Meet Nicolas Aujula, Famous Hypnotherapist Whose SHOCKING 2025 Predictions Are Now Going Viral: We Will See Horrific Acts Of Human Evil...
New Delhi: In the testing times and chaos around the world, some world-famous psychics and astrologers who made some predictions back in time are now hitting the viral button. Remember famous blind mystic Vangeliya Pandeva Gushterova aka Baba Vanga, whose predictions have often caught attention? Well, now meet Nicolas Aujula, a UK-based famous psychic whose 2025 predictions are now making readers wonder about the solid coincidence.
Meet Nicolas Aujula
According to New York Post.com, the 38-year-old London hypnotherapist Nicolas Aujula, predicted that war could break out by the middle of this year due to a 'lack of compassion in the world."
Shocking Predictions 2025
Based on his psychic visions, 'We will see horrific acts of human evil and violence toward each other in the name of religion and nationalism.' He believes WWIII could erupt by mid-year, with the UK no longer immune to its reach.
Coincidentally, earlier this month, Pakistan and India faced testing times. After 26 tourists were attacked in Pahalgam, Jammu and Kashmir in a ghastly terror attack. In response, India launched Operation Sindoor where India launched missile strikes on Pakistan, in a military campaign.
While China and Turkey's support to Pakistan amid the crisis invited criticism, on the other hand ongoing Russia-Ukraine war is heating up again.
Nicolas Aujula's Predictions
Nicolas Aujula's past predictions too caught attention. Reportedly, he had predicted that Donald Trump would make a political comeback in 2024. He also spoke about the rising influence of Artificial Intelligence (AI).
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
United News of India
27 minutes ago
- United News of India
UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy in New Delhi, to meet PM Modi, EAM
New Delhi, June 7 (UNI) UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy is visiting New Delhi today, to further advance the India-UK relationship during talks with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar, besides other government officials. His visit comes after the two nations agreed on the Free Trade Agreement, which is set to increase trade by more than pounds 25 billion every year. Foreign Secretary Lammy will meet with Prime Minister Modi on his second visit to India to discuss ongoing economic and migration partnership, a statement from the British HC said. The Foreign Secretary will also welcome progress in the migration partnership, including ongoing work on safeguarding citizens and securing borders in both countries. Addressing migration remains a top priority for the government - the Foreign Secretary is focused on working internationally with global partners to secure the UK's borders at home. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said: 'Signing a free trade agreement is just the start of our ambitions - we're building a modern partnership with India for a new global era. We want to go even further to foster an even closer relationship and cooperate when it comes to delivering growth, fostering innovative technology, tackling the climate crisis and delivering our migration priorities, and providing greater security for our people.' The Foreign Secretary will also meet with leading figures in Indian business to discuss how we can unlock even greater investment by Indian business in the UK. Our investment relationship supports over 600,000 jobs across both countries, with over 950 Indian-owned companies in the UK and over 650 UK companies in India. In 2023-24, India was the UK's second largest source of investments in terms of number of projects for the fifth consecutive year. Talks will also take stock of progress, following a commitment by the UK and Indian Prime Ministers to take forward an ambitious UK-India Comprehensive Strategic Partnership. The trade deal is a key example of the progress being made since the last meeting between the Foreign Secretary and his Indian counterpart. It follows the signing of the UK-India Programme of Cultural Cooperation Agreement in May and pounds 400 million of trade and investment wins boosting the British and the Indian economy at the Economic and Financial Dialogue in April. The Foreign Secretary is also expected to address the recent escalation in tensions following the Pahalgam terrorist attack and how the welcomed sustained period of peace can be best supported in the interests of stability in the region. On May 2, the UK and India signed a new UK-India Programme of Cultural Cooperation to boost collaboration across the arts and culture, creative industries, tourism and sport sectors. The agreement will open the door for increased UK creative exports to India and enable more partnerships between UK and Indian museums and cultural institutions, helping to grow UK soft power. At the 13th UK-India Economic and Financial Dialogue (EFD) in April, Chancellor Rachel Reeves welcomed pounds 400 million of trade and investment wins set to boost the British and the Indian economy and deliver economic growth and security for working people. David Lammy travelled to India on his first official visit as Foreign Secretary in July last year, when he announced the landmark UK-India Technology Security Initiative. UNI RN
Indian Express
36 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Shashi Tharoor Meets US VP JD Vance; Says Got Strong Support For India's Op Sindoor
Shashi Tharoor In USA: A multi-party delegation of Indian Members of Parliament, led by senior Congress leader Shashi Tharoor, met United States Vice President JD Vance in Washington DC. The dialogue focused on counter-terrorism cooperation following the deadly Pahalgam terror attack and India's decisive military response—Operation Sindoor. Shashi Tharoor, speaking after the meeting, described the discussion as 'very positive' and 'constructive,' noting that VP JD Vance expressed full support for India's right to respond to terrorism.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
42 minutes ago
- First Post
Pakistan must not be allowed to evade terror accountability despite escalation risks
India has to realise that once it takes kinetic action against Pakistan, the world wants a quick cessation of hostilities because it fears escalation. In this process Pakistan's terrorist action takes a back seat for the international community read more India has to make the world more sensitive to the dangers of Pakistani terrorism and highlight that, notwithstanding the sophistry of the arguments put forward by its generals, India will not absorb terrorist acts or succumb to Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. AFP The two senior-most defence officers of India and Pakistan — Chairman of Defence Staff Gen Anil Chauhan and Pakistan's Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Gen Sahir Shamshad Mirza — participated in the recently held Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore. On the sidelines of the event, they gave separate interviews to Reuters on May 31. The two generals were on the same page on the absence of nuclear signalling by Pakistan during the course of Operation Sindoor. Reuters quoted Gen Chauhan as saying, 'I think there's a lot of space before that nuclear threshold is crossed, a lot of signalling before that. I think nothing like that happened.' The same news agency then reported Gen Mirza saying, 'Nothing happened this time.' The agency further clarified that Gen Mirza stated that there was no move towards nuclear weapons during this conflict. As India has a no first use nuclear doctrine and Pakistan does not, any signal to get nuclear weapons into play can only come from Pakistan. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While agreeing that no nuclear signal had been given during Operation Sindoor, Gen Chauhan and Gen Mirza differed greatly in their direct and indirect elaboration on the possibility of escalation during armed conflicts between India and Pakistan. The term escalation, in this context, refers to the possibility of conventional hostilities between nuclear countries leading to the use of nuclear weapons. The remarks of both generals on this subject would be closely studied worldwide by diplomats and scholars of security and strategic issues. On escalation, Gen Chauhan said, 'It's my personal view that the most rational people are people in uniform when conflict takes place,' he added. 'During this operation, I found both sides displaying a lot of rationality in their thoughts as well as actions. So why should we assume that in the nuclear domain there will be irrationality on someone else's part?' Gen Chauhan implied that as nuclear weapons were meant not for war fighting but to prevent existential crises, it would be irrational and illogical for their use for offensive purposes. Therefore, his conviction remains that the 'rationality' of the Pakistani army would prevent it from using nuclear weapons. Gen Mirza did not share Gen Chauhan's positive view about the rationality of 'people in uniform'. He stuck to Pakistan's position that India should not take kinetic action in response to terrorist strikes. Therefore, while noting that 'nothing happened this time', he added, 'But you can't rule out any strategic miscalculation at any time, because when the crisis is on, the responses are different.' Mirza also dwelt on escalation during his participation in a panel on 'Regional Crisis—Management Mechanisms'. What he said in his statement, as well as in response to questions, needs to be carefully evaluated by Indian policy makers and academics. In order to appreciate their significance, it is essential to place them in the context of past Indian responses to Pakistani terrorist acts. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Until the Uri terrorist attack of 2016, India avoided open kinetic action against Pakistani terrorism. It absorbed these attacks and broke off engagement with Pakistan till the anger of the Indian public subsided. Thereafter the bilateral dialogue process resumed. The major powers encouraged India to pursue such a path because they virtually accepted the Pakistani stand that kinetic action through conventional forces between nuclear powers risked escalation. What the major powers ignored was that Pakistan had begun to use nuclear weapons as a shield to carry on terrorism against India. In fact, they overlooked their own doctrine that nuclear states cannot undertake provocative acts on each other's territories because it is too dangerous to do so. Indeed, after the heinous Mumbai terrorist attack of November 26, 2008, the Western powers accepted that Lashkar-e-Taiba was behind it. However, they virtually absolved the Pakistan state agencies of having any hand in it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi changed the policy of absorbing terrorist attacks after the Uri incident. He sanctioned India's special forces to go into Pakistan-held territory of the then state of Jammu and Kashmir to undertake surgical strikes to hit Pakistani terrorist launch pads. Pakistan denied that India had undertaken any such action. This denial was obviously to protect its doctrine that a kinetic response by Indian conventional armed forces was escalatory. By denying the surgical strikes, the Pakistanis thought that the validity of their doctrine would not come into question. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The luxury of denial was not available to Pakistan after India's Balakot strike in the wake of the Pulwama terrorist attack. It therefore claimed that it had achieved the upper hand by downing an Indian fighter aircraft and capturing Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman on its territory. It thereafter said that the major powers intervened to diffuse the situation and that, in a sign of goodwill, it quickly released the Indian officer. India said that it had also downed Pakistani aircraft and that it was its pressure which led Pakistan to agree to releasing the officer. India did not accept that foreign mediation resolved the situation but agreed that the major powers were in touch with it as with Pakistan. The important point stressed by Pakistan was that Indian and Pakistani issues could not be resolved bilaterally but required foreign intervention and that hostilities post-Balakot were also diffused through foreign intervention. The significant point that India made through the Balakot action was that kinetic aerial action was possible as a response to Pakistan's terrorism. This meant that India had blown the lid off the Pakistani doctrine that the danger of escalation did not permit such kinetic action. As always, India also noted that it would not allow third parties to intervene in India-Pakistan issues. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At the Shangri La Dialogue, Gen Mirza spelt out a modified Pakistani doctrine regarding the dangers of India's use of kinetic force. He argued that the post-Pahalgam situation had taken strategic stability between India and Pakistan to dangerously low levels. He said while in the past borders were targeted, on this occasion, cities were attacked. He went on to state that now not only the disputed territory (meaning the UTs of J&K and Ladakh) but the whole of India and Pakistan would be involved. This, he claimed, would be extremely detrimental to 'investments, trading and the development needs of 1.5 billion people'. He obviously implied that this negativity would impact both countries. Mirza went on to assert, 'In future, given the Indian policies and the polity's extremist mindset and absence of crisis management mechanisms, we may not give enough time to the global powers to intervene and effect a cessation of hostilities. They will probably be too late to avert damage and destruction.' As Mirza had already ruled out the possibility that escalation could be stopped bilaterally between India and Pakistan and needed the intervention of global powers, what he actually signalled was that Pakistan may use nuclear weapons if it was rapidly suffering major losses in a conventional war. Thus, Pakistan was actually, once again, asserting that India should revert to its old policy of absorbing terrorist attacks. Mirza was also perhaps responding to PM Modi's declaration that India would not be deterred by Pakistani nuclear blackmail. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's strategic community has to effectively respond to this refined Pakistani doctrine which, at its kernel, is emphasising that a rapid escalation to the nuclear level may occur between India and Pakistan if India again uses kinetic force. And that the quick escalation may not give the international community time to diffuse the conflict during its conventional stage. The real point that India has to forcefully articulate is that the first step on the escalatory ladder is a terrorist attack from Pakistan. Also, India as the victim cannot be equated with Pakistan, the perpetrator of terror. Hence, for strategic stability, Pakistan has to be compelled to give up terrorism. India will have to patiently and continuously make this point to move the international community to effectively pressurise Pakistan. Many countries may be inhibited from telling Pakistan to stop terror because of the nature of Sino-Pakistan ties. India has to also realise that once it takes kinetic action against Pakistan, the world wants a quick cessation of hostilities because it fears escalation. In this process Pakistan's terrorist action takes a back seat for the international community. Hence, India has to make the world more sensitive to the dangers of Pakistani terrorism and highlight that, notwithstanding the sophistry of the arguments put forward by Mirza, India will not absorb terrorist acts or succumb to Pakistan's nuclear blackmail. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The writer is a former Indian diplomat who served as India's Ambassador to Afghanistan and Myanmar, and as secretary, the Ministry of External Affairs. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views.
