Search This Blog

Saturday, December 6, 2025

Apple’s chip chief might be the next exec to leave

 Bloomberg’s Mark Gurman is reporting that Johny Srouji, senior vice president of hardware technologies, told Tim Cook he is “seriously considering” leaving Apple for another company in the near future. It was reported in October that Srouji was “evaluating his future at the tech giant.” While nothing is confirmed, it seems the executive is leaning towards not having a future at Cupertino.

If Srouji leaves, he would be just the latest in a string of high-profile shakeups in the company’s C-suite. COO Jeff Williams announced his retirement in July, which led to some shifting of roles. But things have only accelerated in December, with AI chief John Giannandrea stepping down, policy lead Lisa Jackson and general counsel Kate Adams announcing plans to retire, and UI design lead Alan Dye departing for Meta, all in the last few days.

Apple has struggled somewhat to find its footing as the industry further embraces AI. Now Tim Cook is tasked with trying to stem the bleeding, while being subject to rumors of his own departure. Gurman, who is usually reliable, has said those rumors are premature, but it still adds to the uncertainty surrounding what is typically one of the more stable companies in Silicon Valley.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/apple-s-chip-chief-might-be-the-next-exec-to-leave/ar-AA1RR5hk

General Flynn: Strategic Assessment Of Marxist-Style Color Revolution Targeting America

 by Michael T. Flynn LTG USA (RET),

The American people have just taken their first full breath after surviving an attempt to smother the Republic through a Marxist-inspired cultural campaign carried out largely through the administrative state, media, academia, and politicized elements of the national security bureaucracy. Most citizens did not fully perceive it while it was happening. Many in the intelligence community either passively accepted it or actively furthered it. The architects of this project are not finished, but their effort has been damaged and delayed. It is only by the grace of God that the country has endured to this point.

The American version of the cultural revolution is distinct from the Maoist model that ravaged China in the twentieth century. It did not coalesce around a single charismatic revolutionary figure. Instead, it spread along the arteries of bureaucracy, higher education, corporate structures, and activist networks. The long march through the institutions, as described by Antonio Gramsci, became the operational template. Rather than Red Guards filling the streets under the orders of an identifiable supreme leader, the United States experienced a coordinated convergence of agencies, NGOs, foundations, media outlets, and activist fronts, all advancing the same ideological project under different labels.

Because federal agencies differ widely in size, mission, culture, and internal resistance, this revolution unfolded unevenly. It never achieved total dominance in a single decisive stroke. Instead, it advanced by fragmentary gains and suffered fragmentary defeats. Wherever the ideological project captured an HR department, a training pipeline, a public school system, or a central media platform, it encountered resistance in state governments, independent media, individual courts, and networks of citizens who refused to comply. This piecemeal quality of implementation slowed the collapse and gave the American people time to see what was happening and respond.

Even as these battles played out in public, darker currents moved beneath the surface. We now assess that thousands of religious and conservative federal employees were quietly identified and referred to a little-known federal entity, the Pre-Trial Services Agency. Accounts and initial documentation indicate that this agency may have been used to catalog individuals solely on the basis of ideology and religious conviction, under the pretext of January 6, and vaccine-related non-compliance. The intention appears to have been not only administrative removal but also potential criminalization. This matter demands immediate, transparent investigation by any future administration that claims to be serious about the rule of law.

To understand the broader context, it is necessary to define what we mean by the concept of the welfare state. We are not merely describing traditional social programs. We refer instead to a constellation of fully funded professional activist groups that present themselves as separate causes but in reality form a single revolutionary bloc. Over the last decade, organizations under the banners of antifascism, racial justice, radical feminism, abortion on demand, certain LGBTQ plus factions, environmental extremism, and gun control advocacy have shown remarkable cohesion. They share donors, staff, narrative frameworks, and street-level tactics. Their membership overlaps. Their messaging is synchronized. They rapidly support one another's campaigns and protests.

These groups present themselves as grassroots movements. In reality, they function much more like a professionalized revolutionary caste. Their core is composed not of ordinary citizens but of trained activists who treat agitation as a full-time occupation. They are funded through a mix of private foundations, wealthy donors, and, in some cases, federal and state resources. They serve as the street and digital arm of a broader ideological project whose goal is not reform but transformation. They are bound together by a worldview that is explicitly revolutionary and implicitly Marxist, even if many of their foot soldiers do not use that language.

Within this structure, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion plays a central role. DEI is not a harmless corporate fad. It is a cultural and psychological weapon system. In practice, DEI training and enforcement operate as a mechanism for behavioral conditioning, using guilt, struggle sessions, and the constant threat of social or professional punishment to bring individuals into line. The language of microaggressions, privilege, and systemic bias functions as a soft form of ideological policing. It compels people to monitor their speech, second-guess their instincts, and submit to an ever-expanding set of forbidden words and mandatory rituals.

This is not inclusion. It is coerced conformity disguised as virtue. The outcomes within institutions are fear, silence, and self-censorship. People learn quickly that specific questions cannot be asked, certain facts cannot be stated, and certain perspectives cannot be acknowledged without risking their careers. This is not an accidental side effect. It is the point. If you can compel people to lie about obvious realities in public, you own them. DEI is therefore best understood as a domestic application of political reeducation, aligned with Marxist and neo-Marxist approaches to cultural change.

Red washing is the term we use for the systematic erasure of material that exposes Marxism's history, tactics, and consequences. When civics and traditional American history are removed from curricula and replaced with grievance narratives, the ground is prepared for a new ideology. When the record of socialist atrocities is buried or dismissed, whole generations lose the ability to recognize patterns that their grandparents would have seen immediately. This did not happen accidentally. Higher education, media, and entertainment became primary targets for this rewriting of memory.

By 2020, the United States had been subjected to decades of this cultural reshaping. The country entered that year already weakened and divided. The combined impact of a global pandemic, a Chinese Communist Party information campaign, and unprecedented civil unrest brought the country to a state of exhaustion. Law enforcement was undermanned and demoralized. The medical system was stretched to the limit. Schools at every level were shuttered or reduced to screens. The basic functions that distinguish a first-world nation were placed under siege.

These conditions were ideal for revolutionary actors who understood the Bolshevik concept of the spark. In Mao's China, youth brigades became instruments of chaos once police authority had been stripped and traditional structures weakened. In the United States, policies calling for the defunding and delegitimizing of police, combined with political protection for rioters, produced something similar in spirit. The rolling riots of 2020 were not a spontaneous eruption. They were a conditioning phase, designed to hollow out public confidence, normalize political violence from the left, and set the emotional stage for a more targeted crisis.

That crisis came on January 6. Here, the doctrine of moderated violence is essential to understand. This tactic seeks to provoke an adversary into a desperate or unwise act that can then be weaponized to justify a crackdown. For a year, Americans watched their cities burn and were told it was mostly peaceful. Then, in a single day, a protest on Capitol grounds was framed as an insurrection, an existential threat to "democracy," and the moral foundation for a years-long campaign of arrests, surveillance, and persecution. The left's riots stopped instantly. The narrative flipped overnight. That abrupt shift reveals design, not coincidence.

January 6 was the planned inflection point that allowed the bureaucratic and activist alliance to declare open season on conservative and religious Americans. It became the lens through which all dissent could be labeled dangerous and disloyal. The people who entered the Capitol that day, many of them peaceful and bewildered, became the pretext for a broader project aimed at remaking the national security apparatus from within.

What came next moved beyond street-level activism or cultural capture. It entered the bloodstream of the national security state. The aftermath of January 6, the collapse of Afghanistan, and the federal vaccine mandates combined into an unprecedented attempt to remake the federal workforce through coercion, intimidation, and ideological purification. Inside the CIA and across the national security apparatus, the internal revolution reached its apex and then began to fracture under its own contradictions.

Societal collapse is never a singular event. It is a process.

*   *   * 

The search term "color revolution" has been catapulted into the mainstream. Google Search Trends shows the term has soared to the highest levels since the Marxist BLM rioters began burning city blocks across Democratic-run metro areas in 2020.

Last month, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn told Alex Jones that the Trump administration must address the nation about what he called a sinister regime-change plot, one operating through billionaire-funded NGOs. 

"People need to understand that if this operation succeeds, things will move quickly - Trump would be removed from the scene almost immediately. Elite defection isn't an early warning sign of an overthrow; it's the final stage before one," DataRepublican recently warned, adding, "This is why the 'Seditious Six' must face the most severe penalties the law allows."

To sum up, for the first time, the American people are beginning to learn about the regime-change efforts that Democrats and their billionaire-funded NGO network have been pursuing over the past decade. It amounts to nothing but a color revolution. Time for reforms, especially across the nonprofit world. 

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/general-flynn-strategic-assessment-marxist-style-color-revolution-targeting-america

'Zelensky 'Systematically Sabotaged' Ukraine Anti-Corruption Efforts, NYT Concludes '

 Via The Cradle

Over the past four years, the Ukrainian government "systematically sabotaged" oversight of the country's state-owned companies and weapons procurement processes, "allowing graft to flourish," a freshly published New York Times investigation has revealed.

The investigation details how the government of Volodymyr Zelensky sidelined outside experts from the US and EU serving on advisory boards responsible for monitoring spending, appointing executives, and preventing corruption.

EPA/Shutterstock

"President Volodymyr Zelensky's administration has stacked boards with loyalists, left seats empty, or stalled them from being set up at all. Leaders in Kiev even rewrote company charters to limit oversight, keeping the government in control and allowing hundreds of millions of dollars to be spent without outsiders poking around," the NYT report says.

The investigation was published amid a corruption scandal centering on close associates of the Ukrainian president. Anti-corruption authorities have accused members of Zelensky's inner circle of embezzling $100 million from the state-owned nuclear power company, Energoatom.

"Mr. Zelensky's administration has blamed Energoatom's supervisory board for failing to stop the corruption. But it was Mr. Zelensky's government itself that neutered Energoatom's supervisory board," the NYT writes.

The investigation also found that Zelensky sidelined the supervisory boards of the state-owned electricity company Ukrenergo and Ukraine's Defense Procurement Agency.

European leaders have justified funneling billions of dollars in taxpayer funds to Ukraine despite knowledge of the systematic corruption and theft plaguing the country. "We do care about good governance, but we have to accept that risk," said Christian Syse, the special envoy to Ukraine from Norway.

"Because it's war. Because it's in our own interest to help Ukraine financially. Because Ukraine is defending Europe from Russian attacks," he added.

Zelensky's chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, resigned late last month amid the Energoatom corruption scandal and just hours after police raided his home. Ukrainska Pravda reported that he had left for Israel, of which he is a citizen, just hours before the raid.

Yermak is widely considered the second-most-powerful official in the country, with influence over domestic politics, military issues, and foreign policy, Axios noted.

Businessman Timur Mindich, who co-founded the entertainment company Kvartal 95 with Zelensky, allegedly led the embezzlement scheme. Mindich also escaped to Israel, where he enjoys citizenship, hours before a separate raid on his luxury apartment by police from the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU).

"Timur had an apartment with golden toilets that was in the same building as Zelensky's," a former Ukrainian government official told Fox News.

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/zelensky-systematically-sabotaged-ukraine-anti-corruption-efforts-nyt-concludes

Musk’s Neuralink patients control robotic arms with brain

 Patients implanted with brain chips from Elon Musk’s Neuralink have begun to control robots’ arms with their thoughts, the company said.

“Participants in our clinical trials have extended digital computer control to physical devices such as assistive robotic arms,” Neuralink posted Dec. 2 on X. “Over time, we plan to expand the range of devices controllable via Neuralink.”

The startup raised $650 million in venture capital funding in June, following the successful implantation of a brain-computer interface in a patient at University of Miami Health System in April.

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/healthcare-information-technology/innovation/elon-musks-neuralink-patients-control-robotic-arms-with-brain/

Tucker Carlson to headline Qatar’s Doha Forum, triggering pro-Israel backlash

Right-wing commentator Tucker Carlson is now listed as a featured speaker at the Doha Forum in Qatar this weekend, sharpening a growing fight inside the pro-Trump camp over Qatar’s ties to Hamas and its role as a global platform for Islamist movements.

Florida-based activist Laura Loomer, a close ally of United States President Donald Trump, flagged Carlson’s addition in a new post on X on Thursday, sharing what she said was a screenshot from the Doha Forum website that shows the former Fox News host on the official speakers list. Loomer has spent months accusing Carlson of being too soft on Qatar and Iran and of undermining support for Israel. 

The Doha Forum website confirms that Carlson and his media partner, Daily Caller co-founder Neil Patel, are participating in this year’s gathering, which runs December 6–7 in Doha under the theme “Justice in Action: Beyond Promises to Progress.” 

According to the event agenda and parallel reporting by US media outlet Mediaite, Carlson is scheduled to interview Qatar’s prime minister and foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani, on stage, while Patel appears in his capacity as co-founder and CEO of the Tucker Carlson Network. 

They will share the program with an unusually eclectic roster that includes former US secretary of state Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump Jr., Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, senior European and Gulf officials, and high-profile journalists such as CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and editors from outlets including The Guardian and Foreign Policy. 

 Senator Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson on the Tucker Carlson show, June 19, 2025. (credit: Screenshot/YouTube)
Senator Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson on the Tucker Carlson show, June 19, 2025. (credit: Screenshot/YouTube)

Loomer vs. Carlson, round two

Loomer’s new post is the latest escalation in a months-long feud with Carlson over his opposition to US military support for Israel and Ukraine and his willingness to engage closely with Qatar’s leadership.
In an October report, Newsweek noted that Loomer has repeatedly labeled Carlson “Tucker Qatarlson” and claimed he is being “bought off by the Muslim Brotherhood,” part of a broader campaign portraying him as aligned with Qatar at the expense of Israel. 

In June, Loomer circulated what she said were Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) filings, arguing that Qatar’s US embassy paid more than $200,000 for an earlier Carlson interview with the Qatari prime minister about the region and the war with Iran, and calling the program a “paid propaganda piece.” That claim, which conservative Jewish site 5 Towns Central reported on, has not been independently verified. 

Carlson’s camp has flatly rejected the accusations. In a statement cited by Mediaite, Patel said “allegations that Tucker Carlson or Tucker Carlson Network took money from any foreign country for an interview or for any other reason are categorically and definitively false and defamatory,” adding that neither Carlson nor his company “has ever taken a penny from Qatar or any foreign country.” 

Qatar, Hamas, and Israel

Loomer’s criticism taps into a wider concern among many Israelis and pro-Israel activists about Qatar’s long-standing ties with Hamas.
Qatar has hosted Hamas’s political office in Doha since 2012 and has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars over the years to the Gaza Strip, positioning itself as both the group’s key financial backer and a central mediator between Israel and Hamas. 

Israeli and Western officials have relied on Qatar to broker hostage and ceasefire deals, even as critics accuse Doha of legitimizing Hamas by providing it with political protection, funding, and a luxury base of operations. Analyses by Israeli think tanks like the Institute for National Security Studies describe Qatar’s approach as a “two-pronged” policy, combining harsh criticism of Israeli policies with a central mediating role and heavy humanitarian involvement in Gaza. 

Those tensions deepened in September, when Israel allegedly struck a Hamas leadership meeting in Doha, prompting Qatar to denounce the attack as “state terrorism” while insisting that hosting Hamas officials was part of internationally backed mediation efforts, including with Israel and the US. 

A global stage with a Gaza backdrop

Organizers say the Doha Forum is a neutral platform intended to promote dialogue on issues ranging from conflict resolution to economic inequality. This year’s theme, “Justice in Action: Beyond Promises to Progress,” is aimed at moving from rhetoric to concrete policies, with sessions on Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, and broader North–South divides. 
For many in Israel and the Jewish world, however, the optics of prominent Western conservatives attending an event hosted by a state that has supported Hamas are deeply uncomfortable, especially in the wake of the October 7 massacre and the ongoing war in Gaza.

Mediaite reported that US Senator Ted Cruz, another strong supporter of Israel, mocked Carlson’s participation with the hashtag “#QatarFirst,” while Loomer again accused Qatar of bankrolling what she calls “pro-Islamist” narratives in the American right. 

As of Friday afternoon, neither Carlson nor the Doha Forum had publicly responded to Loomer’s latest post highlighting his role at the gathering.

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-879334

'No Israeli Security Without Palestine': Saudi Woman Minister at Doha Forum

 Saudi diplomat Manal Radwan delivered a striking message at the Doha Forum, warning that “if we don’t ensure security for Palestine, then there’s no security for Israel either.” By tying both sides’ safety together, Radwan reinforced Saudi Arabia’s long-held stance: regional stability is impossible without protecting Palestinian rights and security. Her remarks come as Gulf states intensify diplomacy on Gaza, ceasefire plans, and reconstruction efforts. Riyadh has repeatedly said normalization with Israel depends on tangible progress toward Palestinian statehood and credible security guarantees. Radwan’s comments echo Saudi Arabia’s broader view that Israeli security cannot be built on military power alone—it must be rooted in political solutions that address Palestinian sovereignty, territory, and long-term safety.


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/international/no-israeli-security-without-palestine-saudi-woman-ministers-stunning-speech-at-doha-forum/videoshow/125809942.cms

Sunday talkies: Bessent, Omar, Cotton, Schiff, Clyburn, Homan, Cuellar, Dimon

 NewsNation’s “The Hill Sunday”: Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt (R), Rep. Gabe Amo (R-R.I.), former MSNBC host Chris Matthews

CBS News’s “Face the Nation”: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), former Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, Rep. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas), Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

NBC’s “Meet the Press“: Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.)

CNN’s “State of the Union”: White House border czar Tom Homan, Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah)

Fox News’s “Fox News Sunday“: Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Anduril Industries founder Palmer Luckey

ABC’s “This Week“: Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), former Democratic National Committee interim chair Donna Brazile, former Republican National Committee chair Reince Priebus, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R)
 
Fox News’s “Sunday Morning Futures”: Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Penn.), Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), JPMorgan Chase CEO and chairman Jamie Dimon, former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/5637270-sunday-shows-preview-hegseth-controversies-boat-strike/