Von der Leyen’s legacy

Hugo Dionísio

A European Union that has not only given up, but is using its own people. This is the legacy of Ursula von der Leyen and all those who support her.

The mainstream political class of the European Union, and its member states, has predictably ended up prolonging the agony, decadence and subservience of European affairs to U.S. interests. And now, for another five years, we will have to live, again, with Ursula von der Leyen.

Moreover, in the future, we will all remember her speeches on “value chain security”, in which Ursula’s great merit was to further reinforce the world’s dependence on Chinese value chains, demonstrating that, contrary to what she announces with as much anger as hatred, her tariffs, sanctions and conditioning cause us as much pain as they relieve the others. In the EU, in 10 years we will have given up the largest reserve of mineral, food, energy and raw materials in the world and, unless an uprising begins, we will also have given up the largest consumer market on the planet and the one that will grow the most in the coming years. These are von der Leyen’s great merits!

Given this record, you might think that the next five years would see a reversal of course. But no. Ursula von der Leyen will continue to infight against the EU’s own peoples, telling them one thing and doing the opposite, and one of the areas in which we can see, without any reservations whatsoever, that the European Union – this European Union – has given up on its indigenous peoples, is in relation to what is currently one of the main sources of social tension: immigration.

Classifying the current situation of the European labor market as being affected by serious “labor shortages”, the European Commission’s communication, entitled “Strengthening the social dialogue in the European Union: harnessing its full potential to manage just transitions”, is clear about von der Leyen’s intentions in this regard.

Don’t let that the apparently rational discourse fool you: “strengthening the social dialogue” should be read as “guaranteeing social peace in the face of measures that will further squeeze wages and living conditions”; “harnessing its full potential” should be read as “increasing the reserve army of labor to contain wage growth”; and “managing fair transitions” should be read as “ensuring that everyone will be forced to adopt the EU’s economic and social model, without reservation”.

As always, by wrapping her draconian intentions in occasional discursive flourishes, Ursula von der Leyen is making Europe poorer, less independent and more dangerous. Much more dangerous. Every time she opens her mouth, it’s best to interpret her words as having a hidden meaning, which is often the opposite of what she actually said.

On the road to increasing the exploitation of Europe’s peoples, the European Commission rightly begins by noting the demographic changes that have taken place in recent decades. Europeans are simply having fewer children. The result is that the native European working population has been shrinking and the forecast is that, today, being around 265 million workers, in 2040 this figure will be around 250 million and in 2050, 240 million. In other words, a reduction of one million per year.

Faced with a problem of this magnitude, the long-term consequences of which will not only be the reduction of native peoples, but also the emergence of vast deserted and unused areas, the perishing of certain cultures and traditions, would require an in-depth study and measures capable of reversing the trend of population decline and falling fertility and birth rates.

So, what is the European Commission proposing to solve what it identifies as serious “labor shortages”? The measures proposed by the European Union are all aimed at promoting an abrupt increase in the stock of available labor. Through what it refers to as “activation policies”, the EU wants – it says – to achieve “zero” unemployment, which is the first contradiction we can identify. So, you want to achieve “zero unemployment” while, at the same time, increasing the stock of available labor?

The truth is that the “activation policies” envisage employing young NEETs (Not in Employment, Education or Training) and assessing the impact of “some retirement pensions”, i.e. assessing the extent to which these pensions are not sending people capable of working into retirement, deactivating them instead of keeping them in the job market. This means focusing on the so-called “active ageing” market. Another measure is to identify “pockets” of available labor that may exist among disabled populations, “emancipating” these people, which would be laudable, but not when done for the wrong reasons. As we’ll see later.

Another important measure that is presented is intra-European mobility, transferring the nationally available workforce to the richer countries, leaving the rest without the investment they have made in education and training, aggravating the already unequal European division of labor, continuing to concentrate the activities with the highest added value and the highest wages in the northern countries and making the rest simple reserves of cheap labor, either to supply the richer ones or to install activities with lower added value and lower wages, perpetuating regional asymmetries. And all this, Ursula von der Leyen does, while stating the opposite objectives.

As for what the European Commission calls “promoting working conditions”, it aims to promote early entry into the labor market by promoting internships, apprenticeships and vocational education, diverting many young people, particularly the poorest, away from higher education and into early vocational training. As statistics show, young people in vocational education tend to go on to higher education far less often than those in general education. In this way, an elite is built up and entrusted with top management, keeping the rest in the middle ranks and migrants in low-skilled jobs.

But it is in solving the “labor shortages” on most undervalued activities that the EU is putting all its investment. The European economy still requires large amounts of labor for activities that use it intensively. In this case, the EU’s plans include strengthening migration policies and attracting the necessary workers from outside the EU. And this is how so many people who say they are against what they refer to as a “demographic replacement policy” end up supporting a European Union that wants to make migration policies one of its main strategic goals in attracting workers. In this way, the EU intends to establish what it calls a “European talent pool” and a “Platform for Labor Migration”. The two measures are based on attracting workers from third countries.

Now let’s compare these proposals with the following data:

• The average unemployment rate in the European Union is around 6.5%, so there are still around 17 million workers to be placed, a significant proportion of them young workers (14.5% are unemployed) between the ages of 18 and 25. Although the EU says that it is necessary to improve the qualifications of these people and that the labor gaps are more acute in some sectors than in others, the truth is that there is still a lot to be done at home to achieve “zero unemployment” before looking for a workforce in third countries.
• The potential for robotization, automation and digitalization of the European economy is still very high, especially in the less advanced countries, which in itself would free up huge amounts of available manpower that could be used in other sectors if this potential were to be realized.
• In general, the European Union does not develop policies that protect the birth rate and the right to parenthood, and even less that protect women of childbearing age, who so often have to give up fertility to the detriment of a career.

So, if these tasks have not yet been accomplished, why does the European Commission want to put the elderly, young teenagers, the disabled and invalids to work? Why does it want to attract qualified and less qualified workers from abroad? The reason is clear and has to do with wage restraint. The intention is to do this by increasing the so-called ” reserve army of labor “. More available labor, more demand for work, lower wages. It’s simple. That’s not to say that wages won’t rise, but they will rise at a slower rate than the economy, leading to a loss of purchasing power and to a relative decline in living conditions.

And you don’t have to go very far to understand why the European Union is going down this road. The first answer is as clear as water: cutting off relations with the Russian Federation has made the value of raw materials more expensive, and we need to compensate for this by reducing wages, not least because the strategy is to compete with China on global markets for the same type of products.

And if we need to compensate for this loss of energy and cheap raw materials, why do we compensate with lower wages? For example, in Portugal, the Confederation of Tourism, which brings together entrepreneurs linked to tourism, has proposed a “Labor Simplex” to the government, to make it easier to hire migrant labor from third countries. In other words, European employers are proposing a policy to facilitate migration from third countries. This type of solution is also advocated by Eurobusiness, which brings together European employers.

Migration policies and the flooding of the European Union with migrant labor are policies demanded by European employers, sponsored by the political class of the neoliberal and globalist center and from the interests akin to the transnational economy, and are aimed, in the face of falling unemployment rates and the need to adopt a more rational labor management policy, at ensuring that there is still enough labor available for companies not to be forced to increase wages.

Another of the fallacies that we can identify on Ursula von der Leyen’s speech comes to light when she refers to the need to “de-risk” China because its cheap products are destroying jobs in Europe. These EU proposals show that it’s not about “protecting jobs”, but rather about profit margins and levels of accumulation that put more than 20% of the wealth produced each year in the hands of just 1% of the richest. If it were about protecting “jobs”, the policies would be different. Protectionist? Yes, perhaps. But they would essentially be aimed at protecting jobs and the quality of life of Europeans.

And this is where we catch another fallacy. In this communication, which notes the “geographical changes”, there is not a word about improving the conditions of stability in employment and in life, about access to home ownership, which would allow adults with childbearing age to settle down and start a family; instead, there is a focus on “mobility”, the mobility that forces young people to leave poorer countries for richer ones in search of better salaries, but which, in many situations, is done at the cost of postponing the intention to settle down and start a family.

Promoting a more sustainable and stable lifestyle for young people, combating job insecurity, investing in cheaper housing and support for birth and parenthood, would call into question the economic model of division of labor in the European Union. It would jeopardize the interests of the most powerful countries in attracting the most qualified workers. And that’s not to change, it’s to maintain and even worsen.

The European Union, this European Union, is thus giving up on renewing its native populations, opting for the easiest path, the one that doesn’t call into question the neoliberal, globalist and hegemonic project that it is. In this sense, we could well say that if there is a project against the family and the native peoples of the member states, it is this European project itself. But, above all, it is against all these things, because it is a project against the interests of the peoples themselves, whatever they may be.

When everyone expected that the introduction of new technologies and the consequent increase in productivity – humanity has never produced so much and with such quality in such a short time – would lead to a reduction in normal working hours, since fewer resources are needed to produce the same thing, the European Union is telling us the opposite. It’s telling us that we need more and more human labor. Even if you have to get that labor from third countries. And this is where all those who say they are being “invaded” are silent. And they keep quiet because they know that migrant workers only come because they find work, because the employers attract them in many ways. Those same interests live off the terrible conditions in which these workers arrive and live, because the greater the effort they make to cross the Mediterranean, or to find decent housing, the lower their wages will be and the more degrading the housing conditions they accept.

Those who criticize migrant workers for living in crowded houses, for filling the streets where we circulate, accusing them of taking our jobs, have never, ever seen them accuse those who attract them, who develop the policies and the economic model that legitimizes all this. I have never seen them accuse a European Union that leaves the people, all the people, behind.

A European Union that has not only given up, but is using its own people!

This is the legacy of Ursula von der Leyen and all those who support her!

Von der Leyen’s legacy

Russian culture sits safely on the shoulders of our gentle giants

Declan Hayes

What are Russians to do, when bums like Lebrecht are bad mouthing them to any and all venues that will platform them?

Our story about Russian culture, and those hell bent on destroying it, begins in the unlikely setting of Stoke City where, as the BBC, tells us, “on 28th April 1965, the Victoria Ground was rocking to the roars of 35,000 Stoke City supporters saying goodbye to one of the most gifted footballers the world has ever seen. Stanley Matthews, the Wizard of Dribble and Son of the Potteries, was parading his awesome talents for the last time”.

More to our purposes, Sir Stanley, the Wizard of Dribble, was triumphantly carried off the pitch on the shoulders of Russian keeper Lev Yashin and Hungarian striker Ferenc Puskás, two of the greatest players, who ever laced a pair of football boots and who were amongst many others of football greats, who flocked to Stoke on that night.

Further, for our purposes, Yashin, universally recognised as the greatest keeper of all time, is on record as saying “There have only been two world-class goalkeepers. One was Lev Yashin, the other was the German boy who played for Manchester City.” That German boy was German Iron Cross winner and English FA Cup winner Bert Trautmann, whom even the New York Times was forced to praise; Trautmann took part in a 20 minute each way match between golden oldies prior to the big match.

Though this report and this video of the game are worth checking out, be sure to check out the end of this video where Yashin and Puskás carry the Potteries’ wizard of dribble off the field, whilst this song in his honour plays.

The point here is that, though all those players could be criticised, it is unacceptable for anyone who is not of their level to criticise either them or the little ditty written in praise of the wizard of dribble.

Though that is my non-negotiable position, it is not shared by the Kings’ Ears whisperers of the NATO empire with respect to anything Russian. Yashin is not our only brilliant Russian, and my earlier articles have dealt with many of them from literature, music and ballet.

Let’s lay out some obvious facts here. Yashin, Tchaikovsky, Rachmaninoff, Valieva, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Dostoevsky, Bulgakov and Russian conductors too numerous to adumbrate did not excel by hanging around the whore houses of North London. They put in the long hours, the hard yakka, by building on the toil of those who went before, by sitting, like Matthews, on the shoulders of the giants of their chosen areas of expertise, in other words.

Take the Bolshoi ballet as a case in point. Their training schedules are so demanding that it is only for the brave of heart or the mad in mind. Unless we have some advanced idea of the more intricate steps involved, we are no more in a position to criticise them, than we are to criticise Sir Stanley or the giants, whose shoulders he sat on on that long-gone night in Stoke City.

Take Richard Wagner, Hitler’s favourite composer. I have heard performances of his works in cathedrals with fantastic acoustics and I swear you could hear and almost see the Nordic gods rise from their lairs. For me to criticise those musicians, their conductor or their church settings would verge almost on blasphemy, as I am no more qualified to criticise them than are the North London wretches, who get their rocks off terrorising Russian musicians and composers.

Bert Trautmann? A fantastic keeper, just as Herbert von Karajan was a great conductor and a first-class businessman to boot. So what if, as this account on NATO’s cultural Cold War attests, during the entire Nazi era, SS Colonel von Karajan “never hesitated to open his concerts with the Nazi favorite Horst-Wessel-Lied. Von Karajan’s relevance is he fortified classical music in its German and Austrian heartlands and he did that, in part, by having several Berlin Phils, one for tourists, one for recordings, one for public appearances and so on.

Married with government grants, von Karajan helped keep Germany and Austria the powerhouses in classical music that they are, and I salute him, though not how Sir Stanley Sieg Heiled the leaders of the Third Reich, for it.

Arts critic Norman Lebrecht sees things differently. When not writing in his slipped disc website, this bum pollutes the pages of the Jewish Chronicle, Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times and other NATO rags to snipe against his many enemies in the world of music, who seem to include every Russian, who ever picked up a baton or a musical instrument.

This is perverse, as there is no evidence that Lebrecht has ever played a musical instrument to any acceptable level himself. This is a not unimportant point as the only critics, who really impress musicians are those, who have walked the walk themselves. Although narcissistic blatherers like Lebrecht should not matter, they do because they have the King’s ear.

By this, I mean that their columns and their whispering campaigns can terrorise venues into not showing performances, no platforming as it is called.

What always impressed me, in the context of classical musicians, is the ability of weight lifters and penalty kickers to keep their nerve, a task that is as hard in figure skating or gymnastics as it is in playing in or conducting an orchestra.

Although practice may make perfect, what are Russians to do, when bums like Lebrecht are bad mouthing them to any and all venues that will platform them?

Just so we are clear on that, Russia’s ballet troupes, conductors and classical musicians do not have time for the wars in Ukraine and everywhere else that NATO is waging against them, simply because they are Russian. Their training schedules are simply too demanding for patriotic or other tangents.

Yet bums like Lebrecht, who wouldn’t know an air from a bull’s fart or the reed contrabassoon from that of the bagpipes, badmouths them, as their NAFO helpers phone up the venues to demand they no platform them. Make no mistake. Russia will win the war in Ukraine, no matter how many Russian civilians these knuckle dragging NAFO thugs bully.

My gripe here is not against the knuckle draggers but against king’s ear whisperers like Lebrecht, who pretend to be a cut above the other thugs but who, as the lower layers in Dante’s Inferno attest, are so very much worse.

Check out this damning spreadsheet an Armenian piccolo player in Venice sent me. It is a long list of Russian composers and performers, such as Valery Gergiev, Denis Matsuev and Yuri Bashmel and the more than 700 or so times times this rabid Lebrecht dog, who has never played an instrument himself, has vilified them on his slipped disc blog. In all this, Lebrecht is like a brain dead football hooligan, who has been given licence to attack Yashin, Matthews, Puskás and the other stars, who graced Stoke City on that night of nights.

Lebrecht practices his hooliganism in a slightly different but much more effective manner than those other thugs. He accuses these Russian greats of being war criminals, because they do not follow NATO’s demands to condemn Putin, the Russian Armed Forces and, by extension, all things Russian. If these Russian musicians fail to do that, they and the venues booked to host them are relentlessly targeted by the NAFO riff raff.

Though such bullying should never be countenanced and Lebrecht and his Sunday Times and Jewish Chronicle collaborators should be barred from commenting on anything of a cultural nature, it cannot be over stressed that, as a perusal of his published books show, they are totally unqualified for the role of informed critic.

Far from being the result of years at the coal face of conducting or playing, or even doing in depth research on Beethoven, Mahler, von Karajan and the rest of the greats, their fare is just washer-woman gossip, innuendo, and naked displays of their rank ignorance of this dog eat dog world, where the spoils are very unevenly and very unfairly, distributed.

Lebrecht’s work on the deaf but infinitely complex Beethoven (or von Karajan, for that matter) exemplifies all that is wrong with his attacks on any and all Russians. Though not even the best amongst us could add much to our received insights into that German genius, Lebrecht’s glib, offhand, shallow woefully superficial collections of biases and uninformed opinions make him almost uniquely unqualified to comment on any Germans or Russians, great or small.

Let’s take the Mass to exemplify how Lebrecht does not know his arse from his elbow. The Mass consists of five movements: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, with The Credo being the longest movement and forming the centre of the Mass, with the other movements arranged symmetrically around it. Now Bach, Beethoven, Berlioz, Bruckner, Dvořák, Fauré, Mozart, Schubert and Verdi have all written superlative Mass scores and I daresay von Karajan has conducted them all in churches and cathedrals the length and breadth of Germany and Austria. Whatever about von Karajan, South Germany’s churches brim with orchestras and Lebrecht is not qualified to comment on any single one of them. I, as an unabashed cultural snob, love all of it and the more icons and incense of East or West the better. In such ambiance, mangy dogs like Lebrecht do not belong.

And the same argument goes with that Russian fellow, Tchaikovsky, another tortured soul to be sure, but one that Lebrecht is totally unqualified to comment upon. If we go to Slipped Disc, we see this Lebrecht clown show-casing Ukraine’s Minister for Culture calling for a boycott of Tchaikovsky’s The Nutcracker, which is rightly one of the world’s (of which Russia is an intimate and inseparable part) most loved ballets and which, as often as not, is children’s first introduction to that wonderful, magical cultural world that Lebrecht and the oxymoron that is a Zelensky Minister for Culture must have no hand, act or part in.

All of which, by a commodius vicus of recirculation, brings us right back to Stoke City on that beautiful night in 1965, and on the Sir Stanley song they sang. Say what you like about that song, but Lebrecht and his knuckle dragging NAFO goons are in no way qualified to lace the boots of that wizard of the dribble, who was carried off Victoria Park on the shoulders of (Russian and Hungarian) giants of football.

And no way are they qualified to lace the shoes of Shchedrin, “the close friend of the Putin conductor Valery Gergiev” as this Lebrecht bum puts it, when spoofing about Rachminoff, who is one of the Russian giants, on whose shoulders Sanhedrin, Gergiev and today’s bountiful crop of Russian conductors and classical musicians proudly stand on.

As for Putin, as chief executive of Russia, his team will undoubtedly open new doors in China. Russia, Japan and the rest of the civilized world for the Russian classical giants of today, on whose shoulders the giants of tomorrow will proudly stand.

Although I have expressed my opinions on Lebrecht, just as I would on any other piece of dung that gets stuck to my shoe, there is one further core issue that cannot go unaddressed. That is of those in the Sunday Times, in the Jewish Chronicle and in the bowels of MI6, who have collaborated with him to coerce others to wage cultural jihad against Russians and, thus, against the world. If they want to take on Putin, then they should join Ukraine’s Reinhardt Heydrichs in the meat grinders prepared for them, not least because they so perfectly epitomize Heydrich’s own views on the arts.

A week before his assassination, Heydrich, a gifted violinist in his own right, had inaugurated “Cultural Week,” with a series of concerts by German composers which would be in his words a “festive manifestation of German Power.” And the night before his death, a violin concerto, composed by Heydrich’s own father, was performed at the Wallenstein Palace as a further demonstration of the need to replace Czechoslovakian identity with Germany’s NATO-style rules-based values. Just as Heydrich failed in Prague, so also will Lebrecht and his fellow Philistines fail in London and anywhere else they hold unwarranted sway.

The fortunes of war are changing and not just in Ukraine but in England as well, where its own Heydrichs and Lebrechts must be held to account, so that little English children, like their mothers and grand mothers before them, will be able to enjoy The Nutcracker, Masha and Mishka and all the other great fruits from the bountiful orchard that is Russia’s contribution to our common cultural inheritance that Lebrecht and his fellow runts despise, almost as much as they should be themselves despised.

Russian culture sits safely on the shoulders of our gentle giants

«RULES» ARE ALWAYS FOR OTHERS!

this «world by rules». «Rules» are always for others!
—-
The US Army stores cluster munitions in warehouses located in Germany, and from there delivers them to Ukraine, the NDR television and radio company reported, citing an unnamed representative of the US armed forces.
According to his information, US-owned warehouses with cluster munitions of the M864 and M483A1 types are located in the village of Miesau (Rhineland-Palatinate), from where ammunition is supplied to Ukraine as part of American military assistance to Kiev.
The NDR emphasizes that this can be regarded as a violation by Germany of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which, in particular, prohibits the storage of such weapons on German territory and their transportation.

https://el-tolstyh.livejournal.com/14207363.html

Auf seiten Israels. Zuspruch für Netanjahu in den USA – Von Knut Mellenthin (junge Welt)

hier weiterlesen
https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/480364.auf-seiten-israels.html

Auf seiten Israels. Zuspruch für Netanjahu in den USA — Von Knut Mellenthin (junge Welt)

Das Mittelstreckenwaffenbündnis

Bundesregierung will Rüstungskooperation mit Großbritannien ausbauen, unter anderem in der Produktion von Mittelstreckenwaffen. Ziele sind größere Unabhängigkeit von den USA und eine europäische Front gegen Russland.

LONDON/BERLIN (Eigener Bericht) – Die Bundesregierung strebt eine intensivere Rüstungskooperation mit Großbritannien an und sucht damit die Abhängigkeit Deutschlands von US-Waffenschmieden zu reduzieren. Dies geht aus einer gemeinsamen Erklärung hervor, die Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius und sein britischer Amtskollege John Healey am Mittwoch unterzeichnet haben. Demnach wollen beide Länder in Zukunft bei der Entwicklung, Produktion und Beschaffung von Kriegsgerät eng zusammenarbeiten, unter anderem bei der Herstellung einer Mittelstreckenwaffe, mit der von deutschen Standorten aus Moskau erreicht werden kann. Noch unklar ist, ob es sich um eine Hyperschallrakete handelt. Pläne zu einer engeren Kooperation, die auch eine intensive militärische Zusammenarbeit einschließt, werden seit gut zehn Jahren geschmiedet; sie wurden allerdings nach dem Brexit durch die Bestrebungen Berlins und der EU gestoppt, den britischen Austritt scheitern zu lassen bzw. London für ihn zu bestrafen. Schon seit dem Beginn des Ukraine-Krieges nähern sich beide Seiten in militärpolitischen Fragen wieder an – mit dem Ziel, eine gemeinsame Front gegen Russland zu bilden.

Ziel: Unabhängigkeit von den USA

Eine engere Rüstungs- und Militärkooperation streben Deutschland und Großbritannien bereits seit einem guten Jahrzehnt an. Um einen Ausbau der diesbezüglichen Beziehungen ging es beiden Staaten schon vor dem Brexit, so bei wechselseitigen Besuchen der damaligen Bundesverteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen und ihres britischen Amtskollegen Michael Fallon im Jahr 2014. Die im November 2015 vorgelegte britische Militärstrategie (Strategic Defence and Security Review) hielt ausdrücklich fest: „Wir streben eine Intensivierung unserer sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitischen Beziehungen zu Deutschland an.“[1] Der Brexit änderte im Kern daran nichts; er stärkte sogar das Kooperationsinteresse bei der EU: „Der Verlust der kompetentesten Streitkräfte“ Europas, der britischen, habe die EU „geopolitisch mehr geschwächt“, als sie es eingestehen wolle, stellte im vergangenen Jahr rückblickend der European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR) fest. Gelinge es, London militärpolitisch zum „Andocken“ an Brüssel zu bewegen, dann lasse sich besser „strategische Souveränität“ – Unabhängigkeit von den USA – erreichen.[2] Insofern sei ein Ausbau der militärischen Zusammenarbeit mit dem Vereinigten Königreich auch für die EU ein unbedingt anzustrebendes Ziel.

Streit um den Brexit

War die damalige Premierministerin Theresa May in den ersten Jahren nach dem Brexit-Referendum noch bemüht, die Tür zur rüstungs- und militärpolitischen Kooperation mit der Bundesrepublik und der EU offenzuhalten, so scheiterte dies zunächst am Bestreben der Union, den britischen Austritt scheitern zu lassen bzw. das Vereinigten Königreich politisch für ihn zu bestrafen. Als Beispiel dafür kann der Streit um Galileo gelten. Großbritannien hatte das Satellitennavigationssystem der EU, das Brüssel Unabhängigkeit vom US-System GPS verschaffen soll, mitentwickelt und rund 1,2 Milliarden Pfund in es investiert.[3] Brüssel bestand nun aber in den Brexit-Verhandlungen darauf, das Vereinigte Königreich nach seinem Austritt wie einen gewöhnlichen Drittstaat zu behandeln.[4] Das war formal korrekt, trug jedoch neben diversen weiteren Streitpunkten dazu bei, die Beziehungen zwischen London und der EU zu zerrütten. Das wiederum erwies sich als hinderlich für die Bestrebungen, militärisch enger mit Großbritannien zu kooperieren, um perspektivisch von den Vereinigten Staaten unabhängiger zu werden. Das Vereinigte Königreich wiederum musste weiterhin mit GPS vorlieb nehmen: eine klassische lose-lose-Situation mit gravierenden Nachteilen für beide Seiten – auch für die EU.

Rückkehr zur Kooperation

Eine Rückkehr zu einer intensiveren Zusammenarbeit vollzogen Berlin, Brüssel und London erst nach Beginn – und unter dem Druck – des Ukraine-Kriegs. Großbritannien und die EU stimmten sich nicht nur bei der Verhängung von Sanktionen und anderen Maßnahmen gegen Russland, sondern auch bei der Aufrüstung der Ukraine ab, dies allerdings überwiegend im NATO-Rahmen. Anfang März 2022 nahm die damalige britische Außenministerin Liz Truss an einem Treffen mit ihren EU-Amtskollegen zur Planung der künftigen Unterstützung für die Ukraine teil. London hat, wie die Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik (SWP) berichtet, etwa dazu beigetragen, „die EU-Ausbildungsoperation für die ukrainischen Streitkräfte zu gestalten“, weil es schon umfangreichere Erfahrung mit militärischen Trainingsmaßnahmen für ukrainische Truppen besaß.[5] Seit Beginn dieses Jahres arbeiten Deutschland und das Vereinigte Königreich auch auf binationaler Ebene enger zusammen. Im April 2024 unterzeichneten Kanzler Olaf Scholz und Premierminister Rishi Sunak eine Vereinbarung zur Ausweitung der Militär- und Rüstungskooperation.[6] Am Mittwoch folgte nun eine weitere Übereinkunft zwischen den Verteidigungsministern beider Länder, die insbesondere die gemeinsame Entwicklung, Produktion und Beschaffung von Waffen vorsieht.[7]

Rüstungszusammenarbeit

Eine deutsch-britische Zusammenarbeit in der Rüstungsproduktion ist nicht neu; sie gilt aber als, höflich formuliert, ausbaufähig. Bekannt ist die Kooperation bei der Fertigung des Eurofighters, der in Großbritannien Typhoon genannt wird; er wird von Airbus, BAE Systems (Vereinigtes Königreich) und Leonardo (Italien) gemeinsam hergestellt. Rheinmetall arbeitet mit BAE Systems bei der Fertigung des Radpanzers Boxer zusammen, den die britische Armee zur Zeit beschafft.[8] Ergänzend haben Berlin und London im April beschlossen, auch bei der Fertigung eines neuen Artilleriegeschützes zu kooperieren, das auf das Fahrgestell des Boxers montiert werden soll; es handelt sich dabei um die Remote-Controlled Howitzer 155mm (RCH 155).[9] Nun wollen beide Seiten die Rüstungszusammenarbeit intensivieren. Wie der britische Verteidigungsminister John Healey am Mittwoch bei seinem Treffen mit seinem Amtskollegen Boris Pistorius mitteilte, wird Großbritannien sich an Entwicklung und Produktion einer europäischen Mittelstreckenwaffe beteiligen, die Deutschland, Frankreich, Italien und Polen am Rande des NATO-Jubiläumsgipfels in Washington initiiert haben.[10] Ob es sich um eine ballistische Rakete, einen Marschflugkörper oder eine Hyperschallrakete handeln wird, ist noch nicht bekannt.

FCAS vs. Tempest

An einem Opfer des Brexits auf dem Feld der Rüstung laboriert die Bundesrepublik noch heute. An der Entwicklung eines Kampfjets der neuesten, sechsten Generation, die unter der Bezeichnung Future Combat Air System (FCAS) vorangetrieben wird, hatte sich zunächst neben Airbus und Dassault (Frankreich) auch BAE Systems beteiligt. Im Jahr 2018 wurde BAE Systems dann aber aus dem Gemeinschaftsprojekt hinausgedrängt: Man sei nicht dazu bereit, bei einem so bedeutenden Rüstungsprojekt mit einem Konzern zusammenzuarbeiten, der in einem Land außerhalb der EU ansässig sei, hieß es.[11] Airbus und Dassault sind seitdem zu zweit mit dem FCAS befasst, inzwischen freilich unter Beteiligung spanischer Airbus-Filialen. Das dutzende Milliarden Euro teure Projekt stand wegen ständiger deutsch-französischer Rivalitäten immer wieder auf der Kippe. Aktuell heißt es bei Dassault, man könne voraussichtlich erst im Jahr 2045 mit einer Indienststellung des FCAS rechnen. BAE Systems wiederum hat nach dem Ausschluss vom FCAS begonnen, einen eigenen Kampfjet der sechsten Generation zu entwickeln; inzwischen beteiligen sich die Konzerne Leonardo (Italien) und Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (Japan) daran. Das Projekt namens Tempest – formale Bezeichnung: Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP) – könnte schon 2035 einsatzfähig sein, deutlich früher als das FCAS.[12]

[1] S. dazu Ein gefährliches Spiel.

[2] Jeremy Shapiro, Jana Puglierin: The art of vassalisation: How Russia’s war on Ukraine has transformed transatlantic relations. European Council on Foreign Relations: Policy Brief. April 2023. S. auch Der „Vasallisierung” entkommen.

[3] Jessica Elgot: UK may never recover £1.2bn invested in EU Galileo satellite system. theguardian.com 30.11.2018.

[4] Tim Shipman: Galileo satellites offer axed in cabinet Brexit rebellion. thetimes.com 25.11.2018.

[5] Nicolai von Ondarza: Das Vereinigte Königreich und die EU: Neue Möglichkeiten, alte Hindernisse. SWP-Aktuell 2024/A 32. Berlin, 28.06.2024.

[6] Joint understanding on security and defence. Berlin, 24.04.2024.

[7] Stärkung der deutsch-britischen Beziehungen: Pistorius empfängt Healey in Berlin. bmvg.de 24.07.2024.

[8] S. dazu Rheinmetall im Aufwind.

[9] George Allison: Britain to purchase Boxer-based RCH155 artillery systems. ukdefencejournal.org.uk 24.04.2024.

[10] S. dazu Moskau in Schussweite.

[11] S. dazu Führungskampf in der EU-Rüstungsindustrie.

[12] Tim Kanning, Philip Plickert, Christian Schubert, Niklas Záboji: Kampfjet GCAP nimmt Form an. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 24.07.2024.

https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/news/detail/9632

Agent Zelensky — Part 1Агент Зеленский — Часть 1

SCOTT RITTERСКОТТ РИТТЕР

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/HLeBb6hPUC8?rel=0&autoplay=0&showinfo=0&enablejsapi=0

Click here to watch this video on Rumble without restrictions.

As a former intelligence officer, I’ve been wondering why has no one done an investigation about Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine? His rise to power, in my opinion, represents an incredible manipulation of world opinion that will go down in history as a classic case study in social psychological engineering: an ordinary comedian who came to power because he promised a long-awaited peace, who then dragged his fellow citizens into a bloody war that can only be described as a massacre. With the help of colleagues and experts with first-hand insights into Zelensky, I have poured over documents and video to produce a film that captures this investigation. This story has so many twists and turns that I had to break it into two parts. In the first episode, presented here, I will answer the question about Zelensky’s improbable rise to power, and how the Ukrainian President accumulated his vast wealth, a sum that has only become larger since the war with Russia began. And, perhaps most importantly, why I decided to call this film “Agent Zelensky.” Click here to watch Part 2.

https://scottritter.substack.com/p/agent-zelensky-part-1

Scott Ritter’s first document
ary, Agent Zelensky, is informative and 
could be game changing. Keep going, Scott. Few suggestions: It would have been worth noting that Igor Lopatonok wa
s the director and producer of Ukraine on Fire and Revealing Ukraine. Watching Agent Zelensky makes more sense if you have Ukraine on Fire and Revealing Ukraine
 under your belt first. Check them both out for free on Rumble. Looking forward to part two.

Scott Ritter’s first documentary, Agent Zelensky, is informative and could be a game changer. Keep going, Scott. A few tips: It’s worth noting that Igor Lopatonok directed and produced both Ukraine on Fire and Uncovering Ukraine. Agent Zelensky makes more sense if you have Ukraine burning and you’re covering Ukraine first. Stream both films for free on Rumble. Can’t wait for part 2. Scott Ritter’s first documentary, Agent Zelensky, is informative and could be a game changer. Keep going, Scott. A few tips: It’s worth noting that Igor Lopatonok directed and produced both Ukraine on Fire and Uncovering Ukraine. Agent Zelensky makes more sense if you have Ukraine burning and you’re covering Ukraine first. Stream both films for free on Rumble. Can’t wait for part 2. Scott Ritter’s first documentary, Agent Zelensky, is informative and could be a game changer. Keep going, Scott. A few tips: It’s worth noting that Igor Lopatonok directed and produced both Ukraine on Fire and Uncovering Ukraine. Agent Zelensky makes more sense if you have Ukraine on Fire and you’re covering Ukraine first. Stream both films for free on Rumble. Can’t wait for part 2. Scott Ritter’s first documentary, Agent Zelensky, is informative and could be a game changer. Keep going, Scott. A few tips: It’s worth noting that Igor Lopatonok directed and produced both Ukraine on Fire and Uncovering Ukraine. Agent Zelensky makes more sense if you have Ukraine on Fire and you’re covering Ukraine first. Stream both films for free on Rumble.

Operation DAWN Update: A Vote Earned, not Given

SCOTT RITTERJUL 2

SCOTT RITTERСКОТТ РИТТЕРСКОТТ РИТТЕРJUL

Share

Make your vote count in November, and save the world in the process

As America wrestles with the question of who will emerge victorious from the three-ring circus that is the 2024 Presidential election, there is increasing talk about the existential nature of this election and the role played by the two primary candidates—the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Kamala Harris, and her challenger, the Republican Party nominee, Donald Trump—in taking the nation to the brink when it comes to the future of American democracy as an institution. The choices couldn’t be starker—the living embodiment of “DEI establishment politician” (Harris) versus the textbook definition of a “populist political outsider” (Trump).

In many ways, the rhetoric about the critical nature of the 2024 Presidential race isn’t exaggerated—in terms of sustained political viability, the stakes couldn’t get any higher. A Harris victory would effectively end the MAGA movement, since it is largely a populist exercise built around the cult of personality that has surrounded Donald Trump, whom most people agree is running his last political race. A Trump victory, however, would project into the political mainstream his running mate, J.D. Vance, who would be given the opportunity to claim the MAGA throne in 2028, setting up the potential for a 12-year MAGA run which could very well spell the end of establishment politics in America as we know it.

Scott Ritter will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 181 of Ask the Inspector.

America has gone through numerous presidential contests in its 248-year history in which the essence of the nation could be said to be at stake. The first of these took place in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in a race that literally decided the future of the United States by ending the conservative Federalist hold on political power and replacing it with the more progressive Democrat-Republican party. Andrew Jackson’s 1824 victory over John Quincy Adams saw the reemergence of the Federalist ideology in the form of the new Democratic Party prevail over Adams and the Republicans in an election that served as the foundation for the emergence of the two-party system that dominates American politics until today. And the 1860 election, won by Abraham Lincoln, literally carried with it life or death decisions which propelled America into a Civil War. It is the only American election which can genuinely be described as existential in terms of its consequences.

The point to be made here is that no matter what anyone says about 2024, while the future direction of American politics, and the societal issues thus manifested, will be decided in November, the existential fate of the United States is not on the line.

Neither is the fate of “American democracy.”

The 2024 Presidential race, however, does directly impact the existential survival of the United States, the American people, and indeed the entire world, but not because of its outcome. The harsh reality is that regardless of who among the two major candidates wins in November, American policy vis-à-vis Russia, especially when it comes to nuclear posture and arms control, is hard-wired to achieve the same result. And it is this result that seals the fate of all humanity unless a way can be found to prompt a critical re-think of the underlying policies that produce the anticipated outcome.

A future Harris administration is on track to continue a policy which commits to the strategic defeat of Russia, the lowering of the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons in Europe, the termination of the last remaining arms control treaty (New START) in February 2026, and the re-deployment of intermediate-range missiles into Europe, also in 2026.

Donald Trump, meanwhile, has proffered rhetoric which has led many to believe he would end the conflict in Ukraine, and thereby open the door for better relations with Russia. But this policy is predicated on the concept of the “perfect phone call” between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin where the Russian leader accedes to American-dictated terms regarding Ukraine which would fall far short of Russia’s stated goals. Trump has made it clear that if Putin fails to bend the knee on Ukraine, he will then flood Ukraine with weapons—basically the Biden policy of strategically defeating the Russians on steroids. It was Trump who pulled out of the INF treaty in 2019, and as such put in motion the policy direction which has US INF weapons returning to Europe in 2026. And Trump is not a fan of arms control treaties, so the notion that he would save New START or replace it with a new treaty vehicle is mooted by reality.

No matter who wins among the two major candidates in November, the United States is on track for a major existential crisis with Russia in Europe sometime in 2026. The re-introduction of INF-capable systems by the US will trigger a similar deployment by Russia of nuclear-capable INF systems targeting Europe. Back in the 1980’s, the deployment of INF systems by the US and Russia had created an inherently destabilizing situation where one mistake could have set off a nuclear war. The experience of Able Archer ’83, a NATO command and control exercise that took place in the fall of 1983, bears witness to this reality. The Soviets interpreted the exercise as being a cover for a nuclear first-strike by NATO and put its nuclear forces on high alert. There was no room for error—one miscalculation or misjudgment could have led to a Soviet decision to pre-empt what it believed to be an imminent NATO nuclear attack, thereby triggering a full-scale nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.

The INF treaty, signed in 1987, removed these destabilizing weapons from Europe. But now that treaty is no more, and the weapons that brought Europe and the world to the brink of destruction in the 1980’s are returning to a European continent where notions of peaceful coexistence with Russia have been replaced with rhetoric promoting the inevitability of conflict.

SS-25 ICBM on parade in Moscow, 1990

When one combines the existence of a policy objective (the strategic defeat of Russia) which, when coupled with a policy of supporting a Ukrainian victory over Russia predicated on Ukraine regaining physical control over Crimea and the four territories of New Russia (Kherson, Zaporizhia, Donetsk, and Lugansk), one already has a recipe for disaster, since this policy, if successful, would automatically trigger a Russian nuclear response, since doctrinally nuclear weapons would be used to respond to any non-nuclear scenario where the existential survival of Russia is at stake. (The loss of Crimea and the New Territories is like the United States losing Texas, California, or New York—a literal existential situation.)

Add to this the end of arms control as we know it come February 2026, when the New START treaty expires. The Biden administration has declared that it will seek to add new nuclear weapons “without limitation” once the New START caps on deployed weapons expires—the literal definition of an arms race out of control. One can only imagine that Russia would be compelled to match this rearmament activity.

And finally, the recent agreement by the US and Germany to redeploy intermediate-range missiles on European soil in 2026, and Russia’s decision to match this action by building and deploying its own intermediate-range missiles, recreates the very situational instability which threatened regional and world security back in the 1980’s.

When one examines these factors in their aggregate, the inescapable conclusion is that Europe will be faced with an existential crisis which could come to a head as early as the summer of 2026. The potential for the use of nuclear weapons, either by design or accident, is real, creating a situation that exceeds the Cuban Missile Crisis in terms of the risk of a nuclear war by an order of magnitude or more.

While a future nuclear conflict would very likely start in Europe, it will be virtually impossible to contain the use of nuclear weapons on the European continent. Any use of nuclear weapons against Russian soil, or the territory of its ally, Belarus, would trigger a general Russian nuclear response which would lead to a general, global-killing nuclear war.

The question Americans confront today is what to do about this existential threat to their very survival.

The answer put forward here is to empower your vote in the coming presidential election by tying it not to a person or party, but rather a policy.

In short, empower your vote by pledging it to the candidate who will commit to prioritizing peace over war, and who pledges to make the prevention of nuclear war, not the promotion of nuclear weapons, the cornerstone of his or her national security policy.

Don’t give your vote away by committing to a candidate at this early stage—when you do this, you no longer matter, as the candidates will simply turn their attention to those uncommitted voters in an effort to win them over.

Make the candidates earn your vote by linking it to a policy posture that reflects your core values.

And this election, your core value should be exclusively centered on promoting peace and preventing nuclear war.

Such a policy posture would be built upon for basic pillars.

1. Immediately end the current declaratory policy of the United States which articulates the strategic defeat of Russia as a primary US objective and replace it with a policy statement which makes peaceful coexistence with Russia the strategic goal of US foreign and national security policy. Such a policy redirection would include, by necessity, the goal of rethinking European security frameworks which respect the legitimate national security concerns of Russia and Europe, and would incorporate the necessity of a neutral Ukraine.

2. A freeze on the re-deployment of INF-capable weapons systems into Europe, matched by a Russian agreement not to re-introduce INF-capable weapons into its arsenal, with the goal of turning this freeze into a formal agreement that would be finalized in treaty form.

3. A commitment to engage with Russia on the negotiation and implementation of a new strategic arms control treaty which seeks equitable cuts in the strategic nuclear arsenals of both nations, a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons each side can retain in storage, and which incorporates limits on ballistic missile defense.

4. A general commitment to work with Russia to pursue verifiable and sustainable nuclear arms reduction globally using multi-lateral negotiations.

I will be working with Gerald Celente, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Garland Nixon, Wilmur Leon, Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampil, Jeff Norman, Danny Haiphong, and many others to put together an event, Operation DAWN, on September 28, 2024. The goal of this event will be to get as many American citizens as possible to tie their vote to the policy posture spelled out above, and then to leverage these commitments in a way that compels all candidates for the presidency to articulate policies that meet this criterion.

In doing so, the voter would be fighting for a chance to save democracy by making his or her vote count, save America and the world by creating the possibility to avert nuclear conflict, all by making the candidates for presidency earn their vote, as opposed to simply giving it away.

Operation DAWN is still in the preliminary planning stages. More details will be published here as the planning progresses.

https://scottritter.substack.com/p/operation-dawn-update-a-vote-earned?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6892&post_id=147050709&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1oa2ce&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

France plays Russia and Algeria in Western Sahara

Algeria protested to France in connection with Paris’s recognition of the autonomy of Western Sahara «within the framework of Moroccan sovereignty.»

“The Algerian government has taken note with great regret and deep disapproval of the unexpected and useless decision taken by the French government to provide unconditional support to the Western Sahara autonomy plan,” the Algerian Foreign Ministry said . 

Western Sahara is a former Spanish colony; Spanish is still used here along with Arabic. Morocco considers Western Sahara its territory, Algeria its own. 

Morocco is a pro-Western state. Thus, in 2022, the Moroccans transferred T-72 tanks, once purchased from Belarus, to the Zelensky regime. Recognizing the sovereignty of Morocco over the autonomy of Western Sahara, Paris wants to use the hands of one of its former colonies (Morocco) to weaken another — Algeria, which is the largest buyer of Russian weapons in Africa. 

France is taking revenge on Moscow for the expulsion of French troops from Niger, Burkina Faso and Mali and the arrival there of units of the African Corps of the Russian Armed Forces. 

By playing in favor of Morocco on the issue of Western Sahara, Paris wants to damage Algeria’s political authority and, indirectly, Moscow’s position in the region. 

Moscow’s position is this: the future of Western Sahara should be determined not by the former colonialists of the African continent, but by its inhabitants in accordance with international law. 

https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2024/07/26/franciya-igraet-protiv-rossii-i-alzhira-v-zapadnoy-sakhare.html

In Österreich fliehen Lehrer aufgrund der Dominanz der Migranten massenhaft aus den Wiener Schulen

Geeignete Politiker schlagen Alarm

In der österreichischen Hauptstadt verlassen Lehrer massenhaft die Schulen. Bis zu 20 Lehrer pro Tag kündigen aufgrund des extrem stressigen Umfelds durch Migrantenkinder, von denen viele kaum oder gar kein Deutsch sprechen.

Laut einer Studie des Österreichischen Statistikamtes sprechen rund 70 Prozent der schulpflichtigen Kinder in Wien im Alltag kein Deutsch. Die zunehmende Masseneinwanderung hat zu wachsenden Problemen im österreichischen Schulsystem geführt und die Schulen der Hauptstadt stehen vor dem Zusammenbruch.

Eine Zunahme der Kriminalität unter Migranten hat dazu geführt, dass in einigen Städten deutsche Schülerinnen wegen einer Flut sexueller Übergriffe und Vergewaltigungen gewarnt wurden, „in Gruppen zur Schule zu gehen“. 

Laut Lehrergewerkschaftsmitglied Thomas Krebs fliehen Lehrer „in Scharen“ aus öffentlichen Schulen in Wien . Allerdings bieten die Verantwortlichen der Stadt keine sinnvollen Ideen zur Bewältigung des wachsenden Zustroms von Studenten.

„An einem Spitzentag erhielt ich sogar 20 Nachrichten über die Kündigung von Personalverträgen für das kommende Studienjahr“, sagte er in einem Interview mit der österreichischen Zeitung Heute. 

Eines der größten Probleme ist die große Zahl von Migranten, die ihre Familien in die Hauptstadt holen. 

An vielen Schulen ist die Situation für Lehrer schlichtweg aussichtslos. Eveline Kometter, Obfrau des Österreichischen Elternvereins, stellt fest : „Der Lehrer muss einen Satz 10-12 Mal wiederholen, bis er ihn endgültig verstanden hat.“ Aber dann sind schon zwei Drittel der Unterrichtsstunde vorbei.“

Für Kinder, die dem Unterricht nicht folgen können, entstehen enorme Lernprobleme, betont Kometter: „Lehrer suspendieren sie und ihr Lernen verlangsamt sich stark.“ Kinder werden auf sich allein gestellt und gezwungen, den Stoff selbst zu erlernen. Das ist natürlich unmöglich, daher sinkt das Ausbildungsniveau.“ In der Praxis kümmern sich Lehrer fast immer um Leistungsschwache, „sonst wird ihnen Mobbing vorgeworfen“, fügt Kometter hinzu.

Sie sagte auch, dass „Eltern, die es sich leisten können, aber auch diejenigen, die Schwierigkeiten haben, ihr Geld zusammenzubekommen, ihre Kinder auf Privatschulen schicken, wo die Schulgebühren mehr als 350 Euro pro Monat kosten.“

Kometter nennt als Beispiel eine typische Situation an einer österreichischen Schule: „In einer Klasse sind 17 Schüler, 12 von ihnen sprechen nicht gut genug Deutsch.“ Der Lehrer muss intensiv mit ihnen arbeiten. Der Rest der Studierenden bleibt unbeaufsichtigt – es gibt einfach nicht genug Personal.“ 

Die österreichische Regierung reagiert in keiner Weise auf die kritische Situation an den Schulen, sondern ist lediglich bestrebt, möglichst viel Platz für Migrantenkinder freizugeben. Thomas Krebs sagte, alle Grünflächen der Hauptstadt seien gepflastert, die Regierung baue dort zusätzliche Klassenzimmer aus Schiffscontainern und mache daraus riesige Erweiterungen für Schulen. 

„Sie können sich nichts Besseres vorstellen, als mit Baggern und Baugeräten die letzten Grünflächen und Sportplätze für Schulen umzugraben und sie ohne wirklichen Plan mit Containern und riesigen Anbauten zu pflastern“, sagte Krebs.

https://www.fondsk.ru/news/2024/07/26/v-avstrii-uchitelya-massovo-begut-iz-shkol-veny-iz-za-zasilya-migrantov.html

Klaus Schwab: Geschichte und Geschichten um das World Economic Forum [ScienceFiles investigativ]

Posted by germanmediawatchblog in Great Reset / WHO / Bilderberger, Sciencefiles

Kleine Lektüre zum Wochenende für all diejenigen, die die Geschichte von Klaus Schwab und dem WEF noch nicht so genau kennen:

Wer kennt ihn nicht?
Klaus Schwab, der Mann vom World Economic Forum. Der Mann, der das World Economic Forum erfunden, begründet, geschaffen hat …?

Obwohl Schwab bekannt ist, wie der sprichwörtliche bunte Hund, ist nicht wirklich viel über ihn bekannt. Welchen Hintergrund hat er? Wie ist es ihm gelungen, aus dem Nichts das World Economic Forum zu gründen? Welche Verbindungen hat er genutzt und nutzt er bis heute, um seine Agenda zu befödern?

Das sind nur einige Fragen, die sich um die Person des Deutschen in der Schweiz, des 1938 in Ravensburg geborenen Klaus Martin Schwab ranken. Es sind Fragen, die um solche, die das World Economic Forum betreffen, ergänzt werden müssen und wir gedenken, diese in den nächsten Wochen und Monaten, immer dann, wenn es die Zeit erlaubt, zu beantworten.

weiter

Klaus Schwab: Geschichte und Geschichten um das World Economic Forum [ScienceFiles investigativ]