[Lude Press | Dr. Yan Talks] The CCP Has Infiltrated Scotland’s Offshore Wind Projects — Will the King Personally Step In? 10/19/2025

Video link: https://www.youtube.com/live/XCjo_Ewu-70?si=WWwVyseWEcjsakPm

01｜The New “Huang Jiguang”: Colombia’s Puppet President Petro Takes the Bullet for Xi and the CCP

During the UN General Assembly, Colombian President Gustavo Petro stirred up U.S. soldiers on the streets of New York, urging them to defy President Trump’s orders — and soon after, his U.S. visa was revoked.

Now, following the U.S. Navy’s strike on a Colombian drug-running submarine, the surviving traffickers have been extradited, and Petro is publicly challenging both the United States and President Trump.

It’s clear that what looks like regional turmoil in Colombia and Venezuela is actually part of Beijing’s playbook — the CCP using Latin America’s leftist and pro-communist regimes to wage an information war, painting the U.S. as an imperial aggressor.

But Petro’s move is foolish. Venezuela only joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative this year — and no matter how close he tries to get to Beijing, he’ll never outrank Maduro, Khamenei, or Hamas in the CCP’s hierarchy of usefulness. Just look at how those “partners” ended up.

◉ Trump Calls Colombia’s CCP-Aligned President Petro an “Illegal Drug Kingpin”. Anyone Who Teams Up With Xi Will Be Destroyed.
[Commentary] President Trump’s announcement that the U.S. will halt financial aid and subsidies to Colombia amounts to a light sanction. This move signals the start of a broader coordinated response — U.S. military, Treasury, and allied intelligence agencies are expected to follow suit, freezing assistance and removing Colombia from the list of trusted partners.

“Petro, …, better close up these killing fields immediately, or the United States will close them up for him, and it won’t be done nicely”.

By labeling the killing fields as “quasi-terrorist facilities,” the U.S. is sending a direct signal — Washington will not stand by. This gives the Pentagon, U.S. forces, and the CIA a clear legal framework to strike Colombian operations linked to drug trafficking and terror financing.
Essentially, President Trump is shaping public perception: cracking down on drug cartels is fighting terrorism — and as the layers peel back, the ultimate target behind these networks is the Chinese Communist Party.

02｜The “Narco-Politics” Network Is Coming Into Focus — Three Criteria for the U.S. to Classify a Regime as a “Narco-Terrorist State”
Venezuela was exposed for funding left-wing movements in Latin America and Europe and interfering in presidential elections, with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) behind it.
The former Venezuelan intelligence chief, who has already confessed in the United States, admitted that Venezuela’s “Cartel of the Suns” used drug money to fund and interfere in presidential elections across Latin America — explicitly naming Brazil’s Lula, Colombia’s Petro, and a former Argentine president.

This network essentially links drug-trafficking terrorism to transnational bribery and money laundering — a form of organized crime at the national security level.

Now it’s clear that this “narco-politics” chain is fully connected. Petro knows that if he doesn’t cling tightly to Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), once the U.S. finishes dealing with Maduro, he will be the next target.

“For at least 15 years, the Venezuelan government has been illegally funding left-wing political movements around the world.” Does Venezuela really have such reach and ambition on its own? Obviously, there’s a powerful backer behind it — the CCP.

This “narco-politics” network ties directly to the people now jumping out to take bullets for the CCP.

In Taiwan, there’s “White Wolf” Chang An-lo, the Kuomintang, and certain pro-CCP elements hidden within the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan People’s Party. “White Wolf” is involved in drug trafficking, and his drug money flows into these pro-CCP networks.

Even Japan’s major CCP operative, Li Xiaomu, was invited by a supposedly pro-U.S., pro-Japan think tank in Taiwan. Are you telling me Li Xiaomu isn’t involved in drug trafficking? Let’s just leave that statement here for now.

◉ The largest creditor of Venezuela’s state-owned oil company PDVSA is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). In 2010 alone, the CCP provided PDVSA with a $50 billion loan.
So when Maduro and Petro claim that the U.S. is acting because of Venezuela’s “oil,” they’re actually taking bullets for the CCP. In reality, the ultimate beneficiary of PDVSA’s revenues is China, and the CCP is very concerned about the U.S. legally seizing those assets.

◉ The three criteria the U.S. uses to define a “narco-terrorist regime”
❶ The head of state or senior officials are directly involved in drug trafficking or terrorist activities;
❷ State institutions—including the military, police, diplomatic corps, and energy sector—provide protection or funding channels for drug operations;
❸ The government’s actions pose a tangible threat to U.S. homeland security or public health.

The Maduro regime has already been classified as a “narco-terrorist regime.” By this definition, both Petro’s government and Xi Jinping’s regime meet all three criteria.

Currently, Taiwan under Lai Ching-te’s administration is not involved, so it is considered safe. However, if the Kuomintang (KMT) were to come to power, it could potentially be classified as a “narco-terrorist regime” as well.

◉ The Trump administration is gradually establishing a strategic logic chain: combating drugs equals combating terrorism; combating drugs and terrorism equals combating the Chinese Communist Party (CCP); and all of this is directly tied to U.S. national security.

Along this chain, the U.S. military has been effectively “freed up.” The current series of operations in Venezuela is essentially a form of training and preparation for the next step: “capture the king first”—targeting Xi and the CCP directly.

03｜Argentina has long been infiltrated and controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. With U.S. assistance, it is now moving to sever ties and disentangle itself from the CCP.

“Kishnerism” is essentially Argentina’s version of “Chavismo,” representing the country’s left-wing movement, and it has been closely tied to long-term CCP infiltration in Latin America. This “anti-U.S.” strategy began under Hu Jintao’s era and has been passed down as part of the CCP’s consistent foreign policy approach.

At the time, Argentina pursued socialism and high welfare policies primarily funded through foreign debt. The CCP’s influence over Argentina functioned like a domestic payday lender: providing loans while deeply binding the country to its control, leading to economic collapse and political manipulation.

Under President Milei, who adopted a fully pro-U.S. stance, American assistance helped Argentina begin to recover economically. The U.S. support acted like a major corporation offering a bailout: helping Argentina settle previous debts first, and positioning the U.S. as the go-to lender in the future—rather than relying on the CCP, the “payday lender.”

“Kirchnerism” is essentially Argentina’s version of “Chavismo,” representing the country’s left-wing movement, and it has been closely tied to long-term CCP infiltration in Latin America. This “anti-U.S.” strategy began under Hu Jintao’s era and has been passed down as part of the CCP’s consistent foreign policy approach.

04｜The CCP has infiltrated Scotland’s wind power projects, creating serious national security risks for the UK and its allies.

On October 12, Chinese wind turbine manufacturer MingYang Smart Energy announced plans to build the UK’s first fully integrated wind turbine manufacturing base in Scotland. The total planned investment is £1.5 billion, intended for factories producing offshore and floating wind turbines, with initial production expected by the end of 2028. The preferred site is currently the port of Ardssair near Inverness.

Although opposition parties raised concerns last year about allowing investment from hostile countries like China, the Energy Minister at the time encouraged Chinese investment, and Scotland also welcomed it. This project was finalized in September of this year.

This timing coincides with President Trump’s September visit to the UK, where he received exceptionally high-level treatment from the Royal Family and, in his UN speech, specifically warned that China’s push for “green energy,” wind, and solar is a scam that harms the environment and national security. This shows that the U.S. is fully aware of the risks involved in this project.

❶ Located on the northern offshore edge of Scotland, at the southern mouth of the Greenland-Iceland-UK passage.
❷ This passage is NATO’s most critical maritime and submarine corridor for communications, energy, and military operations.
❸ The northern stretch between Iceland and Greenland is a strategic chokepoint for UK and US submarines entering and exiting the North Atlantic.
❹ The southern stretch, between Scotland and Norway, is densely packed with NATO’s main subsea cables, natural gas pipelines, and offshore substations, forming a backbone network for Nordic power and data interconnection.

◉ For China, the Mingyang wind power project represents a highly strategic move, exposing multiple and serious national security risks for the UK and its allies.

China’s involvement in the Mingyang wind power project goes far beyond building turbines. Installing and anchoring offshore turbines requires detailed seabed mapping, construction fleets, navigational planning, and cable routing. This gives China direct access to precise maps of the UK, Norway, and broader Nordic power grids and data systems, enabling a nation-state level ability to pinpoint NATO’s energy and information arteries.

The North Sea area is a central intelligence hub for NATO; submarine routes, undersea cables, oil and gas pipelines, and anti-submarine defenses (like DAS systems) could all be legally acquired under the guise of wind farm construction. China could also embed backdoors during construction.

If China ever controls the UK’s wind power infrastructure and supply chain, it could potentially cut off power in wartime or during conflicts, much like how it could disrupt water or utilities to foreign embassies in China.

By presenting this as a “green energy” project, China exploits a politically untouchable cover in the UK. Moreover, floating offshore turbines are dual-use technology: they involve maritime positioning, mooring tech, storm-resistance algorithms, and resilient structural materials—all overlapping with submarine communications, unmanned maritime platforms, and anti-submarine sonar systems.

The UK partner, Octopus Energy, while regulated domestically, has a complex ownership structure with capital from Hong Kong and the Middle East. By partnering with Mingyang, China could turn the project into a “giant octopus,” extending influence and control across strategic UK energy infrastructure.

05｜Will the King personally intervene in the “Mingyang Wind Power Project,” which poses a national security threat?

◉ Scotland Is Easier for the CCP to Manipulate than London — and Much Harder for the UK to Protect
Scotland operates under a highly autonomous government.
While it does not have independent diplomatic powers, it can negotiate and sign agreements with foreign entities — including the CCP — on matters such as economic development, energy construction, and attracting investment.
As long as the UK’s national energy authorities do not explicitly block it, Scotland can move such projects forward aggressively.
The ruling Scottish National Party (SNP) has long advocated for independence and remains in a tense and adversarial relationship with the British central government, regardless of which party holds power in London.
Thus, even if the UK government opposes the Mingyang Wind Power project, the Scottish administration will likely ignore it, viewing any interference from London as political obstruction.
From the perspectives of the United States and the United Kingdom, this makes Scotland a potential vulnerability within NATO and the Five Eyes Alliance — an internal fracture point that the CCP could exploit for infiltration and influence.
However, if the Scottish government insists on advancing the Mingyang Wind Power project, the situation becomes extremely complicated. The United States cannot directly sanction a British regional government, even one with broad autonomy. The London government, already heavily infiltrated and politically constrained, has limited means to intervene. Even if London formally opposes the project, Scotland is unlikely to comply, framing it as a matter of regional autonomy and economic sovereignty.

◉ This Brings Us to the Revival of Royal Authority in the United Kingdom — the King Has the Legal Right to Intervene and Veto.

Energy sovereignty and national security are reserved domains under the United Kingdom’s constitutional system.
National security falls under the direct jurisdiction of the King, the central government, and London, and in practice, energy sovereignty does as well.

While Scotland has devolved legislative powers, it cannot independently approve foreign investment projects that involve national defense or diplomatic risks.

If a project involves:

naval ports, submarines, or strategic sea routes,
North Sea communication or power cables,
Chinese capital or ownership,
technology supply chains or software control systems, and
if Scottish freeports could be used as channels for sanction evasion or export-control circumvention,
then such matters fall squarely within the review authority of the National Security and Investment Act (NSIA).
This places them under the direct powers of the King and the UK Government, exercised through the Secretary of State for Business and the Privy Council.

The British monarch holds three core powers, including the Order in Council.
If matters concern national sovereignty, military security, or sensitive foreign investment, such executive orders can be approved or vetoed by the King in Council.

In addition, two other constitutional mechanisms apply: the Royal Assent and the Royal Prerogative.

For legislative amendments involving national security, the King—acting on the advice of the government—may withhold Royal Assent or return the bill for further consideration. Even if Parliament later passes an exemption, the monarch can still refuse to sign on the grounds of national security.

The King receives regular classified briefings from MI5, MI6, and the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser. If these briefings confirm risks of infiltration by Chinese enterprises, the monarch has constitutional authority to privately advise the Prime Minister to withhold Royal Assent.

Should King Charles decide to invoke royal authority to block the “Mingyang Wind Power” project, there is precedent for such action. In 2022, shortly after his accession, King Charles expressed “serious concern” over a Chinese nuclear power project, which was subsequently halted by the government.

◉ The “Privy Seal” is the key instrument by which the British monarch exercises authority through the Privy Council—and even serves as a safeguard to preserve royal power if the Council itself were ever compromised.

The Privy Seal functions as the personal seal of the sovereign, used to approve significant documents.

Dating back to the Middle Ages, Britain developed a “three-tier seal system”:
❶ The Great Seal – the state’s official seal, used for acts such as granting peerages or formalizing legislation passed by Parliament; it is typically administered by the Lord Chancellor.
❷ The Privy Seal – represents the monarch’s personal will, but in a formalized and institutional capacity.
❸ The Signet or Private Seal – used for preliminary endorsements of the monarch’s personal decisions, such as letters, and handled by close aides or by the sovereign directly.

In most cases, when people refer to an important royal seal of authority, they mean the Privy Seal. Even if the Privy Council were ever infiltrated or paralyzed—for instance, by hostile foreign influence—the King could dissolve the Council and replace the seal. Once a new Privy Seal is issued, the person entrusted with it becomes the King’s chosen confidant, and all previous seals instantly lose their authority overnight.

◉ If the British monarch wishes to intervene in China’s planned “super embassy” in London, he can do so on sovereign grounds, since foreign affairs fall under the “Royal Prerogative.”
Under this authority, the King has the constitutional right to refuse approval for the project.

The procedure would roughly follow this sequence:
➡️ Intelligence agencies conduct an assessment of the security risks;
➡️ The Foreign Office submits the findings to the Privy Council;
➡️ The King convenes a Privy Council meeting to deliberate;
➡️ An official Order is issued, instructing the local government of London to revoke the project’s planning permission.

◉ If the British monarch wishes to intervene in China’s “Mingyang Wind Power Project” in Scotland, it would fall under matters of economic and energy security.

The procedure would roughly proceed as follows:
➡️ Intelligence and energy departments conduct a security assessment;
➡️ The Cabinet submits a security briefing to the monarch;
➡️ The King convenes a Privy Council meeting;
➡️ An official Order is issued;
➡️ The Secretary of State for Scotland is instructed to enforce the decision.

If the Scottish local government resists implementation, the King can exercise the power to “freeze local legislation,” effectively suspending the project and preventing it from moving forward.

06｜Conservative MP Requests Constitutional-Level Investigation into Prime Minister Starmer and Cabinet

British Conservative MP Kevin Hollinrake sent a detailed letter calling for an investigation into Prime Minister Starmer and his cabinet, specifically regarding Starmer’s personal involvement in discussions with Xi Jinping about the Chinese embassy (alleged espionage center) and the on-site planning of related matters.

(X:https://x.com/kevinhollinrake/status/1979304450788327737)

The letter revealed many new details that had not previously been reported by the media:

Prime Minister Starmer personally intervened in the approval process. In August 2024, Starmer had a phone call with Xi Jinping; in November of the same year, during the G20 summit, Starmer met Xi in person to discuss the “Super Embassy” project.

At that time, the London city government had already rejected the site. A few weeks later, the UK central government intervened and took back London’s approval authority. Intelligence agencies later discovered that the Prime Minister explicitly stated: “We have already taken action—call-in” (reclaiming decision-making power).

Earlier this year, when the UK Chancellor visited China, Chinese media reported that “the UK had given the green light.” Subsequently, the UK Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary wrote to the planning office supporting the project’s continuation. Meanwhile, the Chinese side made a stern statement, warning that the UK must fulfill its commitments or bear the consequences.

This clearly shows coordinated actions between the two sides, elevating it to the level of political negotiation while concealing the details of the communications. Downing Street maintained regular contact with Beijing but refused to release meeting records or correspondence, which violates standard UK foreign affairs protocols.

◉ The letter from MP Kevin was addressed to Sir Laurie Magnus, the “Independent Ministerial Code Adviser” appointed by the King, accusing Prime Minister Starmer and his Labour Cabinet of violating the Ministerial Code, including:

Interfering with quasi-judicial procedures, specifically the “planning call-in” process, where a Secretary of State can take back a local planning decision and rule personally.

Prejudging decisions, showing favoritism toward a foreign government.

Failing to disclose Cabinet communications, undermining fairness and statutory procedural transparency.

These are some of the most serious, constitution-level accusations against a sitting Prime Minister.

The King’s Royal Prerogative includes the power to dismiss the Prime Minister or dissolve the Cabinet, and preparations for its potential use are already underway.

◉ This is highly significant—it amounts to a self-restoration of the UK’s constitutional system.

The “revival of royal authority” in Britain doesn’t mean a return to monarchy rule. Rather, it’s about restoring, at critical moments, the constitutional principle of ultimate legal balance: that executive power must serve the nation’s justice, not political or foreign interests.

Related Articles

Responses