🇫🇷🇷🇺 French intelligence agencies have confirmed that Russia-linked bot networks are weaponizing the past weekend’s violent riots by flooding social media with old, recycled, and AI-generated fake videos of police brutality to provoke the rioters even further.
Russian networks like “Matryoshka” are acting as digital opportunistic arsonists, intentionally exaggerating the scale of the chaos to simulate nationwide civil unrest.
— @visegrad24 Oct 19, 2026
Month: October 2026
Base Wainwright in Alberta – Google Search google.com/search?q=Base+Wai…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 19, 2026
#Hanning #Patrushev #Germany
Hanning and Patrushev – Google Search google.com/search?q=Hanning+…
August Hanning: Former head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service (BND) from 1998 to 2005, later serving as State Secretary of the Ministry of the Interior. He was arrested and placed under investigation by Germany’s Federal Prosecutor’s Office in October 2026 on suspicion of espionage and high treason. [1, 2, 3, 4]
Nikolai Patrushev: Vladimir Putin’s longtime security confidant, former director of the FSB (1999–2008), and former Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation (2008–2024). [1]
The Connection: Investigative reports (including disclosures from FAZ and leaked documents) revealed that Hanning maintained years of post-retirement contact and private meetings with Patrushev, spanning key geopolitical events:2014: Meeting shortly after Russia’s annexation of Crimea, framed by Hanning’s lawyer as an attempt to warn of negative consequences.
2016: Attendance at a Moscow security conference opened by Patrushev, where Hanning advocated for counter-terrorism cooperation with Russia and criticized sanctions.
2019: Participation in an Arctic Council-related event led by Patrushev, which included a visit to the Valaam Island monastery where Hanning was placed in a position of honor directly beside Patrushev in group photographs. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]Current Status: Hanning’s sustained, multi-year proximity and private communications with a top Kremlin security official are a central focus of German authorities investigating alleged intelligence leaks and ties to Russian influence operations, as detailed in coverage by Politico and Ground News. [1, 2, 3, 4]
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 19, 2026
US foreign policy under Putin’s whore in the White House.
— @JayinKyiv Oct 19, 2026
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev spoke the infamous “We will bury you” phrase (“Мы вас похороним!”) on November 18, 1956, during a reception at the Polish embassy in Moscow while addressing Western ambassadors….
“Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!”
NATO and Israeli envoys walked out of the reception in protest. Many in the United States and Western Europe interpreted the statement as a literal, aggressive nuclear or military threat. Khrushchev was not issuing a physical death threat or a promise of military destruction. Instead, he was referencing Marxist-Leninist ideology regarding the historical inevitability of capitalism’s collapse and communism’s triumph.
. . .
Four words from Nikita Khrushchev sounded like a threat to destroy the West. At a reception in Moscow on November 18, 1956, the Soviet Communist Party leader told Western diplomats that history was on the side of communism and declared, “We will bury you.” In the tense atmosphere of the Cold War, the phrase was widely understood as evidence of Soviet hostility and potential aggression. Yet Khrushchev’s original argument concerned the supposedly inevitable historical defeat of capitalism, not necessarily a literal promise to kill the people standing before him.
The declaration came during a particularly dangerous year in Soviet relations with the outside world. In February 1956, Khrushchev had privately denounced aspects of Stalin’s rule, unsettling the communist movement. In October and November, Soviet troops suppressed the Hungarian uprising, while Britain and France joined Israel in the Suez crisis. Western governments were deeply suspicious of Soviet intentions, and political speeches were being interpreted against the possibility of nuclear confrontation. Khrushchev was speaking at a reception honoring visiting Polish Communist leader Władysław Gomułka, whose emergence in Poland had itself followed a serious political crisis within the Soviet bloc.
The Soviet leader’s remarks were not confined to one memorable sentence. According to contemporary reporting, he told representatives of capitalist countries that Soviet existence did not depend on Western approval. They could refuse invitations or contacts, but communism would survive regardless. He then presented the historical claim that the communist system would prevail over capitalism. The declaration about burial followed that argument. It was confrontational and deliberately confident, but its immediate intellectual source was the Marxist-Leninist expectation that capitalism would eventually be replaced by a different economic and political order.
Western reactions nevertheless focused on the most alarming interpretation. During a decade marked by the Korean War, nuclear weapons development and confrontation between military alliances, language about burying an ideological opponent could easily be understood as a warning of physical destruction. The phrase circulated rapidly in newspapers and political speeches, becoming a symbol of Soviet aggression. It also fitted Khrushchev’s public reputation for forceful, unpredictable rhetoric. The ideological meaning did not make his words harmless: Soviet forces had just intervened violently in Hungary, demonstrating that Moscow was willing to use military power to defend its sphere of influence.
— @histories_arch Oct 19, 2026
George Nader (b. 19 October 1921) was a handsome, athletic American actor whose leading-man good looks made him a familiar presence in Hollywood films and television during the 1950s and 60s. Born in Pasadena, California, Nader served in the U.S. Navy during World War II before studying acting at the Pasadena Playhouse.
His breakthrough came with the low-budget science-fiction classic Robot Monster (1953), followed by a contract with Universal-International. He appeared in such films as Four Guns to the Border (1954), Six Bridges to Cross (1955), and Away All Boats (1956). Although frequently cast as a rugged romantic hero, Nader never achieved the stardom enjoyed by some of his contemporaries. He later found considerable success in West Germany, starring as FBI agent Jerry Cotton in a popular series of crime thrillers.
George was gay at a time when homosexuality could destroy a Hollywood career. Unlike many closeted actors, he maintained a remarkably stable personal life, sharing a devoted relationship of more than five decades with Mark Miller, a former actor who became Rock Hudson’s personal secretary. Nader and Miller were also close friends of Hudson, whose own homosexuality remained carefully concealed from the public.
Although the precise circumstances remain disputed, rumors have long circulated that Nader’s career suffered because studio executives sacrificed him to protect Hudson from exposure in the scandal press. Unlike Rock, George refused to participate in fabricated heterosexual romances to disguise his private life.
An eye injury sustained in an automobile accident eventually forced his retirement from acting in the mid-1970s. He subsequently became a novelist, publishing Chrome (1978), a pioneering science-fiction novel exploring homosexual love and social prejudice.
George spent his later years quietly with Miller in Palm Springs. He died of complications including pneumonia on February 4, 2002, at age 80. Remembered for his striking physique, understated screen presence, and personal loyalty, George Nader also left a quieter legacy –– a lifelong commitment to his partner in an era when such relationships were rarely acknowledged. 🏳️🌈
— @jmlx_john2 Oct 19, 2026
Unity Mitford (Unity Valkyrie Freeman-Mitford; 1914-1948), a British aristocrat and Nazi sympathizer who was part of Adolf Hitler’s inner circle…
At age 19, Unity moved to Germany, learned German, and became obsessed with meeting Adolf Hitler. She openly embraced Nazi ideology, distributed propaganda, wore Nazi insignia, and expressed intense antisemitism, famously writing “I hate all Jews” to the press. On September 3, 1939—the day Britain declared war on Germany—a distraught Unity went to Munich’s English Garden and shot herself in the head with a small pistol. The bullet lodged near her brain stem and could not be safely removed. Hitler arranged for her care and authorized her return to Britain via Switzerland in early 1940. She lived out her final years with severe physical and mental impairment. She died on May 28, 1948, at the age of 33 from meningitis caused by the embedded bullet.
. . .
A British aristocrat became a devoted admirer of Adolf Hitler and gained extraordinary access to him. Unity Mitford, daughter of a prominent English family, moved to Munich in the 1930s and deliberately sought opportunities to meet the Nazi leader. Her diaries, publicized decades after her death, describe repeated encounters and reveal the depth of her enthusiasm for National Socialism. But on September 3, 1939, when Britain declared war on Germany, Mitford shot herself in the head. She survived, leaving a disturbing record of political fanaticism and personal obsession.
Mitford belonged to one of Britain’s most widely discussed aristocratic families. The six Mitford sisters became famous for their sharply different personalities and political convictions. Unity’s younger sister Jessica embraced communism, while her sister Diana became involved with British fascist leader Oswald Mosley. Unity’s political allegiance developed in the opposite direction from Jessica’s. She enthusiastically supported Hitler’s movement and its antisemitic ideology. After visiting Germany, she decided to live in Munich, placing herself close to the Nazi leadership at a time when Hitler was consolidating his dictatorship and preparing an increasingly aggressive foreign policy.
Her efforts to meet Hitler were persistent. She visited places where he was known to appear, including the Osteria Bavaria restaurant in Munich. In February 1935, she finally made direct contact. Hitler subsequently admitted her into his social circle, and she began attending gatherings and enjoying access that was unusual for a young foreign admirer. Her relationship with him was not merely a matter of collecting political souvenirs or attending public rallies. She became a familiar presence within parts of his entourage, corresponding with Nazi figures and celebrating the regime’s achievements. Claims that she was Hitler’s lover have circulated for decades, but the surviving evidence does not establish such a relationship.
The diary material made public in January 2025 added detail to this history. Reported entries cover the years 1935 to 1939 and record 139 meetings with Hitler. Historians Andrew Roberts and David Pryce-Jones, who had previously written about Mitford, judged the documents authentic. The entries describe restaurant encounters, conversations and her intense excitement at receiving Hitler’s attention. They also contain explicit antisemitism, reflecting ideological commitments that extended beyond fascination with a powerful political figure. The precise number of meetings depends on how her own entries are counted, and the diaries remain a personal record rather than an objective account of everything that happened. Their value lies in revealing what Mitford herself chose to record.
— @archeohistories Oct 19, 2026
Oleg Gordievsky (1938-2025) was a high-ranking Soviet KGB colonel who secretly acted as a double agent for Britain’s MI6 during the Cold War. Recruited by MI6 in Denmark in 1972 (codenamed SUNBEAM), he passed vital secrets to the West for over a decade without asking for money, driven purely by ideology. He later rose to become the KGB Rezident (station chief) in London. During the tense 1983 Able Archer 83 NATO exercise, Gordievsky reassured Western leaders (including Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan) that the Soviets genuinely feared a preemptive nuclear strike, helping defuse a catastrophic miscalculation. He also vouched for Mikhail Gorbachev early on as a true reformer. He was unmasked in 1985 due to the betrayal of CIA mole Aldrich Ames, recalled to Moscow, and placed under interrogation and house arrest. British intelligence orchestrated a dramatic rescue (Operation Pimlico), sneaking him across the Soviet-Finnish border hidden in the boot of a diplomatic car…
One of Britain’s most valuable spies escaped the Soviet Union concealed in a car boot. In July 1985, senior KGB officer Oleg Gordievsky was hiding from the intelligence service he had served for decades. His secret work for British intelligence had placed him in mortal danger, and Soviet authorities had recalled him from London under increasingly suspicious circumstances. With surveillance closing around him, MI6 activated a carefully prepared escape plan. Gordievsky had to reach the Finnish border without being discovered by the organization that had trained him to hunt spies.
Gordievsky had joined the KGB in the early 1960s and served in Soviet intelligence posts abroad, including Copenhagen and London. His political outlook changed as he witnessed Soviet actions in Eastern Europe, particularly the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968. During the 1970s, he established a clandestine relationship with British intelligence. From inside the KGB, he supplied information about Soviet espionage, diplomatic operations and the Kremlin’s understanding of Western intentions. His position became increasingly valuable as he rose through the Soviet intelligence establishment. By the mid-1980s, he was the KGB’s most senior representative in London.
Among Gordievsky’s most significant contributions was intelligence concerning Soviet fears during the 1983 NATO exercise Able Archer. Western governments initially underestimated the extent to which some Soviet officials interpreted the exercise as a possible preparation for nuclear attack. Gordievsky’s reporting helped British officials understand the anxiety inside the Soviet security establishment. His information also gave Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher insight into Soviet political thinking during the early years of Mikhail Gorbachev’s leadership. The danger for Gordievsky was that every promotion increased both his value as a source and the consequences if Moscow discovered his deception.
In May 1985, he was unexpectedly ordered back to the Soviet Union. He suspected that the KGB had begun questioning his loyalty. Later evidence pointed toward American CIA officer Aldrich Ames, who was secretly supplying information to Moscow, as a major source of the compromise. Once back in Moscow, Gordievsky was subjected to questioning and surveillance. He later described being drugged during an interrogation attempt, although some details of that experience rest on his own recollections. Soviet officials did not immediately arrest him, leaving him in the agonizing position of knowing that his freedom might be temporary. Escape required activating a plan prepared years earlier.
— @archeohistories Oct 19, 2026
What most people already understand, even without the economic terminology, is that firms like BlackRock operate less like investors and more like modern feudal landlords.
They buy essential infrastructure,water networks, ports, energy grids, data centres, and other public necessities, often using vast amounts of borrowed money and paying prices that ordinary market participants cannot match.
Once the acquisition is complete, the debt is pushed onto the acquired company itself.
The result is simple: the public pays.
Consumers repay that debt through higher water bills, rising energy prices, increased fees, and declining service quality.
The infrastructure becomes a cash-extraction machine.
Profits flow upward to shareholders and executives, while the financial burden flows downward to ordinary households.When the model inevitably breaks down, the consequences are socialised. Communities are left with crumbling infrastructure, polluted rivers and failing services.
Thames Water’s £14 billion debt mountain and repeated sewage scandals are a stark example of what happens when financial engineering takes precedence over public stewardship.The executives who loaded the company with debt have already collected their bonuses.
The investors have already taken their returns.
And when the system finally reaches its breaking point, taxpayers are expected to pick up the bill.Privatise the gains.
Socialise the losses.That is the business model……
— @ricwe123 Oct 19, 2026
news – Google Search google.com/search?q=news&num…
— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) Oct 19, 2026