<Sometime in the late 1980s, I was talking with a friend on my landline (the only kind of telephone we had then). We were discussing logistics for an upcoming demonstration against the Reagan administration’s support for the Contras fighting the elected government of Nicaragua. We agreed that, when our call was done, I’d call another friend, “Mary,” to update her on the plans. I hung up.

But before I could make the call, my phone rang.

“Hi, this is Mary,” my friend said.

“Mary! I was just about to call you.”

“But you did call me,” she said.

“No, I didn’t. My phone just rang, and you were on the other end.”

It was pretty creepy, but that was how surveillance worked in the days of wired telephone systems. Whoever was listening in, most likely someone from the local San Francisco Police Department, had inadvertently caused both lines to ring, while preparing to catch my coming conversation with Mary. Assuming they’d followed the law, arranging such surveillance would have involved a number of legal and technical steps, including securing a wiretapping warrant. They’d have had to create a physical connection between their phones and ours, most likely by plugging into the phone company’s central office.

Government surveillance has come a long way since then, both technically and in terms of what’s legally possible in Donald Trump’s United States and under the John Roberts Supreme Court.

All the President’s Tech

Government agencies have many ways of keeping tabs on us today. The advent of cellular technology has made it so much easier to track where any of us have been, simply by triangulating the locations of the cell towers our phones have pinged along the way.

If you watch police procedurals on television (which I admit to doing more than is probably good for me), you’ll see a panoply of surveillance methods on display, in addition to cellular location data. It used to be only on British shows that the police could routinely rely on video recordings as aids in crime solving. For some decades, the Brits were ahead of us in creating a surveillance society. Nowadays, though, even the detectives on U.S. shows like Law and Order SVU (heading for its 27th season) can usually locate a private video camera with a sightline to the crime and get its owner to turn over the digital data.

Facial recognition is another technology you’ll see on police dramas these days. It’s usually illustrated by a five-second interval during which dozens of faces appear briefly on a computer monitor. The sequence ends with a final triumphant flourish—a single face remaining on screen, behind a single flashing word: “MATCH.”

We should probably live as if everything we do, even in supposedly “secure” places (real and virtual), is visible to the Trump regime.

I have no idea whether the TV version is what real facial recognition software actually looks like. What I do know is that it’s already being used by federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the FBI, under the auspices of a company called Clearview, which is presently led by Hal Lambert, a big Trump fundraiser. As Mother Jones magazine reports, Clearview has “compiled a massive biometric database” containing “billions of images the company scraped off the internet and social media without the knowledge of the platforms or their users.” The system is now used by law enforcement agencies around the country, despite its well-documented inability to accurately recognize the faces of people with dark skin.

The old-fashioned art of tailing suspects on foot is rapidly giving way to surveillance by drone, while a multitude of cameras at intersections capture vehicle license plates. Fingerprinting has been around for well over a century, although it doesn’t actually work on everyone. Old people tend to lose the ridges that identify our unique prints, which explains why I can’t reliably use mine to open my phone or wake my computer. Maybe now’s my moment to embark on a life of crime? Probably not, though, as my face is still pretty recognizable, and that’s what the Transportation Safety Administration uses to make sure I’m really the person in the photo on my Real ID.

The second Trump administration is deploying all of these surveillance methods and more, as it seeks to extend its authoritarian power. And one key aspect of that project is the consolidation of the personal information of millions of people in a single place....>

<....One Database to Rule Them All

It’s been thoroughly demonstrated that, despite its name, Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has been anything but efficient in reducing “waste, fraud, and abuse” in federal spending. DOGE, however, has made significantly more progress in achieving a less well publicized but equally important objective: assembling into a single federal database the personal details of hundreds of millions of individuals who have contact with the government. Such a database would combine information from multiple agencies, including the IRS and the Social Security Administration. The process formally began in March 2025 when, as The New York Times reported, President Trump signed an executive order “calling for the federal government to share data across agencies.” Such a move, as Times reporters Sheera Frenkel and Aaron Krolik note, raises “questions over whether he might compile a master list of personal information on Americans that could give him untold surveillance power.”

In keeping with the fiction that DOGE’s work is primarily focused on cost cutting, Trump labeled his order “Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos.” That fiction provided the pretext for DOGE’s demands that agency after agency grant its minions free access to the most private data they had on citizens and noncitizens alike. As The Washington Postreported in early May:

The U.S. DOGE Service is racing to build a single centralized database with vast troves of personal information about millions of U.S. citizens and residents, a campaign that often violates or disregards core privacy and security protections meant to keep such information safe, government workers say.

Worse yet, it will probably be impossible to follow DOGE’s trail of technological mayhem. As the Post reporters explain:

The current administration and DOGE are bypassing many normal data-sharing processes, according to staffers across 10 federal agencies, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retribution. For instance, many agencies are no longer creating records of who accessed or changed information while granting some individuals broader authority over computer systems. DOGE staffers can add new accounts and disable automated tracking logs at several Cabinet departments, employees said. Officials who objected were fired, placed on leave or sidelined.

My own union, the American Federation of Teachers, joined a suit to prevent DOGE from seizing access to Social Security data and won in a series of lower courts. However, on May 31, in a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court (with the three liberal judges dissenting) temporarily lifted the block imposed by the lower courts until the case comes back to the justices for a decision on its merits. In the meantime, DOGE can have what it wants from the Social Security Administration. And even if the Supreme Court were ultimately to rule against DOGE, the damage will be done. As the president of El Salvador said in response to an entirely different court ruling, “Oopsie. Too late.”

Musk’s Pal Peter Thiel—and Palantir

Anyone who’s ever worked with a database, even one with only a few thousand records, knows how hard it is to keep it organized and clean. There’s the problem of duplicate records (multiple versions of the same person or other items). And that’s nothing compared to the problem of combining information from multiple sources. Even the names of the places where data goes (“fields”) will differ from one base to another. The very structures of the databases and how records are linked together (“relationships”) will differ, too. All of this makes combining and maintaining databases a messy and confusing business. Now imagine trying to combine dozens of idiosyncratically constructed ones with information stretching back decades into one single, clean, useful repository of information. It’s a daunting project.

And in the case of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Database, that’s where Peter Thiel’s company Palantir comes in. AsThe New York Times reported recently, at the urging of Elon Musk and DOGE, Trump turned to Palantir to carry out the vision expressed in his March executive order mentioned above. In fact, according to the Times, “at least three DOGE members formerly worked at Palantir, while two others had worked at companies funded by Peter Thiel, an investor and a founder of Palantir.”

Palantir, named for the “seeing stones” described in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, is already at work, providing its data platform Foundry to several parts of the government. According to the Times:....>

<....The Trump administration has expanded Palantir’s work across the federal government in recent months. The company has received more than $113 million in federal government spending since Mr. Trump took office, according to public records, including additional funds from existing contracts as well as new contracts with the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon. (This does not include a $795 million contract that the Department of Defense awarded the company last week, which has not been spent.)Representatives of Palantir are also speaking to at least two other agencies—the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service—about buying its technology, according to six government officials and Palantir employees with knowledge of the discussions.

Who is Peter Thiel, Palantir’s co-founder? In addition to being a friend of Musk’s, Thiel was an early Trump supporter among the tech elites of Silicon Valley, donating $1.25 million to his 2016 campaign. He is also credited with shaping the political career of Vice President JD Vance, from his campaign to become a senator to his selection as Trump’s running mate. Thiel is part of a rarified brotherhood of tech and crypto-currency billionaires who share a commitment to a particular project of world domination by a technological elite. (And if that sounds like the raw material for a crazy conspiracy theory, bear with me again here.) Thiel was also an early funder of Clearview, the facial recognition software mentioned earlier.

In hiring Palantir and turning our data over to the company, Trump makes himself a useful tool, along with Vance, in the service of Thiel’s vision—just as he has been to the machinations of Project 2025’s principal author Russell Vought, who has different, but no less creepy dreams of domination.

The Dark Enlightenment

Thiel and his elite tech bros, including Musk, Internet pioneer and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen, and Clearview founder Hoan Ton-That, share a particular philosophy. Other believers include figures like fervent Trump supporter Steve Bannon and Vice President Vance. This explicitly anti-democratic worldview goes by various names, including the “neo-reactionary movement” and the “Dark Enlightenment.”

Its founder is a software developer and political blogger named Curtis Yarvin, who has advocated replacing a “failed” democratic system with an absolute monarchy. Describing the Dark Enlightenment in The Nation magazine in October 2022, Chris Lehman observed that, in his run for Senate, JD Vance had adopted “a key plank of [Yarvin’s] plan for post-democratic overhaul—the strongman plan to ‘retire all government employees, which goes by the jaunty mnemonic ‘RAGE.’” (Any similarity to Musk’s DOGE is probably not coincidental.)

So, what is the Dark Enlightenment? It’s the negative image of an important intellectual movement of the 17th and18th centuries, the Enlightenment, whose principles formed, among other things, the basis for American democracy. These included such ideas as the fundamental equality of all human beings, the view that government derives its authority from the consent of the governed, and the existence of those “certain unalienable rights” mentioned in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Our response must be to oppose Trump’s onrushing version of American fascism as boldly and openly as we can.

The Dark Enlightenment explicitly opposes all of those and more. Lehman put it this way: “As Yarvin envisions it, RAGE is the great purge of the old operating system that clears the path for a more enlightened race of technocrats to seize power and launch the social order on its rational course toward information-driven self-realization.” That purge would necessarily produce “collateral casualties,” which would include “the nexus of pusillanimous yet all-powerful institutions Yarvin has dubbed ‘the Cathedral’—the universities, the elite media, and anything else that’s fallen prey to liberal perfidy.” Of course, we’ve already seen at least a partial realization of just such goals in Trump’s focused attacks on universities, journalists, and that collection of values described as diversity, equity, and inclusion....>

<....On that last point, it should be noted that Yarvin and his followers also tended to be adherents of an “intellectual” current called “human biological diversity” championed by Steven Sailer, another Yarvin acolyte. That phrase has been appropriated by contemporary proponents of what used to be called eugenics, or scientific racism. It’s Charles Murray’s 1994 pseudo-scientific Bell Curve dressed up in high-flown pseudo-philosophy.

However, there’s more to the Dark Enlightenment than authoritarianism and racism. One stream, populated especially by Thiel and other tech bros, has an eschatology of sorts. This theology of the Earth’s end-times holds that elite humans will eventually (perhaps even surprisingly soon) achieve eternal life through physical communion with machines, greatly augmenting their capacities through artificial intelligence. That’s important to them because they’ve given up on the Earth. This planet is already too small and used up to sustain human life for long, they feel. Hence, our human destiny is instead to rule the stars. This is the theology underlying Elon Musk’s hunger for Mars. Anything that stands in the way of such a destiny must and shall be swept away on the tide of a tech bros future. (For an excellent explication of the full worldview shared by such would-be masters of the rest of us—and the rest of the universe as well—take a look at Adam Becker’s new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity.)

Surveillance Everywhere?

Back in my own corner of the world, the San Francisco Police Department has come a long way since those ancient days of clumsy phone tapping. Recently, a cryptocurrency billionaire, Chris Larsen, gave the SFPD $9.4 million to upgrade its surveillance tech. They’ll use the money to outfit a new Real Time Investigation Center (RTIC) with all the latest toys. “We’re going to be covering the entire city with drones,” claimed RTIC representative Captain Thomas MacGuire. Imagine my joyful anticipation!

How should defenders of democracy respond to the coming reality of near-constant, real-time government surveillance? We can try to shrink and hide, of course, but that only does their job for them, by driving us into a useless underground. Instead, we should probably live as if everything we do, even in supposedly “secure” places (real and virtual), is visible to the Trump regime. Our response must be to oppose Trump’s onrushing version of American fascism as boldly and openly as we can. Yes, some of us will be harassed, imprisoned, or worse, but ultimately, the only answer to mass surveillance by those who want to be our overlords is open, mass defiance.>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Anderson, Renard W"]
[Black "Seltzer, Robert"]
[ECO "B89"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<[Event "First Boston Futurity"] [Site "Boston Mass"]
[Date "1981.04.??"]
[EventDate "1981"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Dymond, David"]
[Black "Dracup, James"]
[ECO "B23"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

<It used to be the congressional equivalent of a five-alarm fire: Members of the House Freedom Caucus were holding out, refusing to go along with Republican leaders’ plans for high-stakes legislation.

But when Speaker Mike Johnson brought the GOP’s “big, beautiful bill” to the House floor this week, few were surprised when the band of hardcore conservatives threatened once again to take down the bill. And even fewer took their threats seriously.

“They do this every time — every dadgum time,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.), a hard-right member who himself has occasionally held out on GOP leaders.

The endgame was in fact predictable: A band of about 10 hard-right members refused to vote the party line on a series of procedural votes Wednesday night and Thursday morning, prompting an all-hands-on-deck negotiating blitz that left the House in limbo for hours.

In the end, they all ended up voting for the bill.

It was the latest episode calling the aims of the Freedom Caucus into question as President Donald Trump asserts his dominance over the Republican Party and Washington in general. Founded under a Democratic president and forged by veterans of the tea party movement, the group is now finding it hard to buck the most powerful Republican leader in generations. After the vote closed Thursday, multiple Freedom Caucus members cast their interventions as crucial in moving the centerpiece of the GOP’s domestic policy agenda to the right.

“If you go back six months ago, we were told no Medicaid,” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, a key Freedom Caucus leader, said, referring to Trump’s promises not to touch the joint federal-state health program. Ultimately, the bill is set to make $1 trillion worth of cuts over the coming decade.

“I wanted more — we should have done better,” Roy added. “But at the end of the day, [we got a] pretty historic bill.”

The problem their less confrontational colleagues see is that the band of hard-liners is constantly drawing red lines and delivering ultimatums, only to violate them — sometimes in a matter of hours.

The caucus, for instance, circulated a three-page memo Wednesday detailing a litany of objections the group had identified in the Senate-passed bill, ranging from its expanded deficits to the fact it omitted gun-related provisions the group had sought and that it expanded a key tax break mainly claimed in blue states. It ended up backing that flawed product with no more than handshake assurances their concerns would be addressed.

Roy spent months insisting that the bill adhere to a fiscal compromise he struck earlier this year with Johnson and other Republican leaders. He continued to warn leaders against violating the deal, lambasting the Senate for going hundreds of billions of dollars sideways, only to come along in the end.

“There’s definitely conversations about a second reconciliation bill,” Roy said Thursday, referring to promises from Johnson and others that he would pursue more party-line legislation to reduce deficits.

Elsewhere in the GOP, the brinkmanship is wearing thin — and the overnight negotiations hardly endeared the hard-liners to their colleagues.

“They called their own bluff,” said Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wis.), a frequent critic of the bloc. “How many times have they done this? I mean, I’ve been in Congress for two years and five seconds, and they pulled the same stunt 19 times. So they’re over. The influence of the Freedom Caucus is over.”

Beyond the second bite at a deficit-busting bill, several Freedom Caucus members said they won assurances from White House officials on other matters....>

<....Roy said he notched a promise to dial back what he said was the “effectiveness” of an amendment preserving some clean energy tax credits negotiated by Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski and other GOP senators in their own last-minute deal.

“I probably spent about six hours yesterday with some lawyers in the administration about what they can do, frankly, to reverse … the Murkowski language that got put in there,” he said.

What Freedom Caucus members didn’t get were any actual changes to the bill. Trump wanted the bill on his desk for a July 4 celebration and indicated to members of the bloc in a White House meeting Wednesday that he would not allow it to go back to the Senate — potentially creating weeks of delay.

“It became clear … the bill’s closed — there’s going to be no more amendments to the bill,” Majority Leader Steve Scalise said in a brief interview Thursday morning.

Trump and GOP leaders, in fact, were all too eager to put down the rebellion. Between the White House meetings, visits from Budget Director Russ Vought and other key White House officials, and Trump calling into the Republican cloakroom overnight, they muscled the hard-liners to “yes.”

Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.), the Freedom Caucus chair, touted “significant agreements with the administration overnight on executive actions, both inside and outside of the bill, that will make America great again.” Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) said the holdouts received “fiscal” assurances from the administration, while Rep. Eric Burlison (R-Mo.) said, “We had significant concerns and so you can imagine we got significant commitments.”

Earlier Wednesday, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) also appeared hell-bent on opposing the bill.

GOP leaders held open one of the procedural votes and Scalise told reporters they were waiting for two members to return after storms snarled flights into Washington. A smiling Norman insisted to reporters “it’s not the weather” delaying the vote.

But less than two hours later, Norman emerged from a meeting with Vought with a completely different attitude and suggesting his vote was back in play.

In that room and others on Wednesday, the hard-liners raised deep concerns with the Senate-passed bill and groaned about the demise of the budget plan they’d negotiated with the speaker. But GOP leaders were not sympathetic.

One Republican in the room granted anonymity to describe the private exchange recounted the leaders’ reply: “It’s as good as we’re going to get.”

Later, after voting for the bill, Norman explained his turnabout: “We got as much as we could get.”>

<I hate to sound like a broken record. I really do.

But silence is no longer an option.

We are witnessing, in real time, the dismantling of our democratic system—and if Donald Trump gets away with it this time, there may not be a next time.

This is the moment.

If you’ve ever asked yourself, “When do I step in?”

It’s now.

Share

I’m sounding the alarm louder than ever because what we’re facing is not a partisan issue. It’s not left versus right. This is life under authoritarian rule, being built right in front of our eyes—and if you think that’s an exaggeration, let me break it down.

The New York Times—yes, finally—is catching up to what I’ve been warning you about for months:

Donald Trump and his circle are laying the groundwork to rig the 2026 and 2028 elections in his favor.

And now the DOJ is reportedly exploring ways to criminally charge local election officials—even without evidence, even without precedent—if they don’t align with Trump’s security narrative. This is exactly what autocrats do: manufacture a crisis, then use it to consolidate power.

And Trump?

He said it himself just yesterday.

“My people have promised me the elections will not be rigged or sullied.”

You might miss it if you don’t speak Trump.

But I do.

I’ve sat next to him. I’ve flown around the world on his behalf. I’ve been in the rooms. I’ve made the calls. I know what those words mean:

They’ve promised him control.

They’ve promised him the election.

And if he gets it, it’s over.

Not just for four years.

Not just for eight.

Forever—for as long as he wants.

And While Trump is working on rigging the elections, Alligator Alcatraz Is Open for Business

In my own backyard—Florida—Trump and Ron DeSantis have quietly launched what I can only describe as a modern-day concentration camp:

Alligator Alcatraz.

This is not an exaggeration.

This is not hyperbole.

They are detaining hundreds of people—many of whom haven’t been convicted of any crime—in a black-site-style facility, during hurricane season, where flooding is already occurring. Reports of unlivable conditions are emerging, and yet members of Congress are being blocked from entering.

They won’t even let us see who’s inside.

Could be asylum seekers.

Could be lawful residents waiting on paperwork.

Could even be American citizens caught in Trump’s dragnet.

Because under Trump’s new policies, citizenship is no protection. Not anymore.

They’re selling merchandise for this place.

They’re turning human rights abuses into souvenirs.

And they’re flaunting it on official White House social media channels

I Know This Is Hard to Believe. That’s Why I’m Speaking Out.

I’m telling you this because I’ve been there.

I’ve done his dirty work.

I know how far he’s willing to go.

And if you’re hearing fear in my voice—it’s because I’m scared.

Scared for my kids.

Scared for this country.

Scared for what comes next if we sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

And let me be clear:

I’m risking everything to get you this information.

I don’t have corporate media backing me.

I don’t have security details.

I have you.

That’s why I need you now more than ever.

Share

Share this letter.

Post it, re-stack it, forward it to 3 to 5 people. Let’s outnumber their lies with our truth.

Subscribe if you haven’t.

This is not a newsletter. This is your insider front-row seat to what’s really happening behind closed doors. I’m bringing you what no one else will.

Become a paid subscriber: And get Q&A with Lev, Storytime with Lev, and private briefings about what’s coming next.

Contribute directly:Venmo: @Lev-Parnas

Website: levremembers.com

Every dollar helps me fight back. Every share breaks the media silence.

This isn’t just a community.

This is a movement.

And if we don’t act now, there may be nothing left to fight for in 2026.

This will be the most important election of your lifetime. And the decisions we make today will decide whether we still get to have one.

Stay loud. Stay brave. Stay with me.

With urgency,

Lev Parnas>

<Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is facing backlash after accusing Democrats of "blowing out the deficit in 2020" — a year when Donald Trump was president.

In an interview with CNN's Dana Bash on Sunday morning, Bessent blamed the Democratic Party for the 2020 deficit crisis, despite the fact that the Republican Party controlled the White House at the time.

His comments quickly sparked criticism and mockery on social media, with many pointing out the contradiction.

Singer-songwriter Ricky Davila wrote: "MAGA fraudster Scott Bessent falsely accused the Democratic Party of blowing out the deficit in 2020. Problem with that bulls--- accusation is that the orange felon was in office in 2020, not President Biden. They literally lie about everything."

Democratic activist Lucas Sanders wrote: "Scott Bessent: 'The Democratic Party blew out the deficit in 2020.' WHAT? Can someone tell him who was the president in 2020?"

"Does the Treasury Secretary know who controlled the White House and Senate in 2020?" wrote a user.

"MAGA always drop to the Ad Hominem attack when they're unable to defend their horrible policies," said a user on X.

"Who wants to remind him who the president was in 2020? Also, Trump is now blowing up the deficit even more than Biden ever did," wrote another.

"They love trying to rewrite history. Biden became president in Jan 2021. All the stuff they complain happened with Covid started in 2020, and they always blame that on Biden too," said another X user.

Many also criticized the host for not fact-checking Bessent.

"This is WHY Americans are so ill informed. She didn't correct him! She just ignored that and moved on. When the media talking heads don't correct the record the zombies just (believe) what they hear!" remarked a user.>

Bessent is an ass-licking cretin.

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "7"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Fishbein, Alexander"]
[Black "Saidy, Anthony"]
[ECO "B12"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.Nf3 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 g6 4.g3 Bg7 5.Bg2 O-O 6.O-O d6 7.d4 Nc6 8.b3 Ne4 9.Bb2 Nxc3 10.Bxc3 Qe8 11.Qc2 e5 12.dxe5 dxe5 13.Qb2 Qe7 14.Rad1 a5 15.Ne1 e4 16.Bxg7 Qxg7 17.Qxg7+ Kxg7 18.f3 exf3 19.Bxf3 a4 20.Bxc6 bxc6 21.Nd3 axb3 22.axb3 Ra2 23.Rfe1 Re8 24.Kf2 g5 25.Ra1 Rd2 26.Ra7 Re7 27.Ra8 Bd7 28.Ra5 Kf6 29.Nc1 Be8 30.Ra2 Rd4 31.Nd3 Bh5 32.Ra6 Rd6 33.Nb4 Be8 34.Rea1 Kg7 35.R1a2 Rh6 36.Kg1 f4 37.R6a5 Kf6 38.Nd3 fxg3 39.hxg3 Re3 40.Kf2 Re6 41.Kg2 Bg6 42.Nf2 Be4+ 43.Kg1 Rg6 44.Ra7 Rg7 45.Nxe4+ Rxe4 46.R2a6 Re6 47.Kf2 Kf5 48.Kf3 g4+ 49.Kf2 Rge7 50.Ra2 Ke4 51.R7a5 Rf6+ 52.Ke1 Rh6 53.Rg5 Ke3 54.Kf1 Rf6+ 55.Kg1 h5 56.Rxh5 Ref7 57.Ra1 Kxe2 58.Rh2+ Kd3 59.Rh4 Rg7 60.c5 Ke2 61.Rh2+ Ke3 62.b4 Kd4 63.Rd1+ Kc4 64.Rc1+ Kb5 65.Rh8 Rf3 66.Rb8+ Ka4 67.Kg2 Rd7 68.Rc2 Rdd3 69.Rc4 Rxg3+ 70.Kh2 Rh3+ 71.Kg2 Rh7 72.Re4 g3 73.Rg4 0-1>