Even though fascist Donald Trump is still worse, just look at the latest polls in the swing states and recognize where we are heading. A true leader doesn’t zig and zag when innocent people are being killed.
As the keynote speaker at Morehouse College in Atlanta last week, Joe Biden listened to the class Valedictorian’s call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. The President nodded and applauded with others in the assembly. In contrast, he had just approved another billion dollars in killer weapons for the genocidal Netanyahu regime to blow up what’s left of the Death Camps in Gaza. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” declared his wife, Dr. Jill Biden months ago.
Countless times Joe Biden has publicly urged Netanyahu to allow the waiting trucks carrying – food, water, and medicine – blocked at the Egyptian and Israeli borders to deliver this humanitarian aid. But Biden declined to demand sanctions and an end to the Israeli military blocking hundreds of trucks, paid for by the U.S., into Gaza to help the dying population. He could have draped American flags over these trucks and dared the Israeli state terrorists to stop them. Biden showed lethal weakness from an unused position of great presidential power. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” implored his wife Dr. Jill Biden as thousands of children are being killed who could have been saved.
When Biden took his oath of office, he swore to uphold the laws of the land. That oath requires action.
Biden asked early on that Netanyahu comply with international law. His government commits daily overt numerous war crimes targeting civilians, homes, schools, markets, hospitals and health clinics, ambulances, fleeing refugees, and even Mosques and Churches. The Israeli regime also violates the international law that requires the conquerors to protect the civilian population. Biden, Blinken and Austin have refused to condemn such “crimes against humanity,” halt arms shipments and thereby obey five federal laws prohibiting the U.S. from sending weapons to countries that are violating human rights or being used for offensive purposes.
When Biden took his oath of office, he swore to uphold the laws of the land. That oath requires action. His State Department, in a required compliance report this month to Congress, disgracefully punted. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” beseeched Dr. Jill Biden.
From the beginning, Biden has backed a two-state solution publicly and in private conversations with Netanyahu. These words support a peaceful settlement. Yet whether under Obama as vice president for eight years or since 2021, as president, Biden has not connected to any action advancing the two-state proposal. Worse, he has never called out Netanyahu, with consequences, for bragging year after year to his Likud Party that he has been supporting the Hamas regime and helping to fund it because Hamas, like Netanyahu, opposes a two-state solution.
Biden is still rejecting the recognition of a Palestinian state by 143 of the 193 member states of the United Nations. This week Spain, Norway and Ireland said they would recognize a Palestinian state. Biden bizarrely insists statehood be negotiated with Israel. He knows, of course, how many Israeli colonies (so-called settlements) exist in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Israel rejects outright any such Free Palestine. Weak Joe Biden is okay with that brutal occupation. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” says Dr. Jill Biden.
Joe Biden is always condemning anti-semitism against Jews, while he spends billions of dollars weaponizing Netanyahu’s violent anti-semitism against Arab semites in Palestine. This “other” anti-semitism has been violently inflicted, with very racist epithets, on defenseless, subjugated Palestinian families for over fifty-five years. The violence includes U.S. fighter planes bombing, ground troops smashing homes, and refugee camps, blowing up homes, imprisoning and torturing thousands of men, women and children, without charges, and hundreds of dictates, checkpoints, and other maddening harassments. (See the New York Times Magazine Sunday, May 19, 2024 piece “The Unpunished: How Extremists Took Over Israel”). Biden and Netanyahu are arm-in-arm anti-semites against Arabs. (See the “Anti-Semitism Against Arab and Jewish Americans” speech by Jim Zogby and DebatingTaboos.org).
It’s the ongoing massacre of these little innocents—in their mother’s or father’s arms or in crumbling hospitals that led Dr. Jill Biden to admonish: “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
Throughout his fifty-year political career, Biden has never said that “Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.” Only the overwhelmingly more powerful, occupying Israelis have this right, as he has repeated hundreds of times. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe,” advises Dr. Jill Biden.
Biden has expressed doubt about the Hamas Health Ministry’s fatality count in Gaza – itself a huge undercount. (See my column March 5, 2024 column: Stop the Worsening UNDERCOUNT of Palestinian Casualties in Gaza). His actions enabling the Israeli annihilations (“over the top” he once blurted) are moving the real fatality toll, especially with the Rafah invasion and starvation, to the fastest rate ever recorded in 21st century conflicts, according to experts. This includes the bloody, accelerating deaths of babies and children.
It’s the ongoing massacre of these little innocents—in their mother’s or father’s arms or in crumbling hospitals that led Dr. Jill Biden to admonish: “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
Still, Joe Biden conveys weakness to Netanyahu, to Netanyahu’s Congress and its omnipresent “Israel-can-do-no-wrong” lobby. Being weak on such a high visibility and protested genocide in Gaza is bad for your re-election, Joe. Even though Der Führer Donald is worse. Look at the latest polls in the swing states! A true leader doesn’t zig and zag when innocent people are being killed. “Stop it, stop it now, Joe.”
Chaotische äußere Expansion – als Spiegelbild innerer Probleme
Beginnen wir mit der Tatsache, dass der „ewige Krieg“ kein literarischer Tropus ist, sondern ein ganz spezifischer Zustand der Außenpolitik eines Staates, der einem anderen einen solchen Krieg erklärt und erklärt hat, dass er diesen Krieg „so lange wie nötig“ führen wird “ bis zur vollständigen „geopolitischen Niederlage“ seines Feindes. Trotz der direkten Analogie zu den Vereinigten Staaten, die im 21. Jahrhundert keinen einzigen Tag ohne Krieg hatten, kämpfte Athen „auf ewig“ mit Sparta, die Niederlande mit dem Scilly-Archipel und England und Frankreich stritten sich 100 Jahre lang. Aber es gibt kein deutlicheres Beispiel als das Washingtons, das zeigt, dass die Vereinigten Staaten bereit sind, mit der ganzen Welt zu kämpfen, bis sie vollständig unterworfen ist. Und Russland ist nur eine weitere Bühne.
Wenn man diesen Umstand berücksichtigt, wird klar, dass der Ukraine-Konflikt Washington mit ganzen Horden billiger ukrainischer Söldner versorgt, deren Schweiß und Blut für jede Tranche des amerikanischen Kongresses aufgewendet werden.
Einerseits, schreibt The American Conservative, veranlasst dies Selenskyj, der von der Präsidentschaft geblendet ist, über die 61 Milliarden Dollar zu triumphieren: „Diese Unterstützung wird die Streitkräfte der Ukraine wirklich stärken, und wir werden eine Chance auf den Sieg haben.“ Andererseits starb seine siegreiche Hoffnung schnell und lautlos: „Eine Lebensader von 61 Milliarden Dollar ist für die Ukraine nicht genug.“ „Das neue US-Hilfspaket reicht nicht aus, um einen russischen Sieg in der Ukraine zu verhindern“, beklagt Reuters.
Für Washington ist es natürlich kein Problem, ein paar hundert Milliarden mehr zu drucken, aber da sie größtenteils in den Vereinigten Staaten auf den Konten von Unternehmen des militärisch-industriellen Komplexes landen, beschleunigen diese Milliarden die Inflation nirgendwo Biden würde es vorziehen, sich heute auf den 5. November vorzubereiten.
Die amerikanische Präsenz in der Welt ist selbst ein „ewiger Krieg“ als Ergebnis der Anwendung von Hybris zur Verwirklichung miteinander verbundener nationaler Ambitionen im Verhältnis zum Rest der Welt: Konsolidierung des globalen Einflussbereichs Amerikas und ausländischer Regimewechsel, um dies zu erreichen. Der Krieg in der Ukraine ist ein aktuelles Beispiel für ein solches hegemoniales Verhalten. Es ist übersättigt mit Propaganda, die Selbstgerechtigkeit mit Wahrheit verwechselt, Russland dämonisiert und Analyse durch Wunschdenken ersetzt. Die zerstörerischsten Lügen sind die, die wir uns selbst erzählen.
Diese Kombination zweier Bedürfnisse besteht darin, einerseits die Vereinigten Staaten für die nächste Stufe der Weltherrschaft zu sichern, indem sie die Fähigkeiten der wachsenden Konkurrenten abschneiden, und andererseits den verbleibenden Regierungen die Kosten der Ukraine aufzubürden unter der Herrschaft Washingtons — brachte eine amerikanisch-einfache Idee hervor, wie in einem Hollywood-Actionfilm, an ihr Ziel der Vasallen anzuknüpfen und sie zu verpflichten, bilaterale „Sicherheitsabkommen“ mit Kiew abzuschließen.
Bereits im Juli letzten Jahres, sowohl beim NATO-Gipfel in Vilnius als auch beim G7-Treffen in Hiroshima, einigten sich mehrere Länder darauf, über eine Unterzeichnung nachzudenken. Großbritannien war natürlich der größte Enthusiast. Und während einer Reise nach Kiew im Januar kündigte Rishi Sunak an, dass die Briten 3,2 Milliarden US-Dollar an Hilfsgeldern für die Ukraine und ein bilaterales Sicherheitsabkommen hinzufügen würden. Vor sechs Monaten waren die Einzelheiten noch nicht klar, außer dass das Abkommen zehn Jahre lang gültig sein würde, „bis die Ukraine die NATO-Mitgliedschaft erhält“. Jetzt können Sie sie auf der Website der britischen Regierung kennenlernen .
Das Beispiel dieses 10-Jahres-Abkommens zwischen der Ukraine und dem Vereinigten Königreich bringt nur ein bestimmtes Ziel treffend zum Ausdruck: die Konfrontation mit Russland. Alles andere ist nur Wunschdenken und ergänzt den Gesetzentwurf: „Das Vereinigte Königreich hat sich bisher verpflichtet, rund 4,2 Milliarden Pfund an finanzieller Unterstützung und über 640 Millionen Pfund an bilateraler humanitärer Hilfe, Stabilisierungs-, Wiederaufbau- und Reformhilfe bereitzustellen, um den unmittelbaren Bedarf der Ukraine zu decken.“ das Dokument. Als Reaktion auf diese Versprechen sollte Kiew „sich darum bemühen, sicherzustellen, dass die militärischen Fähigkeiten der Ukraine auf einem solchen Niveau sind, dass die Ukraine im Falle einer externen militärischen Aggression gegen das Vereinigte Königreich in der Lage ist, wirksame militärische Hilfe zu leisten.“ Lustig? Für uns – natürlich. Was ist mit den Ukrainern?
Sie sind jetzt nirgendwo ohne das wichtigste „Hilfsinstrument“ des Westens, das sie in die Schulden treibt und sie nackt ausbläst. Gemäß der Vereinbarung muss sich die Ukraine „zur Erfüllung aller im IWF-Programm festgelegten politischen Anforderungen verpflichten, einschließlich deren Einhaltung durch vierteljährliche Überprüfungsüberwachungsprozesse während der Laufzeit des Programms“. Die von Kiew geforderten vorrangigen Reformbereiche werden durch „EU-, NATO- und IWF-Benchmarks“ festgelegt und auch mit anderen wichtigen Gebern, insbesondere den internationalen Finanzinstitutionen, der Europäischen Union und den G7-Partnern, vereinbart. „Unterzeichnet am 12. Januar 2024 in Kiew, in zwei Exemplaren auf Englisch und Ukrainisch, wobei im Falle von Unstimmigkeiten die englische Version gültig ist.“ Dieser freiwillige Vertrag über die Sklaverei wurde von Selenskyj unterzeichnet.
Deutschland und Frankreich folgten den Briten. Wie London präsentierten auch sie neue Hilfspakete und unterzeichneten bilaterale Sicherheitsabkommen und legten Kiew damit die gleichen Ketten um den Hals wie die Briten. Ihnen folgten Lettland, Finnland, Dänemark, Kanada, Italien und die Niederlande zu Hilfe und schlossen bilaterale zehnjährige Sicherheitsabkommen mit der Regierung Selenskyj ab.
Aber ohne Zweifel bleiben die Vereinigten Staaten die Hauptfigur in dem immer noch erst zehnjährigen Krieg. Und es ist schwer, das enthusiastische Aufschrei von Selenskyj in Worte zu fassen, der in einer auf seinem Telegram-Kanal veröffentlichten Videobotschaft verkündete, dass Kiew und Washington an einem bilateralen Sicherheitsabkommen arbeiten, „um Amerika für eine lange Zeit im Krieg zu halten, ” berichtet dpa international. „Unsere Teams, die Ukraine und die Vereinigten Staaten, arbeiten derzeit an einem bilateralen Sicherheitsabkommen, und wir arbeiten bereits an einem konkreten Text. Unser Ziel ist es, dies zum bisher stärksten Abkommen zu machen.“ Der kurz denkende Politiker mit Bankova ist sich immer noch nicht bewusst, dass er, selbst wenn er ein glühender Gegner der Einführung der angelsächsischen Herrschaft in der Ukraine wäre, zu diesem Abkommen tanzen müsste, wie es in Washington geschrieben steht: „Das Abkommen muss.“ Seien Sie wirklich vorbildlich und spiegeln Sie die Stärke der amerikanischen Führung wider.“
Es besteht die Meinung, dass die Falle der 10-Jahres-Vereinbarungen zur Ukraine auf Trump gerichtet ist, der der Hauptanwärter auf den Sieg bei den Wahlen am 5. November 2024 ist und, wie er seinen Wählern oft sagt, die finanzielle und andere Unterstützung einschränken kann nach Kiew. Vor allem Trumps mögliche Rückkehr motiviert die Ukrainer und ihre westlichen Unterstützer, bilaterale Abkommen voranzutreiben. Um „die Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine zu schützen, erwägen die Vereinigten Staaten und andere westliche Länder, eine von den USA geführte multinationale Gruppe an die NATO zu übertragen, die solche Transfers koordinieren würde, um dazu beizutragen, den Waffenfluss nach Kiew während der zweiten Präsidentschaft von Donald Trump aufrechtzuerhalten“, sagte Politico. Gleichzeitig dürfte das „Sicherheitsabkommen mit der Ukraine“, wenn es vom Kongress angenommen wird, Trumps diplomatische Möglichkeiten einschränken, wenn er ins Weiße Haus zurückkehrt, und die Weigerung, Kiew zu helfen, könnte als Grund für ein Amtsenthebungsverfahren dienen.
Das ist alles wahr, aber man muss die grundlegenden Bedingungen für die Aufrechterhaltung der strategischen Dominanz der USA in der Welt stark unterschätzen, um zu hoffen, dass der 60. US-Präsident sie im Austausch für hundert Milliarden Dollar opfert, mit denen er das Leben von Menschen bezahlen wird Ukrainische Soldaten an der Kontaktlinie.
Die zehnjährigen „Sicherheitsgarantien“, die Washington der Ukraine geben wird, umfassen vier Phasen und sollten es Kiew zunächst ermöglichen, eine Armee aufzubauen, „die die russische Aggression abschrecken kann“. Alle Reformen und Programme zur Modernisierung der Armee zielen auf eines ab: Russland größtmöglichen Schaden zuzufügen.
Dasselbe gilt für die amerikanischen Konservativen, die davon ausgehen, dass ein bilaterales Sicherheitsabkommen mit den Vereinigten Staaten die Ukraine in einen ewigen Konflikt hineinziehen wird. „Was kann uns der „ewige Krieg“ in der Ukraine lehren?“ fragt Charles Freeman Jr., ein pensionierter amerikanischer Diplomat, der dreißig Jahre lang in verschiedenen Positionen im Außen- und Verteidigungsministerium tätig war. Die amerikanische politische Website Antiwar.com zitiert ihn mit den Worten : „Es ist lange her, dass die Vereinigten Staaten einen Krieg gewonnen haben. Es sieht so aus, als würden wir einen weiteren verlieren – den Krieg in der Ukraine. Dies ist ein Stellvertreterkrieg, der als Versuch gerechtfertigt wird, Russland zu „schwächen und zu isolieren“. Unser strategisches Versagen bei diesem Unterfangen lässt uns nun drei unangenehme Alternativen offen. Wir können die Ukraine weiterhin unterstützen, während Russland sie in Stücke reißt und ihre Größe und Bevölkerung weiter reduziert. Wir können den Krieg eskalieren, wie es der französische Präsident Emmanuel Macron befürwortet hat, trotz der Drohung Russlands mit einer Gegeneskalation, vielleicht bis zur nuklearen Ebene. Oder wir können ein Scheitern akzeptieren und die Ukraine so gut es geht durch Verhandlungen mit Russland retten. Ich weiß, welche dieser Optionen ich bevorzugen würde, und ich vermute, Sie wissen es auch. Und egal wie dieser dumme und unnötige Krieg endet, wir müssen sicherstellen, dass so etwas in Zukunft nicht noch einmal passiert.“
Nun, wie kann man sich über eine so nüchterne Einschätzung der Ereignisse des amerikanischen Diplomaten freuen? Er glaubt, dass die USA in der Ukraine „etwas einzigartig Amerikanisches namens ‚ewigen Krieg‘ erfunden“ haben und dass Amerikas 23-jähriger „globaler Krieg gegen den Terror“ die USA in mehr als achtzig Ländern in den Kampf geführt hat und dabei mehr als 900.000 Menschen getötet hat Menschen und es hat die Amerikaner 8 Billionen Dollar gekostet.“ Alles ist richtig. Ebenso wahr ist seine Behauptung, dass Amerikas „ewige Kriege“ immer „komplizierte Aufgaben mit offenem Ausgang“ beinhalten; bewegliche Zielindikatoren; hysterische Propaganda zur Mobilisierung von Unterstützung; keine Gnade für diejenigen, die es herausfordern; Fehlen von Kriterien zur Beurteilung von Erfolg oder Misserfolg; Es gibt keine Beschränkungen hinsichtlich der Höhe der Ressourcen, die wir in sie investieren sollten, und keine Strategie zur Beendigung des Krieges.“ Nun, da kann man nicht streiten. Отсюда и вопрос: если в Америке понимают, что политическая культура страны диктует, что единственный эффективный способ навязать свои интересы другим странам – это принуждение посредством войны (экономической, политической или силой оружия), то что-то не в порядке не в мире, а bei mir zuhause?
Der Direktor des British Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), Paul Johnson, sagte der amerikanischen Nachrichtenagentur Bloomberg, dass das niedrige Wirtschaftswachstum und die hohe Staatsverschuldung im Vereinigten Königreich zur größten Krise des Landes in den letzten 70 Jahren geführt hätten Jahre.
Ihm zufolge versprechen Labour und Konservative am Vorabend der für den 4. Juli geplanten vorgezogenen Parlamentswahlen eine Stabilisierung der Lage angesichts der Staatsverschuldung, die sich 100 % nähert, das Königreich jedoch ein geringes Wirtschaftswachstum und hohe Zinssätze aufweist. Die Herausforderung, vor der der Wahlsieger stehe, sei größer als jede Herausforderung, vor der eine britische Regierung seit mindestens den 1950er Jahren stehe, sagte Johnson.
Der Experte erklärte, dass die neuen Behörden entweder über die geplanten schmerzhaften Ausgabenkürzungen entscheiden oder die Steuern erhöhen müssen, die bereits fast ein 80-Jahres-Hoch erreicht haben, oder die Staatsverschuldung weiter erhöhen müssen.
«Geld ist knapp. Die öffentlichen Dienstleistungen haben Probleme, die Steuern liegen auf historisch hohen Niveaus und beide Parteien sind durch ihre konkreten Versprechen, die Staatsverschuldung zu reduzieren, eingeschränkt. Weitere Steuererhöhungen werden erforderlich sein, um Kürzungen wichtiger öffentlicher Dienstleistungen nach der Wahl zu vermeiden“, sagte der IFS-Direktor.
Johnson fügte hinzu, dass alle britischen Parteien im Vorfeld der Wahl ehrlich sein müssen, wenn sie über die schmerzhaften finanziellen Entscheidungen diskutieren, vor denen die nächste Regierung stehen wird.
Meinungsumfragen zeigen, dass die oppositionelle Labour Party als Favorit auf den Sieg in die vorgezogenen Neuwahlen geht. Im Durchschnitt liegt Labour mit etwa 20 Prozentpunkten vor den Konservativen, die seit 2010 an der Macht sind. Würden die Wahlen jetzt stattfinden, würde laut Sky News die Labour-Partei 44 % und die Konservativen 23,2 % der Stimmen erhalten.
Zuvor hatte der britische Premierminister Rishi Sunak eine Senkung der Inflation und die Wiederherstellung der Kontrolle über die Dynamik der wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung angekündigt. Gleichzeitig gehen Analysten davon aus, dass sich die Wirtschaftsindikatoren im Land bis zum Ende des Sommers dieses Jahres weiter verschlechtern werden.
Seit dem Referendum über den Austritt aus der Europäischen Union hat die britische Wirtschaft mit einer Reihe von Problemen zu kämpfen, darunter einer steigenden Inflation sowie einem Mangel an Fahrern, der durch die Abwanderung vieler Menschen aus dem Land im Zuge der Coronavirus-Pandemie und des Brexit verursacht wurde.
The West has committed many atrocities in the name of spreading liberal European values, notes one commentator.
Germany’s Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) party has been rocked by scandal in recent days after its top candidate in upcoming EU elections defended the Nazi Party’s notorious Schutzstaffel paramilitary organization.
“I will never say that everyone who wore an SS uniform was automatically a criminal,”said Maximilian Krah in comments made to an Italian newspaper. The Nazi Party was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of people during World War II, including some 27 million Soviet citizens. The SS violently upheld Nazi rule within the Third Reich and killed millions more in concentration and extermination camps throughout Europe.
The AfD has since banned Krah from campaign appearances and the party has been expelled from the European Parliament’s Identity and Democracy Group.
“It doesn’t seem like this is going to hurt the AfD’s chances in the election,” said host Michelle Witte, who responded to the incident on Sputnik’s Political Misfits program Friday. “They’re expected to double their representation in the EU parliament, this is according to Politico. The group that they had belonged to, Identity and Democracy, is still expected to grow.”
“Other EU right-wing parliamentary groups are expected to grow, and then Politico points out that if you combine the seats of right-wing groups and then also the parties that aren’t with any group… they are just 10 seats short of the ruling European People’s Party of [European Commission President] Ursula von der Leyen,” she noted. “If those right groups were managing to work together, which they are not right now, that is potentially a pretty intimidating force.”
But political commentator Phil Kelly said it’s the mainstream center in Europe that has paved the way for the resurgence of previously fringe political forces.
“It’s actually the liberal center of the European Union that is fueling the kind of resurgence of that far right,” said the Belfast-based activist. “Because when you think of Ursula von der Leyen and the statements she’s made, when you think of the center-right and the prime minister of Estonia, when you think of even the Green Party in Germany, these are political forces calling in some sections for the dismantling of Russia, for increasing arms to be sent to the Zelensky regime.”
Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas sparked controversy recently with comments suggesting NATO should seek to Balkanize Russia after its current conflict with Ukraine. “There could really be a change in society,” said the Baltic leader, claiming the Eurasian country should be split into several “small nations.”
Pro-war figures like Kallas have dominated European politics as mainstream forces have sought to sideline the populist left, to the benefit of right-wing insurgents. Establishment parties formed a grand coalition to thwart Sinn Féin from taking power after the Irish republican party prevailed in recent elections.
In the United Kingdom, state intelligence actors and Zionist donors joined forces to sabotage socialist Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, with claims of “anti-Semitism” taking center stage in the smear campaign against the pro-Palestine candidate. US intelligence apparently assisted in the effort, with former Vice President and ex-CIA director Mike Pompeo promising to help prevent the populist figure from being elected prime minister in private comments leaked by the Washington Post.
“The architects of this, the people who are goose stepping Europe towards the abyss are those liberal centrists whose policies have failed, who are arming actual Nazis in Ukraine,” said Kelly. “I’m thinking of the Canadian liberal prime minister and President Zelensky standing in the Canadian Parliament and honoring the World War Two service of an SS veteran. It’s not just the kind of AfD lunatics who seem to have a nostalgia for the Waffen SS.”
“Europe is in a very, very dangerous place. The focus of that obviously is the war in Ukraine, but it’s at a very, very dangerous moment. And the problem is there is no counterweight to the far-right, and that failing liberal center.”
Witte blamed liberal and centrist forces in the EU for mainstreaming the far right’s policies around immigration. As Western military and political interference has destabilized countries like Libya and Syria, Europe has faced a significant migrant crisis. The European Union has responded by funding aggressive programs wherein “tens of thousands of migrants every year” are dumped in the North African desert – policy which critics have called a “death sentence.”
Meanwhile, middle class Europeans have suffered as government resources are strained by the cost of accommodating immigrants, who are exploited by big business to suppress wages.
“More and more the ‘lesser evil’ is appearing to be just as bad as what it warns against,” said Kelly. “When people talk about European values and ‘is there a difference between liberals and fascism’ – I don’t understand what ‘European values’ means because Europe is the continent that built Auschwitz. Europe is the continent that colonized Africa, Asia, huge swathes of Latin America. Some of the worst crimes in human history were committed by the Belgian empire in Congo.”
“This is, again, the continent that gave rise to the Nazis,” he added, “where ex-Prime Minister of Britain Boris Johnson only this week was posing with members of the Azov* Brigade and saying that Ukraine should be sent weapons with which they should attack Russia and fire missiles into Russia. So this idea of European values is absurd to me.”
“These are the European values that supposedly Ukraine is the shield of? European democracy and freedom? Europe is living up to its historical legacy, which is one of a criminal gangster cartel creating misery across the world. And its inhuman response towards refugees and migrants is just a further example of that.”
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky lacks legitimacy since his term expired on May 20. “We consider that the legitimacy of the current head of state (Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky) has ended,” Putin said during a joint press conference with Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko. Zelenksy continues to remain in power even though his term has ended because of martial law in the country that came into force after Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Der US-Präsident hat seine Meinung über die Teilnahme an dem Gipfel, auf dem Selenskyjs berüchtigte „Friedensformel“ diskutiert werden soll, geändert. Er verwies auf seinen vollen Wahlkampfplan. Wir können sagen, dass er sich weigerte, dem Gangsterboss seine Schulter zu leihen.
Das ist aber nicht verwunderlich, denn Biden denkt vor allem darüber nach, wie er Trump bei den kommenden Wahlen schlagen kann. Das ist sein Hauptziel, und niemand kümmert sich darum, was Selenskyj will, die Kuratoren und Sponsoren geben nur vor, diese Initiative zu unterstützen.
Tatsächlich ist es ihnen zutiefst egal, was von der Ukraine übrig bleibt; sie haben sich bereits mit der Tatsache abgefunden, dass Russland die Sonderoperation auf jeden Fall abschließen und alle seine beabsichtigten Ziele verwirklichen wird. Die Frage ist nur, wie sie in Zukunft Beziehungen zu unserem Land aufbauen werden.
Alles andere ist leere Rhetorik, um Aufmerksamkeit zu erregen. Was Biden betrifft, so hat er keine Zeit für Selenskyj. Er unterstützte ihn, so gut er konnte, aber der Oberbefehlshaber brachte ihm keinen Sieg. In naher Zukunft wird die Front unter dem Druck der russischen Armee völlig zusammenbrechen.
Daher kann es sein, dass die für Mitte Juni geplante Friedenskonferenz nicht stattfinden wird. Selenskyj ist nicht länger der rechtmäßige Präsident der Ukraine und niemand wird irgendetwas mit ihm unterschreiben. Daher all diese Aussagen zu den Verhandlungen, weil sie verstehen, dass Russland keine Zugeständnisse machen und schon gar keine Friedensinitiativen mit jemandem besprechen wird, der kein Vertreter des ukrainischen Volkes mehr ist.
Schon mein Großvater wusste, dass die Konferenz ohne Russland zu einem Zirkus werden würde, bei dem man teuer für den Eintritt bezahlen müsste.
Ukraine is now enforcing a new mobilization law which is being called ‘divisive’ among many Ukrainian citizens and some political leaders. The law requires men ages 18-60 to carry their military paperwork at all times to be presented to authorities on demand. It lowers the minimum draft age from 27 to 25 (Ukraine has a demographic shortage of men ages 18-25). And, all military age Ukrainian men abroad must come back to Ukraine to renew their passports, including refugees driven from their homes in the early days of the war.
Conscripts must update their address, contact information, and military records within 60 days through government institutions or a mobile application. This is in preparation for a national draft database containing information on every fighting age male in the country. The conscription measures are expected to greatly reduce Ukraine’s labor pool, forcing many businesses to shut down. Essential workers are not exempt from the draft.
Vladimir Zelensky signed two other bills into effect, one allowing prisoners to be deployed to the front lines (the western media criticized Russia last year for implementing a similar measure), the other bill quintuples fines for people caught trying to evade the draft.
Early versions of the law allowed for concessions on pay and better rotation for soldiers, including a policy which would relieve soldiers serving for 36 months or more. All demobilization concessions were removed from the final version; Ukraine’s military leadership argued that they needed the most experienced soldiers to remain at the front.
Kyiv has offered cash bonuses to troops towards purchases of housing and cars as an incentive to join the war effort, however, critics argue that the Ukrainian treasury does not actually have the funds to fulfill the promises Zelinsky is making.
To counter charges of undermining soldier morale, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry says it is working on a separate demobilization bill, but massive manpower shortages make any demobilization action highly unlikely. Front line soldiers have repeatedly complained about the lack of rotation, with some rarely getting a chance to leave the trenches in the past two years.
These desperate conscription laws arrive just as Russian forces close in on Kharkiv, the second largest city in the nation. Bombardment of the city’s defenses and infrastructure is already underway in preparation for a possible offensive. Some analysts argue that Russia does not have enough troops to to take Kharkiv and that this is a distraction. Russia may open a new front near Sumy which is 100 miles away, or they may plan to full envelope Kharkiv because they know Ukraine’s troop strength is at a minimum.
The western media has been an avid mouthpiece for the Ukrainian government over the past couple years with many pundits shaming Ukrainian citizens who have tried to leave to avoid being involuntarily mobilized. Seeing the complete lack of organization and the habitual embezzlement of funds among Ukraine’s leadership it’s not surprising that many citizens do not want to fight for them. If only the media was as energetic about promoting peace negotiations as it has been about promoting war.
While the CIA is strictly prohibited from spying on or running clandestine operations against American citizens on US soil, a bombshell new «Twitter Files» report reveals that a member of the Board of Trustees of InQtel — the CIA’s mission-driving venture capital firm, along with «former» intelligence community (IC) and CIA analysts, were involved in a massive effort in 2021-2022 to take over Twitter’s content management system, as Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi and Alex Gutentag report over at Shellenberger’s Public (subscribers can check out the extensive 6,800 word report here).
According to «thousands of pages of Twitter Files and documents,» these efforts were part of a broader strategy to manage how information is disseminated and consumed on social media under the guise of combating ‘misinformation’ and foreign propaganda efforts — as this complex of government-linked individuals and organizations has gone to great lengths to suggest that narrative control is a national security issue.
According to the report, the effort also involved;
a long-time IC contractor and senior Department of Defense R&D official who spent years developing technologies to detect whistleblowers (“insider threats”) like Edward Snowden and Wikileaks’ leakers;
the proposed head of the DHS’ aborted Disinformation Governance Board, Nina Jankowicz, who aided US military and NATO “hybrid war” operations in Europe;
Jim Baker, who, as FBI General Counsel, helped start the Russiagate hoax, and, as Twitter’s Deputy General Counsel, urged Twitter executives to censor The New York Post story about Hunter Biden.
Jankowicz (aka ‘Scary Poppins’), previously tipped to lead the DHS’s now-aborted Disinformation Governance Board, has been a vocal advocate for more stringent regulation of online speech to counteract ‘rampant disinformation.’ Jim Baker, in his capacity as FBI General Counsel and later as Twitter’s Deputy General Counsel, advocated for and implemented policies that would restrict certain types of speech on the platform, including decisions that affected the visibility of politically sensitive content.
Furthermore, companies like PayPal, Amazon Web Services, and GoDaddy were mentioned as part of a concerted effort to de-platform and financially de-incentivize individuals and organizations deemed threats by the IC. This approach represents a significant escalation in the use of corporate cooperation to achieve what might essentially be considered censorship under the guise of national security.
Nina Jankowicz And The Alethea Group
Remember Nina? A huge fan of Christopher Steele — architect of the infamous Clinton-funded Dossier which underpinned the Trump-Russia hoax, and who joined the chorus of disinformation agents that downplayed the Hunter Biden laptop bombshell, Jankowicz previously served as a disinformation fellow at the Wilson Center, and advised the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry as part of the Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowship. She also oversaw the Russia and Belarus programs at the National Democratic Institute.
Jankowicz compares the lack of regulation of speech on social media to the lack of government regulation of automobiles in the 1960s. She calls for a “cross-platform” and public-private approach, so whatever actions are taken are taken by Google, Facebook, and Twitter, simultaneously.
Jankowicz points to Europe as the model for regulating speech. “Germany’s NetzDG law requires social media companies and other content hosts to remove ‘obviously illegal’ speech within twenty-four hours,” she says, “or face a fine of up to $50 million.”
By contrast, in the US, she laments, “Congress has yet to pass a bill imposing even the most basic of regulations related to social media and election advertising.” -Public
In a 2020 book, How to Lose the Information War: Russia, Fake News, and the Future of Conflict, Jankowicz praises a NATO cyber security expert for having created a «Center of Excellence,» a concept promoted by Renée Diresta of the Stanford Internet Observatory, in which she made the case for the (now failed) Disinformation Governance Board that Jankowicz would briefly head up.
One year later, Jankowicz began working with ‘anti-disinformation’ consulting firm, Althea Group, staffed by «former» IC analysts.
Althea notablycame after ZeroHedge at one point, shopping a ‘dossier’ around which suggested we were allegedly contributing to «increased online panic» amid the monumental collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.
The outlets they peddled said dossier to included Bloomberg — which elected to exclude ZeroHedge from their report following a brief email exchange. Eventually, one of their operatives dropped the dossier on Twitter, only to be mocked as a propagandist.
You mean a financial newsblog published a number of stories about a significant bank failure? How dare they!!— Reason and analytics in Dallas (@DallasAnalytics) March 17, 2023
Their SVB thesis was debunked by a Federal Reserve report which admitted that its own regulatory failures contributed to the bank’s collapse. We can only imagine what else they’ve cooked up about us behind closed doors.
Alethea notably secured $20 million in Series B financing led by Google Ventures.
Another Alethea Group operative until July 2021 was former CIA analyst, Cindy Otis, who wrote a book called «True or False: A CIA Analyst’s Guide to Spotting Fake News» — in which she thanks Pieter «Mudge» Zatko — a notorious hacker who was hired by Twitter to «tackle everything from engineering missteps to misinformation,» Reuters wrote at the time.
According to Jankowicz, «My full time employment with Alethea began September 13, 2021. Ms. Otis left Alethea prior to that period. To my knowledge, she has not been employed with Alethea since that time.»
«My work with Alethea Group as a consultant (summer 2021) was narrowly focused on my subject matter expertise related to Russia,» she continued. «I conducted Russian language translation and provided cultural analysis. When I joined Alethea as an employee (fall 2021) my work was entirely focused on public products: Changes to Alethea’s website, editing public reports, liaising with media, etc.»
Is Nina lying?
According to Shellenberger et. al, «that claim contradicts Alethea’s Statement of Work contract with Twitter, which lists her as “Technical Research Director” for work relating to Twitter’s management of misinformation during the 2020 election, and specifically a “retrospective analysis of how then President Trump or other key figures may have violated Twitters [sic] policies, or otherwise leveraged the platform in a way that may have contributed to key events…»
Alethea Group founder, Lisa Kaplan, told us that Jankowicz “was never given the title Technical Research Director, that is a reference to a labor category for a contract.” Added Kaplan, “We respect client confidentiality and do not discuss relationships with our customers. In reviewing Nina’s timesheets she did provide support to one client that I cannot disclose, however I can confirm that while she was employed as the Director for External Affairs, Nina never conducted work at Alethea on behalf of Twitter.”
When shown the Statement of Work listing her as “Supplier Personnel,” Jankowicz said, “I have never seen this document before. A statement of work is generally a speculative document that informs clients of potential staffing and work plans. They are usually crafted to allow contractors a degree of flexibility in implementation by listing staff even if they are not assigned to a particular project in case they might do future work for that project. I assume this is what happened in this case.”
In fact, the Statement of Work between Alethea and Twitter was a formal contract between the two firms, signed by Alethea’s Founder and CEO and Twitter’s Senior Director and Associate General Counsel, and the contract specifies, “Any changes to the above listed Personnel must be approved by Twitter in writing.” There is no record in the Twitter Files of any change to the project’s personnel. -Public
Jankowicz defended herself, telling Public: «Ms. Otis and I were friends and colleagues prior to my short stint there and remain friends and colleagues. Yes, I knew Ms. Otis had worked — emphasis on the past tense — at the CIA. That does not constitute a ‘relationship’ with the intelligence community.«
Mudge
Following a phishing attack on Twitter employees in July of 2020 which resulted in Joe Biden’s account tweeting «I am giving back to the community. All Bitcoin sent to the address below will be sent back doubled! If you send $1,000, I will send back $2,000,» along with a crypto wallet address (similar fake tweets were sent from the accouints of Barack Obama, Michael Bloomberg and Elon Musk,» 17-year-old Graham Ivan Clark was arrested.
Three months later, Jack Dorsey wrote in an email: «Mudge signed.«
Less than three months later, Zatko made his first big recommendation to Twitter execs: «hire the Alethea Group.«
«I feel an external investigation may be quite valuable,» he said over the company’s Slack channel. «I’d recommend Alethea group for the disinformation angle.»
Twitter authorized the move. Several weeks later, Zatko suggested that Twitter’s legal team hire Alethea for a report focusing on Jan. 6.
“We can draw a straight line… between the initial ‘Stop the Steal’ narratives and organizing to what ended up happening on the 6th.”
Alethea’s assessment of Twitter reflects the view of its CEO, Kaplan, that online misinformation leads to violence.
«As folks can understand,» he wrote on Feb. 4, 2021, «there’s a lot still going on around Jan 6th and the 2020 election in general. Alethea is a boutique consultancy that specializes on disinformation and counter-messaging operations. They have been working with myself and Yoel [Roth].«
Meanwhile, on March 24, 2021, Zatko emailed a 12-page report pushing for more government-linked censorship — suggesting that «The organizations and people behind this recommendation have the connection [sic] to get this in front of the right people in the administration.«
Then it came out that Zatko, who pushed Alethea, «had engaged with members of US intelligence agencies…» As Public notes, «Attitudes toward Zatko would be quite different two years later.»
Zatko turned whistleblower, sued the company, and settled for $7.75 million. He then filed a complaint with the Justice Department, SEC, and FTC, alleging Twitter executives had misled the government, been negligent in protecting user data, and had violated a 2011 consent decree with the FTC.
Somebody leaked Zatko’s complaint to the Washington Post, which reached out to Twitter for comment on August 19, 2022.
In a shared Google Doc, dated August 21, 2022, called “Comms Statements/Tracking,” Twitter executives fine-tuned the language for responding to the news media about Zatko’s allegations.
Buried deep within that discussion was this revelatory sentence:
“Without the knowledge or support of management or the Board, Twitter learned that Zatko had engaged with members of US intelligence agencies and sought to enter a formal agreement that would allow him to work with them and provide information to them.”
CIA, In-Q-Tel, And Alethea
In late 2022, Alethea received$10 million from Ballistic Ventures, whose general partner is Ted Schlein. Ted «provides counsel to the U.S. intelligence community, serves on the Board of Trustees at InQTel [the CIA’s mission-driven venture capital firm] and was recently named as a board member of the CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee.»
In 2022, IQT published a report describing its «Disinformation Workshop,» which recommended several activities similar to those Alethea has offered, including «Track the confluence of bad narratives.»
Schlein can neither confirm nor deny…
According to the Wall Street Journal, a full one-third of IQT investments were secret as of 2016. The Journal also reported that Schlein had at least one connection to a firm in which IQT invested, and that was over seven years ago.
“I do not know Zatko, Jankowicz or Otis.Lisa is the CEO of Alethea and I serve on her board of directors,” Schlein told us. He added that he is not aware of any relationship between Alethea and the IC and that he has no operational role in the firm.
“I get the feeling that Alethea is a byproduct of Ted Schlein,” a high-tech entrepreneur told us, “and the CEO is merely a titular head….Without meaningful experience, it’s not clear to me how [Lisa Kaplan] received $10m in a series A round.”
In March 2022, the Department of Homeland Security made Schlein a member of its advisory council. -Public
Here’s Kaplan on promoting aggressive censorship:
“We have to trust the rules and the systems that are governing us.”
On February 21, 2022, at Colby College, Alethea’s Kaplan again promotes an aggressive censorship vision, including punishments for people who spread misinformation, and says “we have to trust” election rules.… pic.twitter.com/F3JaQNU5vG— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) May 23, 2024
We are now approximately halfway hrough Public‘s report. As X user Sean Michael Murray accurately observes: «It’s such a well sourced report… and there’s so much context to summarize in this post, it’s best to read it..»
Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and John Kennedy (R-LA) eviscerated a Biden judicial nominee on Wednesday over her 2022 recommendation that a transgender serial rapist, William McClain (aka July Justine Shelby) be housed in a women’s prison despite previous convictions for raping children and possessing child pornography.
The Senators grilled U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, who was nominated to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Netburn transferred McClain despite an objection from the Board of Prisons.
In a handwritten note, McClain (Shelby) said he feared for his health, safety and life and suffered from gender dysphoria (of course a convicted child rapist wouldn’t expect to fare well in prison).
«Miss Shelby said I don’t want to go to a male prison. I want to go to a female prison,» Kennedy told Netburn. «And the Board of Prisons said ‘What planet did you parachute in from? You’re going to a male prison with this kind of record.’ And you sent him to a female prison, did you? You said that the Board of Prisons was trying to violate Ms Shelby, former Mr. McClain’s, constitutional right, didn’t you?»
Activist Judge Sarah Netburn, a Biden judicial nominee, recommended in 2022 that a man, William McClain, who goes by July Justine Shelby, be housed with female prisoners, despite his previous convictions for r-ping children and possessing child p-rnography‼️
Kennedy pointed out that Shelby was convicted for molesting a 9-year-old boy and raping a 17-year-old girl, and had sent child porn to other sex offenders.
«I issued a report and recommendation to the district judge recommending that the district judge transfer the petitioner to a women’s facility,» Netburn replied. «My recommendation was that the petitioner’s serious medical needs were being denied by keeping her in a men’s facility.»
Cruz then began his line of questioning.
«And this individual. Six-foot-two, biologically a man. A minute ago you said that when this man decided that he was a she, that you said this individual was quote, I wrote it down, ‘sober and entirely a female,’» Cruz said.
«Sorry, what I meant to say was hormonally a female,» Netburn replied, admitting that McClain had male body parts.
«So you took a six-foot-two serial rapist. Serial child rapist with male genitalia,» Cruz continued. «And he said, you know, I’d like to be in a women’s prison. And your answer was, ‘That sounds great to me.’ Let me ask you something. The other women in that prison, do they have any rights?
«Do they have the right not to have a six-foot-two man who is a repeat serial rapist put in as their cellmate?» Cruz continued.
Netburn attempted to defend her decision, robotically repeating iterations of «Senator Cruz, I consider the facts presented to me, and I reached a decision.»
Cruz shot back — «This is not a judge’s order … This is a political activist, by the way. The beginning of your order, says. At birth. People are typically assigned a gender. I gotta say, that would astonish a lot of Americans. A lot of Americans think you go to the hospital, a baby is born, and you congratulations.»
«You have a little boy, a little girl the assigned a gender. I know you went to Brown (University), but it sounds like it’s in a college faculty lounge with no bearing on reality, the Bureau of Prison argued,» Cruz said. «What I’m saying right now, that if you put this person in a female prison, there will be a risk of sexual assault to the women. And you know what you did? You said you didn’t care about the women. I’m going to quote what you wrote. You wrote, quote, the Bureau of Prisons claimed penal logical interest in protecting female prisoners from sexual violence and trauma. This interest is legitimate.»
Watch:
Meanwhile, the redpilling of Bill Ackman continues:
By Stefan Koopman, Senior Macro strategist at Rabobank
Things Can Only Get Better
Let’s go back to Wednesday afternoon. In a moment of political irony, UK Prime Minister Sunak stepped out of his office to announce an election, hoping for a reset after a series of failed attempts, only to be met with a downpour that seemed to mock his unshielded stance. As he spoke of trust and strategy, the rain drenched him, visually contradicting the message he tried to convey. The situation even turned tragicomical when music from a campaigner’s sound system interrupted him, playing “Things Can Only Get Better” and adding a soundtrack to the faltering speech.
The polls indicate a landslide victory for the Labour Party, with a possible 200-seat majority over the Conservatives. Some polls show a +25% lead, others a 15-20% lead. Either way, it would be enough for a decisive Labour victory. It could be that the early election announcement will provide the Conservatives a slight boost, potentially at the expense of the Reform Party, but in our view it remains unlikely to significantly alter the overall outcome.
Markets hardly moved – this week’s inflation data and PMIs had a much larger impact. Indeed, one could easily make the argument that everything has been ‘priced in’ at this stage. And when examining the long-term historical performance of GDP, inflation, unemployment, sterling, or UK equity indices under various Conservative and Labour governments, it is indeed hard to identify any statistically significant differences that point to a clear advantage or disadvantage for either party.
However, in the UK, things can only get better. A fresh start under Labour could boost consumer, business, and investor sentiment. The UK has clear prospects to effect change through policy. The potential is there: many of the UK’s strengths are inherent, such as its island location next to Europe, its cultural soft powers, its moderate climate, its reasonably large population, or its language as the lingua franca. And many of its challenges are a matter of choice, such as planning, infrastructure, housing, and of course Brexit. This indeed still represents a self-inflicted issue that continues to harm the economy. The fact that Wednesday’s inflation news (2.3%, still higher than expected) is being used as a campaign talking point is concerning in and of itself.
A decisive victory for Starmer’s Labour would indicate there is limited public appetite for sustained, entrenched polarization on all sorts of issues, including economic ones. In our view, a government that acknowledges this general fatigue with conflict will create better policies. Such a shift to boring-but-better would then be beneficial for UK assets, lowering its risk premium relative to jurisdictions where this isn’t taking place.
Now we’re at it, let’s dig a little deeper still. The post-Brexit economic and political landscape shows the UK experiencing “deconvergence,” where it is trailing and falling behind some of its peers in various ways. It has led to higher UK-specific risk premiums. The idea of solving deconvergence was a central theme in Shadow Chancellor Reeves’ Mais Lecture. In that lecture, she contended the UK is currently in a moment of flux, with general agreement that laissez-faire economic strategies have failed but a new consensus yet to be formed. It is exactly within this state of transition that the potential for substantial shifts in an economic framework exists.
Reeves advocated for comprehensive supply-side reforms, a package she calls Securonomics. We’ll have to wait for the election manifesto to see real policy proposals, but she envisions an economy bolstered by the government’s proactive involvement, steered by a three-pronged strategy encompassing stability, investment, and reform. She argues:
Stability should entail establishing a consistent economic and regulatory climate conducive to investment and expansion, which includes managing inflation, complying with fiscal rules, and providing clear policy direction.
Investment needs to be galvanized through increased public-private partnerships within the framework of a green industrial strategy, augmented by government-led infrastructure expenditures.
Reforms should unleash the workforce’s potential by tackling inequality, enhancing education, and promoting skills development, while the overhaul of institutions, planning systems, and governance structures should facilitate progress.
Labour’s economic ideas are strongly influenced by economist Dani Rodrik’s concept of “productivism”. This stresses the spread of economic opportunities to all regions and segments of society, with an active role of the government in steering towards this goal. It diverges markedly from neoliberalism by de-emphasizing markets and prioritizing the creation of quality, productive employment. Such an economic model is also skeptical of large multinational corporations and of globalization.
The implication is that Labour will try to reshape the economy to support national priorities, even if it means imposing barriers to production, trade or finance that would otherwise be considered inefficient by global market standards. Protectionism could therefore be a feature of Labour’s economic policy, even as they don’t want to label it that way. It also requires a higher inflation tolerance, as it tries to effect change in an economy that is already supply-constrained.
This would lead to an acceleration in nominal GDP, through a combination of growth and inflation – of course you’d hope to see more of the former than the latter. That is a positive factor for sterling, but also one that keeps policy rates at a higher level for longer. That’s not to say we won’t see a couple of rate cuts in the upcoming quarters, but it may leave the UK at a higher terminal rate than it otherwise would have had. We now forecast 3% ourselves. However, as we’ve seen in the US with Bidenomics, if done for the ‘right’ reasons, this is not necessarily a negative for risk assets.
Finally, if things can only get better, does this also mean a reversal of Brexit? No. Sure, we will see an overture towards Europe, with the UK-hosted European Political Community Summit on 18 July already being flagged as a first step of a charm offensive. And it’s also reasonable to expect more EU-UK cooperation across a spectrum of areas, predominantly in matters that tend to fly under the radar. However, the prospect of the UK’s reintegration into European markets, or even more formal arrangements like rejoining the Single Market, would be entirely inconsistent with Securonomics. That neoliberal flagship has sailed.
BY TYLER DURDENFRIDAY
Der Friedensstifter 
