A statement from me to you.

🚨 BREAKING:🚨 Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni: “I am a woman and also a mother. I cannot stand with someone who kills innocent children.” The brave woman continued to walk around wearing a Palestinian flag around her neck in front of Netanyahu.

Yesterday at the UN, Trump threatened to ANNIHILATE Iran and drive it "into hell". Today at the UN, President Pezeshkian spoke of who terrorises and who seeks peace; of a nation ready for dialogue, never for surrender. Then he offered photographs of the children of Minab and our martyred Leader as the proof of who is who. Feel the difference.

This is not just the US bullying Iran’s civilian population, but the entire world.

Alright folks, we got a solution for today’s PLO final table, streaming legend @KmartPoker is going to have the table up on my Twitch channel, DNegsPoker live with no delay. Starts in 20 min!

This ad is genius cause it’s also true. I remember reading Outliers where it talked about the lightbulb. It was designed to last forever and it did. Then they realized once people bought one, they never had to buy more. So they made them to burn out!

I strongly encourage everyone to read the speech that Chan Chun Sing, Singapore's Defence Minister, just gave in Beijing: it's basically the polar opposite of a Hegseth speech - immensely wise and a refreshing proof that thoughtful statecraft still exists. You can find the speech here: mindef.gov.sg/news-and-event… Below a summary of the best parts of the speech, in my opinion. Much of the speech addresses the crucial question of the so-called "security dilemma", a key concept in international relations theory whereby one country's efforts to make itself safer almost inevitably make others feel less safe, triggering a spiral where everyone ends up more insecure. As Chan Chun Sing puts it in his speech: "The true test of statecraft is this: how do we strengthen our own security without weakening the security of others, or without aggravating the insecurity of others?" He says there are "three fundamental principles worth bearing in mind" in this regard, but that, first and foremost, it raises the question of "what 'winning' means": to him, defining "winning" as "outgunning or outlasting a rival" isn't sensible, it ought to be defined as winning others through the "power of our example", rather than "the example of our power." It's extremely wise, when you think about it: do you actually "win" if you submit others by force, or do you merely prove that, for now, they simply lack the strength to resist? You've imposed your will, yes, but the principle you've imposed is that the strongest gets his way, and strength is expensive and it wanes. Chan Chun Sing quotes Mencius, the classic Chinese philosopher, to illustrate this: "Power may compel others to comply. But in the end, it is trust that truly wins others over" (which is a trimmed version of the true original citation: "Those who subdue others by force do not win their hearts; they submit only because their own strength falls short. Those who subdue others by virtue win hearts that are glad and sincerely submissive, as the seventy disciples submitted to Confucius," 以力服人者，非心服也，力不赡也；以德服人者，中心悦而诚服也，如七十子之服孔子也。) This is very core to Chinese strategic thinking (yes, Chan Chun Sing, as are most Singaporean leaders, is ethnically Chinese): the notion that legitimacy, not force, is the real currency of power. A state that has to coerce is following the "hegemonic way" (badao, 霸道) - which is brittle and unsustainable. The only sustainable long-term way to lead is the so-called "kingly way" (wangdao, 王道), where others follow you and emulate you voluntarily. Two concepts which incidentally come from Mencius too: "he who uses force while borrowing the name of benevolence is a hegemon (ba); he who practises benevolence through virtue is a true king (wang)." Concretely, Chan Chun Sing say that states should pursue the following 3 principles to apply this in practice. First of all, he points out that too many states "externalise domestic issues" as opposed to putting their own house in order. The idea being that a leadership confident at home doesn't need foreign enemies to hold itself together, and can therefore act in its "enlightened long-term interest" abroad. Whereby an insecure one uses foreign policy "for political gain." No prizes for guessing what country he is referring to here... The second principle is that "interdependence breeds stability" as opposed to being "a source of vulnerability." Which makes sense: mutual exposure turns competitors into stakeholders in each other's stability. Cut exposure in the name of "resilience" or "de-risking" and, really, the only thing you've achieved is to make confrontation and conflict cheaper. Lastly, and this is perhaps the most important principle: "first, do no harm." Chan Chun Sing again quotes famous Chinese sayings: "turn big problems into small ones, and small ones into nothing" (大事化小，小事化了), which is what happens when there's trust between states, versus "turn small problems into big ones, and make trouble out of nothing" (小事化大，无事生非), which is what happens when there isn't. The idea is that every unnecessary provocation, every "freedom of navigation" stunt, every gratuitous sanction is a withdrawal from a trust account that is very expensive to fill and, as he says, can be emptied "in a single instant." Chan Chun Sing ends his speech on what being a “responsible major country” - a key concept in contemporary Chinese international relations - means, and how, "the more responsible major powers are, the less concerned small countries will be." Besides the above three fundamental principles, he says that "strategic patience" is also crucial, defined as: "Not every capability needs to be advertised; not every advantage needs to be immediately pressed; and not every provocation demands an immediate response." In other words, true confidence doesn't need to prove itself and restraint is a form of strength: a great power that feels compelled to respond to everything is, in effect, letting its rivals set its agenda. And whoever needs to constantly show force is in fact projecting its own fear that without the show, nobody would believe it. As Margaret Thatcher once brilliantly put it (I hate to quote her but this is too good): "Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." That's it, if you want the rest, I truly encourage you to read the full speech: pure undistilled wisdom, from a man who runs the defence of a country smaller than Los Angeles and obviously understands power far better than the man in charge of the largest military on earth. Which is its own form of tragedy.

Lavrov warns Europe that if it attacks the Russian Federation, then it will be a very different war and a very short war.

This is pretty interesting: when we think about pirates we typically have in mind images of nasty bearded European men with eye patches and wooden legs but the most successful pirate of all times - by far - was actually a young Chinese woman: Zheng Yi Sao. At her peak, in her late twenties and early 30s, Zheng Yi Sao commanded a fleet of over 400 warships and up to 70,000 pirates (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_…) - the so-called "Guangdong Pirate Confederation" - probably more ships and men than every other pirate organization combined. For comparison, "Blackbeard", undoubtedly the most famous English pirate of all time, had a fleet of four ships and a crew of about 400 men (news.gsu.edu/magazine/winter…) Zheng Yi Sao - active in the beginning of the 19th century - controlled the entire South China Sea coast, charging a tax from every merchant vessel that sailed through it. At some point she was fighting off the Qing imperial navy AND the Portuguese simultaneously (nansha.schina.ust.hk/Article…), and she lived to tell the tale because she died peacefully at the age of 69 years old, having retired as the owner of a very successful gambling house in Guangdong. To be clear, she eventually had to surrender. Despite her might, she was no match for the combination of great powers arrayed against her. But it's a testament of her power that she was allowed to negotiate directly with the Guangdong provincial government and ended up surrendering with full pardons and no punishment or reparations of any kind being imposed. There is a great story about the surrender negotiations that shows just how charismatic she must have been. The talks had stalled and she decided to make the extraordinary move of walking herself - carrying no weapon at all - into the office of Viceroy Bai Ling, the local Qing official in charge, with 17 pirate women and children, to negotiate with him directly (m.sohu.com/n/494962861/) It's hard to overstate how courageous this move was: under Qing law, a captured pirate leader faced death by slow slicing (lingchi). She was walking into the office of the man whose job it was to destroy her, and putting herself entirely in his power. Yet, incredibly, she managed to negotiate - right there and then - terms that were almost absurdly favorable: all plundered wealth was kept, government funds to build a mansion on shore, a private fleet of 20–30 ships, a licence to trade salt and she herself was granted the title of "gaoming furen" - an imperially decreed noblewoman. The official surrender ceremony occurred on 22 May 1810. At the time she formally gave up, as described in the Qing records, 226 ships, 1,315 cannons, and 2,798 weapons (zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/鄭一嫂). She was 35 years old back then. Her story is yet again a fantastic illustration of what a shame it is that our knowledge of history is so self-centered and parochial. We spend our childhoods learning about Western history as though it were world history, and the result is that we end up with a picture of the past that misses out on some of history's most fascinating figures - one where Blackbeard and his 4 ships are legendary and a young woman who commanded 400 and fought off entire empires doesn't exist.

Night in China’s public park. No street crime. No drug addicts. No homeless. People in Chengdu can paddle while watching movies in the ecological park. Invest in people. Invest in cities. Invest in peace, not wars.

NEW: "I told PM Modi that I tested our trade in local currencies. I bought some books here and I paid in local currency. My payment on the card went through in rupees and it translated in South African rand. It doesn't get any better than that," says SA President Ramaphosa

Ape Szn

Double or done? Punnat Punsri puts it all on the line against @JimmyguerrerOff at the Triton Invitational with the money bubble approaching. Streaming live now on all Triton Poker Series channels.

Picture Of The Day.... 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥

If you want the full text of the BRICS joint declaration that was just signed in New Delhi, it's available here: mea.gov.in/bilateral-documen… It's huge: 140 paragraphs, and almost 18,000 words - on an incredible array of subjects from the wars in the Middle-East, to AI, to agriculture. I won't go into the details of it, if only because there is just an overwhelming amount of it, but the overall impression it gives is that this is what serious multilateral governance looks like - especially if you compare it to recent G7 summits, which only produce a handful of short reactive statements rather than anything resembling this kind of comprehensive institutional blueprint. Here - from building alternative financial infrastructure to food security - you really get the feeling that, as difficult as it is with such a diverse group of countries, they're actually trying to build things and to answer the governance challenges of our age, many of which are ironically created by the G7 😅 That's the new era: half the world, quietly building the institutions the West is busy destroying.

This hasn't been talked about much but it may be one of the most consequential revelations of the US's war on Iran: the fact that China has effectively replaced OPEC as the global price setter for oil. It isn't me saying it but Igor Sechin, CEO of Rosnef, the largest oil producer in Russia - itself a member of OPEC+ (reuters.com/business/aerospa…) And Sechin isn't alone in saying so: many Western analysts - such as Javier Blas, Bloomberg's top energy analyst - are essentially saying the same thing (see nitter.net/RnaudBertrand/status/2…) How so? Well, China has demonstrated during the Iran war an extraordinary ability to simply walk away from the market and slash its oil imports by millions of barrels per day - during a months on end. At peak, they slashed imports by 5.5 million barrels per day, the equivalent of India's total consumption. They can, quite literally, switch an entire India's worth of demand on and off, at will. This is mainly because they have immense strategic oil reserves, estimated to stand at 1.4 billion barrels (eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail…) - 4 times bigger than the US's (the world's second largest inventory). In a nutshell, prices being, as everyone knows, set by supply and demand, China now controls the demand side in a bigger way than OPEC controls the supply side. So, as Sechin puts it, they now call the shots. All the more given that OPEC is weaker than it's ever been with the recent loss of the UAE, the largest producer ever to walk out. This is what effectively saved the world's economy during the Iran war: analyst after analyst predicted that the closure of Hormuz would make oil prices skyrocket to stratospheric levels, like $200-$300 a barrel (oilprice.com/Energy/Oil-Pric…). However, Hormuz is still closed and prices sit at... $91 a barrel, after briefly peaking at around $110 in April (macrotrends.net/1369/crude-o…). China almost single-handedly made this happen with their flexibility on the demand side: what Hormuz made the world lose in supply, China basically cut in demand, which stabilized prices. Long story short, as the saying goes: "never let a good crisis go to waste." China used this one to effect a friendly takeover of the most powerful cartel on earth - without even joining it.

If you really want to understand where the world is at and where it's going, you probably cannot get anything more meaningful than the OECD's PISA study - a global test given every 3 years to an insane 760,000 15-year-olds across 91 countries. No report globally, by any institution, better captures whether countries are building or squandering their future. The latest PISA results just came out yesterday (oecd.org/en/publications/202…) and the results are genuinely fascinating, and in some way pretty depressing. Why depressing? Because, sadly, the numbers show that the world is getting dumber: as you can see on the first graph below 👇, since roughly 2012 scores in science, reading, and mathematics have been in continuous decline across OECD countries. The reading score is particularly concerning: it literally cratered, dropping 28 points since 2015, the equivalent of almost 1.5 years of schooling lost according to the report. To make matters even worse, the reading skill that's dropped the most across the board is precisely the one we most desperately need: the capacity to critically assess what you read, cross-reference sources, and tell signal from noise. On average, sadly, 15-year-old kids globally are - more and more - incapable of slowing down and actually thinking about what they're reading. Interestingly though, when you look into the details, this great "dumbing down" isn't across the board: it's overwhelmingly concentrated in wealthy Western countries, while many developing countries are actually getting significantly smarter. For instance rich countries like Finland, the Netherlands, and Norway are in freefall, while countries like Cambodia, Türkiye, and the UAE are posting big gains. To be clear, this doesn't mean that developing countries are now "smarter" than rich ones: save for one notable exception, that's still not the case. But they are catching up fast, both because rich countries are getting "dumber" and because they're themselves getting smarter. The one exception is, as you'd expect, the "smartest" of them all, by a huge margin: China. It is pretty much in a league of its own: just look at the ranking in the table (only kids in Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu and Zhejiang got tested - 4 regions covering 200 million people). China's maths results are particularly insane: according to the report, the best level in maths - level 5, where "top performers" begins - starts at 607. The AVERAGE kid in China is 612: "normal" Chinese kids are at a level that is considered elite in the rest of the world. In fact, and that's probably the funniest number in the entire report, look at the column called "Share of low performers in science, reading and mathematics": China is only at 1.8% 😅 Which means that only 1.8% of Chinese kids are rated as low performers in all 3 subjects, almost a rounding error. Even Singapore, the second best and generally considered best-in-class in education, is at 6.8% - almost 4 times worse. My country France, is at 21.3% - almost 12 times worse 😢 All of this - incidentally - dispels the common myth that there would be some kids who are just genetically beyond redemption and simply can't be taught: China proves that with the right system, virtually every child can reach proficiency. So what does this all say about the world and where it's going, besides the fact that, if the future belongs to those who can think, China has never been better positioned to own it? I think the more general picture is this: there is nothing inevitable about any country's trajectory. Finland was the world's education darling fifteen years ago - now it's in complete freefall (see the last graph 👇). Cambodia was at the bottom of every table - now it's posting the biggest gains ever recorded in the study. What changed wasn't the children: it's still Finnish kids (Finland has one of the lowest levels of immigration in the West), and it's still Cambodian kids. It also doesn't matter much - or at least it matters less - if a country is wealthy or not. For instance in Southeast Asia, both Malaysia and Indonesia - the 2 biggest ASEAN economies after Singapore - are faring very badly, while Thailand and Vietnam, both poorer, have better educated kids whose scores are continuing to improve. So that's the final takeaway: the kids don't change, they all have potential, always, as China's 1.8% proved. What does change is what adults decide to do with that potential. It's both hopeful - because it means any country can choose to turn things around at any time - and also sad given the results - because it means so many countries are choosing to fail their children.

Thanks to the few who keep scratching at the darkness till it bleeds daylight.

How the West reneged on its promise not to extend NATO eastward issued to Gorbachev and Yeltsin in 1990 by no less than Bush Senior, James Baker the III, Genscher, German minister of foreign affairs, and even Kohl, then Chancellor. With all the written evidence now available at the library of the George Washington University. Who talks about it? Nobody. Not M. Merkz, not M. Macron, not scholars, not newsmen. Shame on them, as they are driving Europe close to the abyss of war and to economic irrelevancy. glenndiesen.substack.com/p/j…?

A sight worth waiting 12 years for! 💜 The rare Neelakurinji is blooming again across the hills near Munnar, turning the Western Ghats into a spectacular carpet of purple. The last mass bloom was in 2014; the next is expected only in 2038. Incredible India! 🇮🇳