The rule of law is a hallmark of civilization, and its demise spells the end of civilization. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:
In my book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions (2000), I discussed the weaponization of law in order to easier convict criminals. Once this process begins, it expands. In the 21st century we have witnessed a remarkable expansion in the weaponization of law. For example, the use of weaponized law against Trump rally attendees and against President Trump himself. The weaponization of law has brought no protests from law faculties, bar associations, Congress, media, or federal judges.
Consequently, we have become a society in which the function of law is to get someone or to achieve an agenda that cannot be achieved legislatively. The person doesn’t have to be guilty of a crime. Merely being demonized or disapproved of suffices. Law now serves not justice but political and ideological emotions and the agendas of the powerful.
That the entire legal profession and all of its institutions have stood aside for this transformation of law indicates that freedom is no longer a value. Consequently, Constitutional protections are less and less enforced. White Americans have suffered discrimination in university admissions, hiring, and promotion for more than a half century. Government and its agencies have used print, TV, and social media to censor and control explanations. Spying on citizens without court approved warrants is widespread. The US has declared its law to be enforceable worldwide, even applicable to foreign national journalists such as Julian Assange, and to the President of Russia.
Professionelle Einwanderungshelfer, ausgewählte Immobilien und Jobangebote helfen bei dem Start in ein neues Leben. 2022 war ein besonderes Jahr für die Auswanderung. 268.167 Deutsche verließen offiziell ihre Heimat. Sie siedelten in etwa 200 unterschiedliche Länder und Inseln aus. Von der Wahl der Auswanderungsziele kann man Anregungen für die eigenen Überlegungen erhalten. https://auswandern-info.com/
Aug 4, 2023 #russland#russlanddeutsche#auswandern Ja vielle detusche sind nach Russland ausgewandert oder haben es sich als zweite heimat gemacht. Die meisten taten es um mehr geld zu machen oder invistieren in Russland. Bauern haben grosse hoffe aufgebaut in russland. Einige RusslandDeutsche sind gegangen da sie zu viel diskrimination erlebt haben in deutschland, andere datchen sie konnten ein besseres leben in der alten heimat aufbauen. #russlanddeutsche#russland Durchschnittliche kosten in russland, leben in russland, lebensmittelpreise russland, preise in russland, russische wirtschaft. Alle Auswanderer bedauern manchmal! Egal wie erfolgreich euer leben sein wird im ausland es wird immer tage geben wo ihr die heimat vermisst oder einfach nur bedauert das ihr ausgewanderd seit. Leben in Kanada ist gut. Es ist ruhig, sicher und prosperierend. Ich gebe euch vielle informationen ob oder nicht ihr auch nach Kanada auswandern/ einwandern soltet. Ich lebe schon seit 13 jahren in kanada mit meiner familie. Habe hier gearbeitet, zur schule gegangen und habe auch hier studiert. #auswandernachrussland#auswandern#auswanderung
(Die Abkürzung „BRICS“ steht für die Anfangsbuchstaben der fünf zugehörigen Staaten Brasilien, Russland, Indien, China und Südafrika.)
BRICS: Auf dem Weg zu einer gerechten Weltordnung
Am Vorabend des BRICS-Gipfels möchte ich unseren lieben Lesern meine Gedanken über die Aussichten für die Zusammenarbeit zwischen der Gruppe der fünf Länder im aktuellen geopolitischen Kontext mitteilen.
Heute finden auf der Welt tektonische Verschiebungen statt. Die Möglichkeit der Dominanz eines Landes oder auch nur einer kleinen Gruppe von Staaten verschwindet. Das Modell der internationalen Entwicklung, das auf der Ausbeutung der Ressourcen der Weltmehrheit zur Aufrechterhaltung des Wohlergehens der „goldenen Milliarde“ basiert, ist hoffnungslos veraltet. Es spiegelt nicht die Bestrebungen der gesamten Menschheit wider.
Wir erleben die Entstehung einer gerechteren multipolaren Weltordnung. Neue Zentren des Wirtschaftswachstums und der globalen Entscheidungsfindung zu wichtigen politischen Fragen in Eurasien, im asiatisch-pazifischen Raum, im Nahen Osten, in Afrika und Lateinamerika werden in erster Linie von ihren eigenen Interessen geleitet und messen der nationalen Souveränität höchste Bedeutung bei. Und vor diesem Hintergrund erzielen sie in verschiedenen Bereichen beeindruckende Erfolge.
Versuche des „kollektiven Westens“, diesen Trend umzukehren, um die eigene Hegemonie zu wahren, haben genau das Gegenteil zur Folge. Die internationale Gemeinschaft ist der Erpressung und des Drucks der westlichen Eliten sowie ihrer kolonialen und rassistischen Umgangsformen überdrüssig. Deshalb reduzieren beispielsweise nicht nur Russland, sondern auch eine Reihe anderer Länder konsequent ihre Abhängigkeit vom US-Dollar und stellen auf alternative Zahlungssysteme und nationale Währungsabrechnungen um. Ich erinnere mich an die weisen Worte von Nelson Mandela: „Wenn das Wasser zu kochen beginnt, ist es dumm, die Heizung auszuschalten.“ Und das ist es wirklich.
Russland – ein Zivilisationsstaat, die größte eurasische und europäisch-pazifische Macht – arbeitet weiterhin an einer weiteren Demokratisierung des internationalen Lebens und baut eine Architektur zwischenstaatlicher Beziehungen auf, die auf den Werten gleicher und unteilbarer Sicherheit sowie kultureller und zivilisatorischer Werte basiert. Diese Vielfalt würde allen Mitgliedern der internationalen Gemeinschaft gleiche Entwicklungschancen bieten, ohne dass jemand zurückbleibt. Wie der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin in seiner Ansprache vor der Föderalen Versammlung der Russischen Föderation am 21. Februar 2023 feststellte: „In der heutigen Welt sollte es keine Spaltung in sogenannte zivilisierte Länder und alle anderen geben … Es besteht Bedarf.“ eine ehrliche Partnerschaft, die jede Exklusivität ablehnt, insbesondere eine aggressive.“ Unserer Meinung nach entspricht dies alles der Ubuntu-Philosophie,
Russland hat sich in diesem Zusammenhang konsequent für die Stärkung der Position des afrikanischen Kontinents in einer multipolaren Weltordnung eingesetzt. Wir werden unsere afrikanischen Freunde weiterhin in ihrem Bestreben unterstützen, eine immer bedeutendere Rolle bei der Lösung der Schlüsselprobleme unserer Zeit zu spielen. Dies gilt in vollem Umfang auch für den Reformprozess des Sicherheitsrats der Vereinten Nationen, in dessen Rahmen nach unserer tiefen Überzeugung in erster Linie die legitimen Interessen der Entwicklungsländer, auch in Afrika, geschützt werden müssen.
Die multilaterale Diplomatie steht den globalen Trends nicht fern. Eine solche Gruppierung wie BRICS ist ein Symbol echter Multipolarität und ein Beispiel ehrlicher zwischenstaatlicher Kommunikation. In diesem Rahmen arbeiten Staaten mit unterschiedlichen politischen Systemen, unterschiedlichen Werteplattformen und unabhängiger Außenpolitik in verschiedenen Bereichen effektiv zusammen. Ich denke, es ist keine Übertreibung zu sagen, dass die fünf BRICS-Staaten eine Art „Netzwerk“ der Zusammenarbeit über die traditionellen Nord-Süd- und West-Ost-Linien darstellen.
Tatsächlich haben wir unserer Öffentlichkeit etwas zu präsentieren. Durch gemeinsame Anstrengungen ist es den BRICS gelungen, eine Kultur des Dialogs zu schaffen, die auf den Grundsätzen der Gleichheit, des Respekts vor der Wahl des eigenen Entwicklungsweges und der Berücksichtigung der Interessen des anderen basiert. Dies hilft uns, auch bei den komplexesten Fragestellungen Gemeinsamkeiten und Lösungen zu finden.
Der heutige Platz und die Bedeutung der BRICS sowie ihre Fähigkeit, die globale Agenda zu beeinflussen, werden durch objektive Faktoren bestimmt. Die Zahlen sprechen für sich. Die Bevölkerung der BRICS-Staaten beträgt über 40 Prozent und die Fläche ihrer Territorien übersteigt ein Viertel der Erdoberfläche. Expertenprognosen zufolge werden die fünf Länder im Jahr 2023 etwa 31,5 Prozent des globalen BIP (bei Kaufkraftparität) ausmachen, während der Anteil der G7 in diesem Indikator auf 30 Prozent gesunken ist.
Heute gewinnt die strategische Partnerschaft der BRICS an Dynamik. Die „Big Five“ bieten der Welt kreative, zukunftsweisende Initiativen mit dem Ziel, die Ziele für nachhaltige Entwicklung zu erreichen, Ernährungs- und Energiesicherheit, gesundes Wachstum der Weltwirtschaft, Konfliktlösung und die Bekämpfung des Klimawandels zu gewährleisten, auch durch eine gerechte Energieversorgung Übergang.
Zur Bewältigung dieser Herausforderungen wurde ein umfangreiches Netzwerk von Mechanismen eingerichtet. Die Strategie zur Wirtschaftspartnerschaft 2025, die mittelfristig die Eckpunkte der Zusammenarbeit definiert, wird umgesetzt. Die auf russische Initiative ins Leben gerufene BRICS-Plattform für Energieforschungskooperationen funktioniert erfolgreich. Das BRICS-Zentrum für Impfstoffforschung und -entwicklung, das dazu dienen soll, wirksame Antworten auf Herausforderungen für das epidemische Wohlergehen unserer Länder zu entwickeln, hat seine Arbeit aufgenommen. Initiativen zur Verweigerung sicherer Zufluchtsorte für Korruption, zu Handel und Investitionen für nachhaltige Entwicklung und zur Verbesserung der Zusammenarbeit in Lieferketten wurden genehmigt. Die BRICS-Strategie zur Zusammenarbeit im Bereich Ernährungssicherheit wurde verabschiedet.
Zu den unbedingten Prioritäten gehören die Stärkung des Potenzials der Neuen Entwicklungsbank und des BRICS-Kontingentreserveabkommens, die Verbesserung der Zahlungsmechanismen und die Stärkung der Rolle nationaler Währungen bei der gegenseitigen Abwicklung. Es ist geplant, diese Themen beim BRICS-Gipfel in Johannesburg in den Mittelpunkt zu stellen.
Unser Ziel ist es nicht, bestehende multilaterale Mechanismen zu ersetzen, geschweige denn ein neuer „kollektiver Hegemon“ zu werden. Im Gegenteil, die BRICS-Staaten haben sich konsequent für die Schaffung von Bedingungen für die Entwicklung aller Staaten eingesetzt, was die Blocklogik des Kalten Krieges und geopolitische Nullsummenspiele ausschließt. BRICS ist bestrebt, integrative Lösungen anzubieten, die auf einem partizipativen Ansatz basieren.
Darauf aufbauend arbeiten wir konsequent daran, die BRICS-Interaktion mit den Ländern, die die Weltmehrheit repräsentieren, weiterzuentwickeln. Eine der Prioritäten des südafrikanischen Vorsitzes ist insbesondere die Stärkung der Zusammenarbeit mit afrikanischen Ländern. Wir teilen diesen Ansatz voll und ganz. Wir sind bereit, zum Wirtschaftswachstum auf dem Kontinent und zur Stärkung der dortigen Sicherheit, einschließlich seiner Nahrungsmittel- und Energiekomponenten, beizutragen. Ein eindrucksvolles Beispiel ist das Ergebnis des Zweiten Russland-Afrika-Gipfels, der am 27. und 28. Juli 2023 in St. Petersburg stattfand.
In diesem Zusammenhang ist es selbstverständlich, dass unsere Gruppierung viele gleichgesinnte Länder auf der ganzen Welt hat. BRICS gilt als positive Kraft, die die Solidarität des globalen Südens und des globalen Ostens stärken und zu einer der Säulen einer neuen, gerechteren polyzentrischen Weltordnung werden kann.
Die fünf Länder sind bereit, dieser Bitte nachzukommen. Deshalb haben wir den Expansionsprozess gestartet. Es ist symbolisch, dass es im Jahr des Vorsitzes Südafrikas, eines Landes, das aufgrund einer konsensbasierten politischen Entscheidung den BRICS-Staaten beigetreten ist, so viel Schwung gewonnen hat.
Ich bin davon überzeugt, dass der XV. Gipfel ein weiterer Meilenstein der strategischen Partnerschaft der BRICS-Staaten sein und die wichtigsten Prioritäten für die kommenden Jahre festlegen wird. Wir schätzen die Bemühungen des südafrikanischen Vorsitzes sehr, einschließlich der intensivierten Arbeit zur Verbesserung der gesamten Konstellation der BRICS-Mechanismen zur Vertiefung des BRICS-Dialogs mit anderen Ländern.
Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian says arrogant powers are pulling out all the stops to suppress independent nations.
“Influence, coup d’état, economic sanctions, hard and soft warfare are all tools that arrogant powers use to suppress the will of independent countries,” Amir-Abdollahian said in a post on his X account on Saturday.
The post marked the 70th anniversary of the 1953 military coup engineered by the American and British spy agencies, CIA and MI6, to topple Iran’s then Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq.
The top Iranian diplomat said a review of the coup shows the old and modern colonialism has a “fixed” line in dealing with the freedom and independence-seeking tendencies of nations.
The violent coup that took place on August 19, 1953 resulted in scores of civilian deaths and restored Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s West-backed monarchial rule.
It was not the first time foreign spy agencies, in particular the CIA, were involved in military coups overseas to overthrow what they labeled unfriendly governments and install friendly dictatorial regimes.
Mosaddeq, who was convicted of treason by a court martial after the coup, served three years in solitary confinement and eventually died under house arrest in exile in 1967.
Experts say the upheaval, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad Coup, was to ensure the Iranian monarchy would safeguard Western oil interests in the country.
April 26, 2011 “Information Clearing House” — WASHINGTON -(Dow Jones)- World Bank President Robert Zoellick Thursday said he hopes the institution will have a role rebuilding Libya as it emerges from current unrest.
Zoellick at a panel discussion noted the bank’s early role in the reconstruction of France, Japan and other nations after World War II.
“Reconstruction now means (Ivory Coast), it means southern Sudan, it means Liberia, it means Sri Lanka, I hope it will mean Libya,” Zoellick said.
On Ivory Coast, Zoellick said he hoped that within “a couple weeks” the bank would move forward with “some hundred millions of dollars of emergency support.”( By Jeffrey Sparshott, Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES –full article here – http://tinyurl.com/3hj8yyp.)
We listen to U.S. spokespeople try to explain why we’re suddenly now entangled in another Middle East war. Many of us find ourselves questioning the official justifications. We are aware that the true causes of our engagement are rarely discussed in the media or by our government.
While many of the rationalizations describe resources, especially oil, as the reasons why we should be in that country, there are also an increasing number of dissenting voices. For the most part, these revolve around Libya’s financial relationship with the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and multinational corporations.
According to the IMF, Libya’s Central Bank is 100% state owned. The IMF estimates that the bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. It is significant that in the months running up to the UN resolution that allowed the US and its allies to send troops into Libya, Muammar al-Qaddafi was openly advocating the creation of a new currency that would rival the dollar and the euro. In fact, he called upon African and Muslim nations to join an alliance that would make this new currency, the gold dinar, their primary form of money and foreign exchange. They would sell oil and other resources to the US and the rest of the world only for gold dinars.
The US, the other G-8 countries, the World Bank, IMF, BIS, and multinational corporations do not look kindly on leaders who threaten their dominance over world currency markets or who appear to be moving away from the international banking system that favors the corporatocracy. Saddam Hussein had advocated policies similar to those expressed by Qaddafi shortly before the US sent troops into Iraq.
In my talks, I often find it necessary to remind audiences of a point that seems obvious to me but is misunderstood by so many: that the World Bank is not really a world bank at all; it is, rather a U. S. bank. Ditto, its closest sibling, the IMF. In fact, if one looks at the World Bank and IMF executive boards and the votes each member of the board has, one sees that the United States controls about 16 percent of the votes in the World Bank – (Compared with Japan at about 7%, the second largest member, China at 4.5%, Germany with 4.00%, and the United Kingdom and France with about 3.8% each), nearly 17% of the IMF votes (Compared with Japan and Germany at about 6% and UK and France at nearly 5%), and the US holds veto power over all major decisions. Furthermore, the United States President appoints the World Bank President.
So, we might ask ourselves: What happens when a “rogue” country threatens to bring the banking system that benefits the corporatocracy to its knees? What happens to an “empire” when it can no longer effectively be overtly imperialistic?
One definition of “Empire” (per my book The Secret History of the American Empire) states that an empire is a nation that dominates other nations by imposing its own currency on the lands under its control. The empire maintains a large standing military that is ready to protect the currency and the entire economic system that depends on it through extreme violence, if necessary. The ancient Romans did this. So did the Spanish and the British during their days of empire-building. Now, the US or, more to the point, the corporatocracy, is doing it and is determined to punish any individual who tries to stop them. Qaddafi is but the latest example.
Understanding the war against Quaddafi as a war in defense of empire is another step in the direction of helping us ask ourselves whether we want to continue along this path of empire-building. Or do we instead want to honor the democratic principles we are taught to believe are the foundations of our country?
History teaches that empires do not endure; they collapse or are overthrown. Wars ensue and another empire fills the vacuum. The past sends a compelling message. We must change. We cannot afford to watch history repeat itself.
Let us not allow this empire to collapse and be replaced by another. Instead, let us all vow to create a new consciousness. Let the grass-roots movements in the Middle East – fostered by the young who must live with the future and are fueled through social networks – inspire us to demand that our country, our financial institutions and the corporations that depend on us to buy their goods and services commit themselves to fashioning a world that is sustainable, just, peaceful, and prosperous for all.
We stand at the threshold. It is time for you and me to step across that threshold, to move out of the dark void of brutal exploitation and greed into the light of compassion and cooperation.
Der ehemalige US-Militärgeheimdienstoffizier Tony Shaffer: Selbst wenn wir versuchen, den Konflikt mit Russland auszuweiten, ist die NATO nicht kampfbereit. Ich denke, es wird tragisch und schrecklich sein. Selbst wenn die NATO über einen Angriff auf Russland nachdenkt, wird Putins Narrativ es beweisen: „Sehen Sie, sie sind aggressiv. Deshalb mache ich es. Sie sind aggressiv.“ Das ist ein Verlust für die NATO.
We seem headed for a point of impact, with the prospect of collision in full view – and one as obvious as it was in 1911.
Michael Anton, a former U.S. Presidential National Security Adviser, gives us this analogy for the U.S.’ and Europe’s situation today:
“On Sept. 20, 1911, the RMS Olympic—sistership of the ill-fated Titanic—collided with the Royal Navy cruiser HMS Hawke, despite both vessels traveling at low speeds, in visual contact with one another – for 80 minutes. “It was,” writes maritime historian John Maxtone-Graham, “one of those incredible convergences, in full daylight on a calm sea within sight of land, where two normally operated vessels steamed blithely to a point of impact – as though mesmerized””.
We too seem headed for a similar point of impact, with the prospect of collision in full view – and one as obvious as it was on that day in 1911. Equally, our ruling class is not for changing course. It must want this percussion —or else perhaps they view an Armageddon of collision as ultimately destined to provide the path to the triumph of ‘righteousness’.
Certainly, the present moment is defined darkly as one of severe economic forebodings, co-existing with a mood of political impasse. It is becoming increasingly clear to more and more people in the West that something has gone terribly wrong with the ‘Ukraine project’. Sunny predictions and projections of certain victory did not materialise, and instead, the West is facing the reality of the blood-drenched sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian men to their fantasy of Osiris dismembered. The West does not know what to do. It ambles around, looking lost.
The whole mess is sometimes explained as a result of a miscalculation by the western élites. The situation, however, is far worse than that: The sheer dysfunctionality and the prevalence of institutional entropy is so obvious that there is little need to say more.
The dysfunction of the West runs far deeper than just the situation around the Ukraine project. It is absolutely everywhere. Public and private institutions, especially those of the state, find it difficult to get anything done; government policies resemble hastily drawn-up wish lists, which everyone knows will have little practical effects. That is why policymakers have a new priority: ‘not losing control of the narrative’.
Put simply, we are gripped in a new iteration of the 1968 politics. U.S. commentator, Christopher Rufo, notes,
“It’s as though we have lived an endless recurrence: the Black Panther Party reappears as the Black Lives Matter movement; the Weather Underground pamphlets launder themselves into academic papers; the Marxist-Leninist guerrillas trade in their bandoliers and become managers of an élite-led revolution in manners and mores. The ideology and narrative has maintained its position of jealous hegemon”.
Herbert Marcuse in 1972 was premature perhaps in declaring the death of the 1968 revolution. Though even towards the end of that year, push-back was evident with voters casting their ballots for Richard Nixon, who promised to restore law and order. Well, Nixon was duly ‘removed’ – and the ideology behind 1968 gradually revived:
“Left-wing activists today have resurrected the militancy and tactics of the 1960s – radical movements are instantiated, organizing demonstrations and using the threat of violence to achieve political aims. During the summer of 2020, the Black Lives Matter movement led protests in 140 cities. Many of these demonstrations became violent—the largest eruption of left-wing race rioting since the late 1960s”, Rufo writes.
“The starting point is correctly to perceive the current state of play in America. The bitter irony of the Revolution of 1968 is that it has attained ‘office’ – but opened up no new possibilities … the Left’s seemingly wholesale capture of major institutions—public education, the universities, private-sector leadership, culture, and, increasingly, even the sciences— makes the current battlefield appear overwhelming”.
Yet rather, it “has locked major institutions of society within a suffocating orthodoxy … Though it has amassed significant administrative advantages, it has failed to deliver results”. What we have is an intense level of political and cultural polarisation co-existing with a sense of being trapped in stasis. Public life is on hold, and with ‘crisis’ as its norm, mainstream politics slips ever closer to the old European vice of nihilism.
What distinguishes – what warps – the narrative of today’s intellectual descendants of 1968 is their insistence no longer just to set and control the narrative, but to demand that the cultural war be assimilated into each individual’s personal values-set. And further, to mandate that they, as individuals, reflect that ideology in their every-day actions and language – or face cancellation. That is, full-on Culture-War.
Today’s master-signifiers of ‘systemic racism’ and ‘white privilege’, coupled with today’s identity rights, diversity and transgenderism, is splitting the U.S. between two identity norms: Those of ‘The Republic’, that of the 1776 Revolution, versus those of the 1968 Revolution.
In Europe, there is deep schizophrenia too: On the one hand, the Davos elite is pledged to a narrative which holds that Europe’s past has been – fundamentally – one of racist colonial supremacy. And that this requires public and private entities to offer redress for historic acts of discrimination and colonialism – a view that imposes the duty upon all Europeans: ‘to commit to diversity, the protection of identities – and to radical equity’.
But what is not acknowledged or discussed openly is the profound change which is transforming Europe: Like it, or not, Europe is not what we have imagined it to be. It is not the Europe of French ‘Paris’, Italian ‘Rome’ or British ‘London’.
That continues – and is commercially exploited – as an useful ‘tourist vision’ of Europe. The reality however, is that Europe is fast becoming a land where the native-born are headed to being a minority amongst minorities: What is ‘France’ today is a valid, but unanswered question.
Many may say, well ‘why not’? But starkly put: the problem is that this outcome is deliberately being pursued – clandestinely; with no honesty – and with no consultation. Europeans who have experienced earlier cycles of conquest (whether by Mongols, Turks or Austrians) and survived through sustaining an enduring sense of identity, see the latter being purposefully de-stabilised and their culture dissolved – to be replaced by the bland public-relations language of European values, espoused by Brussels.
Whether this shift is a ‘good thing’ or a ‘bad thing’ is not the point. For, bluntly put, this issue is set to blow Europe apart as its economy crumbles, and as the huge resources devoted to migrants becomes a burning topic. What no one knows is how to stabilise a sense of European identity out of the identity soup that Europe has become.
In fact, a ‘solution’ maybe not be possible – given the endless harping on ‘white’ racial crime. Whether valid, or not, it has segued into a ‘witches’ brew’ of hatreds. We saw the effects in Paris, and in other French cities over this summer.
The principles of much of European society are not oriented toward any exalted, world-shaping ‘social engineering’ project of moral redress, but toward the protection of the simple values and institutions of the common citizen: family, faith, work, community, country.
This is Europe’s ‘culture war’ – America’s is related but has its own characteristics.
Charles Lipson writing in the (U.S. edition of) The Spectator says:
“It’s hard not to weep for the Republic as trust in our institutions collapses — and collapses for good reasons. Put simply: our national governance is in shambles — and the public knows it. They know, too, that problems go beyond partisan politics and specific leaders to include their enablers, the media and core institutions of law enforcement”.
“What they don’t know, is how to restore some semblance of integrity to a political system that makes it very hard to block the hold on the nomination of a sitting president, like Joe Biden, or the nomination of another candidate, like Donald Trump, who is backed by a strongly committed minority of party activists”.
The Permanent State has made it clear, Michael Anton, writes,
“[T]hat they can’t, and won’t, if they can help it, allow Donald Trump to be president again. In fact, they made this clear in 2020, in a series of public statements. If they felt that strongly back then, imagine how they feel now. But you don’t have to imagine: They tell you every day. They say that the 45th president is literally the greatest threat facing America today — greater than China, than our crashing economy, than our unravelling civil society”.
Well, that ‘Trump base’ to which Lipson refers is not budging. Not only that, it is not just a ‘Trump base’ – for it is acquiring wider support as today’s counter-revolution is not one of Trumpism alone; or of class vs class; but rather one which “takes place along a new axis between the citizen versus an ideologically-driven state”. Glenn Greenwald concurs,
“The relevant metric now isn’t left versus right. It’s anti-establishment versus pro-establishment”.
The ultimate ambition is not to replace the new “universal class” – the heirs of the 1960s cultural revolution; rather, it seeks to restore the nation’s founding principle of ‘citizen rule vs The State’, which was the basis to the American Revolution of 1776.
That ‘base’ effectively is not budging because, in the final analysis, anti-Trump hysteria is not about Trump – as Michael Anton, himself a former White House staffer, argues:
“The regime can’t allow Trump to be President not because of who he is (although that grates), but because of who his followers are”.
“Complaints about the nature of Trump are just proxies for objections to the nature of his base”.
That class cannot be allowed to implement their preferences, because of the nature of who they are; and mostly, because it is their nature that dictates what they want to see happen, Anton adds.
The ruling class, Anton writes, will surely consolidate ‘the base’ –
“[T]hrough being ever-more radical, hateful, and incompetent. They have shown time and again that there is no moderation in them. They can’t let up even a single mile per hour, not even when easing back is in their clear interest. Whether they are driven by the demands of their base, their own internal conviction, or some supernatural force, I couldn’t say”.
“What happens then? Well, in the words of the “Transition Integrity Project,” a Soros-network-linked collective, who in 2020 gamed out their strategy for preventing a Trump second term, the contest [ultimately] would become “a street fight – and not a legal battle.” Again, ‘their words’, not mine. But allow me [Michael Anton] to translate [what this] says: [We may expect a repetition of] the 2020 summer riots, but in orders of magnitude larger: And not to be called off, until their people are secure in the White House”.
Americans don’t even know they’re continually ingesting US empire propaganda to inform their worldview, and they live under the most abusive regime on earth.
The US government is far more abusive, destructive and tyrannical than the Chinese government and Americans are far more indoctrinated by propaganda than Chinese people. Americans don’t even know they’re continually ingesting US empire propaganda to inform their worldview, and they live under the most abusive regime on earth.
There’s this weird propaganda two-step being performed where westerners are being told over and over and over again that Chinese people live in a freakish backwards mind-controlled dystopia, but somehow we westerners do not.
❖
“Chinese people live in a freakish backwards mind-controlled dystopia where dissenting thought is crushed and everyone’s brainwashed by propaganda.”
“Oh yeah? How do you know?”
“Come on man, it’s all over the news all day every day!”
❖
Point 1: It’s bad to be racist.
Point 2: Being a warmonger is worse than being a racist.
Neither of these points should be controversial, and saying them both should draw no objection whatsoever. But the entirety of the mainstream synthetic left — and a substantial percentage of the authentic socialist left — quietly disagree with Point #2.
You know this is true because if they actually agreed with Point #2 no mainstream western government official would ever be able to show their face in public, because all mainstream western government officials are warmongers. Mainstream media reporters and pundits would not be able to appear in polite company, because mainstream media reporters and pundits are warmongers. Anyone publicly supporting the western empire and its foreign policy in any way would be the main villain on social media for the day, and would be confronted by angry protesters wherever they appeared. The New York Times would become as socially rejected as The Daily Stormer unless it stopped churning out war propaganda.
The entire empire would crumble. That’s why Point #2, despite being self-evidently true, is shoved outside the Overton window of acceptable debate by mass-scale psychological manipulation. And that’s why there are people reading this doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to find a way to make what I’m saying here wrong. But it is definitely undeniable and worth pointing out that warmongering is far more accepted than racism throughout the synthetic left and much of the authentic left, when really both should be rejected with maximum force.
❖
The authentic left opposes the ruling power structure, opposes imperialism and opposes economic injustice. The mainstream synthetic left does everything it can to build left-wing credibility without opposing any of those things. It opposes racism, sexism and discrimination against LGBTQ people just like the authentic left does, but whenever there’s an opportunity to actually act against the interests of the capitalist imperialists it’s nowhere to be found.
And it’s important for the authentic left to be aware of this, not least because it will often fool itself about its power and its numbers by conflating the left-wing issues that are amplified by the mainstream synthetic left with successes of the authentic left. It was easy to make the mistake, for example, of thinking that the BLM protests of 2020 were a sign of a surging socialist zeitgeist, or that the opposition to Trump and January 6 was a sign of rising anti-fascist sentiments, when really they were both only getting the mainstream traction they were getting because they were supported by the mainstream synthetic left as well. Members of the authentic left hitched their wagons to those impulses in a big way hoping to see a major authentic shift to the left, but nothing meaningful actually happened as a result of them. The traction was coming almost entirely from the mainstream synthetic left, who have vastly greater numbers and vastly louder amplification.
Contrast that with the traction gained by movements driven solely by the authentic left without the support of the synthetic left, and the picture looks far more bleak. Antiwar rallies with a hundred people. Communist meetings with a couple dozen people. The only traction we ever really get is online, because the internet lets us all find each other around the world and network. But it doesn’t translate to real-world movement.
That’s not our fault of course; a tremendous amount of effort has gone into stomping out the authentic left and diverting all energy to the synthetic left for generations. But it’s important to be real about it, because we can’t begin to address the problem if we don’t understand it. And we definitely don’t understand it if we’re mistaking the successes of the mainstream synthetic left for our own successes.
❖
Nothing will shatter your dreams of a broad left-right antiwar coalition faster than publicly opposing US warmongering against both Russia and China simultaneously.
The only two foreign policy opinions allowed in establishment discourse, crystallised in one interview: «We have to take on China» vs. «Why don’t you want to take on Russia?» A long time ago, journalism meant to question, scrutinise ideas like the need for perpetual conflict. https://t.co/sL0Q25JbBN— Branko Marcetic (@BMarchetich) August 18, 2023
One of the most brilliant innovations of modern empire propaganda has been splitting the population into two groups who argue about WHAT KIND of warmongering should be supported, rather than IF warmongering should be supported.
❖
Ten Tips For Empire Critics Getting Started In Indie Media
I don’t really know how I wound up gathering a following and making a living out of railing against the empire every day; from my point of view it’s been a happy series of miracles and coincidences combined with decent work ethic and a burning desire for a healthy world. So while I don’t really know how I wound up doing this thing myself, I have picked up a few tips that might be useful to someone who wants to try to do this sort of thing in their own way.
Here then are ten suggestions for empire critics who are getting started in indie media, for whatever they’re worth:
1. Put out daily content if possible. The best way to build an audience is to become a regular part of people’s day that they look forward to enjoying in their spare time. I’ve found it impossible to get an article out every single day without fail 365 days a year just because that’s how life moves, but I do my best and I get pretty close. This isn’t possible for investigative journalists and people who do deep dives or extensively produced videos, but if you’re doing commentary, analysis or art or whatever it’s a real advantage.
2. Be sincere and trustworthy. People can sense sincerity and insincerity, and they’ll keep coming back to your articles, videos or whatever you’re putting out there if they get the sense that you’re being sincere and telling the truth as best you can. Be completely honest and straightforward about who you are, where you’re coming from, and what your agendas are, and trust people to sort out for themselves whether you’re their cup of tea rather than trying to manipulate them into liking you by misrepresenting yourself. They’ll be able to tell.
3. Always be learning, and always be getting better at learning. Make sure you’re taking in more information than you’re putting out, and always work to find new sources of information. By taking in as much high-quality information as you can and forming an understanding of it, you can then simplify it and explain how it all fits in to the bigger picture for your audience in a way that they can easily understand.
4. Be courageous and kind with yourself about learning on the job. Don’t expect to get everything perfect right away. Understanding and talking about power structures and systemic abuses is a skill just like any other, and you’ll necessarily be worse at it when you start out than you will be a few years on. You will make mistakes, but as long as you course correct then no mistake is fatal. Looking back on some of the stuff I said in my first year at this gig is a bit embarrassing, but I kept at it and got much better. I didn’t walk very well when I was first learning that skill either.
5. Listen to feedback, but don’t be driven by it. Everyone’s going to have an opinion about your content, and a lot of them are going to be 100% certain that you should listen to their opinion and no one else’s and can’t understand why you don’t view them as the sole authority in your world. I learn more from random people’s comments on my stuff than I do from any authorized opinion-havers of mainstream punditry, but I also refuse to say anything I don’t personally see as true from my own education and understanding. Let feedback provide you with information and perspective, but don’t let it shape your work. Your work should be driven solely by what you sincerely understand to be true and nothing else; the job of feedback is to help you build on your own understanding, not to supplant it.
6. Check against your biases. Find out if things are really true by deeply researching opposing perspectives on them; don’t just accept the narrative that confirms your worldview and feels good in your feely bits, find out if the people whose worldview it goes against have produced any compelling evidence or arguments against it. There are certain things I would love to be true just because of my conditioning and the way I’m wired, but sometimes it turns out that the facts don’t support it. Our cognitive biases will always place a filter over our understanding of the world to some extent, but if we bring our awareness to them and stay real honest with ourselves about them we can minimize the wobble they put on our perspective. Plus being aware of the facts and arguments which go against your biases strengthen your own arguments, because you know which arguments can be easily dismantled and which the opposing perspective doesn’t have any real answers for.
7. Don’t cloister yourself in an information echo chamber. It’s extremely common for indie media to get lost in these weird self-validating information feedback loops where things are believed to be true solely because everyone who’s always furiously agreeing with each other about everything has agreed that it’s true. You need to always be gathering information from a bunch of diverse circles and a bunch of different ideologies to avoid this sort of brain poison, including circles and ideologies you disagree with. Don’t knee-jerk unfollow someone simply because you disagree on their current position on the debate du jour. You will disagree with everyone at times. That’s normal. Keep your information stream as diverse as possible.
8. Be very cautious about who you collaborate with. It’s fine and good to have co-collaborators (mine’s my husband), but be unapologetically limited and exclusive about it. Once you show up as an exciting new voice you’ll get activists and other indie media people trying to bring you into their thing and get you on board with their agendas and use your energy to power their projects, and it can get really messy. The attention can be flattering at first, but it very quickly takes on a life of its own, and all of a sudden your voice isn’t your own and isn’t being used in the ways you sincerely feel called to use it. These days I avoid group chats like the plague and resist getting sucked into cliques and factions of all sorts, just because I’ve found even that much can create peer pressure to speak in ways that don’t feel aligned with my inner guidance, and I don’t like it.
9. Meditate/do inner work. I can’t understand how anyone can do this work without a discipline dedicated to bringing inner stability and a practice of discovering inner truth. Having people scream at you all day online while examining the darkest things happening in our world today will burn you out and put a massive wobble on your work unless you can create some psychological spaciousness around it somehow, and inner exploration turns up all kinds of insights on the problems in our world that you can use in your work.
10. Remember that nothing is personal. Your critics are never commenting on you as a person, they’re commenting on their own inner conditioning that shapes their understanding of what you’re saying and their response to it. We’re all just lost little kids interfacing with a very complex and highly manipulated world using brains that were designed to avoid prehistoric predators and find grubs to eat. Don’t take it too seriously.
Alltagsarmut in Deutschland: Wirtschaft und Mittelstand bluten aus, die Folgen sind immer unübersehbarer (Symbolbild:Imago)
Das von Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz mehrfach angekündigte “grüne Wirtschaftswunder” bleibt nicht nur aus; die deutsche Wirtschaft bricht stattdessen zusammen und das Vermögen der Mittelschicht schrumpft immer mehr. Wie der Ökonom Diego Fassnacht aufzeigt, ist das Vermögen des Median-Deutschen das Niedrigste aller Westeuropäer: 2021 betrug es 61.000 US-Dollar, in der Schweiz dagegen 168.000, in Großbritannien 141.000, in Frankreich 139.000 und in Italien 112.000. Fassnacht führt dies darauf zurück, dass ein Vermögensaufbau für ganze Bevölkerungsgruppe in Deutschland wegen Einkommenssteuer und Sozialabgaben nicht möglich und aufgrund der Struktur des Sozialstaates auch gar nicht rational sei. Dieser komme nämlich für Risiken auf, gegen die man sich durch Vermögensaufbau absichern würde.
Die deutsche Politik habe es sich in den letzten Jahren zur Aufgabe gemacht, „alle nur denkbaren Probleme mit einem generösen Geldregen zu lösen“, so Fassnacht weiter. Dieses müsse aber auch irgendwo herkommen: Vor allem die deutsche Mittelschicht werde über Inflation, Steuern und Abgaben „“. Während die Unterschicht mit Sozialleistungen versorgt werde und die Oberschicht alternative Ausweichmöglichkeiten zu den Entwicklungen finde, sei die deutsche Mittelschicht gefangen. Dies gelte nicht nur, aber ganz besonders für die Immobilienpreise, die durch ständig neue Vorschriften für um Häuser und Wohnungen immer weiter steigen würden. Für die Oberschicht sei dies weniger relevant, so Fassnacht, und die Unterschicht bekomme ihre Wohnkosten gegebenenfalls aus dem Sozialsystem finanziert, die Mittelschicht werde dadurch jedoch „ins Mark“ getroffen, weil die Deutschen ein Volk von Mietern seien.
Die Mittelschicht blutet aus
Im europäischen Vergleich sei die Einkommensquote tatsächlich sehr niedrig. Die hohen Zinsen bei weiterhin hohen Immobilienpreisen würden es schwer bis unmöglich machen, eigenes Vermögen aufzubauen und unabhängiger zu werden. Dies treibe die Mittelschicht noch weiter in den Mietmarkt und treibe die Mieten weiter nach oben. Durch hohe Mieten werde der Vermögensaufbau dann wiederum schwieriger. Dasselbe gelte für die Energiepreise, bei denen Deutschland an der Spitze liege. Durch ideologische Projekte wie Benzin-, Gas- und Strompreise sei erneut vor allem die arbeitende Mittelschicht betroffen, während die Unterschicht durch das Sozialsystem „finanziert und beruhigt“ werde. Vor diesem Hintergrund, so Fassnachts Diagnose, sei es “fast schon eine rationale Entscheidung, den einfacheren Weg zu gehen“ – und auf eine sozialversicherungspflichtige Arbeit zu verzichten, wenn Alternativeinkommen wie Bürgergeld fast oder genauso viel einbrächten. Dies bewirke dann jedoch aber auch einen weiteren Anstieg der Lebenshaltungskosten über das Steuern- und Abgabensystem und einen Rückgang der Wirtschaftsleistung. Weniger Produkte und Dienstleistungen führen zu neuen Preiserhöhungen.
Die deutsche Mittelschicht sei die einzige Gruppe ohne eigene Lobbyisten – und damit Opfer einer Politik, bei der sich noch die kleinste Lobby Gehör verschaffen könne. Fassnacht hätte in seiner vortrefflichen Analyse auch noch die Migrationspolitik erwähnen können, die eine der Hauptursachen für die verschärfte Wohnungsnot und die explosionsartig steigenden Sozialkosten sind, ganz zu schweigen vom Verlust der inneren Sicherheit. Seine Betrachtung zeigt den Teufelskreis auf, in sich dem der normale, arbeitende Bürger befindet, der eigentlich nur für sich und seine Familie sorgen, sein Land erhalten und dessen Kultur an seine Kinder weitergeben möchte, stattdessen jedoch von einem neofeudalen Parteienstaat und seinen unfähigen Vertretern konstant ausgeplündert und der Verachtung preisgeben wird.
Una de las principales noticias de finales del verano fue la información sobre la retirada de Rusia del llamado «Acuerdo de Granos» o «Iniciativa del Mar Negro». En resumen, dicho sea de paso, según el acuerdo firmado por el secretario general de la ONU, Guterres, se asumió que los barcos que transportaban granos ucranianos podrían navegar libremente por el Mar Negro, siempre que se levantaran las restricciones a las importaciones de alimentos rusos.
Sin embargo, las condiciones de Rusia no se cumplieron. Como resultado, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Rusia, en un aviso anunciando la terminación del acuerdo, señaló que efectivamente había pasado de un proyecto humanitario a uno comercial. Los canales no oficiales también informaron repetidamente que se estaban entregando armas a Ucrania en barcos destinados a la entrega de trigo, maíz y girasoles.
La iniciativa pretendía garantizar el suministro de alimentos a los países más pobres del mundo, sobre todo en África. Al mismo tiempo, la mayor parte del grano exportado en virtud del acuerdo se tramitó en Europa, lo que frenó el aumento de los precios de la pasta italiana, los croissants franceses y el strudel alemán. Y casi nada llegó a los países más pobres, especialmente en África. Parece que esto se puede confirmar en Afganistán, Yemen, Etiopía, Sudán y Somalia, que recibieron solo alrededor del 3% de los productos exportados bajo el acuerdo.
¿Qué es sino neocolonialismo? Sí, los habitantes del Continente Negro no son vendidos como esclavos, no se cortan las manos de sus hijos, sino que se los coloca en una situación de inanición artificial. Para que los habitantes del «Jardín Europeo» no rechacen nada. En algún lugar, los niños se mueren de hambre, y se mueren para que una bloguera de belleza francesa perezosa pueda tomar tranquilamente una taza de café con un croissant recién hecho todas las mañanas en su cafetería favorita. En los últimos trescientos años, la forma de dependencia colonial ha cambiado, pero su monstruoso contenido caníbal sigue siendo el mismo.
El ministro de Asuntos Exteriores italiano, Antonio Tajani, obviamente está preocupado de que las pizzas para sus compatriotas puedan dispararse. Él dijo: «Los precios del trigo y los cereales están subiendo, ese es el principal problema.» Un acuerdo entre Rusia y Ucrania debería ser negociado por Turquía, el único país que puede hacerlo en este momento. Putin visitará Turquía en agosto, espero que se pueda llegar a un acuerdo”.
Al mismo tiempo, los funcionarios en Rusia hablaron solo de la POSIBILIDAD de una reunión, y Tajani lo declara un hecho consumado. Es decir, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de un país que ha estado tratando por las buenas o por las malas de conquistar al menos una parte de las colonias en África durante el último siglo, o que conoce la agenda del presidente ruso mejor que el propio presidente ruso, o él es en pánico, que el grano ruso no se lleva a Italia, A. Por ejemplo, en África Central o Occidental.
Alastair Crooke
Der Friedensstifter 