"The Dissident" is an unnamed source. You cannot tell me who they are or why they should be believed.

Just because there are links in an article does not mean the author of that article understands that material or is a good resource for it. As this person does not even share their name we have no idea if they have the slightest notion of what they are talking about.

Do you have any reason other than they agree with your claim, whichI think is a really flawed claim on its best of days, that this unnamed source has any validity at all?

This is why asked for a paper of record. I might not agree with The Financial Times of London but they aren't going to have a random clown writing about subjects. (They will have prestigious clowns who went to fancy clown colleges do that)___