Jeffrey Sachs Explains the Middle East Policies of Israel/USA
Writes Tim McGraw:
In this 30-minute interview, Professor Sachs gives a concise and clear history of the past 20+ years in the Middle East. He explains the mad strategy of the Israelis and their neocon allies in Washington, D.C., and their plan to remake the Middle East.
It is all insane. No one cares about the chaos and the dead. The Devil has come to town.
Biden Was the Biggest Supporter of Sending More Troops to Afghanistan
Daniel GreenfieldShare
Reading Time6 minsDuring the 2007 Dem primaries, Biden
attacked Obama for adopting his position on Afghanistan.
The flailing Biden campaign put out a press release accusing Obama of being a «johnny-come-lately» who had belatedly adopted Biden’s push for «significantly increasing reconstruction assistance» and sending more American soldiers to Afghanistan.While running for president, Biden had based his entire foreign policy around sending more troops to Afghanistan. He had memorized one line, «if we’re surging troops anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan», and repeated it in the Senate, in interviews, and on the campaign trail.Sending more troops to Afghanistan, he argued would give America «the moral high ground».“The next president of the United States will have to rally the American people and the world to fight them over there, unless we want to fight them over here. But the over there is not, as President Bush has falsely and repeatedly claimed, in Iraq, but it’s rather in the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan,” he
insisted at the Council on Foreign Relations.Biden attacked not only Democrat rivals like Obama, but also President Bush, for not wanting to send more troops to Afghanistan. “I asked the commander of British forces how long his people would allow him to stay in Afghanistan. And he said, ‘Senator, we Brits have an expression. As long as the big dog is in the pen, the small dogs will stay. When the big dog leaves, the small dogs leave as well.’ Well, guess what? The big dog left in 2002.”He was only off by 19 years. Biden was preemptively accusing Bush of his own sins.By the 2020 primaries, Biden had completely reinvented his entire history with Afghanistan.“I’m the guy from the beginning who argued that it was a big, big mistake to surge forces to Afghanistan. Period. We should not have done it. And I argued against it constantly,” he falsely claimed.Biden had gone from attacking Obama for ripping off his idea of surging forces to Afghanistan to being the guy who «from the beginning» had opposed the idea.The idea that Biden opposed “from the beginning” was the one he originally claimed credit for.That was quite a
turnaround for the fraudster who had spent his previous presidential campaign declaring, «If we’re surging troops anywhere, it should be in Afghanistan.»Biden, one of the co-sponsors of the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act, which began the nation-building push in that country, also claimed that he was against nation-building.“Our mission in Afghanistan was never supposed to be nation-building,” Biden claimed in his recent failed speech after Kabul turned into Saigon.Afghanistan should not have been about nation-building, but Biden was the loudest voice in support of turning the mission into nation-building. At one hearing he even complained that, “The original Marshall Plan cost $90 billion in today’s dollars. Our total pledge for Afghan reconstruction is less than 1 percent of that, and we’ve only delivered a fraction of this pledge.”He attacked Bush, whining that his “follow-through commitment to Afghanistan, Afghanistan’s security and reconstruction has fallen very short.»Back in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden had insisted that, “We have to get moving on reconstruction. We need more funds, and we need to use them better. The Afghans are patient, but they’re not seeing reconstruction worthy of a superpower.”After Biden failed miserably in the primaries, Obama picked his most inept rival to pad out his ticket with an old confused white man. And Biden tried to out-hawk John McCain on Afghanistan. When that failed miserably, he turned to making up stories of his own heroism in Afghanistan. The stories were as true as anything else that came out of his mouth.“If you want to know where al Qaeda lives, you want to know where bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me,” he boasted. “Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.”Despite having this intimate knowledge of where bin Laden and Al Qaeda were, Biden never went back to Afghanistan to hunt them down. That’s probably because Osama bin Laden was safe in a Pakistani military town. Biden’s helicopter, which also carried his Senate colleagues, future Secretary of State John Kerry and future Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, landed because of a snowstorm. “Other than getting a little cold, it was fine,” Kerry later said. “We were going to send Biden out to fight the Taliban with snowballs.”The joke, as usual, was on Joe Biden.“The superhighway of terror between Pakistan and Afghanistan where my helicopter was forced down. John McCain wants to know where bin Laden and the gates of Hell are? I can tell him where. That’s where Al Qaida is. That’s where bin Laden is,” Biden claimed at a fundraiser.Biden and the other Senate members were not in Taliban territory. Heavily guarded and in airspace protected by a F-16 fighter, they waited while a convoy took them to Bagram Air Base. That’s the same base that Biden would irresponsibly abandon, cutting off Americans trapped in Afghanistan from being able to get out without the permission of the Taliban.Biden could have
given credit to the men of the Arizona National Guard’s 1st Battalion who traveled through the «bitter winds, freezing rain and snow for more than 15 hours» to transport him out. Instead he pretended that he was some sort of hero for sitting in a warm chopper.And now, Biden could have considered the thousands of Americans trapped in Afghanistan, when he gave the fatal order to pull out military forces without evacuating them. When he was on that mountain, American soldiers traveled through difficult weather to get him out. But when Americans, some of them veterans, are trapped in Afghanistan, he turned his back on them.Obama adopted Biden’s proposal for an Afghan troop surge with disastrous results. American forces in Afghanistan were quadrupled to 100,000 while preventing them from fighting back so as not to alienate Muslims. 1,200 American soldiers died during the disastrous Afghanistan surge. And Biden, who had pushed the whole thing, ran the other way.After taking credit for selling Obama on an Afghan surge, Biden rebranded as a skeptic of sending more troops to Afghanistan. By the 2012 election, Biden was running against his own Afghanistan position, and castigating Rep. Paul Ryan for wanting a conditions-based withdrawal. Meanwhile, Biden kept bragging about his expertise on Afghanistan.“I’ve been up in the Kunar Valley. I’ve been throughout that whole country, mostly in a helicopter, and sometimes in a vehicle,” he claimed.“What we also want it do is make sure that we’re not projecting weakness abroad, and that’s what’s happening here,” Ryan warned. Biden dismissed any such notion.Obama and Biden promised a withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014. It did not happen.That’s been true of the vast majority of Biden’s promises.When it comes to Afghanistan, Biden was usually for most things before then turning around and being against them. Biden had sold the D.C. political class on the idea that he was some sort of foreign policy expert based on Afghanistan when he actually had no idea what he was doing. He had jumped on the Afghanistan bandwagon after September 11 while scrambling for an approach that would build up his presidential credentials.His initial
response was, «This would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran.» But after that disastrous idea, Biden zeroed in on Afghanistan.He constantly championed more troops and funding for Afghanistan.»If we fail in Afghanistan, we are going to be talking about, in my view, a country seven times as big, with nuclear weapons sitting on one border, and a country that is, in its present security leadership, hostile to the United States on another border, with more than seven times, probably—I guess it’s probably 14 to 15 times the population, seeking nuclear weapons,» Biden argued at one Senate hearing in favor of expanding military forces in Afghanistan.“We’re in for, as they say on the east side of Wilmington, Delaware, a world of hurt that has nothing to do with terrorism, that goes far beyond terror, far beyond terror. So I hope you’re here to tell us the good news about your overwhelming enthusiasm supporting expanding ISAF.»Even completely dishonest politicians have the right to change their minds. Or at least pretend to have changed them. But Biden adopted the opposite position of the one he ran on while claiming that he had always «from the beginning» opposed the things he supported.This behavior was not the mark of a responsible leader, but a clueless con artist.That’s exactly what Biden always was. And it’s what his disaster in Afghanistan has plainly revealed him to be even to his passionate supporters in media.Biden claimed to know all about Afghanistan. In reality he knew nothing. He leaped from one radical position, surging troops to Afghanistan, to the opposite extreme, withdrawing the troops before evacuating the civilians. The result was a horrifying national security disaster.And the same media which has temporarily turned on Biden let it happen.Biden’s dishonesty and ignorance were well known to the press corps. They chose to cover it up and lie about it because they wanted him to win. Now some of them are feigning outrage that the lying hack they championed could have unleashed such an inexplicable disaster.Biden had contradicted himself again and again on Afghanistan because he didn’t believe anything coming out of his own mouth. That’s how the politician who once predicted, “If Afghanistan falls, I’m not sure how far behind NATO will be” was the one who fell.The problem wasn’t that Biden had the wrong views, it’s that he was the typical case of a D.C. echo chamber politician who repeated whatever slogan he thought would get him ahead.He had no plan for carrying any of his proposals out. All he could do was indict himself.“Ousting the Taliban is only the first step in a long process. Everyone knows we can remove an evil regime. The question is, are we willing to expend the security, financial, diplomatic, and political resources to make the successor regime a success?” Biden once asked at a hearing. “The U.S. has power—but do we have staying power?”Biden has since answered his own question.
https://www.danielgreenfield.org/2021/08/biden-was-biggest-supporter-of-sending.html
Tafeln in Deutschland am Limit: Rationierung und wachsende Armut
Die Tafeln in Deutschland kämpfen gegen eine nie dagewesene Nachfrage. Während die Bedürftigkeit weiter wächst, weil die Politik nicht handelt, geraten diese Einrichtungen an ihre Grenzen.
Von Janine Beicht für Haintz Media
In Deutschland nehmen die Tafeln die Rolle einer unverzichtbaren Anlaufstelle für Bedürftige ein. Doch inmitten einer eskalierenden Armutswelle sehen sich diese Einrichtungen mit einer nie dagewesenen Belastung konfrontiert. Die Tafeln, die ursprünglich als freiwillige und gemeinnützige Organisationen zur Unterstützung der Ärmsten ins Leben gerufen wurden, geraten aufgrund einer stark gestiegenen Nachfrage zunehmend an ihre Grenzen. In vielen Fällen sind sie nicht mehr in der Lage, der enormen Zahl an Hilfesuchenden gerecht zu werden. Laut Angaben von Andreas Steppuhn, dem Vorsitzenden des Tafel-Dachverbandes, müssen mittlerweile 60 Prozent der Tafeln ihre Lebensmittelrationierungen reduzieren. Ein Drittel der Tafeln reagiert mit temporären Aufnahmestopps oder Wartelisten, um zumindest einen Teil der Bedürftigen weiterhin versorgen zu können.
Kritische Situation in ländlichen Regionen
Besonders dramatisch ist die Situation in ländlichen Regionen, wo oftmals nur eine begrenzte Anzahl an Supermärkten die Tafeln beliefern können. Während städtische Tafeln über eine größere Auswahl an Partnern verfügen, die Lebensmittel spenden, sind Tafeln auf dem Land oftmals auf nur zwei oder drei Supermärkte angewiesen. Dies führt dazu, dass sie besonders empfindlich auf die immer weiter sinkende Menge an überschüssigen Lebensmitteln reagieren. In ländlichen Gebieten sind daher die Engpässe noch gravierender, da die Tafeln in diesen Regionen direkt mit einer geringeren Versorgung konfrontiert sind. Ein zusätzlicher Faktor, der zu dieser Entwicklung beiträgt, ist die zunehmende Effizienz der Supermärkte in Bezug auf die Vermeidung von Lebensmittelverschwendung. Dank besserer Logistik und einer gezielteren Bestellstrategie der Handelsketten verbleiben weniger überschüssige Waren, die von den Tafeln abgeholt werden könnten.
„Im ländlichen Raum haben sie vielleicht zwei oder drei Supermärkte. Wenn also insgesamt die Menge an gespendeten Lebensmitteln zurückgeht, die übrig bleiben, dann merken Tafeln im ländlichen Raum das.“
Ein dramatischer Anstieg der Bedürftigkeit
Der Ursprung dieses Dramas liegt in der immer weiter wachsenden Zahl an bedürftigen Menschen in Deutschland.
Steppuhn berichtet, dass die Tafeln mittlerweile etwa 1,6 Millionen Menschen unterstützen. Besonders seit dem Beginn des Krieges in der Ukraine sei die Zahl der Hilfesuchenden massiv angestiegen. Laut Steppuhn verzeichneten die Tafeln im bundesweiten Durchschnitt einen Anstieg von rund 50 Prozent bei der Zahl der Kunden. Dies sei vor allem auf die rapide steigenden Lebenshaltungskosten zurückzuführen, da die Renten und Löhne nicht im gleichen Maße angepasst worden seien. Die Inflation bei Lebensmitteln und Energie hat in den letzten Jahren dramatische Ausmaße angenommen, was dazu führt, dass immer mehr Menschen auf die Unterstützung der Tafeln angewiesen sind. Auch die soziale Absicherung scheint vielerorts nicht mehr auszureichen, um die Grundbedürfnisse zu decken.
Politische Verantwortung und die Grenzen der Tafeln
Die Tatsache, dass Tafeln zunehmend mit der Versorgung der Bedürftigen überfordert sind, stellt ein eklatantes Versagen der Sozialpolitik dar. Andreas Steppuhn kritisierte die Politik scharf und machte deutlich, dass die Tafeln keineswegs in der Lage sind, die strukturellen Defizite im sozialen Sicherungssystem zu kompensieren. Er rief die Bundesregierung dazu auf, Armut „endlich ernsthaft“ zu bekämpfen und das soziale Netz nachhaltig zu stärken. Die Tafeln, so Steppuhn, könnten nicht die Lücke schließen, die durch ein unzureichendes politisches Handeln entstanden sei.
„Tafeln können nicht auffangen und übernehmen, was der Staat seit Jahrzehnten nicht schafft.“
Mehrwertsteuersenkung als unzureichender Schritt
Ein weiteres Thema, das immer wieder zur Diskussion steht, ist die Frage nach einer Steuererleichterung für Grundnahrungsmittel. Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz hatte in den ARD-„Tagesthemen“ vorgeschlagen, den ermäßigten Mehrwertsteuersatz für Lebensmittel von sieben auf fünf Prozent zu senken. Haintz.media hatte darüber berichtet. Dies sei zwar ein Schritt in die richtige Richtung, jedoch keineswegs ausreichend, um die Ursachen der wachsenden Armut nachhaltig zu bekämpfen, so Steppuhn. Die Mehrwertsteuersenkung sei nur ein Tropfen auf den heißen Stein, wenn nicht auch die sozialen Transferleistungen angepasst und die Löhne sowie Renten entsprechend der gestiegenen Lebenshaltungskosten erhöht würden. Der Dachverband fordert vor allem eines: eine dringende Verstärkung der politischen Bemühungen zur Armutsbekämpfung.
„Das ist eine Folge von Politik, dass die Menschen ärmer geworden sind. Bei Lebensmittelpreisen, die gestiegen sind um 35 Prozent Durchschnitt. Bei einer hohen Inflationsrate, bei höheren Mieten.“
Das System der Tafeln in der Krise
Die Tafeln in Deutschland sind in einer schwierigen Lage, die sie allein nicht bewältigen können. Die Institutionen, die ursprünglich dazu gedacht waren, der Überproduktion von Lebensmitteln entgegenzuwirken und hilfsbedürftigen Menschen beizustehen, stehen heute vor der paradoxen Situation, selbst auf der Seite der Bedürftigkeit zu stehen. Es fehlt an der notwendigen Unterstützung durch die Politik, um diese Organisationen in ihrer Rolle als soziale Notbremse wirksam zu stärken. Tafeln können und sollen nicht die Versäumnisse der staatlichen Sozialpolitik auffangen, doch sie sind derzeit eine der letzten Linien der Unterstützung für diejenigen, die am meisten unter den wirtschaftlichen Krisen zu leiden haben.
Die Tragödie der Tafeln ist eine Tragödie des Versagens der politischen Institutionen, die über Jahre hinweg die wachsende Kluft zwischen Arm und Reich ignoriert haben. Ein Umdenken ist notwendig, wenn diese Notwendigkeit in einer Zeit wachsender sozialer Ungleichheit nicht zu einer permanenten, sondern nur zu einer temporären Lösung werden soll.
Potsdamer Antifa-Club erhält Millionen
Das Potsdamer Antifa-Club Archiv präsentiert sich seit rund 30 Jahren ein fester Bestandteil der linksextremistischen Szene in Potsdam. Trotz der Behauptung, „unabhängig von öffentlicher Hand“ zu agieren, wird die Einrichtung kräftig mit dem Geld des Steuerzahlers unterstützt.
Allein zwischen 2020 und 2025 fließen satte 449.536 Euro an Fördermitteln in die Kassen des linksextremistischen Archivs, wie die Stadt Potsdam gegenüber Nius bestätigt. Und das ist noch nicht alles an linksradikalem Wahnsinn. Bereits 2008 gab es eine Förderung von 600.000 Euro. Insgesamt haben mehr als eine Million Euro aus dem Steuerhaushalt den Weg in dieses linke Zentrum gefunden.
Das Archiv existiert seit 1994 und ist unweit des Potsdamer Hauptbahnhofs ansässig. Es bietet laut eigener Aussage eine „breite Palette an Veranstaltungen: Konzerte, Workshops, Partys und sogar Sportangebote“. Und auch ein „Bewohnerprojekt“ soll sich irgendwo im Gebäude befinden, heißt es laut den linken Gesellen.
Die Führung des Archivs übernimmt ein Vorstand, in dem Personen wie Franziska Maria Schade und Alexander Frehse vertreten sind. Schade war, wie Nius berichtet, zuvor beim rbb und der linken Tageszeitung taz tätig, während Frehse als „erster Mandatsträger“ der Partei Die Partei in der Potsdamer Stadtverordnetenversammlung fungierte.
Im Archiv selbst hängt nicht nur die YPJ-Flagge – eine Symbolik der kurdischen Miliz YPG, die laut Verfassungsschutz mit der Terrororganisation PKK in Verbindung steht – sondern auch die Ideologie des Demokratischen Konföderalismus, die vom PKK-Anführer Abdullah Öcalan geprägt wurde. Dieser steht nicht nur für einen hartgesottenen Sozialismus, sondern auch für antisemitische Verschwörungstheorien. Dass solche Symbole in einem durch Steuergelder geförderten Raum prangen, scheint absolut in Ordnung zu gehen.
Trotz des politischen Hintergrunds des Archivs bleibt die SPD-geführte Stadt Potsdam in ihrer Reaktion vage. Auf die Frage von Nius nach der politischen Bedeutung der Fahne, die bis vor kurzem noch am Fenster hing, wird lediglich darauf hingewiesen, dass die Flagge mittlerweile entfernt wurde. Die Stadt Potsdam stellt zudem klar, dass sie „mit den zuständigen Behörden“ prüfen wird, ob durch die Fahne möglicherweise eine strafrechtliche Relevanz entstanden ist.
Vom Verfassungsschutz kommt ein kleines Du-Du-Du: Solche linken Netzwerke, die in Potsdam auch mit Kurdistan-Solidarität agieren, seien ein fester Bestandteil der linken Szene.
Pentalasia in the Grand Chessboard and the central role of Iran
Among the lesser-known geopolitical concepts to the general public is that of Pentalasia, which today could take on a newly significant role in understanding world events in the Middle East and beyond.
Among the lesser-known geopolitical concepts to the general public is that of Pentalasia, which today could take on a newly significant role in understanding world events in the Middle East and beyond.
The concept in geopolitical doctrine
From a geopolitical point of view, Pentalasia represents a strategic regional configuration of five interconnected states or geographical areas covering Asia, as the name suggests. A sora of multilateral cooperation based on common interests such as security, economic development, political stability and environmental sustainability.
Pentalasia, in this perspective, could emerge as a regional integration project in a particularly strategic area of the world. The states involved could share territorial borders or be united by historical, cultural and economic ties, creating a bloc capable of tackling global challenges in a concerted manner. Their collaboration could be based on an institutional arrangement that promotes political dialogue, economic interchange and peaceful conflict resolution.
A hypothetical example could involve five countries located in a neuralgic region, not like the Middle East, Central Asia or South-East Asia, deciding to come together to ensure energy security, promote regional infrastructure and strengthen their influence in global dynamics. In this context, Pentalasia could act as a counterweight to larger global powers or dominant international organizations.
In addition to the economic and political aspects, it is clear that such a bloc would have important cultural implications, providing a platform for enhancing diversity and strengthening a common identity as well as addressing transnational issues by promoting collective solutions.
Thus, not only a geopolitical entity, but also a laboratory for a new approach to regional governance, based on the balance between interdependence and sovereignty.
Iran as the center of the issue
Let us focus on the Middle East, Pentalasia’s first area of identification.
Let us look at the most important country in the region: Iran.
It is a regional power in its own right and an international power in the style of emerging countries like Brazil and South Africa, to such an extent that the future of the planet is inextricably linked to what happens in Iran. It is the state best placed to dominate the Middle East and, along with Russia, the best placed to monopolies the routes between the Greater East and the Greater West. In many ways, in fact, Iran is a Southern Russia and R1a paternal genetic lines abound (the same ones associated with the Slavic world, the Scythians, the Indo-Aryans, the Volga battle axe culture and the Kurgan culture). In antiquity, the Persian Empire – which corresponds to the sphere of influence of modern Iran – shared borders with the Roman Empire to the west and India to the east, and also dominated the routes to China. This simple fact speaks volumes about Tehran’s historical and geopolitical fate.
During the era of colonial empires, Iran was the only country in the area, along with the mutilated Turkey, that did not fall into foreign hands, although both British (in the Persian and Indian Gulf) and Russian (towards the Caucasus and Caspian) influence was very strong. It was the time of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (the forerunner of today’s British Petroleum) and its influence in the Persian Gulf. In 1925, Reza Khan, prime minister and former general of the Persian Cossack Brigade, organized a coup d’état and established himself as ‘shah’ (an Iranian word related to the Hindu ‘ksatriya’ and meaning something like ‘lord’) of Persia. Because of his affinity with Germany, Reza Shah was forced by the British and the Soviets to abdicate to his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The Allies feared that the Germans, coming in through the Caucasus, could link up with Iran (and thus India and Tibet, where Germany had many sympathizers) and cause serious problems in the British, Soviet and French territories. Moreover, the British already had their eyes on the Trans-Iranian railway as a supply route to the USSR.
Through Persia, Winston Churchill supported the Soviet war effort with huge shipments of military hardware and raw materials. Armand Hammer’s US company Occidental Petroleum (now Oxy) also agreed to take Soviet oil from the Caspian via this route. In 1951, Mohammad Mossadegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran and initiated a sovereigntist program that nationalized Iran’s oil industry and its crude oil reserves, crushing London’s monopoly. The British government, led by Winston Churchill, responded with the first naval embargo on Iranian oil, launched a campaign of economic sanctions to ruin and isolate the country, froze Iranian assets, and conspired with US President Eisenhower to launch Operation Ajax (known in Iran as Coup Mordad 1338) in 1953, essentially an Anglo-American intelligence-sponsored coup. Mossadegh, very popular in Iran, was arrested and his government was replaced by one under the Shah, totally under the command of London and on good terms with Israel, the US and Saudi Arabia. The Iranian regime began to reorganize itself along the lines of the Arab petrol-dictatorships of the Gulf and King Idris’ Libya. For decades, the Shah’s intelligence service, the SAVAK, would terrorize much of the population and would be feared and hated for its brutal tactics in suppressing any opposition to the regime (essentially Shia clerics and communist activists).
Popular discontent culminated in the Islamic Revolution of 1979, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, which established a kind of Shia nationalist theocracy, restored a sovereign political agenda, expelled British Petroleum, formed the Revolutionary Guard and reformed the country. Shortly afterwards, Iran experienced the imposition of war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, supported by the Anglo-Americans, the same ones who betrayed him shortly afterwards. This war, in which Iraq used chemical weapons with the full knowledge of the West, revealed the enormous magnetic power that the Shiite religion wielded over the Iranian masses, giving them the strength to cheerfully make the greatest sacrifices and to undertake kamikaze actions that crushed the enemy’s morale.
Iran’s role as a nexus does not stop at its east-west hinge. Of all countries with a coastline on the Indian Ocean, Iran is the closest to the Mediterranean, the Caspian, Russia, the Heartland, Israel and the former Soviet space. Its unique position in the heart of Pentalasia (a veritable land of the five seas) makes it a hinge connecting the Indian Ocean and the Persian Gulf with a delicate geopolitical architecture extending to the Caucasus, Turkey, Israel, Central Asia, Russia and Europe. Pentalasia is, therefore, the hinge region par excellence, connecting five totally different and immeasurably important maritime spaces.
In addition, the region is rich in hydrocarbons. There is probably no other place in the world like it and it is not surprising that it is the most sensitive environment on the planet. It is understandable why Atlanticism is interested in occupying and destabilizing it (Israel, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Kurdistan): if this space were to be structured and stabilized under a sovereign power, this would remove enormous importance from the maritime routes, which are the great resource of the thalassocrat powers.
Iran enters modern history as the only state in the world that possesses seas in the Indian Ocean, the Caspian Sea and the Persian Gulf, as well as lands in the Eurasian Heartland and Pentalasia.
If we look at the map of Balkanized Eurasia, we see that Iran is also located in the ‘Eurasian Balkans’, the ‘Central Zone of Instability’ and the ‘New Global Pivot’. Iran’s geopolitical role is not only to be a nexus, but also a potential containment wall, thanks to its territory, which for the most part is a mountainous plateau, a kind of natural fortress, an easily defensible, well-populated space (75 million inhabitants, roughly the same as Turkey), with better material and economic means and more population than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but with the complicated orography of Afghanistan and excellent sea outlets. By expanding its influence in the Mediterranean, Iran can isolate the petrol-Arab world from the rest of Eurasia and would also be able to cut off Turkey from the resources of the Gulf.
Iran’s regional challenges are the State of Israel, the Arab petrol-monarchies, and the destabilizing presence of the US and UK in the region. Turkey, Israel and the Arab petrol-monarchies aspire to dominate the region by turning it into ‘Pentaland’. Yet, whether they like it or not, geopolitically speaking the most suitable power to do such a thing is Iran, which has already ruled it in the past (Medes, Persians, Achaemenids, Parthians, Sassanids, etc.). Tehran, allied with Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and the Shia, Alawite, Christian, Druze, Ishmaelite, Sufi, etc. communities, could play an important role in the stabilization of this space and thus in world peace. To prevent this, Atlanticism finances Sunni radicalism (especially the Salafist-Wahhabi currents linked to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the US and Israel) and does its utmost to foment sectarian hatred between Shia and Sunnis, perhaps in the hope of provoking a macro religious civil war in the region.
Iran is also, together with the UAE and Oman, the only Persian Gulf country that also has a coastline in the Indian Ocean. Atlanticism strongly supports the Arab petrol-dictatorships (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the Emirates, Bahrain), but Iran is in a better position than any other country in the world to dominate the Persian Gulf because:
- It dominates the highly strategic Strait of Hormuz, through which 40% of the world’s oil traffic passes (including 40% of China’s oil). If Iran were to close this strait (which would be considered an act of war), the international consequences would be difficult to calculate. Recently, the United Arab Emirates opened a pipeline from the Persian Gulf to the Arabian Sea (part of the Indian Ocean), bypassing Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz.
- It has more coastline in the Persian Gulf than any other country. The ‘normal’ geopolitical scenario envisages that the Persian Gulf’s commercial and financial activities, which involve a fabulous traffic of capital every day, take place in Iran and that the Persian Gulf’s main financial centre is not Dubai, but the Persian island of Kish (destined to become the Dubai of Iran, also thanks to German architects), declared by Tehran a ‘free trade zone’, in the style of similar zones in China. Kish is home to the Iranian Oil Exchange, a market for oil stocks in currencies other than the dollar (mainly euro, rial, roubles, renminbi and yen), which is almost a declaration of war on the United States, attacking them where it hurts the most: the monopoly on the petrodollar, created out of nothing as an international trading currency. Kish tends to divert attention away from the opulent Emirates city of Dubai, home to the Dubai Exchange – the supreme throne of the petrodollar, which is tightly controlled by the NYMEX in New York (in turn controlled by Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and other New York and London capitals), the ICE Futures (Inter Continental Exchange), the IPE (International Petroleum Exchange) in London and the London International Commodity Exchange. All these entities conduct their business in dollars. The Kish exchange was opened in August 2011 and used the euro and the Emirati dirham in its first transactions.
- The majority of the population of the Persian Gulf coast is Shia. There is a saying that ‘Islam did not conquer Persia, but Persia conquered Islam’, i.e. that in Iran there has been an Indo-Europeanisation and a de-Semitisation of Islam, leading to Shia religiosity, more hierarchical than Sunnism, with a fully organized clergy and with clear Mazdean, Zoroastrian and Manichean reminiscences. Throughout the Middle East, the Shia are a potential fifth column for Iran: they make up 66% of the population of Iraq and Bahrain (an island petrol-state dominated by a Sunni monarchy that has harshly repressed the Shia majority without the ‘international community’ lifting a finger), 33% of Kuwait, 20% of Saudi Arabia (concentrated in the oil-rich Persian Gulf provinces) and 10% of the Emirates and Qatar. There are also significant Shia populations in Azerbaijan (65%), Yemen (40%), Lebanon (33%) and Syria (15%), as well as in Pakistan, Turkey, India, Afghanistan and other countries. These communities are essential to the backbone of the ‘new Persian empire’ – Iran’s sphere of influence – and make the petrol-Arab regimes very nervous.
Tutti in guerra per la pace
I soldati dei paesi della NATO possono diventare “peacekeepers” in un conflitto a cui partecipano?
Non vi era alcun dubbio: l’Italia è pronta a entrare ufficialmente nel conflitto russo-ucraino. Tutto secondo i piani.
Dopo aver siglato un accordo decennale per fornire armi all’Ucraina del despota Zelensky, l’Italia del governo Meloni ha ben pensato di farsi avanti con l’idea di una “missione di peacekeeping”. Scopo dell’iniziativa sarebbe il favoreggiamento di un eventuale cessate il fuoco o di un accordo di pace.
Brevemente, il peacekeeping, traducibile letteralmente come “mantenimento della pace”, è un’attività svolta principalmente dalle Nazioni Unite per aiutare Stati o regioni colpite da conflitti in moda da raggiungere e mantenere la pace. Si tratta di operazioni internazionali composte da personale militare, civile e di polizia proveniente da diversi Stati membri, che agiscono su mandato del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell’ONU. L’obiettivo principale è prevenire il riaccendersi delle ostilità e creare un ambiente stabile e sicuro per favorire processi di pace duraturi.
Queste missioni si basano su tre principi fondamentali:
Consenso delle parti coinvolte: le operazioni di peacekeeping possono essere avviate solo con il consenso del governo e delle parti principali in conflitto.
Neutralità: i peacekeeper agiscono in modo imparziale, evitando di favorire una parte a scapito dell’altra.
Uso della forza limitato: la forza viene utilizzata solo per autodifesa o per proteggere il mandato della missione.
Esempi noti di missioni di peacekeeping includono le operazioni in Bosnia, Rwanda, Libano e Mali. Di fatto, il peacekeeping rappresenta uno strumento essenziale per la comunità internazionale nel promuovere la pace e la sicurezza globale, nonostante le difficoltà che spesso incontra nella sua implementazione.
Il Ministero della Difesa italiano sotto la guida di Guido Crosetto si dice pronto al ruolo di peacekeeping per l’Italia, mentre il Ministero degli Esteri a firma di Antonio Tajani ritiene, invece, che i tempi non siano ancora maturi. Russi e ucraini sono troppo lontani da un accordo e anzi i Paesi europei sono sempre più propensi ad ufficializzare l’ingresso nel conflitto.
Già il Presidente francese Emmanuel Macron aveva paventato l’idea di uno schieramento di uomini a febbraio, coinvolgendo a seguire tutti i partner europei, proposta che è stata nuovamente discussa lo scorso lunedì, al tavolo trilaterale di Macron con Zelensky e Donald Trump, in viaggio in Europa per assicurarsi che le sue colonie funzionino a pieno regime. La giustificazione di questo intervento sarebbe la protezione di Kiev in vista dal suo ingresso nella NATO, ha spiegato Macron; ma ciò vorrebbe dire, a rigor di logica, che subito dopo la NATO intera entrerebbe in conflitto diretto con la Russia. Sappiamo tutti che è già così, ma ai politici europei piace scherzare a lungo con i cittadini.
Una buona scusa per camuffare il progetto bellico della NATO è quello di istituire una forza di pace internazionale. L’idea piace al governo ucraino, ma non convince troppo gli altri leader europei, come Viktor Orban per l’Ungheria e Donald Tusk per la Polonia, ma nemmeno Olaf Scholz in Germania che ha evitato di esprimersi sul tema perché in prossimità delle elezioni, lasciando la parola ad Annalena Bearbock che ha elogiato l’iniziativa ma accusato la mancanza di una apertura alla pacificazione da parte di Putin.
Si passa allora la palla all’Italia, che in queste cose è sempre in prima linea (nel bene e nel male), con la benedizione di Kaja Kallas, Alto rappresentante dell’UE, che con un gioco di parole è riuscita ad accusare la Russia di non volere la pace, ribadendo l’imminenza dell’ingresso di Kiev nel Trattato dell’Atlantico.
Un modo di portare la pace davvero inusuale o, meglio, davvero tipicamente americano: con le bombe. Dove non è possibile farlo con un ingaggio diretto e distruttivo, si procede con una destabilizzazione sottotraccia, con diplomazia aggressiva e con il “gioco sporco” delle missioni segrete in territorio straniero. La stampa occidentale continua a ignorare volutamente il fatto che in Ucraina siano stati trovi ufficiali americani e di alcuni Paesi europei sin dall’inizio del conflitto.
Per potersi fidare di una forza di pace, di sicuro non si può sperare su un contingente composto da Paesi occidentali che sono in palese conflitto di interessi. Per rendersi credibili, ci vorrebbe un dispiegamento di uomini provenienti da Stati fuori dalla NATO e non europei, in modo da garantire almeno esteriormente una neutralità. Ma, si sa, l’ONU è una creatura americana e i suoi legami con la NATO sono strettissimi, perciò non ci possiamo aspettare niente di buono davanti ad una proposta di questo tipo.
Manca invece la volontà dell’Occidente di sedersi nuovamente al tavolo delle trattative con la Russia, che sin dall’inizio del conflitto ha cercato la via della diplomazia, venendo continuamente rifiutata e accusata di non volere la pace.
L’ipocrisia dell’Occidente sarà la sua stessa tomba.
Syria: It is about the money, money, money
How is it possible that the western-supported jihadists in control of Damascus have a chief who is on a wanted list in the U.S. for being a terrorist?
Western politicians are working double time to pull the wool over the eyes of a gullible public who are dazed and confused about the overthrow of the Assad regime, as some more astute members of the public might question how it is possible that the jihadists in control now of Damascus were not only paid by U.S. tax dollars, but have a chief who is on a wanted list in the U.S. for being a terrorist.
Step forward super numpty David Lammy MP, Britain’s bumbling black version of a cartoon character called Magoo. Mr Lammy is not as dumb as he looks, though, so pay attention to his fortuitous overtones in the British parliament to explain it all to voters who he assumes are more or less brain dead.
Recently MP Brendan O’Hara made a statement justifying the Israeli bombing of Syria which coincided with the HTS terror group seizing Damascus, presumably to make sure that heavy artillery, planes and boats don’t fall into the hands of the unwashed bearded lot, who, heaven forbid, might use is against their sponsors. Is America learning its lessons from the breathtaking stupid operation in Afghanistan where U.S. soldiers left the Taliban armoured vehicles, tanks and even aircraft before they scarpered? Possibly. But there might be other reasons such as the Americans might be considering a second operation whereby they – or their proxies – might want to overthrow those who are now in power. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds given the amount of plain lies being spun at the moment and dutifully processed by a league of call centre journalists who can’t even find Homs on a map of Syria. “The group that we supported to overthrow Assad turned out to be not serious about turning a new leaf. Joulani can’t be trusted, you know…” will be the sort of thing offered to a scrum of journalists at the White House press briefing. Most people would swallow that.
In the meantime, the ramblings of parliamentary wasters is worth a gander.
“It’s right to understand that Israel has legitimate security concerns in a country that’s housed ISIS [ISIL] and al-Qaeda,” Lammy said in response to a parliamentary question by MP Brendan O’Hara, adding that he had spoken to his Israeli counterpart.
“It’s for all of those reasons that we want an inclusive society that supports everyone, but none of us can have truck with terrorist groups,” he said.
Odd that he forgot to mention that the very terror groups he referring to are on the U.S. payroll and aligned to both the UK and U.S. Or does that mean that now that the terrorists have delivered the Assad regime to the U.S. and Israel that their role now is no longer relevant and therefore they need to be eliminated?
It’s hard to fathom Lammy’s double talk when, evidently, the man hardly understands the Syria picture himself and appears to be reading from a script. Lammy, after all, was recently fingered by a UK independent investigative outfit which identified a dozen or so MPs in the cabinet who had received money from Israel. The story of Syria is one of treachery, betrayal and bullshit on a grand scale after all, so it seems fitting that British MPs who are enjoying Israel’s cash would espouse from the prepared IDF talking points as well. Ultimately it was cash which played a big part in the bloodless coup being a stonking success, so perhaps it is cash now which is dictating the narrative in the UK? Of course, the weakening of Hezbollah in Lebanon and Russia no longer supporting Assad also were factors. But money did its job. Currently the average goon with a beard and an AK in the HTS earns around 2000 USD a month. Hardly a huge sum you might think. But in Syria, one of the world’s poorest countries with a local currency constantly being devalued, this sum is significant for a Syrian army soldier who is earning only 7 USD a month.
A deal was struck which is why regime soldiers didn’t put up a fight. These were the same soldiers who had to resort to making and selling Captagon pills for the region simply to make a few bucks to pay their monthly food bills. Just as in 2003, when the U.S. government refused to pay back pay of Saddam’s soldiers – who fled their posts with their weapons and created what was later know as ISIS or ISIL – today, the same story resonates. Assad might have remained in power until his old age if he had paid his soldiers better and allowed Russia to train them. For a few dollars more.
Syrian regime soldiers or British politicians. They all have their price. Try not to think of the 90s pop hit by Jessie J called ‘Price Tag’ which came out in the same year when the Syrian war started.
It’s not about the money, money, money
We don’t need your money, money, money
We just wanna make the world dance
Forget about the price tag
West shamelessly whitewashes barbarism in Syria
The people of Syria and the region are facing more turmoil, chaos, conflict, and suffering.
One week after the dramatic collapse of the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad, it is too early to give a precise prognostication of how the Arab country and the wider region will emerge politically.
But already, there are grim signs of the nation surging in bloody conflict and barbarism. Predictably, the West is covering up its guilt for creating another epic horror, with its news media shamelessly propagandizing and denying the reality of Syria’s new rulers as terrorist factions.
Syria is facing a fate similar to Libya in 2011. The North African country was turned into a killing field by a NATO regime-change aggression under the cynical guise of “liberation.” NATO-backed jihadists brutally murdered Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, and the former oil-rich country has been wrecked as a failed state, riven by warlordism ever since without a functioning national government.
Syria’s former president Assad escaped to Moscow and has been granted asylum by his Russian ally. Apart from that difference, Syria’s future looks ominously like Libya’s. Cruelly, that is rather fitting. The overthrow of Libya in 2011 was used by the United States and its Western allies to mount the regime-change war on Syria that also began in 2011, as recounted in our SCF editorial last week.
Thirteen years on, the takeover of Damascus by the terror group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) is unleashing murderous reprisals, internecine warlordism, and sectarian hatred. The U.S. and its Western allies are strenuously covering up the huge imperial crime that has befallen Syria, as with Libya before.
In an audacious denial of reality, Washington and its European partners are talking up a “new beginning” for Syria. It’s a charade of optimism aimed at lulling the world into acceptance of heinous Western criminality.
This outpouring of Western optimism is while the Western-backed Israeli regime immediately launched a blitzkrieg on its northern neighbor, viewing the chaotic events in Syria as an opportunity to annex more land. The Israeli military extended its illegal occupation of the Golan Heights and carried out a massive bombing campaign across Syria.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken made a hurried tour of the region this week, no doubt to ensure an orderly carving up of Syrian territory and resources between Washington and its allies Turkey and Israel – all of whom have worked for years to pursue regime change in Damascus.
While Washington is urging the formation of a non-sectarian government in Syria that “respects religious minorities and women’s rights” – the cringemaking rhetoric of public relations – the reality on the ground told a different story.
The black flags of Wahhabi Islamism supported by HTS and its other al Qaeda-type associates were hoisted in Damascus and other cities. There are palpable fears among Syrian Shia and Alawite Muslims, as well as Christians, that they will be subjected to a reign of terror, as was seen during the years of U.S.-led proxy war from 2011 onwards with beheadings of infidels and apostates, among other atrocities.
Credible videos have shown HTS supporters executing unarmed captives and shouting obscenities about their victims’ perceived religious affiliation. There have been appalling scenes of barbarism where corpses are dragged through streets tied to trucks. Mothers holding the bodies of their slaughtered sons have been abused by jostling crowds in deranged bloodlust.
In an incredible wave of psyops, Western news media organizations have been whitewashing the events in Syria as a kind of “liberation from the tyranny of Assad rule.”
There have been multiple reports of crowds celebrating in the streets of Damascus and Aleppo, tearing down symbols of Bashar al-Assad and his father Hafez. However, the Western media have omitted or downplayed any reports that might indicate a descent into barbarism and sectarian killings.
If there was a prize for propaganda, the British state-owned BBC might have won it with this article headlined: “From Syrian jihadist leader to rebel politician. How Abu Mohammed al-Jolani reinvented himself.”
The truth is it is the Western media, like the BBC and CNN, that have “reinvented” al-Jolani.
The years of al-Jolani carrying out mass killings as a commander in Al Qaeda, Islamic State, Al Nusra as well as HTS have suddenly been shoved down the memory hole, and he is now presented as a statesman supposedly leading Syria to a brighter future.
His belated words about respecting religious minorities and pluralism are reported with cloying gullibility by the Western media. Washington and other Western governments are moving to recognize the new Syrian regime by delisting HTS as a terrorist group and indulging al-Jolani’s rhetoric about reconciliation and tolerance as somehow plausible.
Of course, Washington is euphoric about its apparent success in Syria. Damascus has long been a target for regime change, going back to the Eisenhower administration more than 70 years ago when the Arab state was perceived as being too independent.
More recently, as former U.S. Senator Richard Black explained in this 2016 article, Syria became a renewed target for Washington’s regime change in 2007 when then-President GW Bush’s administration decided Bashar al-Assad had to go. To achieve that illegal result, the U.S. and its regional allies deployed murderous proxies, one of which was Hayat Tahrir al-Sham – the new ruler in Damascus.
The covert proxy war continued under Obama, Trump, and Biden. Russia and Iran’s intervention to defend their Syrian ally managed to impede the regime-change objective, but, in the end, they did not succeed for various reasons, as adduced in a SCF commentary this week.
For over a decade, the Western media have systematically and blatantly lied about Syria to cover up for the U.S.-led imperial aggression against that country. They lied about Assad’s alleged despotism when, in reality, Syrians enjoyed religious and social freedoms. They lied about Assad using chemical weapons when it was the Western-backed jihadist terrorists who used them in false-flag provocations, as Seymour Hersh reported.
The overthrow of Assad appears to be a great victory for the Western imperialist agenda and a blow to Russia and Iran. Washington and its allies are in a celebratory mood over the spoils of victory.
But the signs of bloody disintegration are impossible to conceal even for the lying Western media. In the short term, the Western powers and their propaganda media are trying to present the new rulers of Syria as somehow reformed and benign. This is while Israel annexes territory and U.S. and Turkish-backed factions begin fighting over strongholds.
Syria’s descent into untold mayhem has begun, and in the usual Orwellian fashion, the Western culprits are trying to sell the infernal outcome as a liberation. This is typical of the whitewashing deception that comes as a matter of routine following every imperial regime-change operation. It never ends well.
The people of Syria and the region are facing more turmoil, chaos, conflict, and suffering. The criminal Western imperialist axis is emboldened, but lies are never a sound foundation for the future.
Général Dominique Delawarde : Géopolitique générale (14 décembre 2024)
par Dominique Delawarde
Géorgie
À la veille de l’élection présidentielle géorgienne au suffrage indirect, le parti du Rêve géorgien dispose d’une majorité absolue au sein du collège électoral, ce qui rend l’élection de son candidat, Kavelashvili, quasi certaine. Présenté par la presse européiste avec une grande condescendance, teintée de mépris, comme un ancien footballeur, et chef d’un parti souverainiste et eurosceptique «Le Pouvoir au peuple», Kavelashvili s’est fait connaître par sa rhétorique anti-occidentale. Il a accusé Zourabichvili d’avoir violé la Constitution et a déclaré qu’il «rétablirait la présidence dans son cadre constitutionnel».
Les européistes de tout poil qui sont minoritaires dans le pays essayeront, jusqu’à la dernière minute, de renverser le cours des choses par les manifestations de rue, voire par la violence, en accusant la gouvernance, pourtant très largement réélue, de comportement «dictatorial» dans une inversion accusatoire sidérante, dont la pratique est courante dans le camp globaliste depuis son origine.
• https://tass.com/world/1885187
Il n’est pas exclu non plus que les européistes tentent de corrompre une partie des 300 membres du collège électoral de la présidentielle géorgienne, qui sont, sur papier, des adversaires de Zourabichvili. Les USA ne sont pas en reste. Ils viennent de décider d’un train de sanctions contre la Géorgie pour punir les électeurs d’avoir mal voté et faire pression sur sa gouvernance qui rechigne à se jeter dans les bras de l’Union européenne.
• https://tass.com/world/1886953
La période du 14 au 29 décembre qui sépare l’élection de la prise de fonction du nouveau président sera donc une période à hauts risques au cours de laquelle la violence de rue, organisée autour d’une jeunesse estudiantine et bobo manipulée par des ONG d’obédience mondialiste «SOROSienne et DAVOSienne», va probablement s’enflammer. ATTENTION aux actions meurtrières sous faux drapeau.
Il n’est pas impossible que la franco-géorgienne Zourabichvili, présidente sortante, qui a trahi le parti du «Rêve géorgien» qui l’avait porté au pouvoir en 2018, soit contrainte de reprendre l’avion pour son pays de naissance : la France, pour s’y réfugier et y attendre des jours meilleurs.
Le lecteur notera que le pouvoir de nuisance de l’intéressée, lourdement sanctionné dans les urnes aux dernières législatives géorgiennes, n’aura duré que 6 ans. C’est 4 fois moins que la durée au pouvoir du président syrien démissionnaire Bachar al-Assad qui, en dépit des narratifs occidentaux visant à salir son image, a été plébiscité pendant 24 ans dans un pays difficile à gérer car sous sanctions économiques et pressions occidentales maximales, et dans un état de guerre civile larvée, entretenu par un occident otanien qui pillait ses ressources pétrolières et détruisaient ses récoltes.
*
Roumanie
Après l’invalidation des résultats des dernières élections par une Cour constitutionnelle de 9 juges, tous mis en place par la gouvernance européiste roumaine, aujourd’hui en difficulté, dans un véritable coup d’État judiciaire, la date des nouvelles élections n’a toujours pas été fixée.
Sans doute attendra-t-on qu’un candidat européiste plus charismatique que le président sortant qui s’accroche au pouvoir malgré sa disqualification par les urnes, un peu comme le président français, soit propulsé sur le devant de la scène par la meute médiatique roumaine, dont on sait QUI la contrôle, et que les sondages soient bons.
*
Économie : Comment se portent nos très chers milliardaires
La géopolitique est étroitement liée, en coulisse, à la puissance économique et financière d’un petit nombre d’États, eux-mêmes sous contrôle d’un petit nombre d’individus immensément riches : les milliardaires. Il est important que nos lecteurs fassent connaissance avec les 2782 milliardaires qui s’épanouissent aujourd’hui sur notre belle planète. Le magazine économique Forbes en fait chaque année l’inventaire en début d’année en les classant par fortune :
• https://www.forbes.com/billionaires
Ces grandes fortunes sont fragiles car souvent fondées sur des données boursières spéculatives, ce qui signifie que des effondrements brutaux et de grande ampleur peuvent survenir dans cette oligarchie très spéciale des milliardaires, notamment en cas de crise économique ou boursière majeure pouvant affecter, à divers degrés, tout ou partie des plus grandes puissances économiques.
Ce type d’effondrement potentiel de grande ampleur peut jouer un rôle important dans les équilibres géo-économiques, et donc géopolitiques mondiaux.
L’exemple du Français Bernard Arnault et de sa famille qui trônaient encore le 2 avril 2024 à la première place mondiale des grandes fortunes avec 233 milliards de $ et qui a chuté, en 6 mois, à la 5ème place avec seulement 172,7 milliards le 11 décembre 2024, illustre bien la grande fragilité de ces grandes fortunes, plus virtuelles que réelles. L’importance de cette perte de 60,3 milliards de $ en 6 mois et la fortune résiduelle d’une seule famille : 172,7 milliards de $ est à mettre en perspective avec celle du déficit budgétaire français de 180 milliards d’euros pour l’année 2024. Ces chiffres ne peuvent qu’interpeller celui qui en prend connaissance… «LVMH : La chute de l’empire vient de commencer ?» :
Cet exemple est intéressant car il montre que des mouvements économiques «tectoniques» sont en cours et que la baisse du pouvoir d’achat observée un peu partout en Occident otanien peut expliquer ce genre d’évolution récente, évidemment préjudiciable aux milliardaires les plus exposés.
Ces mouvements ne seront pas neutres en termes de géopolitique…
Mais pas de panique, pendant que le milliardaire français Arnault s’appauvrit, le milliardaire US Elon Musk, soutien de Trump, s’enrichit. Sa fortune évaluée par Forbes à 195 milliards de $ le 2 avril 2024 est passée à 447 milliards de $ le 11 décembre 2024 selon Bloomberg.
• https://www.bloomberg.com/2024/12/11/elon-musk-net-worth-tops-400-billion-a-historic-first
Selon Bloomberg, Musk vient donc de battre deux records.
- Il est le premier et le seul à avoir passé le mur de la grande fortune des 400 milliards de $.
- Il a battu le record d’augmentation de sa fortune en un seul jour : 62,8 milliards de $.
• Ces chiffres donnent évidemment le vertige à notre pauvre France qui en est à chercher comment combler son déficit de 180 milliards d’euros…
Pas de panique, Jean Pierre Fourcade, 95 ans, ancien ministre des Finances a une solution.
*
L’économie du Canada, membre éminent de la mafia otanienne et pays dont on ne parle pas très souvent, ne se porte pas très bien :
À l’exception des USA, la majorité des grands pays de l’OTAN est en grande difficulté (UK, Allemagne, FR, Canada).
Et dire que l’objectif déclaré était de faire s’effondrer l’économie russe
https://reseauinternational.net/general-dominique-delawarde-geopolitique-generale-14-decembre-2024/
Der Friedensstifter 