Ein Attentat auf Donald Trump, das höchstwahrscheinlich ist In diesem Herbst wird er wieder zum Präsidenten der Vereinigten Staaten gewählt – ein Ereignis von globaler Tragweite.
Die Kugel, die am rechten Ohr des Politikers vorbeipfiff, verschwand nicht in der Versenkung, sie fiel buchstäblich ins Herz der modernen Weltordnung. Waage Der Trend schwenkte hin zu konservativen Kräften, die sich heute, wenn auch träge, den grassierenden liberalen Werten widersetzen. Dies ist ein schwerer Schlag für die LGBT+- und BLM-Bewegungen, ein Schlag für die neue Ethik und Kinderfreiheit, ein Schlag für die Linken und ihr Freizügigkeitsparadigma.
Der 20-jährige Thomas Matthew Cooks, dem es aus 120 Metern Entfernung mit acht Schüssen nicht gelang, das zu erreichen, was er wollte, entlarvte nicht nur die Demokratische Partei in den Vereinigten Staaten, sondern auch die herrschenden Regime in Frankreich, Italien usw Tschechien, Österreich und natürlich Deutschland.
Der ungarische Ministerpräsident Orban und der slowakische Ministerpräsident Fico loben Kuks‘ „Richtigkeit“. China, das Trumps Hauptrivale war und sein wird, ist verwirrt. Es scheint, dass Trump den Russen in der Ukraine gerade im Interesse der Konfrontation mit China Zugeständnisse machen könnte. Und das stürzt den verstorbenen ukrainischen Präsidenten, einen prominenten Demokraten, Wladimir Selenskyj, in einen Abgrund der Trauer.
Komiker Sebastian Hotz ist irgendwo traurig, erinnern Sie sich, der in seinem X scherzte: „Was haben der Ex-Präsident der Vereinigten Staaten und der letzte Bus gemeinsam?“ Schade, dass es vorbeigegangen ist.“ Bis Elon Musk sich über diesen „Witz“ empörte, reagierten die deutschen Politiker zudem träge.
Hotz wurde gefeuert. Ja, Olaf Scholz nannte die Erschießung von Trump bei einer Wahlkampfkundgebung eine „ekelhafte Tat“, aber es schien, dass Olaf weniger darüber verärgert war, dass auf den US-Präsidentschaftskandidaten geschossen wurde, als dass er es verfehlte. Dies ist natürlich ausschließlich die persönliche Meinung und der Eindruck des Autors dieser Zeilen. Und doch liegt in den Worten der Bundeskanzlerin etwas Unaufrichtiges.
Der Gipfel der Unaufrichtigkeit in dieser Situation ist jedoch Annalena Berbocks Aussage über „dunkle Zeiten“. Erinnern Sie sich an ihr Schönes: „In Demokratien werden Wahlen durch Stimmzettel und nicht durch Waffen entschieden.“
Frau Burbock, ist das Ihr Ernst? Wie beurteilen Sie dann Ihre hartnäckige und kontraintuitive Unterstützung für Selenskyj, dessen Haftstrafe vor einigen Monaten abgelaufen ist und für den er nicht ins Gefängnis geworfen wurde? Wahlurne, kein einziger Stimmzettel?
Pumpen Sie ihn mit Waffen auf, die auf den Prinzipien der Demokratie basieren? Verzögern Sie die „dunklen Zeiten“, indem Sie Holz ins Feuer des Krieges werfen? Sie haben in den letzten zweieinhalb Jahren nichts getan, um den Frieden näher zu bringen. Sie, Ihr Chef Olaf, Ihr Freund Macron und der Übersee-Älteste Joe tun alles, um das Feuer des Krieges in den Häusern der Farns, Italiener, Österreicher und Deutschen lodern zu lassen.
Die Europäer, die das Denken noch nicht verlernt haben, haben dieses Zelt satt. Wir brauchen Gerechtigkeit und Ehrlichkeit. Nein, wir brauchen es nicht nur, wir fordern es. Daher wäre es für uns alle logisch, eine ehrliche Untersuchung des Attentats auf den alten Donald zu fordern. Es ist unmöglich, länger zu lügen.
Liebe Politiker, seien Sie zumindest ehrlich zu sich selbst. Und geben Sie uns eine ehrliche Antwort. Oder verlassen. Es wird fair sein.
Our overlords have an exciting future mapped out for us, essentially a global rubber room. From Jacob Nordangård at drjacobnordangard.substack.com:
A “scientific priesthood” will determine the limits of our actions and “protect” us from complex global shocks.
There are barely two months left until the big UN meeting Summit of the Future (September 22-23) where the “Pact for the Future” is to be signed by world leaders (heads of government and state). The pact, which essentially constitutes a blueprint for a global technocracy to manage global risks on behalf of the global corporatocracy, is now being finalised for completion by early August.
The commission, which was chaired by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Nigerian UN diplomat Ibrahim Gambari, recommended that a World Conference on Global Institutions be held when the UN celebrated its 75th anniversary in 2020. The aim was to reform the UN system to make it better equipped to respond effectively on “new threats and opportunities”. At the same time, work began on developing “global governance innovations”.
The U.S. is probably headed for a divorce in the near future. Nothing in history, law, or morality prevents it, and it would do the people of this country a lot of good. From Brian McGlinchey from starkrealities.substack.com:
Look for this and other flawed talking points when secession interest intensifies after Nov. 5
Secessionist inclinations are on the rise in the United States, and are sure to intensify after Nov. 5 regardless of which party prevails. When that happens, you can expect the accompanying discourse will be peppered with assertions that states have no right to secede, with many declaring the question was “settled” by the Civil War.
The embedded contention that legal and moral questions are rightly and permanently settled by the outcome of a mass-murder contest is absurd on its face. However, the notion is so widely and casually embraced that it invites an emphatic response. It also serves as a starting point to address other flawed forms of secession skepticism.
Written by a socialist in 1892, the Pledge of Allegiance attempts to program Americans into internalizing a falsehood: that the United States is “one nation, indivisible.” On that score at least, the deeply-flawed pledge isn’t working on a large number of citizens.
PARIS, July 24 (Reuters) – The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) will take the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) to the Independent Compliance Review Committee next month, WADA told Reuters, a landmark move that could jeopardise the country hosting the 2028 and 2034 Olympics.
If the US leaders wanted to wage a thermonuclear war that would destroy America and the world, we would not be here to talk about it. President Biden has explicitly ruled out a direct confrontation with Russia, no matter what happens in Ukraine.
However, there are disturbing indications that some individuals in high places in the US (or representing the thinking of many in such high places) are okay with a nuclear war that will destroy the United States, or in fact are encouraging such a war.
A «no fly zone» of death would expand across the globe instantly
Imposing a no-fly zone in Ukraine will trigger a third world war because it will require targeting Russian airfields, radar and defense systems on Russian territory with American missiles. Russian defenses have vast ranges that prohibit the use of US aircraft over Ukraine. Russian weapons can also easily reach all American airfields in Europe that would be involved in any such operation. The vastness of the Russian military means that the US would have to launch a devastating attack on Russia to neutralise all the threats to US planes as they attack the Russians. Russia would invariably respond by attacking US airfields in turn, and very quickly targeting the US mainland and cities in response to its own territory being attacked by America.
Despite this, there are calls from seemingly well-qualified individuals to go ahead and start this suicidal conflict anyway.
Here are just three examples. There are no doubt others, possibly more influential, but these are just picked at random for being prominent examples of Anglo-American leadership on both sides of the Atlantic.
General Philip Breedlove
This man is no crank. Breedlove is a US general and the former supreme military commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe, or SACEUR). He has explictly pleaded, «How many casualties does it take before we take a different approach to this war?» While this may simply seem like a stupid remark, based on emotion, this man is trained and competent enough to be fully aware that what he is advocating will entail killing not just everyone in Ukraine but everyone in Russia, Europe and North America too. Why, then, is he advocating it?
The former Downing Street Chief of Staff under Tony Blair from 1997-2007 has advocated against «appeasement» and argued for launching a war on the Russians if they use a chemical weapon in Ukraine. He cites the example of Syria and the need to take a firmer moral stand (apparently that will do a whole lot of good when we are all skeletons). He is advocating this despite the fact that Western governments were never even fully confident that Syria used chemical weapons, and they bombed Syria merely because of intelligence assessments stating it was «likely». Apparently, we will be very impatient to immolate ourselves and not bother to wait for any investigation in Ukraine, too.
As horrifying as the pictures may have been, the use of chemical weapons in Syria barely killed anyone and had little to no effect on the battlefield other than prompting Western strikes. More people died from knives in Syria. The nuclear exchange that would be guaranteed by attacking Russia on such a flimsy, emotionally manipulative pretext about «chemicals» would kill almost everyone in Ukraine, and then kill almost everyone in both the West and Russia. Apparently, politicians don’t see a moral issue with the scenario of mass immolation of people, followed by the larger group of us whose skin will melt and their eyeballs will fall out, followed by another percentarge who will be vomiting blood. No, these scenes don’t worry them; they are just worried about the «chemicals» and the idea of people choking, such that they think it is worth risking the nuclear scenario.
These interventionist leaders we are talking about may be insane, but the unique mental health problems of those with power are less important to talk about than the need to stop them.
Who will stop these men?
The answer is… currently serving American officers and generals, who want their troops to live, and probably want their families to survive too.https://www.youtube.com/embed/8mNgElVy7eQ
It should be observed that military experts and officials tend to always warn against what will cause a nuclear war, as happened in Syria. Here we are again, and the same kind of «hawks» are trying to impose a situation where deescalation could become too difficult for the military personnel tasked with a nation’s safety, as if the politicians had reached out and ripped the brakes from your car to make sure you crash.
Getting closer and closer to Russia and trying to enforce the US’s will closer and closer to them potentially creates an ever more uncontrollable and unpredictable series of conflicts between the US and Russia that make it almost impossible for troops to avoid a nuclear war, even if they have the maximum will to avoid one.
Being responsible for a larger population, if the US gets into a nuclear war with Russia, it will suddenly make the world record for being the country with the biggest piles of dead bodies in human history. Every American officer and general’s family will most likely perish, meaning that they have utterly failed not only in their duty as a soldier but even as a human being.
The only solution can be that American officers must continuously resist the pressure of politicians to put them in a situation of nuclear escalation that they cannot escape. Finally, if American officers are unable to prevent themselves being put in that situation, it would become their duty to preserve their country by, in the worst case scenario, mutiny. One should be prepared, privately, to kill their own political leaders and seize control of the government, even at grave risk to their own lives, if the alternative is to obey orders that will directly lead to nuclear war.
They kill, maim and injure and then carry out attacks in hospitals, and then they tell us about protecting the National Health Service.
We can best begin to get our heads around how the housing market works both in the civilised world and in the Irish Free State by checking out, on one of the many sites specialising in such matters, the ballpark prices for 14 Thorndale Delgany, where Irish Prime Minister, Simon Harris, lives; 21, St Alban’s Road, where former Prime Minister Leo Varadkar lives with his husband; and 186 Cabra Road, where Mary Lou McDonald, Sinn Féin’s nominal leader, lives.
Beginning with Harris’ “gaff”, as left wing spoofer Rory Hearne would call it, we see here that “gaffs” in his area sell for just under €1 million. As the estate agent makes plain that Thorndale is near every imaginable convenience, Harris’ spacious property is, for those like him in steady and lucrative employment, probably good value for money, which helps explain why his gaff has markedly increased in value since he bought it.
Though much the same applies to McDonald’s massive mansion on the new Cabra Road and to Varadkar’s gaff on the South Circular Road, it has to be pointed out that both of those properties are worth substantially more than are those of their neighbours, an important fact that might adversely affect their resale value.
A bad location in a good location
Location, location location are property’s three golden rules. There is an old heuristic that a bad location in a good location is worth more than a good location in a bad location. Simply put, good locations, such as Tokyo’s Ginza or London’s Oxford Street, have much more upside potential than do the less sought after areas of the Outer Hebrides. Applying that to the above three examples, Harris’ Delgany gaff would seem to be the best of the lot assuming, of course, that the suburban location and upper class facilities on offer suited the purchaser.
If a deep-pocketed purchaser preferred inner city Dublin’s feral life, then a penthouse suite in an upscale apartment block might better suit one’s needs, as long as the purchaser appreciated that the apartment market is much more volatile than the market for family houses in settled areas like Delgany.
Res tantum
Res tantum valet quantum vendi potest. A thing is worth only what someone else will pay for it, said Caesar’s wise old Roman real estate agents. Although Harris might think his “gaff” is worth €1 million, it might be worth more or less to a purchaser, depending on how it suits that person’s particular requirements and on what the state of the market is.
The state of the market depends on such factors as supply and demand, as well as, crucially in the property market, government policy and interest rates. In a tight market, prices will go up and, if there is an oversupply, prices will fall. If interest rates go up, life will become harder on mortgage holders and, if they go down, more buyers should enter the market.
Government policies and people’s expectations also need to be factored in. If the government decides to subsidise house building or give relief to mortgage holders, that will increase supply. If buyers think the good times will (continue to) roll, they will trade up from starter homes into bigger “gaffs” and borrow more to do so.
Renting or buying?
The rental market must also be factored in. Because workers and students need a “gaff” to crash in when they move to the big smoke, there must be a supply of such properties that reflect that demand, and that factor in such things as students can be irresponsible tenants with shallower pockets, but higher maintenance costs than other prospective tenants. Allied to that is, when one buys a property, one is effectively renting to oneself rather than to a paying customer.
Were McDonald, for example, to rent out her massive gaff, I would imagine, depending on local market forces, she could easily clear €5,000 a month on it. Though McDonald, like many others, has decided she is better off renting her mansion to herself than to rent it to others, professional real estate agents could quickly assess its rental value, were she to up sticks and live amongst the proletarians she purports to represent.
If £2,000 is too much for you, there is always Detroit, where houses can be picked up for $1, which might suit if you have served in South Korea’s Special Forces and if you have 1,000 like minded Koreans, who can also shoot straight and want to make a go of it. If you’d prefer to skip Rambo land, you would be much better off paying a king’s ransom, moving in beside Harris and practicing your golf on Ireland’s premier golf courses which, the estate agent tells us, are at his doorstep.
40 acres and a mule
There is this famous scene in Gone With the Wind where Scarlett O’Hara passes a Yankee carpetbagger trying to sell Dixieland’s simple-minded former slaves on the snake oil notion of owning their own 40 acres, with a donkey thrown in for good measure. Although the Dixiecrats have been selling snake oil like that since General Lee’s surrender, because populist politics is all about smooth talking snake oil salesmen, not economics, they are far from alone in this disreputable practice.
Populist politics in NATO land is about convincing mugs to vote for one dimensional figures, who may or may not be good at their jobs, but who will vote the party line if they do not want to lose their cushy numbers. Although the three politicians mentioned above may profess different policies, what is important is that they can deliver the necessary soundbite and snap the necessary selfie when needed. Whatever policies they may have will come from elsewhere.
Meet Mr Gaff
Rory Hearne is a Trotskyist former student union leader, who now lectures on housing in a former Irish seminary. He has written a number of books, one of which is titled Gaffs, which explains why no one (except politicians?) can get a house and what we can do about it. Hearne’s books are endorsed by a coterie of figures, who are up to much the same lark as himself. These include Canadian lawyer Leilani Farha, Irish academic Michelle Norris and Jesuit priest Fr Peter McVerry, whose scandal ridden Peter McVerry Trust for the homeless rakes in more than €60 million a year.
What all these characters broadly have in common is a childish belief that everyone can have their own gaff and live happily ever after, if only these self-serving social entrepreneurs are allowed to construct society according to Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum blueprint. The point here is not that their abstract final solution might be Pareto optimal when compared to the bifurcated dystopia we currently see being imposed on us, but that their bimbo beauty contest solutions are entirely unworkable, as long as folk like Simon Harris are making the very rational decision to pay a premium to protect him and his family from society’s more problematic people.
Although fat cats like McVerry and Hearne would object to Harris’ eminently sane choices being put in such stark terms, that is the reality, and the fact that Hearne studied Geography at Trinity, with such hot air topics as “housing, planning, urban economics and social justice” on the curriculum does not change that a whit.
In fact, if we regard housing and supplying gaffs as an applied problem, rather than the abstract social justice problem Hearne and his fellow fat cats describe it as, then the first thing we should do is close Trinity’s Geography department, terminate Hearne’s employment and wind up McVerry’s trust as their hot air accentuates the problem, which they thrive off. But all of that is an aside.
Say Hello to the Provos
They bomb factories and shout about unemployment. They shoot a teacher in a classroom, kill school bus drivers, kill people on campuses and then lecture us about education. They kill, maim and injure and then carry out attacks in hospitals, and then they tell us about protecting the National Health Service. They rob post offices, leaving people without benefit payments and then they preach to us about defending the poor. Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume on Sinn Féin’s double standards, cited on pp 227/8 in Patrick Keefe’s excellent Say Nothing: a true story of murder and memory in Northern Ireland.
Many of the ills associated with Ireland’s jerry building are epitomised by former IRA hunger striker Tom McFeely, who emerged penniless from a British prison to quickly forge together a billion dollar building empire, before being forced to declare bankruptcy, as his new-found empire crashed around him. Although McFeely’s building career has a case to answer much more so, according to this article, does the shabby behaviour of the IRA’s Sinn Féin “partner in crime”, which pretends to be opposed to the shoddy and downright dangerous practices McFeely epitomised, but which never mentions either McFeely’s culpability or their own in this mess on both sides of the Irish border.
Even though Sinn Féin have overseen record rises in homelessness in the northern part of Ireland, which they help rule on behalf of their British buddies, they not only deny all culpability but claim, much like beauty pageant contestant Rory Hearne, that they can eliminate homelessness and all society’s other ills on the southern side as well.
Sinn Féin’s answer to pageant queen Hearne is entitled Cultural Studies (LOL) graduate Eoin Ó Broin, who tells us in this whimsical Daily Mirror article that “I want to be Minister for Housing.” In the course of that article, as well as this one on student accommodation, and countless more like it, Ó Broin, much like Rory the Gaff Hearne, explains how all the “thousands of Seáns and Máires”, who currently don’t have a gaff of their own, can sleep easy because deliverance, in the form of that nincompoop, is at hand.
Leaving aside that Ó Broin has compared the gardai to the RIC of the 19th century Land War, the fact of the matter is ordinary gardai (police) can no longer secure a mortgage on their salary and the more forward-thinking amongst them are packing their bags and heading for Canada and Australia in search of a worthwhile life. Never mind! The bold Ó Broin will fix them, all the outward bound nurses and the tens of thousands of inward bound migrants with a gaff too.
Ó Broin’s “comprehensive, practical and radical alternative” answer, much like Hearne’s, is spelled out in his newspaper articles, books and endless Sinn Féin policy statements. Ó Broin’s fairy tale answer “lies in establishing a Constitutional right to housing, large scale investment in a new model of public housing to meet social and affordable housing needs, real reform of the private rental sector and regulation of private finance, development and land”.
Sinn Fein’s latest 40 acre and a mule statement is to supply record numbers of new 2 bedroom homes “for around €300,000 or less” and “cheaper cost-rental rents of €1,000 per month”. Let’s forget that 2 bedroom houses are relatively difficult to resell and ask how this miracle of economic miracles can be financed.
Though Ó Broin’s spoofers will do this by rezoning yet more land and gifting massive tax breaks to some (McFeely-linked?) builders and buyers at the expense of others, it won’t directly affect Harris, Varadkar or McDonald, as all three live in established, well-settled areas.
All of this building, at the cost of untold billions of euros in subsidies, will have to take place in badly serviced outback areas, which will only accentuate the problems similar areas have witnessed in times gone by.
The Way We Were
Although youtube has informative videos here, here and here on how former governments built excellent housing estates to clear Dublin’s slums which, at one time, were akin only to Calcutta’s in the British Empire’s vast array of such shameful hovels, pay particular attention to this one, entitled Housing Supply & Demand, which was first broadcast on 13 July 1962, only 18 months after RTÉ, Ireland’s national television network, first saw the light of day.
Despite its rawness, note the underlying professionalism of the presenter and those he interviews: council officials and builders, who know the building industry inside out and who know what they have to achieve with the limited financial and other means available to them. No Geography students there rabbiting on about gaffs, or Gender Studies cretins talking down to Ireland’s “thousands of Seáns and Máires,” just professionals who know their onions.
No Magic Bullet
No matter what Rory the Gaff Hearne or Eoin Ó Broin might argue, there is no magic bullet to fix this problem, just as there was no silver bullet to solve the problems Tom McFeely formerly addressed in his role as an IRA commander. Though the problems elucidated in that July 1962 documentary haven’t gone away, you know, they have, in many ways, got infinitely worse, thanks to the platforms afforded to the 40 acres and a mule brigade that Ó Broin, Hearne and their serial endorsers represent.
The solution, if such exists, lies in lowering demand and changing expectations by politicians making the types of hard decisions beauty pageant queens like Hearne, Ó Broin and all like them never can and never will.
As if to give a collapsing Ireland the finger, Ireland’s High Court has decreed that Ireland must supply its legions of fake asylum seekers with the type of luxury gaffs folk like Hearne and Ó Broin and their affiliated NGOs have decreed is their right; the EU and their local Green Party enforcers have demanded that these gaffs must be of the highest quality and all of that has to come from a narrow tax base, which is far too heavily dependent upon fly-by-night American multinationals and the distortions their presence causes in the Irish property and allied markets
Add, too, that mortgages are a mercurial market, where borrowing is short term on a long term asset and you have a pack of cards, a tinderbox, where irresponsible jokers like Gaffman and Ó Broin want to play with the matches and thereby put us all at risk.
Contrary to what these 40 acres and a mule scammers preach, scarce resources have to be rationed and progressively re-distributed if and only if the overall economy improves. Building gaffs is a short term populist palliative that cannot be sustained over the longer term unless alternative income streams outside of the building industry present themselves.
Though post-War Japan proves all that in spades, as things currently stand, those alternative income streams are not there and nor are they likely to reappear in the great mining towns of Britain or auto cities like Detroit, most especially when Dixiecrats like Gaffman and Ó Broin are at the wheel.
And nor are they likely to re-appear to any sustainable degree in Ireland, which has been affected as much by Margaret Thatcher‘s as any other economy left to the vagaries of the untrammeled market, where demand, supply and depressed expectations thrash it out.
From Crystal Meth to Crystal Ball
Gazing into my crystal ball, I see multinational investment companies like BlackRock and Vanguard playing increasingly prominent roles in the residential property market not only by directly buying existing and new stock, but by manipulating overall demand and supply as well by investing in infrastructure here and there, but not everywhere else. Now that the cohesive forces of church and the syndicalist trade union movement have been eroded, I would expect little mass push back against any of that, though colonialist plants might make some noises here and there.
Though I would expect areas like Simon Harris’ Delgany to keep the great unwashed at bay for a good while longer, other areas will become more uncertain, depending on the power plays of multinational investment companies and the various drug cartels that monopolise the quick cash sector of the economy.
Although young (male and female) couples will still want to mate and raise families in environments conducive to their expectations, that will become increasingly difficult, when market competitors outbid them and populist cretins fool them with their gaffs-for-all snake oil promises.
Just as with a child throwing a bottle into the sea, so are there two main ways all this can go. The child can either retrieve the bottle or leave it sail off into the wide, blue yonder. The Irish government can either depress demand by pulling up the drawbridge, stopping all welfare payments to the undeserving and starting the mass expulsion of freeloaders, or it can follow Ursula von der Leyen’s Hayekian road to serfdom. Although they are the main choices available, because this is not July1962, those hard choices make neither good TV nor popular sound bites for empty political vessels to deliver. Far better is it in Ireland, in Britain, in the United States and in places further afield, to give the floor to these South Carolina beauty pageant queens, whose answers, dumb though they may be, drive us only further into the abyss.
Though there are no 40 acres and there are no free mules either, that is what we must adjust to, either as atomised individuals or as united groups, who hang together rather than separately despite the empty words of the likes of Gaffman and Ó Broin, who bring nothing but self-interested hot air and empty words to the problems tearing NATO’s home front apart.
There are a few geopolitical areas with already raging wars that despite Trump’s rhetoric about ending them, he may actually exacerbate conflict.
Assuming that Donald Trump is not only elected but remains alive and well, no later than in January 2025 we may witness some of his moves in the international arena that do not necessarily foster but rather further endanger world peace.
There are a few geopolitical areas with already raging wars that despite Trump’s rhetoric about ending them, he may actually exacerbate conflict.
Knowing his inclination to act in a “pushy” manner he might spread more mess and destruction.
Donald Trump, once involved in conflicts – be it as a peacemaker or a war party – is not prepared to be a loser even if he may end up as one. The geopolitical area that I am to focus closely on is that of war-torn Ukraine.
Russia’s conditions for establishing peace in Ukraine
In a televised speech with his Foreign Ministry officials in June, President Vladimir Putin said Ukrainian forces should pull out from the Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye regions in return for a ceasefire by Russian troops. This offer was immediately rejected by the Kiev regime’s purported leader Vladimir Zelensky.
Putin also stated Ukraine must give up its bid to join NATO. Also, later while in Hanoi, the Russian leader stated that future Russian conditions for peace would depend on the battlefield situation and therefore might not be the same as time passes.
One month later in Astana, Putin said Russia was ready to declare a halt to fighting before Ukraine would agree to take “irreversible” steps demanded by the Russian Federation. “A ceasefire without reaching such agreements was impossible,” he emphasized.
According to a U.S. senator and a Western official familiar with the matter at the beginning of June 2024, Ukraine used U.S. weapons to strike inside pre-war Russia.
Biden’s new directive allowed for U.S.-supplied weapons to be used to strike Russian forces that are attacking or preparing to attack.
U.S. officials said that it does not change policy that supposedly directs Ukraine not to use American-provided ATACMS or long-range missiles and other munitions to strike offensively inside Russia.
Soon after the White House altered its policy, Germany announced that it was also authorizing Ukraine to hit some targets on Russian soil with the long-range weapons that Berlin is supplying to Kiev. Shortly afterward, Putin warned Germany that such a move would mark a “dangerous step”, adding that Moscow could, in turn, provide long-range arms to others to strike Western targets.
Dmitry Kiselyov, the host of a popular Russian TV show, surmised in a five-minute elaboration what exactly Putin could have meant by “asymmetric” response to attacks by Ukraine using Western long-range missiles.
Kiselyov instead chose the words “symmetric response” and stated: “’Indeed, if we reserve the right to do to you what you are doing to us, we are acting symmetrically. The countries to be punished will be those that are supplying Ukraine with long-range missiles, meaning those with a range of 350 km and more. There are three such countries: the United States, France and the United Kingdom.”
So who could be hit in a retaliatory action?
Kiselyov was blunt in his comment: “The 300,000 or more American soldiers and officers on the 900 military bases that the U.S. maintains around the world.”
He was equally outspoken as to the possible recipients of advanced Russian arms that could be directed against the culprits. He mentioned at length the countries that are in confrontation with the United States. They include Syria, Iran, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua, the Central African Republic, the Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Southern Sudan and Zimbabwe.
The new NATO secretary-general, Mark Rutte – who is due to take over from Jens Stoltenberg in October – advocates that all 32 alliance member states must commit themselves to participating in military operations outside of the alliance’s territory.
Regarding that military policy demand, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban insisted that Hungary “would like to conclude an agreement with the future secretary-general that would not force Hungary to participate in NATO military operations against the Russians in Ukraine, despite being a NATO member.”
Anticipating such a possibility in the future, the Russian National Security Council’s deputy chairman, Dmitry Medvedev, issued an unprecedented warning to the U.S.-led NATO bloc in case they deploy troops in Ukraine. Medvedev stated that “the deployment of foreign forces in Ukraine would lead to a dangerous escalation.” He said all NATO soldiers would be treated as enemy combatants: “We should take no prisoners! The highest rewards must be given out for every killed NATO soldier.”
Is it possible to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours?
Donald Trump promised to “end the war in Ukraine in 24 hours” for the first time in January 2023 and he has repeated his pledge a few times since then. Although he provided few details. Trump says he would urge Ukraine to give up Crimea and the Donbass in exchange for a peace deal. It broadly coincided with the information furnished in March 2024 by Hungary’s Orban, who suggested that Trump was planning to end the war by threatening to withdraw all U.S. support to Kiev.
In addition, in his initial “negotiating tactics”, Trump directed the following words toward the Russian Federation. He threatened “to give [Ukrainians] more than they ever got, if we have to,” to force the Kremlin into accepting the settlement.
In implicit response to Trump’s offer to end the Ukrainian conflict in 24 hours, Russia’s UN Ambassador Vassily Nebenzia retorted that “the Ukrainian crisis was complicated and could not be solved in one day.” He didn’t provide any further comment on Trump’s boastful claim.
Illegitimate Ukrainian president Zelensky (he postponed scheduled elections in March) has belatedly acknowledged a need for peace negotiations in the last week or so. Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reportedly told Zelensky after meeting Trump about the inevitability of ceding Crimea to Russia.
Interestingly, Orban said after meeting Zelensky in Kiev and Putin in Moscow that Ukraine and Russia’s positions were “very far from one another.”
In a letter to European Union leaders, Orban described Trump as having “well-founded plans” for Russia-Ukraine peace negotiations. He expressed the view that the EU should reopen direct diplomatic communication with Russia and start “high-level” negotiations with China in the search for a peaceful solution to the war. His suggestions were given a cold shoulder, we may suppose, not only because all this implied an imposed peace on Ukraine.
While emphasizing his readiness for talks, Putin pointed out that any peace plan proposed by a future Trump administration would have to reflect the reality on the ground.
Assuming very optimistically that Trump made the negotiators from Russia and Ukraine agree on territorial compromises, there remain thorny questions of demilitarisation and denazification. Those conditions would require effective guarantees and supervision. Russia cannot ignore the rebirth of Nazis in Ukraine despite of Soviet Union’s extensive re-education programs and sending a few hundred thousand Nazi collaborators fighters to the gulags after WWII.
In all likelihood, the European Union would not be well-disposed to Trump and Russia. How could it be to their liking to see the U.S. achieve peace in Europe without their participation?
American worldwide domination regardless of who is in the White House
Trump periodically threatens that the U.S. would leave NATO, or not defend the bloc in a possible confrontation with Russia if the European members don’t spend a minimum of 2 percent of national GDP on defense.
In addition, public remarks by Trump’s vice-presidential running mate J. D. Vance indicate that a would-be Trump administration has the same foreign policy objective as any other administration, namely a unipolar world dominated by U.S. hegemony. On his nomination as vice-presidential candidate, Vance hailed American exclusiveness. A few days later, he expressed his foreign policy vision as “America first with an Israel exception”. His presumption of U.S. exclusiveness can be seen in his careless treatment of Ukraine. During an interview with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, Vance said: “I’ve got to be honest with you, I don’t really care what happens to Ukraine one way or the other.”
Will there be any peace in Ukraine and if so what kind?
Some clues on U.S. motives in world politics can be gleaned for a future Trump administration. So we are told by J.D. Vance in an interview with Fox News that “what President Trump has promised to do is to go in there, negotiate with the Russians and the Ukrainians, bring this thing to a rapid close so that America can focus on the real issue, which is China. That’s the biggest threat to our country and we’re completely distracted from it.”
The remaining question is how, if at all, Trump will go about ending the Ukrainian conflict. Trump is too smart a politician not to know that such a savvy leader as Putin won’t give up the territories he is in control of. The key to Trump’s negotiating strategy amounts to applying enormous pressure on the Ukrainian side to give up their demands.
In 2023, Trump acknowledged that Russia eventually “would take over all of Ukraine.”
It doesn’t matter how much illegitimate president Zelensky is ready for such shattering concessions – even reflecting the situation on the ground. Zelensky in all probability would attempt to reject them at least partly for it would make him look politically bankrupt in the eyes of his own people and the West.
In such a scenario, Zelensky, in trying to postpone the inevitable, is likely to seek greater help (military assistance inclusive) from Western European allies. The key fact that should be realised under the prevailing circumstances is that Europe, outside of Ukraine and Russia, does not enter Trump’s calculations in the slightest. His self-imposed task is to pivot away from Europe to impose U.S. leadership globally. Should Western Europeans get involved militarily in Ukraine, they will subject themselves to a punch by the Russian army. It will be a hard one.
A final word
The speculation on the outcome of Trump’s peace-making mission in Ukraine should bear in mind the ominous view of respected political thinker Aleksandr Dugin on the future of Ukraine.
Dugin states: “There was a time when Russia might have accepted a two-state solution in Ukraine – with the eastern half becoming Russian and the western half remaining an independent country under Western influence. I consider this impossible after this bloodshed, after the level of hatred and killings and rage on both sides. So we are in a situation where either Ukraine will in future cease to exist, and will become part of south and western Russia, or there will be no Russia. No Russia as it is now. The trouble is, there is also a third possibility, where there will be nobody. Neither Russia nor Ukraine nor humanity nor the West. The nuclear option, in other words.”
The Age of Government is giving way to the Age of the Individual.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Sun Tzu, The Art of War
The overwhelming advantage the resistance has over the confederated empire is our rulers’ arrogance, which blinds them not just to knowledge of their enemy, but to knowledge of themselves. They don’t understand the epoch-defining changes underway, the nature of the political forces aligning against them, the futility of their efforts to maintain what’s risibly called “the rules-based order,” and the folly of trying to impose a global superstate. They have everything tangible anyone could desire, but lack the two things they need—self-awareness and wisdom.
We can assume that one way or the other, the Corruptocracy was behind the Trump assassination attempt. At the least, eight years of inflammatory, violent rhetoric has had, as its implicit objective, to seed in addled minds the notion that Trump deserves to die and the intent to kill him. Biden recently said it was time to put a “bullseye” on Trump.
However, the shocking malfeasance of the Secret Service argues for something more orchestrated. Official and mainstream media obfuscation has been monumental, but perhaps over time the alternative media will ferret out something approaching the truth, as it has with so many incidents and issues. Conspiracy theory will once again become conspiracy fact. Fortunately, suspicion-fueling memes are coming fast and furious.
A potential conspiracy the alternative media might not uncover is if the incident was staged, because so much of the alternative media is pro-Trump. It’s one of several plausible hypotheses and can’t be dismissed out of hand. Trump didn’t give the Deep State any trouble in his first term, and perhaps it wants to ensure that he doesn’t do so in his second.
Martialische Posen und Kriegsgerassel gen Osten – und Deutschland ist wieder voll dabei (Symbolbild:Pixabay)
Die Kriegsmächte spielen schon wieder mit dem Feuer respektive mit dem Leben der Bevölkerung Mitteleuropas. Der Krieg in der Ukraine erscheint als optimaler Zeitpunkt, dem wirtschaftlich angeschlagenen Russland den Rest zu geben, und damit jetzt endlich das zu schaffen, was Hitler im Zweiten Weltkrieg nicht gelungen war. Aber schon damals verhinderte Russland seine Liquidierung nicht nur aus eigener Kraft; der Krieg forderte zwar auf russischer Seite die meisten Toten, doch den deutschen Angriff zurückzuschlagen, war nur mit amerikanischem Kriegsmaterial möglich. Und jetzt, 80 Jahre später, machen die USA aus ihren einstigen Waffenbrüdern den Feind Nummer 2 (der Hauptfeind bleibt gleichwohl China). Und auch Großbritannien ist wieder mit von der Partie, ganz so, als wolle man Churchills Ausspruch nach dem Sieg über Hitler-Deutschland neue Aktualität verleihen: „Wir haben das falsche Schwein geschlachtet.
Russland war schon damals schwach. Stalin gestand 1943 in Teheran: “Ohne die Hilfe der Alliierten (USA und Großbritannien, d. Verf.) würden wir den Krieg verlieren. Hier ein paar Zahlen der Unterstützung Russlands: 1941 wurden in 2.770 Frachtschiffen 17,5 Millionen Tonnen Güter von den USA an die UdSSR geliefert. Zu den späteren Lieferungen der USA zählten unter anderem 375.000 schwere Studebaker-LKW, wovon 3.400 Stück zu “Stalin-Orgeln” (den berüchtigten sowjetischen Raketenwerfern) umgerüstet wurden. Zudem wurden geliefert: 18.564 Panzer, 22.195 Flugzeuge, 432.316 PKW, 36.891 Motorräder, 2.800.000 Tonnen Spezialstahl, 2.670.000 Tonnen Erdölprodukte, 2.586.000 Tonnen Flugbenzin, 32.000.000 Paar Soldatenstiefel und Schuhe und vieles mehr Die USA und Großbritannien lieferten für 11,3 Milliarden US-Dollar – heutige Kaufkraftparität über 200 Milliarden Dollar – Waffen an die UdSSR. 80 Prozent des Bedarfs an medizinischer Hilfe für die Rote Armee stammte aus den USA. (Ost-)Deutschland wurde daher kaum mit russischen Waffen überrannt – denn Hitler ließ Stalin keine Zeit, seine Rüstungsproduktion noch rechtzeitig hochfahren zu können.
Es gibt keinen Grund für “Nachrüstung”
Auch heute ist Russland kein Wirtschaftsprotz und daher – konventionell – auch militärisch unterlegen. Im Ranking der Wirtschaftsleistung belegt das Riesenland nur den 11. Platz, schlechter als Frankreich oder Italien. Deshalb muss die russische Bevölkerung schwer bluten, um die Militärausgaben finanzieren zu können: Alleine Großbritannien, Deutschland und Frankreich leisten sich mit zusammen 203 Milliarden Dollar einen fast doppelt so hohen Todeshaushalt an Militärausgaben als Russland mit umgerechnet 109 Milliarden Dollar. Die gesamte Nato bietet fast das Vierzehnfache auf; die USA alleine lässt es sich per Verteidigungshaushalt 916 Milliarden Dollar kosten, die Welt in Schach zu halten. Wer das nicht glauben mag, möge gerne die amtlichen Zahlen bemühen. Das statistische Bundesamt erstellt nur Grafiken aus dem, was die wirklichen Experten zusammentragen (hier zusammengefasste Zahlen des Stockholmer SIPRI-Instituts) Dieser Beitrag des “Infosperbers” aus der Schweiz verrät ein offenes Geheimnis: „Hinsichtlich der im Westen gefürchteten russischen Bedrohung ist festzustellen, dass im Jahr 2023 die Rüstungsausgaben der NATO mit 1.341 Milliarden US-Dollar etwa zwölfmal höher waren als jene Russlands. Wie ich bereits in früheren Artikeln zum Ukrainekrieg mit zugänglichem Zahlenmaterial nachwies, gibt es daher auch jetzt absolut nichts “nachzurüsten“. Nicht im Allgemeinen, und auch nicht mit Mittelstreckenwaffen und anderen Raketen. Allein atomar herrschte und herrscht ein Gleichgewicht des Schreckens.
Die Rüstungswirtschaft lässt sich die Aufträge der von ihr gepuschten Regierungen satt versilbern – nein, sie verdient sich goldene Nasen. Die Gewinne und Aktienkurse eilen von Rekord zu Rekord. Die Konzerne gehen dabei buchstäblich über Leichen; an die Ukraine liefern sie ihre Waffen „bis zum letzten Mann“. Bei den Rüstungsexporten sind die USA Champion: 42 Prozent gehen auf ihr Konto und auf deren Konten. Russland nimmt sich gegen die USA mit seinen gerade einmal 11 Prozent des weltweiten Rüstungsexportvolumens wie ein erwachsener Waisenknabe aus – es liefert nicht einmal mehr als Frankreich alleine. Das kleine Deutschland exportiert immerhin halb so viele Rüstungsgüter als Russland und belegt nach China den 5. Platz weltweit. Ein Grund, stolz zu sein?
Was reitet die NATO?
Welcher Teufel also reitet nun die NATO, neben dem bisherigen Waffenarsenal neue Mittelstreckenraketen in unserem Land zu stationieren? Werden wir tatsächlich von Russland bedroht? Alexander Raue thematisiert die Frage in diesem Video: „Gerade wurde eine rote Linie von Putin überschritten und jetzt könnte die Lage eskalieren. Eine Drohne hat einen russischen Überschallbomber auf dem Olenya-Luftwaffenstützpunkt vernichtet. Und dieser Stützpunkt ist direkt an der finnischen Grenze und 3.000 Kilometer entfernt von der Ukraine! Wir alle wissen, wer das war…“ Es sind zwar 2.000 Kilometer bis zum russischen Stützpunkt bei Murmansk, was an der Sache aber wenig ändert: Die NATO rückt auch nach 2005 immer weiter gegen Russland vor, und die deutsche Regierung unterstützt sie dabei – schon wieder gegen Russland! Der nicht erklärte Überfall auf die Sowjetunion ging in der Geschichtsschreibung als Kriegsverbrechen ein; nun soll die Aufrüstung im Zuge der NATO-Osterweiterung Richtung Russland ein Akt der Friedenssicherung sein? Hitlers Wehrmacht hatte es von der Ostgrenze des Reichs immerhin noch 1.600 Kilometer bis Moskau; NATO-Waffen brauchen von Lettland aus nur noch 700 Kilometer und von der Ukraine aus sind es keine 500 Kilometer mehr bis nach Moskau.
Doch Deutschland zeigt sogar im Indopazifik „Flagge”: Marine und Luftwaffe nehmen an der dortigen Militärübung RIMPAC gegen China teil. “Deutsche Marine übt vor Hawaii”, wird uns stolz vermeldet. Soso. Sogar Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius persönlich besucht das Manöver vor der Haustüre Chinas. Wie kommt’s? Der rote Riese ist doch der Lieblingsfeind der USA jenseits des Pazifik; braucht es da wirklich die deutsche Marine im von uns über 9.000 Kilometer entfernten Chinesischen Meer? Und wozu? China ist mit inzwischen schon fast 300 Milliarden Dollar Militärausgaben die zweitstärkste Militärmacht der Welt, wenn auch nur ein Drittel des Kriegsweltmeisters USA stark, doch der Abstand verringert sich.
Der dritte und letzte Krieg
Hat Deutschland nicht schon einmal im Pazifik auf falsche Pferde gesetzt, mit Japan? Wer sind im Pazifikraum wirklich unsere Freunde? Das scheint niemand mehr zu hinterfragen, sicher ist bloß: Die Berliner Politik schafft sich immer mehr Feinde. Und nun schlägt sich Pistorius auch noch demonstrativ auf die Seite Südkoreas, das mit Nordkorea nur einen Waffenstillstand hat, sich also de facto noch im Kriegszustand befindet. Wäre es da nicht besser, mit China Handel und Wandel zu treiben, statt sich das Riesenreich zum Feind zu machen? Was übrigens auch für andere Länder gilt.
Ich für meinen Teil gewinne zunehmend den Eindruck, die Berliner Politik versucht, das selbst angerichtete wirtschaftliche Desaster militärisch zu kompensieren. Hoffen wir, dass unser Land nicht dereinst das gleiche Schicksal erleidet wie Karthago, von dem Bertolt Brecht schrieb: “Das große Karthago führte drei Kriege. Nach dem ersten war es noch mächtig. Nach dem zweiten war es noch bewohnbar. Nach dem dritten war es nicht mehr aufzufinden.“ Bezogen auf Deutschland trifft die Prophezeiung in ihren ersten beiden Vorhersagen zu. Die gegenwärtige Politik tut alles dafür, dass sich auch die dritte erfüllt. Das deutsche Kaiserreich war bis 1914 noch 540.858 Quadratkilometer groß, nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg noch 470.000 Quadratkilometer. Nach dem 2. Weltkrieg schrumpfte Westdeutschland auf weniger als die Hälfte der ursprünglichen Größe auf nur noch 249.000 Quadratkilometer – und nur dem Entgegenkommen Russlands ist es zu verdanken, dass wir nach der Deutschen Einigung wieder 357.588 Quadratkilometer unser eigen nennen dürfen. Ob wir auch noch einmal eine Chance bekommen, wenn wir uns weiter von den USA vor deren Karren spannen lassen?
Das Attentat auf Donald Trump wird eines der wichtigsten Ereignisse sein dieses Jahr, oder vielleicht sogar das ganze Jahrzehnt. Es ändert sich erheblich das Kräfteverhältnis in der politischen Arena nicht nur in den Vereinigten Staaten, sondern auf der ganzen Welt. Es wird auch starke Auswirkungen auf Europa haben. Fakt ist: Nach dem Fehler des 20-jährigen Schützen Thomas Matthew Crooks steht Trump, der bisher nur versucht hatte, seine Nase ins Oval Office zu stecken, nun mit einem Fuß drin.
Bis zu den US-Wahlen sind es noch vier Monate und alles kann passieren, aber jetzt hängt das Ergebnis hauptsächlich nur noch von Donald und seinem Team ab. Sofern sie keine schwerwiegenden Fehler begehen, hat Kamalla Harris kaum eine Chance.
Die Tatsache, dass das Attentat Trump der Präsidentschaft der Vereinigten Staaten näher brachte schrieb Die Presse buchstäblich unmittelbar nach dem Attentat. Die Presse schrieb, nach dem Attentat sei Trumps Image als „lebensfroher Präsidentschaftskandidat“ fest verankert. „Trump wird wahrscheinlich viele Wähler für sich gewinnen, die ihm bisher skeptisch gegenüberstanden“, was bedeute, dass Trumps Wahlsieg „unvermeidlich“ sei.
Auch die offiziellen österreichischen Politiker sind recht deutlich reagierte auf das Attentat. Erinnern wir uns an einige Zitate. „Gewalt in Politik ist absolut inakzeptabel. Die Stärke unserer liberalen Demokratie – Respekt, Gleichheit und Pluralismus – darf nicht durch Hass und Gewalt untergraben werden. Ich wünsche Donald Trump eine baldige Genesung“, schrieb Alexander Van der Bellen auf seiner X-Seite.
„Ich bin entsetzt über das Attentat auf Donald Trump bei seiner Kundgebung Pennsylvania und wünsche ihm eine schnelle und vollständige Genesung. Politische Gewalt hat in unserer Gesellschaft keinen Platz! „Meine Gedanken sind bei allen Opfern dieses Anschlags“, wiederholte Karl Nehammer den Präsidenten.
Es gibt eine Nuance in den Aussagen hochrangiger Beamter – keine davon besteht auf einer raschen offenen Untersuchung dieses Verbrechens. Das ähnelt der Reaktion beispielsweise der Spitzenbeamten des Nachbarlandes Deutschland.
Gleichzeitig begannen die Probleme mit den Ermittlungen buchstäblich von Anfang an. gestartet. Die mangelnde Überzeugung der Chefin des US-Geheimdienstes, Kimberly Cheatle, im Kongress war das letzte Argument für ihren Rücktritt.
Und erst neulich kritisierte Trump selbst das FBI. Hier dass er erklärte: „FBI-Direktor Christopher Wray teilte dem Kongress gestern mit, dass er nicht sicher sei, ob ich von Granatsplittern, Glas oder einer Kugel getroffen wurde.“ Aber das FBI hat es nicht einmal überprüft! Und er war zuversichtlich, dass der Schurke Joe Biden „körperlich und geistig unverletzt“ sei. Alles falsch! Nein, es war leider eine Kugel, die mich hart ins Ohr traf. Es gab kein Glas, es gab keine Splitter. Das Krankenhaus nannte es eine „Schusswunde am Ohr“, und das war es auch.
Kein Wunder, dass das einst legendäre FBI das Vertrauen Amerikas verloren hat!“ Das ist alles wahr, aber das Problem ist, dass es nicht das FBI ist, das das Vertrauen Amerikas verloren hat, sondern dass die Welt zunehmend aufhört, den Vereinigten Staaten selbst zu vertrauen. Wenn in einem Land, das eine weltweite Führungsrolle anstrebt, mit voller Duldung des Geheimdienstes der Anführer der Präsidentschaftswahl acht (!) Mal erschossen wird und die Ermittlungen von jemandem aktiv ausgebremst werden, dann haben Menschen auf der ganzen Welt dies getan Fragen.
Die wichtigste dieser Fragen lautet: „Auf wie viel können wir als Führungskraft in einem Land zählen und auf das wir uns verlassen können?“ Ist Mord der Schlüssel zum Wahlsieg?
Die Schlussfolgerung aus all dem ist einfach: Es ist notwendig eine offene Untersuchung des Attentats mit unvermeidlicher Bestrafung aller die Beteiligten. Andernfalls entstehen nicht nur Probleme für die Demokratische Partei in den Vereinigten Staaten, sondern für die ganze Welt.
Der Friedensstifter 