Parlamentarischer Untersuchungsausschuss deckt auf: Einsatz von US-Agenten gegen Nord Stream 2

Ein Artikel von: Florian Warweg

Aus Zeugenaussagen in einem derzeit laufenden Parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschuss in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern geht hervor, dass Mitarbeiter von US-Geheimdiensten direkt in dem nördlichen Bundesland agierten, um die Fertigstellung von Nord Stream 2 mit geheimdienstlichen Mitteln zu verhindern. Der Obmann der dortigen SPD-Fraktion, Thomas Krüger, belegte dies anhand von konkreten Beispielen. Die NachDenkSeiten wollten vor diesem Hintergrund wissen, wie die Bundesregierung diese belegte Einmischung von US-Geheimdiensten in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, namentlich die Planung und Organisation der Energieinfrastruktur, bewertet. Von Florian Warweg.

Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar.

Audio-Player

00:00

00:00

Pfeiltasten Hoch/Runter benutzen, um die Lautstärke zu regeln.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/kQspQw02cg4

Statt russische deckt Untersuchungsausschuss versehentlich US-Einflussoperationen auf

Am 28. Juni 2024 hatte der laufende Untersuchungsausschuss des Landtags von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern zur Aufarbeitung der Anfang 2021 von der damaligen Landesregierung ins Leben gerufenen Stiftung Klima- und Umweltschutz (SKU) mehrere Vertreter von Umweltinstitutionen in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern befragt. Die SKU war gegründet worden, um den Bau von Nord Stream 2 trotz (völkerrechtswidriger) US-Sanktionen fertigzustellen. Bei der Befragung waren brisante Details zum Agieren von US-Geheimdiensten zur Verhinderung der Erdgas-Pipeline ans Licht gekommen. So erklärte der Obmann der SPD-Fraktion, Thomas Krüger, im Anschluss an diese Sitzung:

„Beiden Zeugen haben heute ausgesagt, dass sich Vertreter US-amerikanischer Geheimdienste bei Umweltverbänden in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern offensiv für eine Verhinderung von Nord Stream 2 einsetzten und ihre Unterstützung anboten. Ein Vertreter der Geheimdienste habe sich auch mit einem Zeugen direkt vor Ort getroffen und seinen Einsatz u.a. mit US-amerikanischen Interessen begründet.“

Diese Entwicklung ist nicht ganz frei von Ironie. Denn ursprünglich war der Untersuchungsausschuss von den Oppositionsparteien CDU, Grünen und FDP ins Leben gerufen worden, um die „Rolle der Landesregierung und der Stiftung Klima- und Umweltschutz MV bei der Fertigstellung der Pipeline Nord Stream 2“ und Verbindungen der Stiftung zu Russland unter die Lupe zu nehmen:

Doch statt wie wohl von der schwarz-grün-gelben Opposition gehofft, Verbindungen zur russischen Auslandsspionage wie GRU oder SWR (Dienst für Außenaufklärung) aufzudecken, hat der seit dem 17. Juni 2022 tagende Untersuchungsausschuss jetzt mutmaßliche NSA- und CIA-Aktivitäten ans Licht gebracht. Und die haben es in sich. Denn nicht nur haben US-Geheimdienste versucht, siehe die zuvor zitierten Darlegungen des SPD-Obmanns, Einfluss auf deutsche Umweltverbände zu nehmen, sondern auch auf die zuständige Genehmigungsbehörde für die Erdgasleitung, das Bergamt Stralsund. Wie der Nordkurier berichtet, habe der Chef der Naturschutzstiftung Deutsche Ostsee in derselben Sitzung ausgesagt, ein US-Amerikaner, der sich als Vertreter des US-Energieministeriums ausgegeben hätte, sei auf ihn zugekommen und habe gefragt, was er gegen den Bau der Pipeline unternehmen würde.

Der Zeugenaussage nach soll derselbe US-Amerikaner auch in anderen Staaten versucht haben, Widerstand gegen Nord Stream 2 zu organisieren, und sei in der zuständigen Genehmigungsbehörde für die Erdgasleitung „ein und aus gegangen“.

Die fragwürdige Haltung der Bundesregierung

Es ist mehr als bezeichnend, dass weder die Vize-Regierungssprecherin noch der Vertreter des Auswärtigen Amtes von den Aufdeckungen des Untersuchungsausschusses zur beschriebenen Rolle von US-Agenten Kenntnis hatten. Ebenso bezeichnend erscheint es, dass beide Regierungsvertreter in dieser versuchten massiven Einflussnahme auf die Organisation und Planung der zivilen Energieinfrastruktur der Bundesrepublik keine Einmischung in innere Angelegenheiten erkennen wollen. Es braucht nicht viel Fantasie, um sich vorzustellen, wie anders die Reaktion auf der BPK und auch in der medialen Berichterstattung (bisher berichteten nur Nordkurier und Berliner Zeitung) ausgefallen wäre, wenn ein ähnliches Vorgehen nicht von US-, sondern von russischen oder chinesischen Geheimdiensten aufgedeckt worden wäre …

Auszug aus dem Wortprotokoll der Regierungspressekonferenz vom 10. Juli 2024:

Frage Warweg
Aus Zeugenaussagen im derzeit laufenden Parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschuss zur Klimaschutzstiftung geht hervor, dass Mitarbeiter von US-Geheimdiensten direkt in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern agiert hatten, um die Fertigstellung von Nord Stream 2 zu verhindern. Die US-Geheimdienst-Mitarbeiter seien laut dem Obmann der SPD-Fraktion, Thomas Krüger, unter anderem in der Genehmigungsbehörde für die Erdgasleitung – das ist das Bergamt Stralsund – ein- und ausgegangen und hätten entsprechend Druck ausgeübt. Da würde mich interessieren: Wie bewertet die Bundesregierung diese nun belegte Einflussnahme des US-Geheimdienstes in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Bundesrepublik, namentlich die Planung der Energieinfrastruktur?

Vize-Regierungssprecherin Hoffmann
Ich mache mir Ihre Äußerungen hier ausdrücklich nicht zu eigen und verweise darauf, dass die Ermittlungen zu Nord Stream von der zuständigen Bundesanwaltschaft geführt werden. An die sind auch bitte Fragen zu richten.

Zusatz Warweg
Entschuldigung, das war jetzt komplett am Thema vorbei! Wir sprechen hier von der Einflussnahme von US-Agenten auf den Genehmigungsprozess von Nord Stream 2. Das habe ich, glaube ich, auch so deutlich gemacht. Das hat null mit dem Generalbundesanwalt zu tun. Es geht darum, dass dieser Parlamentarische Untersuchungsausschuss jetzt zu dem Schluss gekommen ist, dass Agenten von diversen US-Geheimdiensten vor Inbetriebnahme Einfluss auf den Genehmigungsprozess genommen haben.

Hoffmann
Aber Sie beziehen sich hier auf Presseberichte, die ich nicht kommentiere.

Zusatzfrage Warweg
Aber es sind keine Presseberichte. Das ist der Parlamentarische Untersuchungsausschuss. Da würde ich zumindest gerne wissen – wenn nicht vom BPA, dann vom Auswärtigen Amt -, ob diese Art der Einflussnahme durch einen ausländischen Geheimdienst als Einmischung in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Bundesrepublik gewertet wird.

Wagner (AA)
Ich habe dem, was die stellvertretende Regierungssprecherin eben gesagt hat, nicht viel hinzuzufügen. Herr Warweg, wenn ich mir Ihre Frage anhöre und mich noch einmal daran erinnere, wie damals die Debatte um Nord Stream war, gab es, glaube ich, a) kein Geheimnis darum, wie die US-Regierung zu diesem Projekt stand, und b) ist das Projekt ja realisiert worden. Insofern verstehe ich nicht ganz die Stoßrichtung Ihrer Frage und was Sie damit implizieren.

Zusatz Warweg
Ob das genehmigt wurde oder nicht, spielt ja jetzt überhaupt keine Rolle. Es geht darum, dass ein Parlamentarischer Untersuchungsausschuss zu dem Schluss gekommen ist – –

Hoffmann (falsche Zuordnung durch Protokollführer, korrekt ist: Vorsitzende Buschow; F.W.)
Herr Warweg, ich werde nicht müde, immer wieder zu sagen: Es ist schwierig, wenn wir hier in Diskussionen verfallen. Ich bitte, so etwas bilateral zu machen.

Zusatz Warweg
Das ist ja keine Diskussion.

Hoffmann (hier ebenfalls korrekterweise: Vorsitzende Buschow; F.W.)
Sie können gerne eine Frage stellen. Aber das fing jetzt eher wieder wie eine längere Ausführung an. Stellen Sie also gerne eine Frage.

Zusatzfrage Warweg
Ja, weil es hier eine Unterstellung gab. Die wird von der anderen Seite ja auch getätigt. Darauf darf man, denke ich, adäquat antworten.

Aber um das noch einmal klarzumachen: Die jetzt herausgekommene versuchte Einflussnahme von US-Agenten auf den Genehmigungsprozess wird von der Bundesregierung nicht als Einmischung in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Bundesrepublik gewertet?

Wagner (AA)
Ich weiß nicht, auf was Sie sich beziehen. Ich kenne diese Berichte und diese Aussagen nicht. Insofern fällt es mir schwer, die hier zu kommentieren. Aber ich sage Ihnen noch einmal: Ich glaube, die Haltung der US-Regierung zu dem Projekt ist damals, jedenfalls nach meiner Erinnerung, sehr klar gewesen. Deshalb sehe ich da jetzt auch keine Einmischung.

Zusatz Warweg
Und das rechtfertigt den Einsatz von Geheimdienstmitarbeitern auf zivile – –

Wagner (AA)
Das ist ja Ihre Unterstellung, Herr Warweg. Dazu kann ich nichts sagen.

Zuruf Warweg
Nein, das ist das Ergebnis des Parlamentarischen Untersuchungsausschusses! Das sollten Sie doch wissen!

Vorsitzende Buschow
Herr Warweg, ich beende jetzt tatsächlich die Diskussion, weil es offensichtlich ein Missverständnis zu geben scheint, dass Sie etwas wissen wollen, was nicht bekannt ist. Ich glaube, das führt an der Stelle jetzt nicht weiter.

Titelbild: Screenshot NachDenkSeiten, Bundespressekonferenz 10.07.2024

Mehr zum Thema:

Kanzlersprecher zu aktuellem Wissensstand um Nord-Stream-Sprengung: „Bundesregierung hat damit gar nichts zu tun“

Neue Erkenntnisse zu Nordstream und Rolle der USA? – „Ich weise das mit Abscheu und Empörung zurück“

Vortrag von Florian Warweg auf der Nürnberger Literaturmesse zum Nordstream-Anschlag und seinen Folgen

Wieso ist die Bundesregierung gegen UN-geführte Ermittlungen zum Nord-Stream-Anschlag?

Parlamentarischer Untersuchungsausschuss deckt auf: Einsatz von US-Agenten gegen Nord Stream 2

Operation DAWN

SCOTT RITTER

The next President of the United States will likely be called upon to decide about engaging in a nuclear conflict. This doesn’t have to be our future.

It’s time to get real, America.

Election Day 2024, November 5, is rapidly approaching, and the reality is that the person who wins will either have an R or a D next to his or her name.

Many Americans support a candidate with an I or a G next to their names.

But these candidates won’t win the White House.

A vote for those candidates is little more than a protest vote.

The time for protest is over.

It is now the time for action.

Scott will discuss this article and answer audience questions on Ep. 176 of Ask the Inspector.

America is fundamentally divided over who should occupy the White House for the next four years.

If you support the D candidate, you think the R candidate, who previously served as President for four years, was the worst President in American history.

And if you support the R candidate, you think the same about the current D candidate.

The reality is, however, that America survived four years of the R guy.

And so far, we have survived four years of the D guy.

And it is highly likely that we will survive the next four years as well, regardless of who wins.

Unless there is a nuclear war.

Then we all die.

There are many issues confronting America today.

All of them are important.

Most of them divide us.

None are of immediate existential concern.

Nuclear war is an immediate existential threat to our existence.

And yet this issue is not being discussed or debated in the lead-up to the November 5 elections.

As such, no matter who we put in the White House, America will face the real probability of nuclear war during their term in office.

And we all die.

So, the question we all face as Americans is what are we willing to do to prevent this outcome?

What would you do to save Democracy?

What would you do to save America?

What would you do to save the World?

The answer? By making your vote count in November.

Make your vote about the one issue which is literally life and death—preventing a nuclear war by promoting peace.

How?

By pledging your vote to the single issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace.

By avoiding the trap presented by political party or personality.

By declaring that your vote will go to the candidate that best articulates a policy designed to avoid nuclear war and promote peace.

This election will be decided by tens of thousands of voters spread out among several critical battleground states.

If enough Americans commit their vote to the issue of preventing nuclear war and promoting peace so that they constitute a constituency capable of swinging a state to the candidate that earns their vote by promulgating such a policy, then we have a chance to put someone in the White House who won’t kill us all by getting us involved in a nuclear conflict once he or she is elected.

The 1986 Doomsday Map

In 1986, scientists from the Institute of Medicine published a study exploring the potential impact of a nuclear strike on the continental United States.

The study highlighted the most dangerous zones produced by such a strike on a map, indicating areas where radiation exposure would surpass 3,500 rads. “Within this region… more than three-quarters of the population would die,” the study concluded.

“It is our hope,” the authors of the study declared, “that national decision-makers will develop a better understanding of the ‘collateral’ consequences of hypothetical first strikes and of the enormous destructive capacity of the weapons that would survive. That understanding should make them less likely to seek counterforce capabilities or to fear such attacks from the other side.”

In 1987, the US and Soviet Union signed the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, a foundational arms control agreement which eliminated entire categories of nuclear missiles and set the stage for even larger reductions in the strategic nuclear arsenals of the respective sides.

Today the INF treaty is no more. The last strategic arms control treaty is set to expire. There are no new arms control negotiations. Both the US and Russia are building new nuclear weapons as part of an arms race that has the world on the cusp of general nuclear war.

The next President of the United States will more than likely be faced with a decision regarding whether or not to enter into a nuclear conflict with Russia.

So, I ask again:

What would you do to save Democracy?

What would you do to save America?

What would you do to save the World?

What would you do to make your vote count in November?

By supporting Operation DAWN, you will have the opportunity to accomplish all these tasks.

Operation DAWN is a nationwide event designed to garner a million-plus pledges by American voters to make preventing nuclear war and promoting peace the single issue upon which they will cast their vote come December.

Join us in Kingston, New York on September 28, at one of our satellite locations throughout America, or online through one of our affiliated podcasts.

Help save your future.

For more information and updates, visit ScottRitter.com.

https://scottritter.substack.com/p/operation-dawn?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6892&post_id=146560924&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1oa2ce&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

The Dreadful Continuity of British Foreign Policy

Prime Minister Starmer is the heir to Blair in more ways than one.

By Daniel Larison
Eunomia

Robert Wright doesn’t think much of the foreign policy direction of the new Labour government in Britain:The End of Everything:…Hanson, Victor DavisBest Price: $18.70Buy New $18.44(as of 07:30 UTC — Details)

[Labour shadow foreign secretary] Lammy depicts his foreign policy vision as new, but it’s pretty much the same vision that has long guided his party and comparable western parties, including the Democratic Party in America. And this vision is, in critical respects, not very different from the neoconservatism that has dominated Republican foreign policy for most of the past few decades. Lammy’s progressive realism is one of the several variants of Blobthink that have together played such a big role in creating the mess we’re in.

Wright is responding to Lammy’s article in Foreign Affairs from earlier this year, and his assessment lines up with what I wrote about it then. In my post, I focused on Lammy’s rote recitation of the conventional talking points about the “red line” episode in Syria and its supposed implications for U.S. credibility, but I also noted that it seemed as if Lammy had learned nothing from his party’s last stint in power. As I said, “I suspect Lammy is just trying to put the bad ideas of New Labour under a new label.” International relations scholar Van Jackson raised similar concerns that Lammy’s vision “shows worrying signs of rehashing Blair-style neoconservatism, which was of course disastrous.”

The Labour victory yesterday will give Starmer a huge parliamentary majority with more than 400 seats. Despite winning just 34% of the vote, his party will have almost two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons. They owe that result in large part to the collapse of the Tories and the ensuing split on the British right. A government with such a large majority will be able to do more or less whatever it wants for the next few years, but it will have the same relatively narrow base of popular support that Labour has had for many years. The sheer incompetence and self-destructive tendencies of the Conservatives under multiple leaders made this government possible.

Prime Minister Starmer is the heir to Blair in more ways than one, and when it comes to foreign policy he has given us every reason to expect him to be almost as bad as his predecessor. His support for the war in Gaza is one important example of that, and that position has already cost Labour a few seats to independent candidates that ran in opposition to the war and the party. Judging from Labour’s election manifesto and Starmer’s record, we can expect mostly continuity in Britain’s foreign policy. That will be reassuring to many in Washington that count on having a subservient Britain as a reliable supporter of the U.S. position, but it will be bad news for Britain and for whichever countries next end up in the crosshairs of our two governments. Starmer has also backed the ongoing war against the Houthis in Yemen, for example, so U.K. involvement in that useless conflict will continue.

This brings us back to Jackson’s critique:Wall Street’s Wa…Leopold, LesBest Price: $19.41Buy New $15.07(as of 07:30 UTC — Details)

Lammy swears progressive realism will not repeat “the failures of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya,” but makes no attempt to convince us why it will not. He offers nothing to suggest peace-like ambitions, and nothing that would create distance from a militarist mindset.

One of the biggest flaws of New Labour has been its leaders’ quick resort to using and backing the use of force in other lands. It is easy for Labour leaders today to say that they won’t repeat the terrible mistakes of their predecessors (no one is going to campaign openly on launching new disastrous wars), but if they don’t acknowledge who is responsible for the earlier failures and if they don’t understand why those interventions failed or backfired it is unlikely that they will avoid making similar blunders. Jackson notes Lammy’s weird reference to the “red line” episode and adds that it “hints at the worrying possibility that his progressive realism lacks the wherewithal to resist the “imperial temptation” that always exists within liberalism.”

When the war against the Houthis started in January, Starmer tried to claim that his support for it didn’t contradict earlier pledge to insist that MPs have a say before the U.K. took military action because it wasn’t a “sustained campaign.” Almost six months later, the campaign hasn’t been successful and shows no signs of ending. It is safe to conclude that Starmer didn’t mean his earlier pledge and had no trouble ignoring it when it came time to fulfill it. That doesn’t bode well for how he will govern now that he is prime minister.

Read the Whole Article

Copyright © Daniel Larison

The Dreadful Continuity of British Foreign Policy

Why All Financial Markets Will Crash

It’s all about credit. Demand to fund rising government deficits and keep zombie corporations alive will drive up interest rates. I explain the consequences for currencies and financial values.

By Alasdair Macleod

MacleodFinance Substack

It’s all about credit

All transactions and all valuations are in credit. The key aspect of credit is that it is always matched by an obligation, or debt. Credit is extinguished when that obligation is discharged or defaulted upon. But in today’s financial systems, the repayment of debt is always in another form of credit, usually the transfer of ownership of a bank deposit, which is also credit.

Clearly, government and corporate bonds are debts. Because they are freely transferable obligations, they have a matching value expressed in credit. And that value is determined by both external influences and those specific to the debt obligation as assessed in markets. For example, interest rates and their outlook will place an external value on a bond, and additional factors specific to the issuer’s creditworthiness also apply.The Plant Power DoctorNewman, GemmaBest Price: $7.31Buy New $24.01(as of 02:17 UTC — Details)

The credit status of bond ownership is unarguable. But there is widespread confusion over equity rights. Most investors believe that ownership of corporate equity is a hedge out of debasement risk of bonds. They believe that they own a defined portion of a corporation’s total property. This is not true, because a share certificate is an obligation of the corporation’s management to deliver or accumulate an income stream on a shareholder’s behalf: possession of a stock or share certificate is simply evidence of that obligation recorded in the corporation’s stock register. It is possession of a right to property, not ownership of property itself.

Furthermore, with today’s dematerialised certificate system, unless you insist on taking delivery of your certificates, you don’t actually possess the evidence of your credit interest. Instead, you have an entitlement to a share of a corporation’s overall obligation to its shareholders. You are distanced even further from your property right, your property being simply credit squared.

You might think that to eliminate credit risk entirely, you should buy physical property without mortgages. But here you run into a further problem, which is that there is no such thing as absolute wealth. This is because your ownership of property is valued by its exchangeability, for guess what: credit.

When the ubiquity of credit in which all wealth is valued is understood, then it is logical that the value of everything depends on the balance of supply and demand for credit. The one exception is money without counterparty risk, which embodied in Roman law and the common laws of the Roman Empire’s successor nations and their colonies is gold, silver, and copper. Today it is primarily gold.

But this article is not about these internationally accepted media of exchange. It is about the relationship between the value of credit, and the value of products and property expressed in it.

From the foregoing, it is clear that all measures of wealth depend on credit, credit’s value, and its availability. The two principal forms of transferable credit are bank deposits, which are an obligation of a bank to its customers, and currency. The position of a currency must be clearly stated, because modern economists tell us that for all practical purposes, a currency is money. This is never true, not even if the issuer is prepared to exchange it freely for gold. A currency is an obligation of the issuer, today always a central bank, and the possession of a banknote is simply evidence of that obligation. It is recorded on all central bank balance sheets as such and possession of banknotes is simply credit.

Furthermore, commercial bank deposits at the central bank, commonly referred to as reserves, are also recorded as a central bank’s liability to commercial banks. It is credit which ranks with banknotes.

Economists and others make a gross error in arguing that a currency is not to be regarded as credit. This is particularly grievous in the case of the US dollar, which in the 1970s the US Treasury propagandised as replacing gold as the ultimate form of money. The dollar is the ultimate form of credit, maybe, but as freely admitted elsewhere its value remains dependent on the faith in and credit(worthiness) of the US Government.

The value of credit

We conduct our daily purchases and sales in credit, we pay our taxes in credit, and we account for all our commercial activities in credit. For all these purposes, we assume that variations in value are entirely confined in the goods and services being transacted, and that credit has a constant value. In reality, this is not the case.

For transactional purposes, credit itself has value. It is traded for products and for other credit. For whatever reason, if the value of a currency declines, then it can only be stabilised by a rise in interest rates. Changes in a currency’s value can be detected either on the foreign exchanges or reflected in changes in the general level of prices expressed in it. Therefore, changes in a currency’s value have an obvious impact on interest rates, which reflect a combination of a market expectation of its future value compared with today’s as well as any counterparty credit risks.

In addition to these factors affecting credit’s value, in terms of supply and demand credit is like any other product. An increase in supply will tend to lower interest rates, and a restriction of supply raises them. It is ignorance of this common sense that leads the vast majority of monetary commentators to believe that interest rates are set and can be managed by a central bank. Particularly in the current economic conditions, this error will prove to be extremely costly.

To understand why, we should categorise demand for credit as emanating from two sources: governments and private sectors. Today, government debt is expanding rapidly in all the major jurisdictions, as the table below illustrates.

Two years on, the position today is generally worse for nations on this list. France, currently running a budget deficit of about 6%, has just elected a far-left administration which promises to increase the budget deficit materially. And the UK has similarly gone more socialistic, increasing the risk of sterling credit failure. Japan’s finances depend entirely on the Bank of Japan’s ability to suppress interest rates at or very close to zero without destroying the currency. But the central concern must be about the US and its dollar.

US Government spending is out of control, with debt increasing at over $1 trillion every 100 days and accelerating. This must be financed. Bearing in mind that interest is not paid and that it is simply rolled up in additional debt, there can only be two outcomes, both leading to the same conclusion, which is higher interest rates.

The US Treasury’s increasing demand for credit is currently being satisfied by credit supply being switched from non-financial private sector lending, because banks and shadow banks are reducing their risk exposure. This has led to an explosion in short-term Treasury debt, mainly bills maturing in up to one year. This liquidity is now running low, which is bound to lead to higher funding rates. Clearly, both foreign and domestic holders of Treasury debt will recognise a classic debt trap being sprung.Who Paid The Piper : T…Frances Stonor SaundersBest Price: $14.20Buy New $13.07(as of 07:30 UTC — Details)

The outcome could easily be interest rates rising to over 10%, perhaps 20%, unless the Fed reintroduces quantitative easing to contain funding costs. In this event, the increase in non-productive currency circulation will simply debase the currency, driving up the interest rate required to prevent foreigners selling dollars to stockpile gold, oil, and wider commodities. Without higher interest rates, the dollar’s purchasing power will be bound to fall, potentially spiralling into a state of collapse.

The state of the economy is immaterial. The consequence of earlier QE policies was a fall in the dollar’s purchasing power, evidenced by a sudden rise in the general level of prices, and interest rates rising from the zero bound to current levels. With or without QE, US Treasury bond yields will rise and rise, which means that their values will fall and fall.

The dollar is the yardstick from which all other fiat currencies take their value. The consequence of rising dollar interest rates will not only trigger severe difficulties for the US economy and therefore its banking system, but other currencies, particularly those representing highly indebted administrations will similarly be undermined.

Consequences for financial asset values

We can now see from our understanding of credit, and the consequences of risk factors on supply and demand for it, that markets will determine outcomes not central banks. Those who think otherwise delude themselves. They appear to think that a change in interest rate policy towards lower rates is inevitable. They ignore both the debt funding crisis for government debt, and the reduction of commercial bank credit availability for the non-financial private sector.

Obviously, bond investors will face destabilising losses, which being driven by the declining value of credit links bond yields inversely to the general value of equities. My next chart shows how this relationship is already stretched leaving equities extremely vulnerable to interest rate disappointment.

By inverting the long bond yield (the red line, right-hand scale) the long-term negative correlation with the S&P 500 Index (blue line) becomes clear. The exceptions were the 2000 dot-com bubble, the 2008—2009 financial crisis, the various distortions of interest rate suppression and QE policies between 2012—2019, and zero interest rate policies over the covid crisis in 2020—2021. These aberrations can all be explained. But now the valuation optimism of equities continues despite the rise in long bond yields.

Never has the disparity between long bond yields and the S&P 500 index become so stretched. It is over twice as much as during the dot-com bubble, following which the S&P halved. For equity investors, this is extremely dangerous ground, sustained only by the availability of credit predominantly supplied by commercial banks to the financial sector, which at the same time is starving the non-financial private sector of the credit it requires.

Financial assets provide the collateral for most of the bank credit system. Much, if not most of that credit will end up being extinguished by defaulting obligations. This is why I have been saying the wisest course is to get out of credit and everything whose value depends upon it and into real money, which is gold. It’s not about gold rising, but credit in crisis or even collapsing entirely.

Reprinted with permission from MacleodFinance Substack.

The Best of Alasdair Macleod

Alasdair Macleod runs FinanceAndEconomics.org, a website dedicated to sound money and demystifying finance and economics. Alasdair has a background as a stockbroker, banker and economist. He is a Senior Fellow at the GoldMoney Foundation.

Copyright © Alasdair Macleod

Previous article by Alasdair Macleod: Election Reflections and the Farage Factor

Why All Financial Markets Will Crash

Biden’s Neurodegenerative Syndrome Consistent With COVID-19 Vaccine Injury

Dr. McCullough with Breanna Morello on Signs of both Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Syndromes

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
Courageous Discourse

Joe Biden’s appearance on film in 2019 and 2024 demonstrates a dramatic decline in cognitive function, memory, retrieval, enunciation, strength of voice, facial expression, gait, wayfinding, and motor skills such as walking up and down stairs.

Dr. McCullough appeared on the Breanna Morello show to provide analysis and commentary. While a diagnosis cannot be made without a physical exam, laboratory testing, and brain imaging, Biden’s apparent syndrome is not completely classic for Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, but has features of both conditions.

The Parkinson’s Foundation indicates that 20-50% of Parkinson’s patients experience some mild cognitive decline, but not dementia. Alzheimer’s disease doesn’t usually affect a patient’s motor function until the later stages of the disease.

Buchman AS, Bennett DA. Loss of motor function in preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Expert Rev Neurother. 2011 May;11(5):665-76. doi: 10.1586/ern.11.57. PMID: 21539487; PMCID: PMC3121966.

Biden has features of both which is consistent with a COVID-19 vaccine injury neurodegenerative syndrome. Given the timing in Biden’s case, the White House should disclosed the dates, brand, and number of doses of vaccines received. His doctors should report his case to VAERS. It is very likely COVID-19 vaccination is either the cause or has significantly contributed to his decline.

Listen to this report from Breanna Morello joined by Dr. McCullough after other experts on the president’s condition.

This originally appeared on Courageous Discourse.

Copyright © Courageous Discourse

Biden’s Neurodegenerative Syndrome Consistent With COVID-19 Vaccine Injury

“How NATO Keeps the World Safe” ~ Jake Sullivan

By Helena Glass
HelenaGlass.net

How NATO Keeps The World Safe” ~ A science fiction novel by Jake Sullivan as spoken at the NATO Summit in New York… “What the summit is really about it’s actually a productive working session — producing deals, helping enhance the defense and deferrence [deterrence] capability of the Alliance; marrying up government, the private sector, industry, military in service of our common defense.”

• “…our Allies are doing more today than at any point since the end of the Cold War.” As measured against doing nothing, this statement is true. Europe has no military strength to speak of – which is why they rely on building bunkers as ‘deterrence’.
• “…when President Biden came to office, nine Allies were meeting the NATO commitment to invest at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Today,23 allies are.” Translation; for 75 years US Taxpayers carried the burden of a worthless NATO that has achieved nothing but the incitement of wars throughout the Middle East and Africa causing widespread death and destruction.
• “NATO can, NATO will, and NATO is rising to meet this challenge without disturbing, or distorting, our national economies the way Russia has.” EU debt has reached an all time high of $15 trillion, American debt is $40 trillion and Russian debt is $247 billion or 15% of GDP.

Sullivan goes on laboriously to talk about how NATO needs more debt money to defend a NON-NATO country – Ukraine. How war is the US economy creating jobs to build more weapons. How it has taken 50 partners led by the US to equip Ukraine with the necessary weapons and manpower and intelligence to fight Putin. 50 countries are fighting Russia – and losing.

What Sullivan never mentions is ‘peace’. According to NATO, their goal is to provide peace and security. But that peace and security is derived by inciting wars in South America, Africa, and Asia. “The Alliance also contributes to peace and stability through crisis prevention and management, and through partnerships with other organizations and countries across the globe.” That would include over 40 countries and NGO’s which are not NATO members. They reference this as a ‘collective defense’ – again no mention of ‘peace’.

There have been at least 25 wars since 1948. The actual death toll is unknown but ranges wildly from 187 million to twice that – 374 million. This is what NATO declares as their great success! The vast majority of these wars included the US. These wars are always in other countries – prodded by US coups, outright US bombings, and zero détente. There is only obliteration. What NATO has accomplished is to assure that these wars are not on their soil.

The US has 18 defense agencies working with hundreds of thousands of NGO’s all doing the same thing. There are roughly 1.5 to 2 million registered NGO’s in the US alone. On August 1, 2000, sixteen international non-governmental organizations came together with a vision for a network of NGOs that would promote the ideals of the United Nations, and most especially the ideals of universal peace, justice, and well-being for all humanity. We got 2 million NGO’s out that meeting and no peace anywhere.

According to the National Council of Nonprofits, 1/3 of all NGO funding on average comes from the government – aka Taxpayers. These organizations pay no taxes on their revenue – and have accumulated Net Worth in the multiple Trillions. The vast majority don’t serve America , but instead send our money to The World Bank where they loan our money to other countries, organizations, and poor villages charging usury interest in the range of 50% to 120%. YET, that interest does not come back to the Taxpayers, it goes 100% to the middlemen.

The Money Lenders.

Essentially, NATO ensures the money lenders stay in business.

Israel enjoys a tidy export business; the US gives Israel weapons which Israel then sells for a profit to India, The Philippines and the US. Amounting to roughly $12.5 to $15 billion per year – even during the Gaza War. Ukraine never asks for aide, medical supplies, or food, instead, it only asks for bigger and more – weapons. The charade is no longer necessary.

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO Secretary General, emphasized the need to continue to prolong the Ukraine war until Russia is defeated – another Afghanistan…20 years, 220,000 deaths, and $2 trillion later, the NATO coalition – LOST. How could ‘the best military in the world, lose a war against ‘rag tag’ Afghanistan? What does that reveal about the US military? It’s generals? It’s 18 intel agencies, and thousands of NGO’s? It reveals an Illusion.

The US spends $1.2 trillion annually on ‘Defense’, by comparison, Russia spends $75 billion.   And their economy is flush while America is experiencing Argentina style inflation!   Russia has since reduced its debt…  while America increases it by 50% over-budget annually.  In the midst of all this rubbish, Saudi Arabia has declared it could sell off Euro Bonds if the EU seizes Russian assets.   Bin Salman has also stated that any relationship with Israel, as brokered by Trump, was dead.

US Senators are calling Saudi Arabia’s declarations a ‘bluff’.   I doubt European leaders are quite so stoic given they hold the entirety of the ‘skin in the game’.  A skin that amounts to tens  of billions that could easily form the beginning of a domino effect.  The US response would be sanctions and the entire Middle East would form their own bloc without The West.  A Middle East/US alliance would completely collapse.   This is the grandiose intel that our Pentagon employs.  Strategic death march.

NATO created the war between Russia and Ukraine.   Doing so at the behest of the rogue Pentagon and CIA for Money.  The Bolsheviks have hated Russia since the 18^th century with the rise of The House of Rothschild.   The same communist Bolsheviks who have since solidified their control over Europe, US, Canada, Australia, and Mexico.  Under the guise of ‘democracy’’ positioned within the Authoritarian Monarchy umbrella of the Zionist Cabal.

Reprinted with permission from HelenaGlass.net.

Copyright © Helena Glass

‘How NATO Keeps the World Safe’ ~ Jake Sullivan

International Public Notice: The Other Alternative

 By Anna Von Reitz

We have seen how the British “Governments” — the Monarch, Westminster, and the British Crown, have by duplicity and fraud worked to take advantage of their own people and their people’s private assets as collateral to fund wars of aggression, including illegal Mercenary Conflicts worldwide.

The first round of the present nastiness began in England during the reign of Queen Victoria where they “latched onto” their own people via a process of undisclosed corporate enfranchisement and used the proceeds to promote the British Raj in India. 

We have seen how this has been expedited by evasion of their lawful contracts and by unlawful jurisdictional conversions and human trafficking.  

We have seen how this same scheme has been applied by the villains worldwide and how it has resulted in widespread fraud, impersonation, identity theft, and conspiracy to evade lawful contracts and obligations. 

We have seen how this has promoted the existence of the equivalent of the British Raj in India being used as a means to illegally seize assets belonging to other people and other countries. 

We have seen how the Government of Westminster has colluded with the British Monarchy and how the British Crown Corporations have been used to entrap and illegally seize upon and “salvage” property assets belonging to entire countries, and how they have then used Municipal trusts to launder these ill-gotten gains. 

This is British Colonialism being practiced in international and global venues by corporations.  We call it Corporate Feudalism.  

It was pioneered by Cecil Rhodes in South Africa and resulted in one of the most oppressive, ruthless, and racially bigoted regimes in human history. 

The excesses, thefts, and brutality expressed by the British Raj in India also speak volumes concerning the nature of this form of “government” which should be, by now, recognized as a form of National Socialism.  

This is why we speak of the “British Nazis”. 

It comes as a great surprise to many people today that Nazism, as a form of government, was embraced internationally.  

Post-war media and propaganda have been used to focus attention on Germany’s Third Reich and on demonizing and isolating Hitler’s regime, but there was also the Vichy French Government and the Italian Government under Mussolini, practicing their version of Fascism, and many Fascists all around the world — Lithuanian Nazis, Swiss Nazis, even Algerian Nazis —  and there were numerous affiliated organizations and famous individuals who supported the Nazis, too. 

Prescott Bush, George H.W. Bush’s adoptive Father, was an outspoken Nazi supporter and bankrolled Hitler’s efforts from the start.  

The abdicated British King Edward VIII was also an outspoken supporter of the Nazis and Hitler’s regime.  

We have photos of the British Royal family including the future Queen Elizabeth II practicing Nazi salutes and home movie clips of the children calling Hitler “Uncle Adolph”.  

Thus we speak of “British Nazis” and know whereof we speak, both in terms of the history, and the results.  

It has long been the practice of the British ruling class to “play both ends against the middle”, to finance both sides of every war, and keep a foot in both camps, so as to better victimize the losers and take advantage of the winners. 

Hitler’s entire rise to power was financed by the same industrialists and Monarchists that supported Winston Churchill. 

Those same interests persist in pushing the same old ugly agendas: eugenics, transhumanism,  geoengineering, weaponization of the weather, biowarfare, slavery, indentured servitude, racial superiority, clandestine sexual perversions, genocide as an administrative convenience, illegal confiscation of assets, impersonation, barratry, fraud and unlimited powers of government.   

There is no difference between Hitler’s Will to Power and Absolute Monarchy.  

And this, it must finally be admitted, is what these undeserving cretins have been driving toward all along, with no respect for their own word, no conscience, and no decency. 

They have sought to build a world hegemony based on unconscionable citizenship contracts foisted off on babies, impersonation, barratry, identity theft, unlawful conversion of assets, and other forms of white collar fraud allowing them to evade their social and business contracts.  

The people of Great Britain have been owed a Christian Constitutional Monarchy since the Act of Union and also have been owed a Protestant Monarch as a pre-condition of the formation of the respective National Trusts and the contributions made to the National Trusts creating the legal fiction entity known as “Great Britain”.  

Yet almost immediately, in 1702, these agreements were secretly violated; there has never been a Christian and Constitutional Monarchy.  It’s all been shell games and fraud, appearances, smoke and mirrors sideshow stuff. 

Queen Elizabeth II’s Coronation in which she kissed the Bible in front of the entire watching world, and seemed thereby to create the required Christian and Protestant Monarchy, was in fact a fraudulent act.  She acted in the Maritime venue and dishonored that contract within three days afterward. 

Think of a little kid, swearing to tell the truth with their fingers crossed behind their backs. 

This typifies the fraud against the Public Interest that these persons have practiced for 300 years. 

The Monarchs, who held their crowns as “gifts and tokens” of His Holiness the Pope, as signs of their appointment as hereditary Overseers of the various Global Trust Interests they administered, were forever compromised and acting in conflict of interest from the start of any role as “Protestants”. 

How does one act as an Overseer of the Global Estate Trust, owing one’s crown to the Pope, and pretend to be a Protestant and serve the National Public Interest at the same time?  

Answer: this is done by “Special Papal Dispensation”, like King Henry the Eighth worked out, allowing him to be the titular Head of the Church of England and get a 40% share of the value of every baptized member of the Church of England, while passing on 60% of “the take” to the Pope. 

Like their Catholic brethren, the members of the Church of England were never told that their baptismal enrollments and later, Baptism Certificates, resulted in commercially valuable instruments representing the “deposit” of their souls as chattel backing the debts of the Monarchs and Church. 

Chattels.

In this way, people really could speak about “buying and selling” souls. 

This is typical of the Satanic nonsense promoted by the followers of the Father of All Lies. 

They delude themselves with these narratives until they believe that they actually own your soul, and being convinced of this, they feel entitled to treat you as a slave and practice any amount of evil against you. 

It remains to us to observe that the Baptismal Certificate, like the Birth Certificates, like the licenses, and the registrations, enrollments, and enlistments perpetuated by these Con Artists,  are factually only a piece of paper and not a valid contract for lack of full disclosure and equitable consideration. 

Their purported contracts are also void for fraud. 

They have not fully and openly disclosed their identities, intentions, and nature; while pretending to be Protestant Monarchs, they have instead been Catholic Overseers; while pretending to be guardians and custodians, they have actually been commercial pirates and predators unjustly enriching themselves by unlawfully and illegally latching upon purloined assets, issuing themselves titles to property they don’t own, and loaning us our own credit. 

The traditional punishment for these activities is death.  That is what the Hague and Geneva Conventions require.  

Piracy, meanwhile, is punishable by hanging and in the worst cases, by drawing and quartering and gibbeting.

We do not propose to increase the bloodshed and trauma already inflicted on this world.  

What we propose is the liquidation and/or forfeiture of all corporations related to these abuses, or, there is another alternative.  

The corporations can be lawfully converted. 

Just as they were unlawfully converted, they can be lawfully converted, come back under the Law of the Land and traditional Merchant Law, and begin operating as responsible and honest business organizations.  

The lawful conversion must benefit the victims, so that the offending governments are not rewarded for their infamy, and their people are not unfairly benefited at the expense of the rest of the world, but not punished, either.  

We must remember that the British peoples were among the first victims of these con artists. Blaming the victims is not appropriate.  They must have their share and return of their own assets.  

Then, to each their own, the people to their homes and land, their businesses and occupations; the institutions to their proper place, allegiance, and functions; the governments in their intended roles and jurisdictions; the mercenary armed forces converted back to an honorable estate — and the world set right again. 

We call upon all military, police, law enforcement, peacekeeping, and militia forces, all criminal prosecutors and crime prevention organizations worldwide, all banks and financial institutions, to recognize the fraud that has been perpetrated against this country and many other countries. 

The Great Fraud amounts to a vast multinational identity theft and impersonation scheme that has impacted billions of people over time, and which has been the prime motivation and means of promoting illegal mercenary conflicts disguised as “wars” and also the profit motive behind insurance frauds resulting in genocides, tax scheme frauds disguised as gift and estate taxes, and more tax schemes disguised as concern for the environment. 

Everyone, everywhere, must hear and raise the alarm, so that these criminals are no longer allowed to operate in our midst and prey upon our people and our assets.   

Issued by:

Anna Maria Riezinger, Fiduciary

The United States of America

In care of: Box 520994

Big Lake, Alaska 99652

July 11th 2024

—————————-

See this article and over 4900 others on Anna’s website here: www.annavonreitz.com

To support this work look for the Donate button on this website. 

How do we use your donations?  Find out here.

The American States Assemblies

https://newhumannewearthcommunities.wordpress.com/2024/07/12/international-public-notice-the-other-alternative/

Konferenz: Globale Entwicklungsinitiative bietet neues Modell, das besser zu den Entwicklungsländern passt. US-Wissenschaftler: „Die NATO löst nichts außer der Verschwendung von Geld und Menschenleben“ (Global Times)

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202407/1315938.shtml

Am Freitag versammelten sich hochrangige Regierungsvertreter und Wissenschaftler aus mehr als 110 Ländern und 30 internationalen Organisationen in Peking zur zweiten hochrangigen Konferenz des Forums für globale Maßnahmen für gemeinsame Entwicklung. Sie lobten Chinas Globale Entwicklungsinitiative (GDI) in höchsten Tönen und sagten, dass sie ein neues Modell für eine nachhaltige Entwicklungszusammenarbeit darstelle, das besser mit den Interessen und Forderungen der Länder des globalen Südens vereinbar sei.

Im Rahmen der GDI habe China auf der Grundlage gegenseitigen Respekts greifbare Vorteile für die wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung seiner Länder gebracht, sagten die Konferenzteilnehmer. Diese zeigen sich nicht nur in der Finanzierung, der Schaffung von Arbeitsplätzen und der Armutsbekämpfung, sondern auch in der Modernisierung ihrer Industrien und der Bekämpfung des Klimawandels.

Der chinesische Außenminister Wang Yi hielt bei der Eröffnungszeremonie am Freitag eine Grundsatzrede, in der er die Erfolge der letzten drei Jahre seit der Einführung der Initiative im Jahr 2021 erläuterte. Bisher sind mehr als 80 Länder der „Gruppe der Freunde“ der GDI beigetreten, und mehr als 40 Länder und internationale Institutionen haben Kooperationsvereinbarungen mit China unterzeichnet.

Während der hochrangigen Konferenz im letzten Jahr kündigte China die Einrichtung eines globalen Projektpools an und richtete einen speziellen Entwicklungsfonds zu dessen Unterstützung ein. Bis heute umfasst der Pool über 1.000 Projekte, von denen mehr als 500 abgeschlossen oder in Arbeit sind.

China wird den Pool weiter ausbauen und seine Finanzierung erhöhen und dabei „kleinen und schönen“ Existenzprojekten Vorrang einräumen, sagte Wang, der auch Mitglied des Politbüros des Zentralkomitees der Kommunistischen Partei Chinas ist.

In einer turbulenten Welt, in der die globale wirtschaftliche Erholung Rückschläge erfährt und die Kluft zwischen dem globalen Norden und dem globalen Süden immer größer wird, steht China als Mitglied des globalen Südens fest an der Seite der Entwicklungsländer, so der Spitzendiplomat.

„Wir setzen uns für die Förderung des Dialogs und der Zusammenarbeit zwischen dem globalen Süden und dem globalen Norden ein und rufen die Industrieländer auf, ihren Verpflichtungen nachzukommen und Entwicklungsländer wirksamer und gezielter zu unterstützen“, sagte Wang.

Der Premierminister der Republik Vanuatu, Charlot Salwai, der vom 7. bis 12. Juli China besucht, nahm an der Konferenz teil und sagte, dass die GDI „einen Hoffnungsschimmer für die globale Entwicklung gebracht“ habe. Drei Jahre später sei Vanuatu ein wahrer Nutznießer dieser großartigen Initiative geworden, sagte Salwai.

Dank der gemeinsamen Anstrengungen beider Seiten erreichte der Gesamtwert des Handels zwischen China und Vanuatu im Jahr 2023 138 Millionen US-Dollar, ein Anstieg von 27 Prozent gegenüber dem Vorjahr. „Obwohl die Welt mit zunehmenden Unsicherheiten und Instabilitäten konfrontiert ist, wird Vanuatu immer auf China als zuverlässigen Entwicklungspartner vertrauen“, sagte Salwai.

Während einer Podiumsdiskussion am Rande der Konferenz am Freitag erklärte Jeffrey Sachs, Direktor des Zentrums für nachhaltige Entwicklung an der Columbia University, seine „Leidenschaft und Aufrichtigkeit“, mit der er sich für den Globalen Süden einsetzt.

„Die Vereinigten Staaten, mein Land, haben viele seltsame Ideen. Das ist einer der Gründe für die Spaltung der Welt … Die ganze Vorstellung, dass wir uns in einer Art Konfrontation befinden, beruht auf einem tiefgreifenden Missverständnis“, bemerkte Sachs.

„Die USA haben diese zwei großen Ozeane, die sie vom Rest der Welt und vom Wissen trennen – sie verstehen das nicht. Mein erster Rat ist also, dass [US-]Kongressabgeordnete sich einen Pass besorgen und die Welt bereisen und diese wunderschönen Länder besuchen sollten, die hier auf der Bühne vertreten sind, dann hätten wir eine andere Art von Welt“, fuhr er fort.

Es sei „ironisch und bemerkenswert“, dass China dieses „großartige Forum“ ausrichte, während in Washington der NATO-Gipfel stattfindet, der „niemals etwas lösen wird: Was soll die NATO lösen, außer der Verschwendung von Geld und Menschenleben?“, sagte Sachs den Medien während der Podiumsdiskussion.

Als Reaktion auf westliche Hypes, Chinas Kooperation mit den Ländern des globalen Südens sei eine Möglichkeit, „Einfluss geltend zu machen“, sagte Hamad Al Hosani, Forscher bei TRENDS Research and Advisory, einem Thinktank aus den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten, gegenüber Global Times und fügte hinzu, sein Land sehe das nie so.

„Chinas Fokus liegt auf Handel und Investitionen, Wirtschaft, Technologie, und wir brauchen China, um Lösungen für viele unserer heutigen Probleme zu finden. Sie wenden keine Waffen und Gewalt an, und es geht nicht um Politik“, sagte Hosani.

Konferenz: Globale Entwicklungsinitiative bietet neues Modell, das besser zu den Entwicklungsländern passt. US-Wissenschaftler: „Die NATO löst nichts außer der Verschwendung von Geld und Menschenleben“ (Global Times)

Massenbewegungen in der DVRK während des Koreakrieges

Patriotische Bewegungen des ganzen Volkes Pyongyang, 12. Juli (KCNA) – Die Massenbewegungen, die unser Volk unter der Führung des Präsidenten während des Vaterländischen Befreiungskrieges durchführte, trugen dazu bei, den Sieg im Krieg zu beschleunigen. Seit Beginn des Krieges gab es im ganzen Land eine Bewegung der Freiwilligen, die sich zum Kriegsdienst an der Front meldeten.…

mdbo1

DVRK, Imperialismus, Koreakrieg, Massenbewegungen, USA, Vaterländischer Befreiungskrieg, Wirtschaft

Patriotische Bewegungen des ganzen Volkes

Pyongyang, 12. Juli (KCNA) – Die Massenbewegungen, die unser Volk unter der Führung des Präsidenten während des Vaterländischen Befreiungskrieges durchführte, trugen dazu bei, den Sieg im Krieg zu beschleunigen. Seit Beginn des Krieges gab es im ganzen Land eine Bewegung der Freiwilligen, die sich zum Kriegsdienst an der Front meldeten. Menschen aus allen Gesellschaftsschichten, Jugendliche und Studenten versammelten sich in Industriebetrieben, ländlichen Gebieten, Fischerdörfern, Schulen, Krankenhäusern und Straßen im ganzen Land, um zu geloben, an die Front zu gehen.

Inmitten dieser Bewegung meldeten sich viele Menschen freiwillig zum Kampf an der Kriegsfront, und die Zahl der Freiwilligen stieg von Tag zu Tag. Auch die Bewegung für Waffenspenden wurde zu einer patriotischen Bewegung des ganzen Volkes ausgebaut. Dank des Enthusiasmus der Menschen im Hinterland, der Front zu helfen, wurden Flugzeuge, Panzer und Kriegsschiffe, die nach „Rodongja“ (Arbeiter), „Minchong“ (demokratische Jugend), „Taehaksaeng“ (Student), „Sonyon“ (Kind) und anderen benannt waren, an die Front geschickt. In etwas mehr als zwei Monaten nach Ausbruch des Krieges wurden mehr als 400 Millionen Won als Mittel für Waffen bereitgestellt.

In verschiedenen Bereichen der Volkswirtschaft wurden verschiedene Arten von Massenbewegungen durchgeführt. Dazu gehörten die Bewegung der Schockbrigade an der Front, die Bewegung der Arbeitsgruppen an der Front, die Bewegung zur Steigerung der Produktion von zwei oder drei Arbeitern, die Bewegung der Pflügerin und die Kampagne zur Abgabe von Hilfsgetreide an die Front.
Mit dem von Tag zu Tag wachsenden Enthusiasmus der Massenbewegung wurde der Gesamtplan für die Industrieproduktion 1951 zu 109,6 Prozent erfüllt, und der Gesamtwert der Industrieproduktion 1952 stieg im Vergleich zum Vorjahr um 19 Prozent. Die tatsächliche Produktion der Rüstungsbetriebe stieg im Vergleich zur Periode des friedlichen Aufbaus um das Fünf- bis Sechsfache.
Die Zahl der an die Kriegsfront gespendeten Strohsäcke mit Hilfsgütern erreichte am 30. April 1953 über 220 000.
Die patriotischen Bewegungen des ganzen Volkes, die während des ganzen Krieges in der Nachhut entstanden, dienten als Geschosse und Granaten, um den Aggressoren einen tödlichen Rachefeldzug zu versetzen, und als starke Triebkraft, um die Kampfkraft der Volksarmee zu stärken und den Tag des Sieges im Krieg zu beschleunigen.

Quelle: http://www.kcna.kp (Juche113.7.12.) – http://www.kcna.kp/en/article/q/6fb14d5785987532982867e7613ec68a.kcmsf

Massenbewegungen in der DVRK während des Koreakrieges

Learning From the French Elections

By C.J. Polychroniou
Common Dreams

C.J. Polychroniou reflects on the revival of an anti-fascist alliance in France amid a brutal neoliberal status quo.

Far-right forces have gained ground across Europe, particularly in Austria, France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

In fact, the Netherlands has a new government, a coalition between far right and right, and the far right came first in the first-round of France’s snap election.

But fearful of the prospect of a neo-fascist and xenophobic party in government, French voters came out in record numbers and rallied not behind Ensemble — the centrist coalition led by President Emmanuel Macron — but behind the coalition of left forces calling themselves the New Popular Front (NFP), delivering in the end a blow to Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN) which had made historic gains in the first round and topped the poll with 33.15 percent of the votes cast. NFP came in first in the run-off election, with 188 seats, but falling short of majority.

France’s snap parliamentary election results help us to make sense of the surge of the far right and offer valuable lessons for the left all over the world.

First, it is crystal clear that the main reason for the rise of Europe’s far right, authoritarian, and ethnonationalist forces is the status quo of neoliberal capitalism.

The neoliberal counterrevolution that begun in the early 1980s and undermined every aspect of the social democracy model that had characterized European political economy since the end of the Second World War has unleashed utterly dangerous political forces that envision a return to a golden era of traditional values built around the idea of the nation by fomenting incessant and socially destructive change.

Klaus Schwab, World Economic Forum founder, and Macron at the WEF annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 17. (World Economic Forum / Boris Baldinger, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

True to its actual aims and intent, neoliberalism has exacerbated capitalism’s tendency to concentrate wealth in the hands of fewer and fewer, reduced the well-being of the population through mass privatization and commercialization of public services, hijacked democracy, decreased the overall functionality of state agencies, and created a condition of permanent insecurity.

Moreover, powerful global economic governance institutions — namely, the unholy trinity of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and the World Trade Organization — took control of the world economy and became instrumental in the spreading of neoliberalism by shaping and influencing the policies of national governments. It is under these conditions that ethnonationalism, racism, and neofascism resurfaced in Europe, and in fact all over the world.

In France, the rise of the far right coincided with President François Mitterand’s turn to austerity in the 1980s as his government fell prey to the monetarist-neoliberal ideology of the Anglo-Saxon world. Once Mitterand made his infamous neoliberal turn, the rest of the social democratic regimes in southern Europe (Greece under Andreas Papandreou, Italy under Bettino Craxi, Spain under Felipe Gonzalez, and Portugal under Mario Soares) tagged along, and the eclipse of progressivism was underway.

Mitterrand, on right, with U.S. President Ronald Reagan during D-Day observations at Omaha Beach in Normandy on June 6, 1984. (James Cavalier, U.S. Army, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

Less than two decades later, reactionary political forces had emerged throughout Europe as extreme neoliberal economic policies had paved the way for the emergence of political tendencies with an eye to exploiting the catastrophic social and economic impacts of neoliberalism by tapping into a huge reservoir of public anger and discontent with the establishment. Indeed, as neoliberalism tightened its grip on domestic society, far right forces gained more ground. The surge of Marine Le Pen’s RN occurs against the backdrop of Macron’s obsession with converting France into a full-fledged neoliberal society.

A crucial lesson offered by the results of France’s snap election (as well as by Labour’s victory in U.K.) is that economics remains the rule of the day. Political forces that seek to promote multiculturalism and social rights while pushing at the same time the neoliberal economic agenda will, in the end, get the short end of the stick. 

Initially, Macronism was a strategy of trying to appeal to a wide range of center-left and center-right voters by defending secular social rights and even making gestures to LGBTQ people but always with an eye to transforming the social contract and freeing up the “energy of the workforce.”

Macron’s “progressive liberalism” philosophy worked up to a point. It backfired in a big way along the way when workers, farmers, and minority groups realized that their economic future was at stake by Macron’s pro-market policies — and that was clearly far more important to them than concerns over social issues and even the environment itself.

The “yellow vest” movement that rocked Macron’s presidency in 2018 and left an “indelible mark” on French politics was the first indication that any set of government reforms that carried a disproportionate impact on the working and middle classes was going to be severely challenged.

Yellow vest demonstrators in Paris in December 2018. (Olivier Ortelpa, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 2.0)

In the end, Macronism even lost the support it initially had from women’s and LGBTQ organizations, and not simply because Macron’s stance on social policies hardened along the way as part of an opportunistic and desperate attempt on his part to stir conservative voters away from the arms of the far right.

It is worth pointing out here that, unlike most social movements which are male-dominated, the “yellow vest” movement was distinguished by the “high proportion of women” who took part in the protests. It was economics that drove French women out into the streets, demonstrating against Macron government’s unjust tax reform measures.

Again, the lesson here is that voters are unlikely to be deceived by the sort of political rhetoric that emphasizes diversity, multiculturalism, and environmental concerns while policies are being pursued in favor of a brutal neoliberal economic setting.

Social rights under neoliberalism is a mirage.

This is a critical lesson for all left forces in an age in which multiculturalism and the politics of identity play such a prominent ideological role. We see the counter effects of this ultimately “pro-capitalist-stratagem” in the U.S. where voters without college degrees, which amount to over 60 percent of the population, are overwhelmingly in former President Donald Trump’s camp. A similar tendency can be seen in the Latino community as a growing segment of Hispanic voters are joining Trump’s GOP party.

For the benefit of political expediency and ideological integrity alike, the left should stick to its universalist traditions while remaining of course sensitive to diversity and particularism. But it has no business playing the game of identity politics that has become the hallmark of corporate capitalism and of the liberal political establishment. Last thing we need is a cultural and post-material left morphed into a movement vying for space in a capitalist dominated universe. 

More important, as the unique experience of the formation of a coalition of leftist parties in France for the snap parliamentary election attests, the left’s best hope for making major inroads in today’s Western societies, which are unquestionably highly complex and diversified, is by introducing and promoting an attractive yet realistic economic agenda that addresses the immediate concerns of average people but without losing sight of the broader objective of the leftist vision which is none other than social transformation.

The “shocking” success of the New Popular Front in the run-off election in France did not materialize simply because French voters wanted to halt the rise of the far right to power, which is the mainstream interpretation. French voters backed NFP for two key reasons: first, because they finally saw the left leaving behind factionalism and, second, because they were lured by its radical manifesto.

For the first time since the 1930s, not only has an anti-fascist alliance been revived in France but there is now hope for the future of the left because of its economic vision, assuming of course that the left can stay united beyond the election. And this is perhaps the greatest lesson leftist forces should draw from the French snap elections: a united left is a formidable opponent that cannot only halt the surge of neo-fascism but can also offer real hope for a humane and sustainable future.

*C.J. Polychroniou is a political economist/political scientist who has taught and worked in numerous universities and research centers in Europe and the United States. His latest books are The Precipice: Neoliberalism, the Pandemic and the Urgent Need for Social Change (A collection of interviews with Noam Chomsky; Haymarket Books, 2021), and Economics and the Left: Interviews with Progressive Economists (Verso, 2021).

Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2024/07/11/learning-from-the-french-elections/

Learning From the French Elections