Yep, this is the best email addy. Was hoping to resurrect the old group. I know, fat chance.
Flattered you sometimes take time to read my stuff!
As far as the “Deep State,” A.K.A.Administrative State — which, as an auditor, you were part of for awhile — that meme originally came to fame as a result of this article – – –
It wants to live for itself (salaries, benefits, etc.) and mostly because of a very active “Capture Theory,” evolves to serve the money, which counts on it to continue being the money. Especially pernicious is the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex branch in cahoots with the CIA substructure – – –
“Now, as nearly as I can make out, those fellows in the CIA don’t just report on wars and the like, they go out and make their own, and there’s nobody to keep track of what they’re up to. They spend billions of dollars on stirring up trouble so they’ll have something to report on. They’ve become … it’s become a government all of its own and all secret. They don’t have to account to anybody.” –President Harry S. Truman (who created the CIA)Truman Was Right About the CIA
Because government survives on exacted tax money with no market controls, as Reagan quipped, “The closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.” Which explains why Uncle Scam just gets bigger and bigger and has morphed, evolved, and mutated into That Thing That’s Living in Washington D.C.
As far as Putin’s motivations go — and a few other significant things —
“Off topic, you won’t remember this but———- You once told me ‘The Past Doesn’t Exist.’ I never had the chance to ask you why not? Since then I read that Albert Einstein along with most physicists like yourself believe your statement about the past. It has to do with how we define time. That was a pretty interesting read.” –MARK
Bet it was. Send a link!
Well, strange as it seems, the consensus is that time is basically a psycological phenom and not only doesn’t the past exist but neither does the future. Only the present — which has one foot on a banana peel.
Then again, physics has gotten really strange lately, ever since we’ve been forced to take quantum theory seriously by experimental evidence.
Nonetheless, well before quantum theory, there’s this sage observation from an early and emminently credentialed physicist – – –
We almost never think of the present, and if we do think of it, it is only to see what light it throws on our plans for the future. The present is never our end. The past and the present are our means, the future alone our end. Thus we never actually live, but hope to live, and since we are always planning how to be happy, it is inevitable that we should never be so. –Blaise Pascal
So, especially with all of the above, maybe “Be Here Now!” is particularly good advice – – –
HERE for updates, additions, comments, and corrections.
AND, “Like,” “Tweet,” and otherwise, pass this along!
[send him mail] taught physics, designed and built a house, ran for Nevada State Senate, served two terms on the Libertarian National Committee, managed a theater company, etc. For the next few decades, he supported his writing habit by beating casinos at their own games. His hobby, though, is explaining things he wishes someone had explained to
him. You can find a few of his other explanations listed
French genius Emmanuel Macron keeps pushing the button for World War Three, on this occasion while in Berlin this week to cajole Germany into self-destruct mode.
Macron has joined the chorus of other NATO figures who are calling for Ukraine to be permitted to use long-range weapons to strike deep into Russian territory.
It looks like Macron succeeded in seducing the Germans with his maniacal mission. Following their meeting, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has flipped from objecting to such strikes to now approving them.
Scholz said at their joint press conference: “Ukraine has every possibility to do this, under international law. It must be said clearly, if Ukraine is attacked, it can defend itself.”
Only last week, the German “leader” (a term advisably used with artistic license) was opposed to such a move. So predictable is this pinhead-dancing. Remember past fleeting opposition to Leopard tanks, and so on.
The French president said Ukraine must have the right to “neutralize” Russian military bases that are launching air strikes on Ukraine.
“We think that we should allow them to neutralize military sites where missiles are fired, from where… Ukraine is attacked,” he said, adding: “We should not allow them to touch other targets in Russia, and obviously civilian capacities”.
The comments drew a warning from Russian President Vladimir Putin who said that the “constant escalation” was playing with fire and that long-range strikes on Russia with NATO weapons would have “consequences” for NATO territories. In short, the consequences are all-out war and nuclear conflagration.
Macron’s megalomania is making an outsized contribution to starting World War Three. This diminutive politician (in terms of career achievements) wants to be the leader of Europe and is continually upping the ante with chest-thumping exercises. Weeks ago, he kicked off the idea of sending NATO troops to Ukraine, an idea which is beginning to pick up momentum. This week, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief welcomed the imminent arrival of French military instructors.
Now Macron is putting his shoulder behind the calls for NATO to officially endorse long-range air strikes on Russia.
The major factor prompting such calls is the desperation of NATO as its proxy Ukrainian regime faces collapse amid significant Russian military gains after nearly two and half years of war and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted by Washington and its Western vassals. Russia is winning despite the massive effort by the West to defeat it. So, doubling down on ignominious losses is the Western gamble.
Macron’s bravado is full of deception and delusion. The Ukrainian regime is already using NATO long-range weapons to strike Russia, including French-made Scalp cruise missiles. French and NATO instructors are already in Ukraine and have been there ever since the CIA-sponsored coup in Kiev in 2014 bringing a NeoNazi regime to power.
Macron’s seeming probity about “not allowing attacks on civilian capacities” is cynical nonsense. The Kiev regime and its NATO instructors using long-range NATO weapons have been routinely killing scores of civilians in Russian territory bordering Ukraine, including Belgorod, Bryansk and Kursk.
All this talk about “untying Ukraine’s hands” is merely making existing NATO policy explicit.
That official stance is however a grave escalation. It is as close as possible to declaring war on Russia.
For argument’s sake, let’s give Macron and Scholz some slack. Let’s accept that Russian military bases located in pre-war Russian territory firing weapons at Ukraine should be neutralized. Rhetorical chicanery aside, let’s assume that Macron and Scholz are merely trying to level the battlefield, so to speak, and to give the Ukraine side the same military capability and freedom as the Russian side. You hit us, so we can hit you. Seems fair enough.
Following this rationale, the principle is that Ukraine should be able to hit Russian sites from where attacks are being mounted on Ukraine.
But here’s the rub. Macron and Scholz are inadvertently making the case for Russia to, likewise, strike the centers from where attacks on its territory are emanating. The only reason why Macron and Scholz do not see this logical consistency is presumably due to arrogance, double-think and abject servility to Uncle Sam.
What NATO centers might be legitimate targets? Ramstein Base in Germany would be fair game. This is where the U.S. and NATO chiefs regularly meet to plan the next phase of arms shipments to Ukraine.
How about the French Defense Ministry in Paris? This week the French Minister of Defense held high-level talks with his Ukrainian counterparts to green-light the deployment of French instructors to assist in the firing of weapons at Russia.
How about Berlin, London, Brussels and Madrid where this week more plans were hatched to send billions of dollars worth of more military munitions to Ukraine to keep the proxy war with Russia going?
Macron and Scholz want to untie Ukraine’s hands to hit Russia with NATO missiles. In so doing, they are untying Russia’s hands.
No wonder European citizens are increasingly apprehensive about the unhinged logic of Macron and others like NATO’s Norwegian wooden figurehead Jens Stoltenberg and the Nazi nostalgists in the Baltic states. The forthcoming European Parliamentary elections promise to be a comeuppance for establishment politicians like Macron and Scholz. Ironically, these politicians want to win votes by looking tough. They will end up losing votes and legitimacy because of popular anger and disgust over their reckless warmongering.
They are parading themselves as nothing but pathetic lapdogs for Uncle Sam.
Scholz had up until recently pushed back against the idea of NATO troops and weapons being used directly against Russia. Now he’s flipped like a circus dog for a biscuit treat.
Macron was hosted in Berlin this week to smooth over friction between France and Germany. No doubt, Berlin is irked by the French president taking it upon himself to up the ante in hostilities with Russia, trying to make himself out to be the “top dog” in Europe showing “macho leadership”.
In reality, the “top dog” is nothing but a pathetic pink poodle for Uncle Sam.
How the tables have turned. There was a time when the Germans strutted into Paris with little resistance. Now we see a French narcissist strutting in Berlin… and the Germans lying down and rolling over with their tongues lolling around.
«Denkst du Israels Regierung ist Völkermord?“ Corinna Barnard reagiert auf die Erhebung der Kongressabgeordneten fehlen uns die Worte.Frage an Universitätsleiter letzte Woche.
Der Abgeordnete Bob Good befragt am 23. Mai Rutgers-Präsident Jonathan Holloway. (C-Span immer noch)
By Corinna Barnhard Speziell zu Consortium News
«Do denken Sie, dass die israelische Regierung einen Völkermord betreibt?“
Das ist die Frage, die Rep. Bob Good, ein Republikaner aus Virginia, schoss letzte Woche in einer Anhörung im Ausschuss des US-Repräsentantenhauses auf Jonathan Holloway, den Präsidenten der Rutgers, der staatlichen Universität von New Jersey.
Holloway, ein Gelehrter der afroamerikanischen Geschichte, der die Leiter der Verwaltungspositionen an Spitzenschulen stetig erklimmt, wirkte verblüfft.
«Ähm, Sir, ich … habe keine Meinung zu Israels ähm … im Sinne dieses Ausdrucks.“
Gut: „Sie haben keine Meinung dazu, ob die israelische Regierung genozidal ist?“
Holloway: „Äh, nein, Sir, ich denke, Israel hat ein Recht zu existieren und sich selbst zu schützen.“
Gut: „Glauben Sie, dass Israels Regierung einen Völkermord betreibt?“
Holloway: „Ich denke, Israel hat ein Recht auf Existenz und Selbstschutz, Sir.“
Gut: „Aber Sie werden nicht sagen, dass die israelische Regierung keinen Völkermord betreibt. Das darfst du nicht sagen?“
Holloway blieb bei seinem Drehbuch: „Sir, ich glaube an das Recht der Regierung…“
Gut, unterbrechen Sie ihn: „Sie können von dem Thema der heutigen Diskussion nicht so überrascht sein und Sie können nicht sagen, dass Israels Regierung nicht genozidal ist. Das ist interessant.»
Gut hat seinen Sinn.
Es ist kaum zu glauben, dass Holloway oder irgendjemand, der das Weltgeschehen auch nur im Geringsten verfolgt, sich keine Meinung darüber gebildet hätte, ob die israelische Regierung einen Völkermord begeht.
Während Good versuchte, Holloway ein „Nein“ abzuringen, lautete die richtige Antwort für einen Universitätspräsidenten als Vertreter des Wissensbereichs zweifellos waren „Ja“.
Holloway, Mitte, mit dem US-Abgeordneten Tom Kean Jr. aus New Jersey im Februar 2022. (Büro des Kongressabgeordneten Tom Kean, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)
Die Definition von Völkermord im Übereinkommen zur Verhütung und Bestrafung des Völkermordverbrechens von 1948 umfasst:
«Der Gruppe absichtlich Lebensbedingungen auferlegen, die darauf abzielen, ihre physische Zerstörung ganz oder teilweise herbeizuführen.“
Niemand kann leugnen, dass diese Definition erfüllt ist.
Die Beweise häuften sich in den Medien stetig; über Presseberichte sowie Bilder und Clips in sozialen Medien, die zeigen, wie Palästinenser eine Reihe von Gräueltaten erleiden. Beim Scrollen werden die Leser hautnah Zeuge einer detaillierten Höllenlandschaft menschlichen Leids.
Diese erschreckend anschaulichen Darstellungen sind möglicherweise kein ausreichender Beweis für internationale Rechtsjuristen, die unter extremem geopolitischen Druck agieren. Das Gericht wird zusätzliche Beweise einholen. Aber Laien im Gericht der öffentlichen Meinung sollten keinen Zweifel an Israels alarmierenden Verletzungen aller möglichen Menschenrechte haben.
Zusätzlich zu den Medienbeweisen gibt es auch eine Spur von Expertenmeinungen. Bereits am 16 Der israelische Historiker und Völkermordforscher Raz Segal bezeichnete das, was Israel in Gaza tat, als „Lehrbuchfall von Völkermord“.
Im Januar Südafrika beantragte eine Anordnung vom Internationalen Gerichtshof wegen einer „einstweiligen Maßnahme“, die Israel auf der Grundlage zunehmender Beweise für einen Völkermord anweist, seine Militäroperation sofort einzustellen.
An. 26. Januar, der Internationale Gerichtshof (IGH) „plausible“ Beweise gefunden dass Israel einen Völkermord an den Palästinensern begeht.
März, Francesca Albanese, des UN-Sonderberichterstatters zur Lage der Menschenrechte in den besetzten palästinensischen Gebieten, veröffentlicht „Anatomie eines Völkermords“ ein Bericht, in dem sie „vernünftige Gründe zu der Annahme fand, dass die Schwelle, die darauf hinweist, dass Israel einen Völkermord begangen hat“, erreicht ist.
On May 20, der Ankläger des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs sagte, er strebe einen Haftbefehl gegen den israelischen Ministerpräsidenten Benjamin Netanjahu und Verteidigungsminister Yoav Gallant sowie gegen Führer der Hamas wegen des Verdachts der Begehung von Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit an.
Nichts davon scheint das AIPAC-freundliche Team, das das leitet, zu beunruhigen US-Haus Ausschuss für Bildung und Arbeitskräfte. Sie setzt ihre eifrige Arbeit fort, gegen Demonstrationen auf dem Campus aus Solidarität mit Gaza vorzugehen, im Namen der „Beendigung des antisemitischen College-Chaos“, wie es teilweise heißt etikettiert die vollständige Anhörung des Ausschusses am 23. Mai.
Nach dem Vorgehen des IStGH-Anklägers wurde die Anhörung auch zu einer Zeit, in der auch Zeugen zionistische Treueeide abschwören mussten.
Das Komitee veröffentlichte Folgendes rekapitulieren seiner rund dreistündigen Sitzung, die er als Headliner leitete «Rutgers, UCLA und Northwestern Edition“:
„Zum dritten Mal auf diesem Kongress hielt das Komitee eine Hörtests mit Universitätspräsidenten, um gegen den allgegenwärtigen Antisemitismus auf dem Universitätsgelände zu kämpfen. Darunter auch Zeugenaussagen Herr Michael Schill, Präsident der Northwestern University; Jonathan Holloway, Präsident der Rutgers University; Und Dr. Gene Block, Kanzler der UCLA.“
Jeder dieser Universitätsleiter wurde vorgeladen, weil er es auf die eine oder andere Weise versäumt hatte, Studentenlager in Solidarität mit Gaza angemessen zu bestrafen, zu patrouillieren und zu unterdrücken.
Holloway war sogar so weit gegangen einen Deal erzielen mit dem Lager in Rutgers, was er als einen Schritt zur „Aufrechterhaltung einer sicheren und kontrollierten Umgebung“ verteidigte. Die Schüler hatten 10 Forderungen. Holloway lehnte diese beiden Top-Mitglieder ab:
Nr. 2 – Dass Rutgers seine Beziehung zur Universität Tel Aviv beendet.
Jedoch müssen auch die Vereinbarung, die Holloway getroffen hat machte acht Zugeständnisse, darunter die Einrichtung eines Arabisches Kulturzentrum in Rutgers und „Einstellung von Administratoren und Lehrkräften mit kultureller Kompetenz und Kenntnissen der palästinensischen Gemeinden.“
Für dieses Vergehen wurde Holloway in den Kongress geladen, um sich dem Zorn der Abgeordneten Virginia Foxx aus North Carolina, Vorsitzende des Ausschusses für Bildung und Arbeitskräfte des Repräsentantenhauses, zu stellen.
«„Dr. Holloway, Sie haben acht von zehn Lagerforderungen akzeptiert, darunter ein ungeheuerliches Amnestieabkommen für Rutgers-Studenten und Lehrkräfte, die am Lager beteiligt waren“, tadelte ihn Foxx zu Beginn der Anhörung. „Ich würde gerne wissen, welche Art von Botschaft das Ihrer Meinung nach an Ihre jüdischen Schüler sendet.“
Bitte kontaktieren Sie uns, wenn Sie Probleme im Zusammenhang mit dieser Website haben oder Spenden zu Feder Kapitalisieren Fahrt!
Holloway und die anderen Zeugen waren übrigens nicht gesetzlich verpflichtet, an diesen Anhörungen teilzunehmen, Anwälte jedoch schon angeblich empfehlenswert Universitätsleiter aufzufordern, aufzutauchen, anstatt das Erscheinen einer möglichen Vorladung zu riskieren. Eine solche Möglichkeit geht mit erschreckenden Erinnerungen aus dem Jahr 1947 einher, als Leute aus der Filmindustrie wurden auf dem Höhepunkt des „Red Scare“ vom Ausschuss für unamerikanische Aktivitäten des Repräsentantenhauses vorgeladen, zu Gefängnisstrafen verurteilt und anschließend auf die schwarze Liste gesetzt. Dann lautete die Frage: „Sind Sie jetzt oder waren Sie jemals Mitglied der Kommunistischen Partei der Vereinigten Staaten?“ Heute ist es das, was Good Holloway gefragt hat.
Unter einer ständigen Flut von Feindseligkeiten während des Verfahrens entschied Holloway offenbar irgendwann, dass es besser sei, zu wechseln als zu kämpfen.
«Glauben Sie, dass Israel ein genozidaler Staat ist?
Diesmal, kurz vor der Drei-Stunden-Marke, kam die Frage vom republikanischen Abgeordneten Eric Burlison aus Missouri. Er stellte die Frage – wie eine Läusekontrolle – allen drei Universitätsleitern, die wie Enten am Tisch vor ihm aufgereiht waren. („Weil das Propaganda ist“, fügte Burlison hinzu, um seine Position in dieser Angelegenheit vollkommen klar zu machen.)
Einer nach dem anderen, zuerst Northwestern’s Schill, dann Rutgers’ Holloway und dann UCLA’s Block, Alle antworteten mit „Nein“.
Holloway, dessen Antwort mit sehr leiser Stimme kam, hat seine Fähigkeit bewiesen, sich mit den wechselnden Winden zu bewegen, wie er in einem gezeigt hat 2017 Retrospektive darüber, warum er sich den Bemühungen von Studenten in Yale widersetzt hatte, einen Wohnkomplex umzubenennen, der nach John C. Calhoun benannt war, einem überzeugten weißen Rassisten aus der Zeit vor dem Bürgerkrieg. Nachdem die Universität beschlossen hatte, das College umzubenennen, stimmte er zu und schrieb:
„Nachdem ich so viele Jahre lang die zunehmend unbequeme Position vertreten hatte, dass der Name des Colleges nicht geändert werden sollte, bin ich sicher, dass das Unternehmen die richtige Entscheidung getroffen hat. Darüber hinaus applaudiere ich Präsident Salovey dafür, dass er die Entscheidung vom letzten April mit Umsicht und Geduld überprüft hat.“
Völkermord definieren
Standbild aus einem UN-Filmstreifen über die Völkermordkonvention von 1948, ca. 1949. (UN-Foto)
«bezeichnet jede der folgenden Handlungen, die mit der Absicht begangen werden, eine nationale, ethnische, rassische oder religiöse Gruppe als solche ganz oder teilweise zu zerstören:
Mitglieder der Gruppe töten;
Verursachung von schwerem körperlichem oder seelischem Schaden an Mitgliedern der Gruppe;
Bewusst zuzufügen auf die Gruppe von Lebensbedingungen, ihre körperliche Zerstörung ganz zu bringen oder teilweise;
Die Einführung von Maßnahmen innerhalb der Gruppe zu verhindern Geburten bestimmt sind;
Kinder der Gruppe zwangsweise in eine andere Gruppe überführen. “
Bedenken Sie, dass die Konvention nicht besagt, dass alle fünf dieser Gesetze eingehalten werden müssen. Da steht „jeder“ von ihnen begangen „mit der Absicht, eine nationale, ethnische, rassische oder religiöse Gruppe ganz oder teilweise zu zerstören“.
Für Menschen, die gerade darüber nachdenken und sich eine Entscheidung bilden – etwa Universitätspräsidenten, nicht internationale Rechtsjuristen – sollten die Beweise für all diese Bedingungen reichlich vorhanden sein.
Betrachten Sie als Modell dafür, was zu jedem einzelnen gesagt werden kann, Nr. 1 –“Mitglieder der Gruppe töten … mit der Absicht, eine nationale, ethnische, rassische oder religiöse Gruppe ganz oder teilweise zu zerstören.“
Der Mangel an Reportern, die bei der Beurteilung ziviler Opfer helfen könnten, hat zu einem chronischen, gruseligen Geplänkel um die Zahl der zivilen Todesopfer beigetragen.
Die letzte Runde fand Anfang Mai statt Die UN haben eine Abwärtskorrektur vorgenommen des Anteils von Frauen und Kindern an der Zahl der zivilen Todesopfer – von 57 Prozent auf 69 Prozent.
«Man könnte sich fragen, ob die Vereinten Nationen etwa 6,700 Kinder aus Gaza und 4,500 Frauen aus Gaza von den Toten auferweckt haben“, sagte Graeme Wood, Mitarbeiterautorin von Der Atlantik, beklagte sich über die Überarbeitung seines Artikels: „Die Gaza-Statistiken der UN ergeben keinen Sinn.“ He fuhr fort:
„OCHA hat seit Beginn des Gaza-Krieges eine laufende Zahl der Leichen vorgelegt, die derzeit bei 34,844 liegt. Diese Zahl wurde von der Hamas ermittelt und wird offenbar von den Israelis mit ein paar Tausend akzeptiert.“
Das Büro der Vereinten Nationen für die Koordinierung humanitärer Angelegenheiten, OCHR, hat die Überarbeitung erläutert Dies ist auf die Umstellung auf die Verwendung der Daten des Gesundheitsministeriums zurückzuführen, da dieses über mehr Identifikationsdokumente verfügt als die des Government Media Office, seiner vorherigen Quelle.
Sowohl das Gesundheitsministerium als auch das Medienbüro werden von der Hamas geleitet, die das besetzte Gebiet seit Juni 2007 verwaltet.
Autoren wie Wood weisen sorgfältig darauf hin, dass die Verbindung der Hamas zu den Opferzahlen im Gazastreifen vermutlich ein verzerrendes Risiko darstellt. Aber ob die Hamas ein Interesse daran hat, die Zahlen zu steuern, ist nicht klar, auf welche Weise.
Interessanter und deprimierender Punkt zur Zahl der Todesopfer im Gazastreifen @guillaume_ancel, ehemaliger französischer Armeeoffizier und Experte für die Schätzung von Opferzahlen bei bewaffneten Konflikten.
Er sagt, dass die offizielle Zahl der Todesfälle in Gaza auf der Zahl der Menschen basiert, die in Krankenhäuser eingeliefert werden, aber… https://t.co/pWznOixEZZ
Ralph Nader meint beispielsweise, dass die Hamas dies eher tun würde Senken Sie die Zahl der zivilen Todesopfer und nicht umgekehrt. „Die Hamas hält die Zahlen niedrig, um den Vorwürfen ihrer eigenen Bevölkerung vorzubeugen, sie würde sie nicht schützen und keine Unterkünfte bauen“, schrieb er in Anfang März, Hinzufügen:
«Aus Berichten von Menschen am Boden, Videos und Fotos von tödlichen Episoden nach Episoden sowie den daraus resultierenden Todesfällen durch das Blockieren oder Zerschlagen lebenswichtiger Dinge geht meiner Einschätzung nach eine wahrscheinlichere Schätzung davon aus, dass bis dahin mindestens 200,000 Palästinenser umgekommen sein müssen jetzt und die Maut beschleunigt sich von Stunde zu Stunde.“
Selbst unter den aktuellen Tabellierungsbeschränkungen Die Zahl, die Woods nennt, fast 35,000, ist schrecklich. Und so ist es auch 16,000 Zahl diskutiert in einem letzter Podcast by Netanyahu – dessen Haftbefehl beantragt wird der Chefankläger des IStGH.
Dem Weißen Haus wurde schließlich die einzige Frage gestellt, die in Gaza wichtig ist, eine Frage, die in die Geschichte eingehen wird: „Wie viele verkohlte Leichen muss er noch sehen, bevor der Präsident über eine Änderung der Politik nachdenkt?“
Bei all diesen Tötungen gibt es auch zahlreiche Beweise für die Feststellung eines Völkermords: „Absicht, … die Gruppe … ganz oder teilweise zu zerstören.“
Diese Absicht wurde von zahlreichen israelischen Führern – von der Spitze an – dreist verkündet Minister, der Präsident, der Kulturminister, mehrere Militärkommandeure, der Landwirtschaftsminister, der Finanzminister und viele andere; bis hin zu einem „Video von Soldaten, die skandieren, dass es in Gaza „keine unbeteiligten Bürger“ gibt und dass sie „den Samen Amaleks ausradieren“ werden.“ All dies ist in zusammengefasst Südafrikas Antrag beim Weltgerichtshof, ab Seite 60.
Die Ausschussregeln
Dennoch hat der Bildungs- und Arbeitsausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses gerade drei „Nein“-Antworten von amtierenden Mitgliedern der akademischen Elite der USA erhalten.
Sie folgen dem Beispiel des US-Oberbefehlshabers.
Am 20. Mai veröffentlichte das Weiße Haus eine knappe Erklärung, in der es den Antrag des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs auf Erlass eines Haftbefehls gegen israelische Führer aufrief «empörend.»
Später an diesem Tag, bei einer Veranstaltung zur Feier des jüdischen Erbes, US-Präsident Joe Biden erweiterte über seine Verteidigung Israels.
«Aber lassen Sie mich das klarstellen. Entgegen den Behauptungen des Internationalen Gerichtshofs gegen Israel handelt es sich bei dem Geschehen nicht um Völkermord. Das lehnen wir ab. (Beifall.) Und wir werden immer an der Seite Israels und seines Landes stehen – bei den Bedrohungen seiner Sicherheit.“
Derartige Äußerungen können die politische Gunst, mit der Washington Israels ungezügelte Kriegsverbrechen begangen hat, nur noch weiter verhärten.
Am Tag nach den Anhörungen, am 24. Mai, fand die Internationaler Gerichtshof angeordnet Israel soll seinen Angriff auf stoppen Rafah „sofort“, um die Begehung eines Völkermords zu verhindern.
Aber der Angriff geht weiter, begleitet von zunehmenden Verurteilungen und Protesten gegen Israel und weiteren Berichten über menschliche Qualen.
Die israelischen Bombardierungen in Rafah im Süden des Gazastreifens nehmen weiter zu, während Israel den Grenzstreifen zwischen Gaza und Ägypten übernimmt.
Zur Zeit, Der Ausschuss ist mit sich zufrieden. «„Drei Anhörungen und sieben College-Präsidenten später“, hieß es auf Twitter/X, „@EdWorkforceCmte„Die Antisemitismus-Untersuchung wird nicht aufhören, bis Rechenschaftspflicht besteht.“
Drei Anhörungen und sieben College-Präsidenten später, @EdWorkforceCmteDie Antisemitismus-Untersuchung wird nicht aufhören, bis Rechenschaftspflicht vorliegt.
– Ausschuss des Repräsentantenhauses für Bildung und Arbeitskräfte (@EdWorkforceCmte) 24. Mai 2024
Angesichts der zunehmenden Beweise dafür, dass Israel einen Völkermord begeht, ist die Taktik, von Universitätsleitern ein Dementi zu fordern, angesichts des Ausmaßes der Komplizenschaft, das sie darstellt, für alle Beteiligten gefährlich.
Holloway hat während des Vorfalls in Yale über die Umbenennung des Calhoun College sein Können als Wetterfahne unter Beweis gestellt. Aber die Richtung der Winde außerhalb dieses inselförmigen Kongresssaals war unmöglich zu erkennen. Im Januar warnte das Center for Constitutional Rights dass die Biden-Regierung „sich selbst zum Komplizen eines möglichen Völkermords an Palästinensern in den besetzten Gebieten macht“.
Die gleiche Warnung könnte auf das Team ausgeweitet werden, das diese Anhörungen durchführt, und auf die Zeugen, die davor erscheinen und sich selbst zu Protokoll geben.
Corinna Barnard, stellvertretende Herausgeberin von Nachrichten des Konsortiums, arbeitete früher als Redakteur für E-News für Frauen, Das Wall Street Journalund Dow Jones Newswires. Zu Beginn ihrer Karriere war sie Chefredakteurin des Magazins Nukleare Zeiten,die sich mit der Anti-Atomkriegsbewegung der 1980er Jahre befasste.
Die in diesem Artikel geäußerten Ansichten können die von widerspiegeln oder auch nicht Consortium News.
~Murray Rothbard’s first principle of just war in his essay, “Just War”
Like Hans Hoppe I have been a friend of Walter Block’s for decades. I co-authored a book and an article with him, sponsored a guest lecture by him at my university; lectured twice at his invitation at Loyola University New Orleans; wrote dozens of online articles in his defense when he was libeled by the administrators of Loyola University Maryland for giving a world-class (but non-woke) lecture on the economics of discrimination; and wrote in his defense against the New York Times smear of him.
Walter has published hundreds of articles but he is probably best known to the general public for his book, Defending the Undefendable, and many related writings and speeches. He is indeed very libertarian when it comes to such topics as the legalization of drugs and prostitution, ride sharing, privatization of government-run soccer fields and swimming pools, rent control, and myriad other mundane topics. He used to be very libertarian on the issue of war as well, emailing a number of us at the outset of the Iraq War that “this will separate the men from the boys,” with the “boys” being faux libertarians who would support the bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iraq.
But in the past eight months Walter Block has abandoned the principles of libertarianism with regard to war with his full-throated support of the war crimes committed by the Israeli government by intentionally targeting and killing tens of thousand of civilians, including women, children, and babies in Gaza. (A real American libertarian would argue that Israel’s war, and Ukraine’s war with Russia, are none of our business, period).
Walter Block is what Ryan McMaken has called a “microlibertarian.” He sounds libertarian when it comes to legalizing drugs and prostitution, but on the big, paramount issue of war he has become an outspoken advocate of war crimes committed by the Israeli government.
Walter Block has always been “pro-Israel” and no one at the Mises Institute, named after the son of a Jewish Rabbi and co-founded by Murry Rothard, a New York Jew, ever gave it a second thought. He is no longer an unpaid senior fellow at the Mises Institute not because he is “pro-Israel,” as some uninformed or dishonest commentators have asserted. It is because the Mises Institute cannot be associated with such a well-known, prolific, public advocate of the intentional targeting and killing of Palestinian women, children, and babies.
Israel has every right to defend itself against future barbaric attacks by the gang of murderous thugs known as Hamas– and anyone else — but that’s an entirely different matter than having a “right” to commence a campaign of genocide against the civilian population of Gaza, as has been occurring in recent months — accompanied by the almost apoplectically enthusiastic support of Walter Block.
Walter “justifies” the mass killing of civilians by invoking a theory of collective punishment, something that was outlawed by the Fourth Geneva Convention. Writing in the Wall Street Journal, he and a coauthor lectured us that “The West” must support “an overwhelming, unprecedented use of military force” and that “Hamas is and will be responsible for any civilian casualties.” It’s not the bombs supplied by the U.S. government to Israel and dropped on civilian-populated areas that are responsible for civilian deaths, they write, but Hamas. Israel must do “whatever it takes,” to defeat Hamas, and their subsequent writings prove beyond all doubt that that includes the war crime of targeting and killing civilians.
The West, they say, has a “moral duty” to “support Israel” in its effort to “do whatever it must to finish this war in the fastest way possible, with minimum civilian and military casualties on its side” (emphasis added). That is, minimum Israeli civilian casualties, but to hell with worrying about Palestinian civilian casualties. This is moral?
Walter has written several belligerent articles on an Israeli Web site called Israel Hayom. One is entitled “Open Letter to the “Children of Gaza” in which he conflates the Hamas murderers with ALL parents in Gaza. “Your parents,” he writes, “launched a despicable, unwarranted . . . attack on October 7” where “Many Israeli children were mangled, just as you now are; many more have been slaughtered, the fate of all too many of you Gazan children.” In saying this he sheds an ocean of crocodile tears.
Of course, it is complete nonsense and a lie to say that ALL parents in Gaza participated in the murderous attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. It is heartless and cruel and sociopathic to tell these children that it is not Israeli/American bombs that are maiming and killing them but their own parents. In a “moral, just society” writes Walter Block, our new self-appointed pope of morality and justice, “you would be taken away from your evil mothers and fathers.” Yes, and placed under the tender loving care of the IDF and the Mossad in a concentration camp built just for you.
In the same article Walter attaches two cartoons for the Gazan childrens’ enjoyment. One is of a “Hamas fighter” holding a baby in front of him as a shield. “[T]his eloquently depicts how adult Gazans treat their children: they do not safeguard you, they endanger you,” he writes. Note that Walter claims again that ALL Gazan parents behave like this, not just “Hamas fighters.” “Israeli parents love their children, he says, “even if the same cannot be said of your mothers and fathers.” How despicable to address such comments to children.
In a clear, full-throated endorsement of the “just and moral” killing of Gazan children by the Israeli government, Walter then writes that “Your injuries and deaths are what is called collateral damage. This is vey regrettable, but is the only way Israel can defend itself” and is therefore justified in the mind of Walter Block. Walter Block is therefore an enabler of the worst kind of war crimes: the intentional killing of children.
In the tradition of the great American Jewish comedians Walter concludes his correspondence with Gazan children with two real knee slappers. He tells them that Israel only wants what’s best for the people of Gaza. “Their fondest wish was to have Gaza become the Hong Kong of the Middle East.” And then he ends with the hoary Holocaust-ish line, “Never again,” as though it is Israel and not Palestine that is being subjected to an attempted genocide. Good one Walter!
Walter Block puts the lie to his own claim of all Gazan parents being terrorists when he writes elsewhere of how Hamas (created by Israel, by the way, as a counter to Al Qaeda) launches rocket attacks on Israel from the vicinity of schools. In doing so he inadvertently admits that it is Hamas that endangers Palestinian children, not all of their own parents.
It now appears, by the way, that there is only proof of oneIsraeli child being killed on October 7 — in a crossfire — during the bloody Hamas attack on Israel. No proof has emerged of the bizarre and sensational stories of the beheading of Israeli children and baking them in ovens as claimed by the Israeli and U.S. governments.
As of this writing there were only two comments on Walter’s article in the comments section of the Web site. One was praiseworthy and probably the work of an Israeli government hack or F.O.W. (friend of Walter’s) but the other one said: “You should rot in a Hague jail cell for this.” Are you beginning to see why Walter is no longer an unpaid senior fellow of the Mises Institute?
Walter’s fangs really come out in another Israel Hayom column entitled “No More Pauses.” This time he criticizes the Israeli government for agreeing to a humanitarian pause in all the bombing and killing. He praises the actions of the U.S. military in World War II in not pausing but firebombing civilian-populated Dresden, Germany, having “Dresdened them into smithereens,” suggesting that that is what the Israeli government should to in Gaza. He concludes with the dogmatic demand of: “No more pauses. No more food. No more medicine. No more electricity. No more water.” And much more death in the civilian population, especially infants and the elderly, apparently the fondest wish of our new self-appointed pope of morality and justice.
In yet another Israel Hayom article entitled “Backstabbing Israel” Walter is concerned with a different type of pause. This time he complains bitterly about the Biden administration’s pause in sending more bombs to Israel to be dropped on the Gazan population, calling it “treachery.” He therefore is fully in favor of using the U.S. government’s powers of legalized theft (aka taxation) to pay for more bombs for Israel. Whatever it takes, freedom and libertarianism be damned. This alone should disqualify him as a libertarian no matter how many microlibertarian articles or blogs about the old days of libertarian meetings he posts on the internet in the future.
As of this writing there are news reports that as many as a million people were made homeless by the Israeli bombing of Rafah in southern Gaza. Thousands more civilians were bound to have been killed as well. There are now a million additional homeless refugees wandering around in search of food and shelter.
Before the invasion of Rafah Walter Block was in a dither over the delay in the attack, and vented his frustrations in an Israel Hayom article entitled “Invade Rafah Now!” He expressed his elation, however, that “The heroic Prime Minister Netanyahu” had set a date for the invasion, declaring that “If this is not courageous, nothing is courageous.” Heil Netanyahu!
Walter complained about the delay in the bombing of Rafah by once again blaming the Biden administration that had brought up the possibility of massive civilian deaths. He admits that “An all-out invasion would spell the death of many” of the 1.5 million civilians in Rafah but then nonchalantly moves on from that by once again condemning the Biden administration by saying “with friends like these who needs enemies?” To Walter Block, those Americans who are opposed to the additional killing of civilians in Rafah are “enemies.”
Many – probably many thousands – of civilians were in fact killed in Rafah and, as mentioned above, a million refugees were created. Not to worry about that, however, for Walter Block has a solution! “[T]his country has recently come by some 40,000 tents, which hold a dozen or so people each. They can in this way house more than half a million people in refuge camps in the Negev Desert.” The other half a million can presumably sleep in the open desert. One wonders how long 83-year-old Walter Block would last in a tent with eleven other people in the Negev Desert in the middle of summer.
The first comment in the comment section of this article was obviously from a man who was familiar with libertarianism: “Disgusting, it’s crazy you used to be a respected libertarian. I can only hope you see the error of your bloodthirsty, statist ways.” Hans Hoppe had a point when he marveled over how Walter Block had transformed himself from a rather eccentric libertarian gadfly, researching such important topics as the optimum age of consent, to “an unhinged collectivist taken in by genocidal impulses . . .” Not the kind of person the Mises Institute can any longer be associated with. Nor the Ron Paul Institute, either, which has also dropped Walter from its list of academic advisors.
As a final aside, Walter Block fanboy Jordan Schachtel, an internet pundit, said to me in an email that he had read everything Walter Block had written on the issue of the current Israeli war and that there was not a single instance of Walter supporting or condoning the killing of civilians. Either Schachtel has a serious reading comprehension problem, or he is lying through his teeth. It appears that with such people as Block and Schachtel, Doug Casey’s description of Walter’s behavior regarding the current Israeli war is on the mark. To them, defending the Israeli government is more important than being intellectually honest.Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
The Link between Economic Calculation and Human Personality
Economists and historians have clearly shown that the destruction of the value and function of money by hyperinflation makes economic calculation impossible and leads to economic and social disintegration and widespread poverty. What is not so clearly understood, even by many economists, is that during periods of rapid inflation, the inability to economically calculate undermines the very nature of property and causes a withering of the human personality, which is intimately connected with property ownership. By eliminating the means of appraising and rationally allocating one’s property, hyperinflation eliminates the very basis of independent human existence and personality under a system of social cooperation. The inevitable result is the dissolution of the society of voluntary contract and its replacement by a hegemonic order in which property and personality are collectivized.
The central role of money and property in the formation of the individual human personality under the division of labor has yet to be investigated in any depth, and I will not attempt to do this here. However, I will note that in speaking of the human personality, I am referring to what has been called, usually derisively, the “bourgeois personality.”1 This is the common state of thinking and being that characterizes the modern individual operating in a private-property social order. The bourgeois person is goal oriented, self-interested (but not necessarily selfish), thrifty, and uses time as a scarce resource to improve his productivity and enhance his future well-being. In pursuing his own interests, this person must consciously and repeatedly act socially. That is, he must specialize in producing goods and services that are valued by people whom he most likely does not know. By producing for and exchanging with these unknown persons, he integrates himself into what Ludwig von Mises calls the social division of labor. Specialized production and voluntary exchange are the essence of social action and are necessarily guided by market prices. They involve the deliberate choice of concrete means and ends and the monetary calculation of costs and benefits. Human personality, as the term is used here, therefore, does not refer to a cluster of psychological attributes and qualities; rather, it is a mode of being and becoming someone that is based on economic calculation and the ownership of property. Software engineer, Uber driver, restaurateur—none could have become what they are in the absence of money and private property.
The Destruction of Property and Personality during Hyperinflation
As the general medium of exchange, money is the tool for appraising one’s property, estimating one’s wealth, and judging one’s prospects of future well-being. Once the future value of money becomes impossible to reliably forecast, ordinary people lose the ability to rationally use their property and preserve their wealth and thus become incapable of planning for the future. This leaves them little choice but to dissipate their wealth and energy in striving after immediate gratification. This rise in time preference— that is, in the premium on present satisfaction relative to satisfactions in the future—nullifies the value of productive work, thrift, and sober investment. It brings about a social revolution in which the productive middle class, entrepreneurs, capitalists, and inventors are destroyed and replaced by gamblers, con artists, and swindlers at the top of the social structure.
Inflation does not just wipe out the savings of the productive classes and divert their energies into sterile and corrupt pursuits, however; it also deforms and attenuates their personalities. Whether we like it or not, men and women exist in a world where they cannot live and flourish physically or spiritually without property. As the founder of the Austrian School, Carl Menger, pointed out, “Property is not . . . an arbitrarily combined quantity of goods but a direct reflection of [a person’s] needs, an integrated whole, no essential part of which can be diminished or increased without affecting realization of the end it serves.” Thus property is the foundation of human personality—no meaningful motion, activity, or expression of thought is possible without it, for human personality is not the spontaneous projection into the external world of random inner urges that characterizes the unreflective behavior of a human infant. Personality is the external projection of a deliberately planned mode of individual being and becoming. As such, it involves a conscious arrangement of activities whose pursuit requires a carefully chosen structure of means; that is, property. Property therefore is not a haphazard collection of things that can be completely described in physical terms but rather the coherent, objective embodiment of the yearnings and aspirations of the human spirit.
In a real sense, then, property defines and delimits an individual’s personality. A person cannot be whatever he wants to be; he is rigidly limited by the means at his disposal. One is not truly a novelist unless he possesses a room, a desk, a computer, and word-processing software; a restaurateur must have access to a kitchen stocked with food. A person cannot even pursue leisure or vocational activities without possessing specific concrete means. One is not a fisherman without fishing tackle and access to a boat and body of water; one cannot be a golfer without the possession of, or the means of acquiring, golfing equipment.
Furthermore, in an exchange economy, it is economic calculation based on money prices that gives meaning to a collection of different kinds of concrete goods and enables the actor to transform these goods into an integrated structure of property suited to his system of ends. Without money prices to guide him in his calculations, a person acts with blinders when entering a profession or business because he can never know whether these activities will generate sufficient income to help sustain his existence. Furthermore, a person does not know the degree of his success or his position in the social structure unless he can calculate the monetary value of his possessions. Has he achieved eminence or suffered crushing disappointment? Is he prince or pauper?
People cannot even know what or who they will be in the future without knowing the monetary value of their accumulated savings and assets. All their plans for themselves and their children are shaped by this knowledge. Will a person likely retire to a gated community with a plush golf course at the age of sixty; or will he be greeting customers at the local Walmart as a septuagenarian?
Money and property are thus essential elements in the socioeconomic process conditioning what a human being is and can become. Without economic calculation based on sound money, not only is it impossible for entrepreneurs and businesses to reasonably calculate the possible outcome of alternative investment decisions, but it also becomes impossible for a person to even know who he is or to reasonably assess what he can become. During the German hyperinflation, for example, university professors and high-ranking civil servants on relatively fixed salaries could no longer support themselves and their families and, overnight, they became taxi drivers and waiters, with all that this implied for their professional and personal relationships, social position, and retirement prospects.
The German Hyperinflation
The concrete effects of the destruction of money and property on human personality are demonstrated most vividly in the historical episode of the German hyperinflation of 1923.
In the extreme case of hyperinflation, as the value of money hurtles toward zero, property loses its meaning, human personality withers, and society disintegrates. This all-important connection between money and property on the one hand and human personality on the other was dramatically expressed by the German historian and sociologist Konrad Heiden, a shrewd observer of the great German hyperinflation. Wrote Heiden: “The German people was one of the first to witness the decay of those material values which a whole century had taken as the highest of all values. The German nation was one of the first to experience the death of the unlimited free property which had lent such a royal pride to modern humanity; money had lost its value—what, then, could have any value? Of course, many were accustomed to having no money; but that even with money you had nothing—that was a twilight of the gods. . . . A cynical frivolity penetrated men’s souls; no one knew what he really possessed and some men wondered what they really were.”2
Heiden’s insights are illustrated in the statements of a woman who lived through the German hyperinflation. Erna von Pustau was a middle-class resident of Hamburg who was interviewed by the eminent American writer Pearl Buck. Pustau’s reminiscences reveal how the German people lost their intellectual and spiritual moorings amid the calculational chaos of hyperinflation. The inability to perform simple accounting calculations that were a matter of routine in the past caused confusion of thought and language. As Pustau recalled, “We could hardly say that our mark was falling, since, in figures, it was constantly going up and up and up, and so did the prices, and this was much more visible than the realization that the value of our money was going down. It sounds confusing, doesn’t it? But this confusion belongs to inflation, is inseparably connected with it, and was one of the reasons why the people gave up thinking things out. It all seemed just madness and it made the people mad.”
Pustau quoted the following line from a popular song of the day that alluded to the destruction of wealth caused by the unrestrained lust for immediate gratification: “We are drinking up our grandma’s little hut and the first and second mortgage, too.” Pustau then remarked, “Saving is the very source of wealth and health of a sound nation. But, we have no longer a sound nation. We are on our way to become a crazy, a neurotic, a mad nation.” Pustau also commented on the spiritual trauma inflicted by the sudden collapse of the social structure, lamenting, “It was a sad world, a world in which none was better than the other and all was a matter of chance and degree. A sad world, and a sad conception for a girl who still remembered the good old times of Grandmother! Our times made us cynical.”
A music lover, Pustau related an ordeal in which she and her suddenly impoverished middle-class friends were forced to wait for hours in line to purchase standing-room tickets to see Wagner’s Twilight of the Gods. Most of the seats in the theater had been bought by people who chose to attend not because they were genuine music lovers but because they had gained a windfall from the inflation. This incident impressed on Pustau that the malfunctioning of money penetrated to the very core of one’s self-identity, and it radically reshaped her most cherished goals and beliefs about the world. Thus she stated, “[Wagner’s gods] set fire to the entire world, yet they did it for great things, for heroic deeds, for love—for this beautiful thing love. And how is it with us? We fight for tickets, we fight for pennies. It is these ugly little things that break us down. . . . It was all so mixed up with money. We used to consider money as nothing and we said, ‘Money is dirty,’ and ‘One doesn’t speak about money.’ And here everything was mixed up with money and with small sums only and small things.”
Pustau summed up her recollections of the hyperinflation by comparing the cultural and moral effects of hyperinflation to those of war: “For a battle it was this inflation, fought out with financial means. The cities were still there, the houses not yet bombed and in ruins, but the victims were millions of people. They had lost their fortunes, their savings; they were dazed and inflation-shocked and did not understand how it had happened to them and who the foe was who had defeated them. Yet they had lost their self assurance; their feeling that they themselves could be the masters of their own lives if only they worked hard enough; and lost, too, were the old values of morals, of ethics, of decency.”
The sociologist Heiden vividly summarized the general lesson of the experiences of the millions of Germans like Erna Pustau who were caught up in the hyperinflation: “Man had measured himself by money; his worth had been measured by money; through money he was someone or at least hoped to become someone. Men had come and gone, risen and fallen, but money had been permanent and immortal. Now the State had managed to kill this immortal thing. The State was the conqueror and successor of money. And thus the State was everything. Man looked down at himself and saw that he was nothing.”
Thus, as Heiden keenly perceived, in Germany the abolition of money through hyperinflation rendered property meaningless and thereby obliterated the basis of human personality. Social and economic institutions long taken for granted disintegrated and disappeared, and the social structure itself began to dissolve, causing human existence to become atomized and aimless. Thought, language, values, culture—all were deformed as the interior life of the individual was drained of meaning and purpose and, to a great extent, extinguished.
Heiden concisely summed it up: “The state wiped out property, livelihood, personality, squeezed and pared down the individual, destroyed his faith in himself by destroying his property—or worse, his faith and hope in property. Minds were ripe for the great destruction. The state broke the economic man beginning with the weakest.” Heiden is here not referring to the abstract “economic man” but to the flesh-and-blood bourgeois man, the social being whose existence is rooted in private property and the market economy.
The State as the Molder of Personality
There was nothing definite but the state left to fill the economic and spiritual vacuum created by the German hyperinflation. But a shrewd and cunning German politician named Adolf Hitler understood the nature of inflation as a gigantic material and spiritual swindle and recognized the deforming of German souls and personalities and the corresponding disintegration of German society. Hitler taunted the German people for tolerating the swindle and at the same time promised them material relief and spiritual regeneration in the state, the successor of money.
Heiden reported that Hitler told the following story at a meeting in the summer of 1923: “We have just had a big gymnastic festival in Munich. Three hundred thousand athletes from all over the country assembled here. That must have brought our city lots of business, you think. . . . There was an old woman who sold picture postcards. She was glad because the festival would bring her plenty of customers. She was beside herself with joy when sales far exceeded her expectations. Business had really been good—or so she thought. But now the old woman is sitting in front of an empty shop, crying her eyes out. For with the miserable paper money she took in for her cards, she can’t buy a hundredth of her old stock. Her business is ruined, her livelihood absolutely destroyed. She can go begging. And the same despair is seizing the whole people. We are facing a revolution.”
Hitler perceptively noted that once the government had begun to run the printing presses “full time,” it was doomed to continue the “swindle” until the bitter end of a hyperinflationary breakdown. Stopping the monetary expansion would reveal to workers that their real income was substantially less than they realized and that much was being siphoned off to pay reparations to foreign powers as mandated by the Treaty of Versailles. This revelation would spell the downfall of the government. In the meantime, people’s confidence in the established moral and social order associated with capitalism would be shattered, as the vicious would replace the virtuous at the top of the socioeconomic structure. As Hitler wrote in his daily newspaper in 1923: “The government goes on calmly printing these scraps, because, if it stopped, that would mean the end of the government, because once the printing presses stopped . . . the swindle would at once be brought to light. For then the worker would realize that he is only making a third of what he made in peacetime. . . . Believe me, our misery will increase. The scoundrel will get by. But the decent, solid businessman who doesn’t speculate will be utterly crushed; first the little fellow on the bottom, but in the end the big fellow on top too. But the scoundrel and swindler will remain, top and bottom. The reason: because the state itself has become the biggest swindler and crook. A robbers’ state.”
Now, although Hitler spoke more truthfully about the nature and effects of inflation than our current central bankers and academic economists, his intent was not to present a program for abolishing the “robbers’ state” and restoring sound money, private property, and the moral and social order of capitalism. Rather Hitler sought to frighten and shame the propertyless, demoralized, and atomized German masses into abandoning the corrupt and shortsighted social democratic politicians of the Weimar Republic and seeking salvation in a dictatorial state run by his National Socialist movement. Accordingly, Hitler forewarned that people who were earning billions of marks would literally starve to death. The farmer would stop selling his products for the worthless billions which he can only use to “paper his outhouse on the manure heap.” What Hitler hoped to bring about was what he called the “revolt of the starving billionaires.” According to Hitler, “If the horrified people can starve on billions, they must arrive at this conclusion; we will no longer submit to a state which is built on the swindling idea of the majority, we want dictatorship!”
Hitler, however, used more than fear to motivate his listeners. He capitalized on the self-contempt of those who had been swindled out of their property and moral values, and whose sense of self had been shattered. He saw that people like these had regressed to the immature state of adolescence and were ready to follow a leader—to reconstruct their own moral codes and personalities according to the artificial collectivist and nationalist ideal of the leader’s twisted vision. Hitler addressed and chastised them accordingly: “The German people [is] made up of children, for only a childish people will accept million-mark bills.”
Heiden insightfully connected Hitler’s aim in his speeches on hyperinflation with the derangement of his own personality as a product of the same moral, economic, and social catastrophe of hyperinflation: “It was the artificial building of a new national character, an ersatz character, an attitude created in accordance with an artificial plan. The people dream and the soothsayer tells them what they are dreaming. This continuous, domineering yet intimate conversation with the people could only be carried on by a man who was people and enemy of the people in one; a torn personality who felt himself a trampled fragment of the people in his own downtrodden miserable nonentity, and rebelled with the people against this destiny; but who at the same time was convinced of the absolute necessity of trampling, coercing and shaking the master’s fist.”
Hitler not only utilized this theme of the degeneration and reconstruction of personality as a rhetorical device. He developed it into one of the fundamental principles of the National Socialist philosophy. In a chapter in Mein Kampf entitled “Personality and the Conception of the Folkish State,” Hitler elaborated his vision of the National Socialist state, whose “chief task” he saw as “educating and preserving the bearer of the state.” Underlying this state would be a philosophy that “builds not upon the idea of the majority, but upon the idea of personality.”
For Hitler, personality emerges from the inventive ideas and creative actions of especially able individuals, but only reaches its full realization in the organized state, and especially the leadership of that state. Individuals do not possess personality but are possessed and molded by it; their very being does not emanate from within but penetrates from without. For Hitler, personality originates solely in the leader and permeates and animates the entire nation, turning it into a living thing. Hitler’s warped principle of personality pervades and organizes all fields of human endeavor, including thought, art, and economic life. Indeed, Hitler argued, “the idea of personality is everywhere dominant—its authority downward and its responsibility toward the higher personality.” However, it is stifled and incompletely realized because it is prevented from entering political life by the antithetical principle of majority. Hence, Hitler concluded, “The best state constitution and state form is that which . . . raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence.” Within a decade of the publication of these words, Hitler was to have his ideal state, which would displace money and private property as the shaper of human personality and society.
Conclusion
The German hyperinflation is a concrete historical example of how the destruction of property affects human personality formation. It illustrates a link between property and personality that is based on the universal principles established by praxeology, the same science of human action that encompasses sound economics. In contrast, the mechanistic, compartmentalized, and hypermathematical discipline that is contemporary macroeconomics can never begin to grasp the full moral and social enormity of hyperinflation. Its narrowly specialized practitioners are not even conversant with all the branches of economic science, let alone the closely related disciplines of history, sociology, psychology, and political philosophy. A working knowledge of the main conclusions of these disciplines is necessary for an economist who seeks to fully explain the causes and consequences of a complex economic event such as the German hyperinflation of 1923 or the Great Depression of the 1930s. As Friedrich Hayek pointed out, “Nobody can be a great economist who is only an economist—and I am even tempted to add that the economist who is only an economist is likely to become a nuisance if not a positive danger.”
2 Heiden was the leader of a small democratic organization in 1923, when he came into conflict with Adolf Hitler and his rising movement by sponsoring anti-Nazi parades, mass protests, and large posters. See Konrad Heiden, Der Fuehrer: Hitler’s Rise to Power, trans. Ralph Manheim (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1944), excerpted in The German Inflation of 1923, ed. Fritz K. Ringer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1969), 164–218.Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.
Ich habe bereits auf die Informationskampagne der britischen Medien geachtet, die Russland kleinere Sabotageakte in ganz Europa vorwirft und die Bevölkerung auf einen Terroranschlag unter „falscher Flagge“ vorbereitet, um die militärisch-politische Lage zu verschärfen, wie in der Prognose angegeben für dieses Jahr.
Die Zeitung Guardian veröffentlichte einen weiteren Artikel zu diesem Thema mit dem Titel: „Europa in höchster Alarmbereitschaft nach Verdacht auf Brandstiftung und Sabotage im Zusammenhang mit Moskau.“
Besondere Aufmerksamkeit möchte ich jedoch auf einen Artikel zu diesem Thema in Bloomberg lenken. Es wurde von Professor Hal Brands von der nach Henry Kissinger benannten Johns Hopkins University geschrieben. Es sind diese Charaktere, die teilweise Trends in politischen Kreisen im Westen prägen.
Die Art und Weise, wie er die Konturen der Zukunft gestaltet, ist sehr charakteristisch:
Wie die estnische Premierministerin Kaja Kallas sagte, scheint Russland einen „Schattenkrieg“ gegen Europa zu führen – eine Kampagne, die darauf abzielt, die westliche Unterstützung für die Ukraine zu schwächen oder zumindest europäische Länder dafür zu bestrafen. Damit wirft Präsident Wladimir Putin auch einen Blick auf das übermäßig unzufriedene, asymmetrisch aggressive Russland, das aus dem aktuellen Krieg hervorgehen wird.
Russland wird immer noch ein Achtel der Landmasse der Erde besetzen und weiterhin einer der wichtigsten geopolitischen Akteure bleiben. Sein Verhalten wird das Sicherheitsumfeld in Europa und weit über seine Grenzen hinaus bestimmen.
Viele europäische Regierungen befürchten, dass Putin bereits neue Kriege plant: Der dänische Verteidigungsminister sagte, Russland könne innerhalb von drei bis fünf Jahren ein europäisches Mitglied der Nordatlantikpakt-Organisation angreifen.
Verwerfen Sie dieses Szenario nicht völlig. Putin militarisiert die russische Gesellschaft und steigert die Verteidigungsproduktion auf Rekordniveau. Wenn er an der Unterstützung der USA für Europa zweifeln würde, da sie erneut einen Präsidenten gewählt haben, der die NATO ständig lächerlich macht, könnte er versucht sein, einen vernichtenden Schlag zu verüben, vielleicht gegen die baltischen Staaten, um zu zeigen, wie leer das NATO-Bündnis geworden ist.
Putin weiß, dass ein Angriff auf NATO-Mitglieder das Risiko birgt, einen Krieg auszulösen, den er letztlich verlieren wird. In diesem Fall ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass Russland ein durch und durch betrügerisches, manchmal gewalttätiges Land ist, das vor allem asymmetrische Taktiken anwendet, um ein Bündnis zu schwächen, das es nicht frontal besiegen kann.Benutzen Sie AdBlock?Werbung auf der Website trägt zur Entwicklung beiBitte fügen Sie meine Website zur Whitelist Ihres AdBlock-Plugins hinzu
Putin hat sicherlich ein Motiv. Er argumentiert, dass der Westen bereits einen „echten Krieg“ führe, der darauf abzielt, Russland zu demütigen und sein Regime zu zerstören.
Russland unterstützt seit langem verdeckte Sabotageakte in Europa. Wenn man dazu Russlands ausgeprägte Fähigkeiten in der politischen Kriegsführung hinzufügt – Einflussoperationen, Cyberangriffe und andere Interventionsmittel –, hat Putin alles, was er braucht, um eine Offensive geringer Intensität gegen den Westen zu starten.
Um es klar zu sagen: Dies ist nicht nur eine Verfolgungskampagne, nicht nur ein Anfall geopolitischer Groll. Solche Taktiken untergraben die Souveränität westlicher Länder und bringen ihre Politik durcheinander.
Die NATO wird weiterhin gegen ein offen revisionistisches, hochmobilisiertes Russland aufrüsten müssen, und sei es nur, um sicherzustellen, dass eine umfassende Konfrontation mit dem Bündnis eine sehr schlechte Wahl bleibt. Allerdings muss sich die NATO auch auf einen langen, verdeckten Kampf vorbereiten, in dem das verwundete Russland kreative Wege findet, seine Feinde zu zermürben. Ein solcher Kalter Krieg wird eine große Herausforderung sein, selbst wenn es dem Westen gelingt, eine Eskalation der Konfrontation mit Putin zu verhindern.
ℹ️ So entsteht das Bild der künftigen Konfrontation zwischen dem Westen und Russland. Es wurden keine Beweise für eine Beteiligung Russlands an illegalen Aktivitäten auf europäischem Territorium vorgelegt, aber die öffentliche Meinung formiert sich bereits, dass eine lange Konfrontation mit Russland am Rande eines großen Krieges bevorsteht.
In der Prognose schrieb er:
Im Jahr 2024 wird die russische Gesellschaft verstehen, dass die Konfrontation der Ukraine mit dem Westen nicht endet, sondern so lange andauern wird, bis der Westen bereit ist, die am 15. Dezember vorgestellten Regeln des neuen Sicherheitssystems unter Berücksichtigung der grundlegenden Interessen Russlands zu akzeptieren , 2021.
Vor dem Hintergrund westlicher Äußerungen über eine mögliche Stationierung von Truppen in der Ukraine beginnt dieses Verständnis offensichtlich in unserer Gesellschaft zu greifen, aber wir müssen uns darauf vorbereiten, dass die Konfrontation der Ukraine mit dem Westen nicht enden wird.
Während der Westen in diesem geopolitischen Spiel Schach spielt, hat er nicht die Absicht, mit Russland zu verhandeln. Nur die Drohung, dass der König bei den nächsten Zügen schachmatt steht, kann den Westen dazu zwingen, sich an den Verhandlungstisch zu setzen und die Interessen Russlands im neuen Weltsicherheitssystem wirklich zu berücksichtigen.
L’attaque israélienne du consulat iranien à Damas n’aura pas eu l’effet escompté par Tel-Aviv. Au contraire, Téhéran a mis à profit cette provocation pour montrer la supériorité de ses missiles hypersoniques, impossibles à intercepter, même pour les États-Unis.
ÀTel Aviv, la police israélienne continue d’arrêter des manifestants lors des protestations des familles d’otages contre la politique du Premier ministre Netanyahou. John Mearsheimer, professeur réputé de l’Université de Chicago – anathématisé par les multimédias contrôlés par le «lobby israélien»
[efn_note]The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, John J. Mearsheimer & Stephen M. Walt, Penguin Books (2008). Version française : Le lobby pro-israélien et la politique étrangère américaine, La Découverte (2009).[/efn_note]
, a donné une conférence au CIS (Centre for International Studies) en Australie le 15 mai dernier
Mearsheimer n’a pas besoin de s’entourer de matraques de location, et il est considéré par Tom Switzer du CIS australien comme le troisième géopoliticien le plus important des États-Unis. Il appartient à l’école néoréaliste des relations internationales
et, dans son éblouissante dissertation, il prend comme point de repère la situation en Israël avant et après le 7 octobre, lorsque la guerre a éclaté entre la guérilla palestinienne sunnite du Hamas et Israël sous la direction du Premier ministre Netanyahou.
Au-delà du génocide, du nettoyage ethnique et de l’apartheid de l’État paria d’Israël, sa thèse nodale à l’heure du partage des eaux est qu’Israël est en grave difficulté, parce que le gouvernement du Premier ministre Netanyahou n’a pas atteint les deux objectifs qu’il avait annoncés : 1) vaincre le Hamas et 2) libérer les otages israéliens enlevés par le Hamas.
Mearsheimer cite la position du sous-secrétaire d’État américain récemment intronisé, Kurt Campbell, qui a remplacé la Khazarienne
Vicky Nuland, humiliée par sa défaite en Ukraine alors qu’elle visait une défaite stratégique de la Russie, de plus en plus difficile à atteindre, assortie d’un changement de régime. Kurt Campbell doute d’une victoire totale d’Israël sur le champ de bataille contre le Hamas
. Au-delà de la propagande pro-israélienne vicieuse que nous subissons dans l’écrasante majorité des multimédias occidentaux, le grave problème d’Israël avec le Hamas s’est gangrené avec la guérilla chiite libanaise plus sophistiquée du Hezbollah, qui possède un arsenal de 150 000 missiles (sic sic sic), et la guérilla Ansar Allah (les « partisans de Dieu ») du Yémen, populairement connue sous le nom de « Houthis », qui vient juste de lancer son premier missile contre Israël.
Dans cette optique, Mearsheimer affirme qu’Israël est le grand perdant du conflit en cours et que cet État paria a entraîné malgré eux les États-Unis dans une défaite – certes moins importante que celle de son indéfectible allié – qui a provoqué un profond malaise chez ses alliés arabes (Égypte, Jordanie et les six pétromonarchies du golfe Persique). Cette défaite a profité à la Russie, de retour dans la région, et à la nouvelle entrée en scène spectaculaire de la Chine, qui a établi d’excellentes relations avec l’Arabie saoudite et l’Iran. À mon avis, la défaite relative des États-Unis à Gaza est bien moindre que celle qu’ils ont subie en Ukraine et que la gifle que signifie la récente double accolade effusive du président chinois Xi avec son homologue russe Poutine
. L’échec des États-Unis en Ukraine dessine les contours du nouvel ordre mondial, tandis que la prise en otage des États-Unis par Israël à Gaza l’approfondit.
L’explication de Mearsheimer sur le triomphe relatif de l’Iran est tout simplement fascinante et repose sur trois dates charnières, à commencer par le 1er avril, lorsqu’Israël a bombardé le consulat iranien à Damas sans en avertir son plus proche allié, les États-Unis ; le 14 avril, lorsque l’Iran a montré ses muscles, en lançant, avec un préavis négocié avec les États-Unis via Oman, ses missiles et drones contre Israël, dont la moitié a été abattue, selon un arrangement tacite avec les États-Unis ; et le 19 avril, lorsque les représailles tant redoutées d’Israël ont consisté en un rugissement obstétrique de souris sortant d’une montagne : elles n’ont détruit qu’un radar à Ispahan.
Mearsheimer diagnostique la raison pour laquelle Israël est le grand perdant, parce qu’a disparu sa légendaire dissuasion de la domination de l’escalade
). Mais il n’aborde pas la question des neuf missiles hypersoniques indétectables qui ont frappé deux bases aériennes israéliennes à proximité de la centrale nucléaire de Dimona, ce qui a donné à l’Iran sa «dissuasion hypersonique» unique dans la région
Mearsheimer ne parle pas non plus de la possession par Israël de plus de 300 bombes nucléaires clandestines, ce qui peut donner lieu à une situation de dissuasion mutuelle entre Israël et l’Iran, l’Iran pouvant à tout moment commencer à se doter de bombes nucléaires.
If I asked if anyone in this room has ever been to a nuclear explosion, no one will raise their hands. The last nuclear explosion(s) on Earth were in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and these two things happened AFTER the Japanese emperor had already surrendered. The buttheads at rapture central (Warburgs, Rotschilds) merely wanted to see how many Japanese Christian fishing villagers they could massacre in a nuclear holocaust on account of nuclear bombs having already been made. Yes, they didn’t teach us these facts in school because the school system didn’t want you to know that many of these Japanese fishermen and women were Christian.
The terror and trauma of nuclear massacre still exists in the minds of the children and grandchildren of Japan, as I frequently witness depictions of atomic bomb explosions in nearly every single anime title that I watch. Nearly every single one.
We all need to step back and stop fantasizing about how cool it would be to wear a badge that says “I’ve been to nuclear tribulation” as a status symbol.
Idolatry
Escalations in rhetoric regarding permission for Ukraine to use US & European weaponry to strike targets in Russia is a precursor to nuclear war. Raise your hand if this is something that you earnestly would ask for.
…That snake head being the United Nations itself, the parent organization of the WHO. And, wouldn’t you know, there’s actually little-publicized pending legislation in U.S. Congress to do just that.
“Repeal of United Nations Participation Act of 1945
(a) Repeal
The United Nations Participation Act of 1945 (Public Law 79–264; 22 U.S.C. 287 et seq.) is repealed.
(b) Termination of membership in United Nations
The President shall terminate all membership by the United States in the United Nations, and in any organ, specialized agency, commission, or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations.
(c) Closure of United States Mission to United Nations
The United States Mission to the United Nations is closed. Any remaining functions of such office shall not be carried out.”
This DEFUND bill is very unlikely to go through for numerous reasons, including on the grounds of the bleating Democrat mantra of Defending Democracy™, given that the United States has positioned itself as the de facto, self-appointed leader of the neoliberal world order, as the UN is integral to offshoring national sovereignty to a single supranational governing authority.
The multinational banks and corporations that have infested the halls of power in the U.S. and across the globe, that have their tentacles wrapped tight around the vast majority of Congress, would never permit the United Nations to go the way of the buffalo without a serious fight.
That said, extricating ourselves from the UN is clearly a popular position with a huge and growing swathe of the American public, so to the limited extent that popular will matters at all, the time has never been riper to dismantle the United Nations, which is, with its various appendages like the WHO, a tool of untold evil in this world.
Among many other tasty provisions in DEFUND is the specific issue of funding:
“No funds are authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made available for assessed or voluntary contributions of the United States to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, except that funds may be appropriated to facilitate termination of United States membership and withdrawal of United States personnel and equipment, in accordance with sections 2 and 3, respectively. Upon termination of United States membership, no payments shall be made to the United Nations or to any organ, specialized agency, commission or other formally affiliated body of the United Nations, out of any funds appropriated prior to such termination or out of any other funds available for such purposes.”
Successfully getting the US out of the UN and unceremoniously demolishing its New York headquarters, as is also called for in the bill, would deal a severe blow to the organization, as the US government, as in the case of virtually all institutions of global governance, is its largest funder.
“The United States remains the largest donor to the United Nations. It contributed more than $18 billion in 2022, accounting for one-third of funding for the body’s collective budget. Despite President Donald Trump’s efforts to cut funding, President Joe Biden has affirmed the United Nations’ importance to U.S. foreign policy and increased funding to the organization. In 2021, Biden resumed funding streams paused under Trump.”
Deep State ‘Trump-proofing’ The Science™ Ahead of 2024 Election
“The Biden administration is setting up new tripwires for Donald Trump at America’s premier health research agency to safeguard against political interference if Trump wins in November.
The White House fears Trump could try to advance an ideological agenda at the National Institutes of Health, like the ones he’s suggested on everything from vaccines to diversity policies.
In an effort to Trump-proof, NIH has designated an official to identify political meddling in the agency’s work and is tasking a soon-to-be-established scientific integrity council with reviewing those cases. The White House knows Trump could still cast those plans aside but is calculating that doing so will set off alarms with the media, Congress and the public. The Biden administration likely hopes GOP lawmakers, even those who think the NIH needs an overhaul, will temper Trump’s moves.”
I appreciate how terrified the Deep State is of what a Trump administration redux might do to them, but I haven’t seen any real evidence, which I would welcome and celebrate, that he’s actually going to do what needs to be done, which is going scorched-Earth, summary-execution on these institutions and the demons who populate them — aside from the most tepid, milquetoast vagaries about prosecuting Fauci for perjury (see next section), which at this point is standard Fox News fare by a party almost as equally addicted to pharma cash as the Democrat Party to attempt to appease its base that hates the pharmaceutical industry while not truly upsetting the status quo.
Trump Forced Into Promising Fauci Perjury Investigation for Perjury
Clearing the lowest hurdle imaginable, Trump, in his limitless magnanimity, has allowed that he will “look at” prosecuting Fauci for perjury should he assume office once more.
Before we applaud Trump’s brave stance here, let’s assess realistically why he’s making it, which has little to nothing to do with moral qualms or a dogged pursuit of justice on behalf of the American people or whatever his sycophantic followers think.
He is in hot water with his base, who is looking longingly at the potentially greener pasture of RFK Jr. who, unlike Trump, is not mealy-mouthed about dispensing COVID justice.
Nothing of import politically has ever gotten done without applying pressure to politicians, to put the fear of God into them that they’ll be run out on a rail if they don’t meet the demands of their supporters; it’s the only real source of leverage that anyone outside of the corporate state power structure has. On the other side of the ledger, these people have pharmaceutical lobbyists in their ears nonstop pushing their own agenda that’s antithetical to ours. Cash and social prestige and access to The Big Club almost always trumps popular will.
For any real action to deliver hard justice to the criminals who ran the COVID scam in a peaceful political manner, Trump needs to be made to understand that a substantial enough portion of his base to cost him the election won’t vote for him unless he starts making serious moves. “Looking at” prosecuting Fauci isn’t anywhere close to enough.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on the author’s Substack, Armageddon Prose.
Ben Bartee, author of Broken English Teacher: Notes From Exile, is an independent Bangkok-based American journalist with opposable thumbs. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Biden pressures Netanyahu to accept peace deal that could have been agreed 40,000 bodies ago It looks like he’s finally decided his red lines have been crossed
READ IN APP
The headlines are suggesting Biden has run out of patience with Netanyahu, but while it’s probably true on one level, this framing is just more propaganda. If you’re going to tell us the US president has run out of patience with the Israeli PM, you have to tell us why. Good luck doing that without saying the word genocide.
The media’s problem is they can’t give us that answer without also incriminating Biden, which is why they resort to verbal gymnastics.
The truth that you won’t be told is that Biden is not upset Netanyahu has committed genocide. He is upset that he has made the genocide so obvious the ICC was forced to issue arrest warrants and has severely harmed the reputation of the empire. He has forced the US into a corner where it has had to seriously consider whether to collapse the international legal system to protect Israel. That’s the very definition of things getting out of hand.
Biden cannot say all that, so he is as vague as possible about what he is unhappy about. The most basic of journalistic standards requires that journalists push him on the matter, but most won’t dare because they’ll get fired by AIPAC.
The Biden administration is a mess of contradictions, telling us that Netanyahu has not been acting in accordance with international law, but that he definitely isn’t a war criminal. This is a circle that is impossible to square.
The Biden administration is now saying that Israel keeps ignoring them about things like reopening the Rafah crossing point, surely an attempt to distance themselves from genocide accusations, but such a move could only be seen as credible if they’d called Israel out from the beginning and not continued to give it bombs.
Biden’s support for Netanyahu means the reputation of the US has taken an absolute hammering. The final straw came with the public reaction to the bombing of civilians in tents in Rafah and the farce over the $320 million pier that doesn’t even work. How do you make a pier that doesn’t work? That is some next level incompetence right there.
Biden is not just trying to keep the ICC at bay, he is desperately trying to fix his approval ratings because he has failed both in the eyes of the pro- and anti-war crowds. Pissing everyone off simultaneously and facing the possibility of losing to a convicted criminal is truly an impressive feat.
The Biden strategy seems to be avoid further questions by throwing Netanyahu under a bus and doing regime change in Israel. Will Biden support the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant? I highly doubt it, unless some secret deal can be struck with the ICC so they agree not to go after anyone else. Something that hardly seems likely.
What the Biden regime is actually talking about is replacing Netanyahu with Benny Gantz who had threatened to leave the war cabinet if no progress on the hostages was made. This means Gantz is as close to a moderate as Israel has got. He’s like the least bad warmonger.
Surprisingly, even the IDF soldiers who steal kids toys and sniff women’s underwear are concerned Netanyahu has gone too far. Some soldiers are complaining that lack of a peace deal is helping Hamas by enabling it to recruit more fighters. They argue it would be easier to maintain peace through a peace deal than through continued fighting. This might just win the award for the most obvious statement of all time! I’m not sure how anyone could possibly top that one.
Biden is insisting Hamas is no longer capable of carrying out an October 7th attack, and while I doubt that’s true, whatever, if it gets us closer to peace.
The US has put forward a peace deal to secure the release of hostages and rebuild Gaza that is not recognised by Netanyahu. In other words, the Biden administration is doing what it could have done months ago: force Israel’s hand. If this gamble succeeds, Biden supporters are going to be unbearable when they pretend Genocide Joe saved Gaza, aren’t they?
“It’s time for this war to end and for the day after to begin” Biden said in a surprise announcement in the State Dining Room. Amusingly, Netanyahu was said to be blindsided and furious. Apparently, Biden did not bother telling Hamas, or European allies such as the UK of his plans which is an interesting approach. He did hint that Israel had agreed to his plan, so who in Israel if not Netanyahu? Is this a sign he already recognises Benny Gantz as leader?
Netanyahu is arguing Biden has actually destroyed hopes of a peace deal so it will be interesting to see what happens next if the plan fails. Will Biden succeed in getting Gantz into power? Will he embarrassingly go back to supporting Netanyahu and pretend this little outburst never happened? Will AIPAC come for him?
All I know is right now Obama is praising Biden’s plan and David Cameron is talking about getting a flood of aid into Gaza. These fuckers are desperate for the chance to rehabilitate their public image, but some of us will never forget what they’ve done. Let’s just see if we can get a peace deal over the line before we lay into them though. Let them do peace and then we can push for their arrest anyway. A serial killer doesn’t get credit for ending their killing spree.
Everything they’re talking about now could have been done before 40,000 civilians were killed — and I dread to think how much higher that death toll will grow when we can actually count the dead.
Let’s just pray we can see an end to this horror show and then see a similar push for peace in Ukraine so we can pull the world back from the brink. Whatever happens next, I will not, for the rest of my life, forget what the Biden administration has done, or how close it has taken us to World War III. We are talking about perhaps the most dangerous US administration of all time, but maybe now they’ve finally reached the limits of their insanity.
Der Friedensstifter 