 60 days, extendable by mutual consent.

4. Immediately upon signing this memorandum of understanding, the United States of America will begin lifting its naval blockade and any harassment or obstruction against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and will completely end the naval blockade within 30 days.  During this period, ship traffic will be proportional to the pre-war traffic volume as established by the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The United States of America also commits to withdraw its military forces from the peripheral area of the Islamic Republic of Iran within 30 days after the final agreement.

5. Upon signing this memorandum of understanding, the Islamic Republic of Iran will make arrangements with its utmost effort for the safe passage of commercial ships, free of charge for only 60 days, from the Persian Gulf to the Sea of Oman and vice versa.  Commercial ship traffic will commence immediately and will be established within 30 days considering the necessity of removing technical and military obstacles and mine clearance by the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The Islamic Republic of Iran will negotiate with the Sultanate of Oman to determine the future administration and maritime services in the Strait of Hormuz, in accordance with applicable international law and the sovereign rights of the coastal countries of the Strait of Hormuz, and will also consult with other Persian Gulf coastal countries.

6. The United States of America commits, together with its regional partners, to create a definitive program agreed upon by both parties for the reconstruction and economic development of the Islamic Republic of Iran, providing at least 300 billion dollars.  The implementation mechanism of this program will be finalized as part of the final agreement within 60 days.  All necessary approvals, waivers, and licenses for the related financial transactions will be provided by the United States of America.

7. The United States of America commits to end all types of sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran, including United Nations Security Council resolutions, International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors resolutions, and all unilateral U.S. sanctions, both primary and secondary, according to a timetable agreed upon as part of the final agreement. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the fundamental importance of the issue of sanction removal mentioned above and express their intention to address these matters promptly in negotiations to reach a mutual agreement on them.

8. The Islamic Republic of Iran reaffirms that it will not produce or acquire nuclear weapons.  The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America have agreed that the status of stored enriched materials will be resolved through a mechanism agreed upon by both parties and according to the timetable set forth in clause 7, at least by dilution on site, under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Both parties also agree to discuss the issue of enrichment and other mutually agreed topics related to the nuclear needs of the Islamic Republic of Iran based on a satisfactory framework to be agreed upon in the final agreement.  The final agreement will confirm the provisions of this clause.  The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America acknowledge the fundamental importance of the nuclear issues mentioned above and express their intention to address these matters promptly in negotiations to reach a mutual agreement on them.

9. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America agree to maintain the status quo until a final agreement is reached; the Islamic Republic of Iran will maintain the status quo in its nuclear program, and the United States of America will not impose any new sanctions against Iran nor deploy additional military forces in the region.

10. The United States of America commits to immediately issuing waivers from the Treasury Department for the export of Iranian crude oil, petrochemical products and their derivatives, and all related services including banking transactions, insurance, transportation, etc., upon signing this memorandum of understanding and until the sanctions are lifted.

11. The United States of America commits to fully making available the limited or blocked funds and assets of the Islamic Republic of Iran for use upon implementation of this memorandum of understanding.  The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran will mutually agree on the procedure for releasing these funds during the negotiations. These funds, whether held in the main account or transferred, must be fully usable for payment to any ultimate beneficiary designated by the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran.  The United States of America commits to issuing all necessary approvals and licenses in this regard.

12. The Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America agree to establish an executive mechanism to monitor the successful implementation of this memorandum of understanding and future adherence to the final agreement.

13. After signing this memorandum of understanding and subject to the commencement of implementation of clauses 1, 4, 5, 10, and 11 of this memorandum and the continuation of these actions, the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America will exclusively begin negotiations on the remaining clauses of the final agreement.

14. The final agreement will be endorsed by a binding resolution of the United Nations Security Council.

UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, Israel is doing its best to interfere and keep the US military in the region.

Iran warns of cancelling all upcoming negotiations, re-imposing the full Hormuz blockade and responding with missiles over the direct violation of the US-Iran MOU’s first clause. They point to Israel’s continuing military aggressions in southern Lebanon, including last night, despite explicit commitment from the first clause to end the war and guarantee Lebanese sovereignty, per Tasnim.

An Intriguing Discovery

It was around April of 1916, as I recall, that I first conceived the idea of writing the Hanshichi Casebook. I had been reading Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories here and there for some time but had never read them straight through from beginning to end. One day, having occasion to visit the Maruzen bookshop, I bought three volumes — the Adventures, the Memoirs, and the Return — and read all three at a single sitting. A keen interest in detective fiction welled up in me at once, and I found myself seized by the desire to try my hand at the form. I had read Hume and others before, of course, but it was Doyle who truly struck the spark.

I was not yet free to begin, however. I went on hunting down more of Doyle’s writings and set about reading The Last Galley, The Green Flag, The Captain of the Polestar, the Round the Fire Stories, and various other collections of his short fiction, one after another. But I had my own work to attend to: I was preparing a serial novel for the Jiji Shinpō at the time, and my reading did not progress as quickly as I would have liked. From when I had started it took roughly a month, and it was late May before I finished the lot.

When at last I sat down to write, what struck me was this: no one had ever written detective fiction set in the Edo period. The tales of Ōoka and Itakura were fundamentally adjudication records, concerned with trials and judgments rather than with investigation, and it seemed to me that a story built around detection itself would make for something fresh. There was a further consideration. Writing detective fiction set in the present day carried the constant risk of lapsing into imitation of Western models, whereas committing to a purely Edo-period mode might yield something with a flavor all its own. I was fortunate in possessing a reasonable working knowledge of Edo customs, manners, and statutes, as well as the world of the city magistrates, their constables and inspectors, and the network of private thief-takers.

Read the rest at Castalia Library…

DISCUSS ON SG

Natural Partners

This natural partnership between India and Israel helps explain why the entire tech industry in the USA has been enjeetified, and may even predict where one of the flashpoints of the 2050s and beyond will be.

For Israel, India represents a steadfast ally in an increasingly critical world. Neither India’s government nor its Muslim minority has been anything like as vocal over Israel’s offensive in Gaza — which has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians, and reduced most of the enclave to rubble — as their counterparts in Europe.

“Israel is probably today the most trusted partner as far as India is concerned in terms of strategic partnerships,” says Happymon Jacob, director of the Council for Strategic and Defense Research, a New Delhi-based think-tank.He adds that “even the Russians . . . may be ambivalent about their support for India” given the Kremlin’s ties to China, India’s big regional rival, and also cites Trump’s increasingly strained personal relationship with Modi. “Therefore, you are probably looking at Israel as the country that comes without any strings attached, even when it comes to intelligence sharing, when it comes to weapon systems.”

Azar, the Israeli ambassador, notes parallels in the evolution of India and Israel as independent nations from 1947 and 1948.
“We both started as states that are secular and socialist,” he says. “And we became more conservative and more capitalist” and “to a certain extent” more religious. That, he says, makes the two countries “natural partners” in a sometimes hostile world.

Greater Israel has needed a new partner since China declined the opportunity to replace the USA. India was the solution with regards to the manpower problem, but no one wants to live in India, including the Indians. And then there is the obvious conflict between two low-trust cultures in close proximity to consider. Thus the Argentine development, which if this reading is correct means that we can expect to see a major Argentine-Indian-Israeli alliance soon. Call it AIIPAC…

Which means that the latter half of the 21st century may see South America turning into what the Middle East was the second half of the 20th century.

DISCUSS ON SG

Overton in the UK

It appears Niles Farage has belatedly realized that Restore is going to eat Reform’s lunch if he keeps calling them racists and Nazis and antisemites instead of supporting their resistance to the violent, decades-long assault on the British nation by Clown World and its various foreign invaders:

Reform UK leader Nigel Farage has taken to Substack to accuse the British government of infecting the UK with “deep anti-white racism.” He also published damning racism and crime statistics in an essay, much of which would have been previously unspeakable.

Farage announced his migration to the platform on Saturday, saying that the move to Substack would allow him to speak directly to the British public without “the mainstream media constantly distort[ing] what I say.” One day later, Farage used this new platform to unleash a 7,000-word tirade against the British state, which, he argued, has become “a two tier state against white people.”

Farage took aim at decades of British policy that he says have unfairly benefited minorities and discriminated against white Britons. He highlighted Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies in healthcare, education, policing, and the military that he insists have been implemented to disadvantage white patients, students, and applicants, and promised to repeal the 2010 Equality Act which, in his words, ensures that “anti-Whiteness is institutionalised into every aspect of public life.”

In healthcare, the NHS prioritizes “ethnic minority communities” and “vulnerable migrants” for accelerated diagnosis and treatment, despite white Britons having the highest mortality rate of all the UK’s ethnic groups. In education, the poorest white Britons have the lowest outcomes of any demographic, yet are lectured about their “white privilege” and their “responsibility” to reduce racism, and sidelined when applying for university in favor of black students with lower exam scores, Farage said. In policing, he claimed, agencies across the country have adopted “race action plans” and done away with stop-and-frisk policies that seemingly target black men – even though at 13% of London’s population, this demographic is responsible for 61% of knife murder in the British capital.

Farage is, quite literally, a gatekeeper. I don’t trust anyone who stands with Clown World against anyone that the Clown Worlder’s are calling anything, because no one is dumb enough to keep falling for the same deceitful rhetoric after 65+ straight years of it. But he’s vastly preferable to the frauds of the Conservative Party and the lunatics of Labour.

And I suspect the realization that he could have kept out Barnham if he hadn’t ostracized the people who are now the Reform Party has scared him a little straight. Because the real contest going forward isn’t Labour vs Conservative, but Reform vs Restore. And since things will continue to get worse before they get better, and because Farage is a one-man operation without a successor, Restore is the better bet in the long run.

Because there is no way anyone can vote their way out of this sort of government:

As the Director of Public Prosecutions, current Prime Minister Keir Starmer let off 13,000 suspected Muslim rape gang members and paedophiles with WARNING LETTERS. Meanwhile he has actual British subjects jailed for social media posts & mean words.

This is what happens when you establish an international empire ruling over foreign nations. The more-enterprising, more-capable, and more-corruptible foreigners inevitably gravitate to the capital and eventually take over. Starmer isn’t English or even British. He is an Irishman married to a Jew.

DISCUSS ON SG