Niger has a lot of exploitable natural resources, including uranium. From Leo Hohmann at leohohmann.substack.com:
No, it’s not about fighting terrorism as the U.S. State Department and its media lackeys are telling the American people.
The U.S. military will pull all of its troops and assets out of Niger by mid-September, the Pentagon has announced, after days of talks with the country’s military junta finalized a timeline.
The Hill reports that a group of military leaders executed a coup in Niger last year, forming a military junta government that has geopolitically aligned with Russia. Talks of leaving Niger have lasted several weeks, with the timeline “finalized Sunday after four days of high-intensity negotiations,” according to The Hill, which adds:
“About 1,000 U.S. troops have been stationed in the country, for the purpose of counterterrorism operations against ISIS and al Qaeda-affiliated groups.”
That’s a big fat lie put out there by The Hill, a corporate media outlet based in Washington, D.C. But to be fair, the outlet did add this to its story:
“The Americans stayed on our soil, doing nothing while the terrorists killed people and burned towns,” Nigerien Prime Minister Ali Lamine Zeine told The Washington Post last week. “It is not a sign of friendship to come on our soil but let the terrorists attack us.”
But even this leaves a distorted view of the reality of why Americans and French are in Niger. The full story would be too harsh for the American masses to process but I’m going to give it to you because I know my audience can handle it.
The CIA, in cooperation with other Western intelligence assets, created al-Qaeda and ISIS and the real reason it built a $100 billion base in Niger has nothing to do with eliminating Islamic terrorism. The real reason that base is there, and why the French have been there for even longer, is because Niger is rich in Uranium and has vast untapped oil reserves, gold-mining operations, coal mining and other resources that the West has been exploiting for decades. And when I say “exploiting,” I mean in the worst way.
In den letzten Monaten hat die Diskussion über die Rolle der neutralen Staaten in Europa und deren Verhältnis zur NATO an Brisanz gewonnen. Der jüngste Vorstoß des britischen Verteidigungsministers Grant Shapps, der eine NATO-Mitgliedschaft von Irland, Malta, Österreich und der Schweiz fordert, zeigt erneut die aggressive Expansion des westlichen Militärbündnisses.
Imperialismus und NATO-Erweiterung
Österreichs Neutralität ist tief in der österreichischen Identität und Geschichte verwurzelt. Die Neutralität ermöglichte es Österreich und der österreichischen Bourgeoisie in der Vergangenheit als Transitland vom Handel zwischen den sozialistischen Ländern Europas und dem kapitalistischen Westen zu profitieren. Damit waren ordentliche Profite für das österreichische Kapital verbunden. Allerdings dürfe man aufgrund der Neutralität keinem imperialistischen Bündnis, wie der NATO oder der EU, beitreten. Dass der EU-Beitritt dennoch vollzogen worden, ist bekannt. Einen Zweifel darüber, wo Österreich im internationalen Klassenkampf steht, bestand zudem nie. Bei den konterrevolutionären Aufständen 1956 in Ungarn und 1968 in der CSSR unterstützte Österreich die Konterrevolutionäre bei der Infiltration der Landesgrenzen und leistete logistische Unterstützung.
Die sozialistischen Staaten in Europa existieren heute nicht mehr, sie wurden von der Konterrevolution 1989–91 weggefegt. Das offizielle Österreich versucht nun die Neutralität endgültig zu untergraben und sich bereitwillig noch enger in den westlichen Machtblock einzugliedern.
Es lässt sich nicht leugnen, dass sich Österreich schrittweise der NATO angenähert hat. Bereits seit den 1990er Jahren besteht eine formalisierte Zusammenarbeit im Rahmen der NATO-Partnerschaft für den Frieden (PfP), und österreichische Soldaten haben an NATO-Einsätzen in Afghanistan, im Kosovo und in Bosnien-Herzegowina teilgenommen. Im Kosovo und in Bosnien-Herzegowina stellt das Bundesheer zudem bis heute einen bedeutenden Anteil der NATO-Besatzungstruppen. Der jüngste Vorstoß, die Zusammenarbeit weiter zu intensivieren, wie im Schreiben der sogenannten „Westeuropäischen Partner“ (WEP 4) an die NATO vom Dezember 2023 deutlich wird, stellt einen weiteren Schritt in Richtung einer noch engeren Bindung dar.
Der britische Verteidigungsminister bezeichnete die neutralen Staaten Europas als „Trittbrettfahrer“, die den Schutz der NATO genießen, ohne sich an der kollektiven Abschreckung zu beteiligen. „Wenn der Wolf an der Hintertür der europäischen Sicherheit steht, dann sollte es keinen Platz für Neutralität mehr geben“, erklärte Shapps. Diese Rhetorik ignoriert die historisch gewachsene Neutralitätspolitik dieser Länder und dient in erster Linie der Rechtfertigung imperialistischer Ambitionen. Denn die NATO ist nichts anderes als ein Werkzeug der geopolitischen Dominanz des Westens, ein Kriegsbündnis. Die Expansion der NATO nach Osten und die ständige Präsenz in globalen Konflikten zeigen dies deutlich.
In Finnland und Schweden haben die Herrschenden den Ukraine-Krieg genutzt, um die vorher ablehnende Haltung der Bevölkerung gegenüber einem NATO-Beitritt zu manipulieren und eine deutliche Mehrheit für die Mitgliedschaft zu gewinnen. Während die politische Elite in Österreich ebenfalls zunehmend für eine engere NATO-Integration wirbt, bleibt die Bevölkerung skeptisch. Umfragen zeigen, dass eine klare Mehrheit der Österreicher an der Neutralität festhalten möchte und eine NATO-Mitgliedschaft ablehnt.
Militarismus über alles
Eine volle NATO-Mitgliedschaft bedeutet nicht nur das Ende der formellen Neutralität, sondern auch eine erhebliche Militarisierung der betreffenden Länder. Die endgültige Aufgabe der Neutralität würde trotz aller bisherigen Anbiederungen an die NATO eine fundamentale Veränderung der österreichischen Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik darstellen. Es würde Österreich in das strategische und militärische Kalkül der NATO einbetten und damit potenziell zu einem Ziel in militärischen Konflikten machen. Eine volle NATO-Mitgliedschaft erfordert zudem erhebliche Investitionen in das Militär, um die geforderten Standards zu erfüllen. Weitere Kürzungen in etlichen anderen Bereichen, wie Gesundheit und Bildung, wären die Konsequenz.
Diese Militarisierung dient in erster Linie den Interessen der Rüstungsindustrie und des militärisch-industriellen Komplexes, während die arbeitende Bevölkerung die Kosten in Form von höheren Militärausgaben und sozialer Unsicherheit trägt. Die verstärkten Militärausgaben gehen zwangsläufig zulasten öffentlicher Dienstleistungen wie Bildung, Gesundheit und sozialer Sicherheit.
Frieden und Klassenkampf
Die Friedensfrage ist untrennbar mit dem Klassenkampf verbunden. Die imperialistischen Kriege und militärische Auseinandersetzungen dienen den Interessen der herrschenden Klasse und des Kapitals. Denn letztlich geht es dabei immer um die Durchsetzung der Vorherrschaft über die politische und wirtschaftliche Ausbeutung der Welt, um die Kontrolle der Exportmärkte, der Rohstoffquellen, der Einflusssphären und der Kapitalinvestitionen sowie um die Durchsetzung der Kontrolle der Warentransportwege gegen Konkurrenten.
Die Arbeiterklasse und die Völker bezahlen den imperialistischen Krieg und die Profite des Kapitals mit enormem menschlichen Leid. Es ist also die Aufgabe der Kommunistinnen und Kommunisten, die Frage des Friedens und damit einhergehend den Kampf gegen eine engere Anbindung oder vollständige Integration Österreichs in die NATO in den Vordergrund zu stellen, um effektiv gegen Militarisierung und Kriegspolitik vorgehen zu können. Nur wenn es gelingt, den Kampf für Frieden und für Sozialismus zu vereinen, können wir die Interessen der arbeitenden Menschen gegen die imperialistischen Bestrebungen der herrschenden Klasse effektiv verteidigen.
‘Peak business groups and unions are calling for the moratorium on nuclear power to be lifted, amid a push to ensure Australia is “technology agnostic” during its transition to cut emissions. It’s time to have the discussion.’
Almost two years later, neither Littleproud nor Dutton has yet produced anything of substance on the issue for the Australian public to consider — just broken promises and delays over when details on the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy will be delivered.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has called on the Coalition to release details on its nuclear energy policy.
Dutton’s level of preparedness for a discussion on nuclear energy appears only to have extended to a tweet at this stage.
Since taking over the nuclear conversation, Dutton has incurred the ire of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), which was forced to defend its reporting in a “rare intervention”
In March 2024, Dutton made incorrect claims about Australia’s national science agency’s costings and slammed itsGenCost 2023/24 report, prompting a warningfrom CSIRO chief executive Douglas Hilton that public trust requires our political leaders refrain from disparaging science.
In a telling statement this week, Member for Wannon Dan Tehan pledged his support for the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy — just not in his electorate. This may be the reason for Dutton’s delay in releasing the policy details: a divided party room.
To be fair, mainstream media has attempted to elicit answers from Dutton for months now, to no avail. The public’s desire for detail on the Coalition’s nuclear policy is becoming more pressing as both the 2024 Queensland State and 2025 Federal Elections loom.
IAcontacted Peter Dutton to try to get some direct answers for our readers, asking the following questions:
In terms of transmission of nuclear energy, what changes to existing power grids and transmission systems will have to be made to accommodate nuclear reactors or SMRs? What will be the cost and timeframe of those changes?
How many nuclear reactors or small nuclear reactors (SMRs) does the Liberal/National Coalition want to build?
What will be the average cost per nuclear reactor and SMR?
What is the estimated date of nuclear reactors or SMRs being operational?
Where will the proposed nuclear reactors or SMRs be located?
In proposed nuclear reactor or SMR locations, what steps has the Coalition taken to consult with the local community, environmental agencies and other levels of government about the impacts of the proposed nuclear reactor or SMR, and are any details of those consultations available to the public?
Does the Coalition plan for nuclear include significant taxpayer investment? If so, how much?
What budget measures will have to be taken to free up funding for nuclear reactors or SMRs, that is, what cuts in other areas of the budget will have to be made?
How many short-term jobs will be created during the construction phase of each proposed nuclear reactor or SMR? Will those jobs be mainly local jobs or FIFO?
Traditionally, government support of a new enterprise/industry is conditional on the creation of secure, new, ongoing jobs. Given the fact nuclear reactors and SMRs will likely be fully automated requiring very few jobs when operational, what is the quid pro quo for government funding? Will taxpayer funding secure an equity stake in nuclear businesses in return for government support in lieu of a significant number of jobs?
How will the nuclear reactors or SMRs be cooled? Do the proposed locations have enough water to support a nuclear reactor or SMR, especially during drought? Please provide evidence to support your answer.
Will the Coalition’s proposed nuclear reactors or SMRs draw water from the Great Artesian Basin at any time? If so, how much and what will be the impact?
What is the Coalition’s plan for the nuclear waste generated by nuclear reactors and SMRs and the long-term site repatriation costs and timeframe of any proposed nuclear reactor or SMR site?
What business groups, individual persons or businesses, or private investors have expressed interest to the Coalition in building nuclear reactors or SMRs? And what is the current estimate in dollar terms of that interest?
Are any of those business groups, individual persons or businesses, or private investors already invested in other industries associated with nuclear energy, such as mining and resources?
Two hours later we received a curt reply stating, ‘… we will announce further detail regarding our energy policy in due course’.
The email also suggested IA“continues its own research”.
This reply from Dutton’s office is wholly unsatisfactory, so IA will continue seeking answers from the Coalition to these important questions — answers that our readers have a right to know – until we get a more informative response. After all, it was the Coalition that called for a conversation on nuclear energy in the first place and its “plan” is to implement a nuclear policy if it wins office in less than 12 months.
Time is running out for Dutton to present his nuclear energy policy — important electoral dates approach.
But, clearly, the Coalition’s behaviour around the much-awaited policy details indicates how totally unprepared it is to hold government. It wants to lead the conversation and the country, yet it hasn’t put in the work. After almost two years of “discussion”, the Opposition still comes to the table empty-handed — no information, no plan, just a series of thought bubbles and meaningless L-NP talking points.
Dutton’s words –“When you deliberately keep the detail back, people become suspicious” – will no doubt come back to haunt him. Because when it comes to the Coalition’s nuclear energy policy — if Australians don’t know, they’ll vote no.
Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin bestreitet die Legitimität des ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodymyr Selensky. Auf einer Pressekonferenz in Belarus sagte er, die fünfjährige Amtszeit Selenskyjs sei abgelaufen. Dies sei ein rechtliches Hindernis für mögliche Friedensgespräche.
An sich war die Amtszeit Selenskyjs mit 20. Mai begrenzt. Wegen des herrschenden Kriegsrechts hatte das ukrainische Parlament aber keine neuen Präsidentschaftswahlen angesetzt.
Auf der zweiten Auslandsreise seit Beginn seiner neuen Amtszeit stimmte sich Putin mit seinem Verbündeten Alexander Lukaschenko in Minsk ab. Putin sagte in einer gemeinsamen Pressekonferenz, dass Friedensgespräche mit der Ukraine wieder aufgenommen werden müssten, dass Russland aber nur mit legitimen Führern in Kiew verhandeln werde. “Mit wem sollen wir denn verhandeln? Das ist keine müßige Frage. Natürlich ist uns klar, dass die Legitimität des amtierenden Staatschefs vorbei ist”, sagte Putin.
Putin betonte außerdem, die Gespräche müssten “die heutigen Realitäten vor Ort” widerspiegeln. Russland hatte bereits zuvor Zweifel an der Legitimität des ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodymyr Selenskyj geäußert. Hintergrund dieser Behauptung ist, dass Selenskyjs fünfjährige Amtszeit eigentlich am vergangenen Montag ausgelaufen wäre. Doch wegen der russischen Invasion gilt in der Ukraine schon seit mehr als zwei Jahren das Kriegsrecht – und deshalb bleibt er laut ukrainischer Verfassung so lange weiter im Amt, bis wieder neu gewählt werden kann.
Putins Bedingung für Verhandlungen über Waffenstillstand
“Es wird wieder darüber gesprochen, dass man zu Verhandlungen zurückkehren müsste”, sagte Putin bei einem Besuch im verbündeten Nachbarland Belarus am Freitag laut Agentur Interfax. Dann fügte er hinzu: “Lasst uns zu ihnen zurückkehren. Aber nicht ausgehend davon, was eine Seite will, sondern (…) ausgehend von heutigen Realitäten, die sich am Boden entwickelt haben.”
Russland marschierte im Februar 2022 in der Ukraine einund hält derzeit rund ein Fünftel des Nachbarlandes besetzt. Die Ukraine betont immer wieder, dass der Abzug russischer Truppen von ihrem Staatsgebiet eine Bedingung für dauerhaften Frieden sei.
Putin sprach auch die aktuellen Übungen mit taktischen Atomwaffen an. Er sagte, dass Russland regelmäßig Atomübungen durchführe. Die jüngsten Übungen in dieser Woche stellten daher keine Eskalation dar. Der einzige Unterschied sei, dass diesmal auch belarussische Soldaten an den Übungen beteiligt seien.
It’s appalling how unimpressive and uninspiring the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken is, especially when seen in person. From Martin Jay at strategic-culture.su:
The West is losing and the hope that Blinken has in the establishment there to keep up a failing military campaign is misguided and foolish.
With the unannounced visit of Anthony Blinken in Kiev recently, there was naturally a great deal of speculation as to what the mindset is in Washington during an election year not only for the U.S. but for the EU as well – and let’s not forget Britain whose leader just announced a snap election which caught everyone off guard.
Western elites are getting skittish. And they have a lot on their plates to justify their nervous twitches of late. The recent meeting between Russian and Chinese leaders affirmed the message to them: “Mulitpolar world is coming quite fast”. In Ukraine, there is little point any more in faking it. The West is losing and the hope that Blinken has in the establishment there to keep up a failing military campaign is misguided and foolish. Desperation now is no longer opaque and shrouded in a smoke and mirrors of fake news by western journalists who only have their NATO talking points to write up. Now it is palpable.
Barely a week passes without a new measure taken by either NATO or President Zelensky which must have a devastating impact on morale.
Just recently Zelensky signed into law a bill allowing some Ukrainian convicts to serve in the country’s military in exchange for the possibility of parole at the end of their service, a move described even my the New York Times as “Kyiv’s desperate attempts to replenish its forces after more than two years of war.”
Of course for those criminals to benefit from their contribution they also have to live, an unlikely scenario for most of them on the front line of battle surrounded by old men or 25-year olds making up the numbers of what has been dubbed the “meat grinder”.
France refuses to give up old colonial and imperialist practices. Maintaining control over overseas territories on foreign continents such as South America and Oceania, Paris is undoubtedly one of the greatest current representatives of ancient European expansionism. Obviously, people abused by colonial oppression tend to react violently at certain times, which generates situations of crisis and conflict.
A popular uprising is currently taking place in the French overseas territory of New Caledonia, an island zone in the Pacific that has until now enjoyed great regional political autonomy – despite submission to French sovereignty. Recently, however, Paris decided to change several local laws in New Caledonia and increase political interventionism in the modern colony, which has generated strong reactions.
Without investment in improving the living conditions of the local people and with a substantial worsening of the French colonial policy of occupation, the people of New Caledonia are taking to the streets to protest for changes. Some protesters demand absolute independence from France, while others call only for an increase in regional autonomy.
As expected, the French authorities are reacting irresponsibly, brutally attacking protesters and leaving dead and injured among the victims. Paris is even taking steps towards an official military intervention in the region, having approved the deployment of troops to contain the demonstrations. This reveals the fear of French authorities that the situation in New Caledonia will escalate and become out of control, leading to a permanent crisis of French sovereignty.
As if trying to quell the demonstrations through violence wasn’t enough, Paris is also spreading lies about the case, trying to point to foreign agents as responsible for the crisis in the colonial areas. The current French target is Azerbaijan. According to authorities in Paris, the Caucasus country is the main architect behind the escalation in Caledonia.
The reason for the accusation is the fact that New Caledonia and Azerbaijan signed a joint inter-parliamentary declaration recognizing the local people’s right to self-determination. At no point did Baku initiate any effective policy of endorsing the active struggle for independence, merely admitting that the island’s residents have the right to decide what they believe is best for them. Even so, France is spreading the fallacious narrative that there is an Azerbaijani plot behind the legitimate protests.
The accusation sounds convenient for Paris in the current international context, as France is looking for arguments to protect its declining territorial and political dominance. French imperialism, like American and British ones, is in a phase of decline amid current geopolitical circumstances. With the rise of multipolarity, there is less and less room for imperialist practices. French foreign policy, not by chance, is falling into decline.
In Africa, there have been a series of pro-Multipolar revolutions aimed at reducing French influence. Many governments in the Sahel region, for example, accuse Paris of cooperating with terrorist groups – which has also led many African countries to seek direct Russian help in the military sector.
To react to new trends, Paris has urgently sought to secure its remaining areas of influence, as well as conquer new territories. In the post-Soviet space, France has expanded into the Caucasus, promoting broad interventionism in Armenia. Paris has been one of the main “allies” of the current pro-Western regime in Yerevan. The objective is simple: foment war in the region, reduce Russian influence in the post-Soviet space and justify the presence of a NATO “peace mission” in the future.
In fact, Azerbaijan is a major agent provocateur in the Caucasus, being responsible for several crimes against the Armenian civilian population. However, the French interest in creating tensions with Baku has nothing to do with Azerbaijani actions. The objective is simply to foment tensions in order to, in the long term, intervene in the Caucasus and expand French imperialism.
More than that, Azerbaijan appears to be becoming an excuse for Paris to justify its imperialism anywhere in the world, not just in the Caucasus. By blaming Baku for the crisis in New Caledonia and using force against legitimate protesters, France is showing that any action by the Azerbaijani government now serves as a pretext for a violent reaction.
In the end, all France wants is to maintain its colonial and imperialist practices. After the losses in Africa, Paris is looking for new targets.
The West is losing and the hope that Blinken has in the establishment there to keep up a failing military campaign is misguided and foolish.
With the unannounced visit of Anthony Blinken in Kiev recently, there was naturally a great deal of speculation as to what the mindset is in Washington during an election year not only for the U.S. but for the EU as well – and let’s not forget Britain whose leader just announced a snap election which caught everyone off guard.
Western elites are getting skittish. And they have a lot on their plates to justify their nervous twitches of late. The recent meeting between Russian and Chinese leaders affirmed the message to them: “Mulitpolar world is coming quite fast”. In Ukraine, there is little point any more in faking it. The West is losing and the hope that Blinken has in the establishment there to keep up a failing military campaign is misguided and foolish. Desperation now is no longer opaque and shrouded in a smoke and mirrors of fake news by western journalists who only have their NATO talking points to write up. Now it is palpable.
Barely a week passes without a new measure taken by either NATO or President Zelensky which must have a devastating impact on morale.
Just recently Zelensky signed into law a bill allowing some Ukrainian convicts to serve in the country’s military in exchange for the possibility of parole at the end of their service, a move described even my the New York Times as “Kyiv’s desperate attempts to replenish its forces after more than two years of war.”
Of course for those criminals to benefit from their contribution they also have to live, an unlikely scenario for most of them on the front line of battle surrounded by old men or 25-year olds making up the numbers of what has been dubbed the “meat grinder”.
In fact, Zelensky might stop short of actually enacting it as it has been pointed out to him that the measure echoes a practice that Russia has widely used to bolster its forces and that Ukraine ridiculed at the beginning of the war.
Yet being ridiculed is not really an issue this late in the game.
Blinken on his part should be well used to looking a dumbfounded numpty on the world state as even his hardened support base has noticed that whenever he gets on a plane and jets in to a troubled hot spot, all that is produced is an ejaculation of banal sound bites. And that’s it.
He seems to think that the number of times he flies to a location makes him an expert on the place or gives his arguments more gravitas, as he pointed out to Ted Cruz recently in Congress where the Republican senator cross-examined him on the genocide which the U.S. is helping Israel carry out there.
It was mind-numbing how ignorant Blinken was on a host of subjects and just goes to prove that without preparation how unqualified many western politicians are on their own subjects. Without notes and with no planted questions from friends in the press pack, Blinken’s exchange with Cruz was so cruel that most of us had to look away as blow after blow came down on the battered body of Blinken. It was literally like watching someone shoot dead fish in a barrel with a Magnum. Blinken, who is America’s foreign policy guru, didn’t even know how many barrels of oil Iran is producing daily. Amazing.
If this is the guy running U.S. foreign policy advising ‘Ol Joe about the world, then it is hardly surprising that Biden is heading to he polls with two world wars which he has instigated – and is currently funding – while Russia, China and Iran just get stronger by the day, all, it should be stressed by both Biden’s reckless policies but also, perhaps more importantly, his weakness.
This isn’t just a blundering, bellicose Washington circus which rides into town and shoots all the wrong people before setting up camp. This is America at its worst whose miscalculations in Ukraine are going to divide further a weary NATO as western elites are forced to take the food out of the mouths of their own poor to spend more on guns n ammo. It is also an administration which is behind the Gaza genocide which is threatening to spill over into the region and will certainly not leave the U.S. a victor either there or back home. The NATO birthday party, planned very shortly, will give the satirists plenty to work on as western leaders soil their underpants watching Russia moves its nuclear weapons around near the Ukrainian border and Europeans head to the polls to elect MEPs in the European Union, a project which is a headless chicken on its best day and makes Blinken, by contrast, look quite credible.
All diplomats worth their salt should be trying to calm tensions, not inflame them. Blinken’s contemptible insult to the Iranian people is a reckless provocation.
As the Iranian nation mourned the tragic death of President Ebrahim Raisi this week, the United States could not even muster a respectful offer of condolence.
The U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, officially that country’s top diplomat, made a crass remark that the Iranian people would be “better off”. This as the Islamic Republic had declared five days of mourning for the late president whose funeral in the city of Mashhad was attended by millions of Iranians.
President Raisi was killed in a helicopter crash along with the country’s much-respected Foreign Minister Hossein Amirabdollahian and several other dignitaries who were also on board the aircraft. The fatal crash happened in treacherous weather over a mountainous region in northwest Iran as the president’s entourage returned from a visit to Azerbaijan.
Most of the world expressed shock and grief over the loss. The UN General Assembly held a minute’s silence and at the funeral, 68 nations were represented including officials from Russia and China.
The United States and Iran have been staunch adversaries for more than half a decade following the Iranian revolution in 1979. Nevertheless, it is a basic matter of diplomacy and etiquette for countries to show a token of sympathy at such a time of national mourning.
The disgraceful and cheap comments about the death of Iran’s president show how inadequate Blinken is as the supposed U.S. primary diplomat. But the failure is not merely a personal matter, it epitomizes the general collapse of Washington’s political quality and international standing. The United States presumes to be a world leader but it evidently has no class. Biden, the president and Blinken’s boss, is a foul-mouthed crank who regularly insults other leaders with ignorant prejudice.
On Blinken’s insult over the Iranian president’s death, Russia’s presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov expressed the disgust of many observers around the world when he said: “It is hard to believe that a diplomat — let alone a high-ranking official of a country such as the United States — would make such a clumsy remark, to say the least. In essence, it was an insult directed at an entire nation.”
Apart from the lack of human decency, there is a total lack of politics. Blinken’s offensive comment comes at a moment of extreme tension in the Middle East amid a genocide perpetrated by the Israeli regime with support from the United States. The powder-keg situation could explode at any time into an international war engulfing the entire region. Israel and Iran have already exchanged military blows.
All diplomats worth their salt should be trying to calm tensions, not inflame them. Blinken’s contemptible insult to the Iranian people is a reckless provocation.
But such sensibility and respect are too much to expect from Blinken who has shown himself to be way out of his depth as a diplomat.
Last week, the “top diplomat” embarrassed his office by playing guitar on stage in a bar during an official visit to Kiev. Blinken was in the Ukrainian capital promising billions of dollars more in military aid to prolong a bloody and futile proxy war against Russia. Reliable estimates put the Ukrainian military death toll at over 500,000 in over two years of combat. Yet, here was Blinken strumming electric guitar with a local rock band. Even more cringe-making was his choice of song, Neil Young’s ‘Keep on Rockin’ in the Free World’. Not only was Blinken tone deaf to the horror of war, but he was oblivious to the fact that the song is an explicit condemnation of American imperialist barbarity.
How could anyone be so stupid and insensitive? That is the measure of Antony Blinken right there.
Lamentably, Blinken has a lot of dubious company in Washington. Their collective arrogance and incompetence are driving the world to calamity. It is reported this week that Blinken is among those in Washington advocating for the supply of long-range U.S. weapons to strike Russian territory. Others pushing this recipe for World War Three include Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson and former State Department official Victoria Nuland.
Blinken’s blunders should have seen him sacked long ago in disgrace. He was a chief cheerleader for arming the Kiev regime long before the conflict escalated in February 2022. He along with Nuland and others was instrumental in setting the course for this proxy war that runs the risk of spiraling into a nuclear war.
During his previous posts as national security advisor to President Obama and Biden when he was vice president, Blinken endorsed the NATO “human rights” war on Libya and the “pro-democracy” proxy war for regime change in Syria. The latter involved Washington arming sectarian terror gangs – until Russia and Iran put an end to that dirty operation.
This trail of disaster chartered by Blinken should have ensured his barring from ever ascending to the prominence of Secretary of State. However, that is assuming such appointments are made based on sanity and sound foreign policy.
No, Blinken is a war criminal whose ignorant narcissism knows no bounds. He is nothing but a useful tool for American imperialist warmongering. The guitar-playing, Harvard-educated Blinken is a manikin that provides a pseudo-liberal image to cover for the barbarity of US global power.
His ineptitude is leading the world to an abysmal state of confrontation in the Middle East and between nuclear powers over Ukraine.
What’s more though is the deplorable truth that Washington is full of clones like Blinken. The level of political culture in the U.S. establishment that spawns the likes of Blinken is so putrid and prevalent, that it is difficult to envisage any quality thinkers and leaders emerging.
The degeneration of politics and diplomacy in the United States has been on a long decline much like its global power. Some of Blinken’s more recent predecessors include Mike Pompeo (“we lie and cheat all the time”) and Hillary Clinton (who gloated about the murder of Muammar Gaddafi with “we came, we conquered, he died”); Condoleezza Rice (of Iraq war and rendition torture notoriety) and Colin Powell (who told barefaced lies to the UNSC over WMD). The list of degenerates goes on.
But in Blinken’s case, he’s probably the high point – or maybe that should be the low point – of polished incompetence.
Cometh the hour of U.S. failure, cometh the man who embodies abject failure.
Le texte (très court, comme d’habitude, mais très dense) de Constantin von Hoffmeister, – souvent cité, 5 fois en 2023, le dernier le 27 décembre 2023, – commence par une citation de Martin Heidegger qui porte une certaine charge d’ambiguïté énigmatique. (Malheureusement, aucune indication n’est donnée sur le contexte, ni le sens de ce contexte.) Il date de 1942, une période “noire” pour Heidegger selon les sentinelles de la bienpensance. Il dit ceci et nous laisse, par rapport aux événements en cours, – les rapports USA-Europe, le sort des USA, celui de l’Europe, – un peu sur notre faim, – ce qui l’indifférait fort probablement ayant assez à faire avec les événements qu’il traversait :
« Nous savons aujourd’hui que le monde anglo-saxon de l’américanisme est déterminé à anéantir l’Europe, c’est-à-dire la patrie et la création de l’Occident. Le conceptuel est indestructible. »
Ce texte de von Hoffmeister du 16 mai 2024 est sur son site ‘Eurosiberia’ et porte sur « L’identité européenne de l’Amérique ». Le titre lui-même est ambigu également, et même énigmatique, – bref, sujet à débat, et donc parfaitement dans le sens du texte.
Dans une première partie, assez détaillée et fort bien argumentée, von Hoffmeister développe une définition métahistorique de l’Amérique. On observera qu’elle correspond parfaitement à notre propre conception qui place l’Amérique comme une sorte d’entité née “hors de l’histoire” ; en quelque sorte, indifférente ou coupée de l’histoire (et, soupçonnent certains avec bien des arguments, avec l’ambition très vite développée et affirmée de faire l’histoire elle-même et de l’imposer au reste, comme le pensaient les génies de l’administration G.W. Bush).
« Contrairement à l’Europe, qui est passée à la modernité à partir d’une riche histoire prémoderne, l’Amérique est née directement dans la modernité, incarnant une société purement conceptuelle basée sur l’individualisme. Ce fondement individualiste a donné naissance à une culture hautement libérale, dans laquelle l’individu évolue comme un Dasein isolé. L’anthropologie et les sciences sociales modernes, qui assimilent « l’humanité » à l’individu, sont restées figées sur ce concept. La fixation de l’Amérique sur l’individu a conduit à un mode d’existence superficiel, dépourvu de la profondeur de l’être historique qui caractérise les sociétés européennes.
» S’inspirant de la philosophie de l’histoire de Hegel, l’Amérique n’a pas suivi le développement dialectique de la conscience historique qui insuffle à la modernité européenne un sens du Geist (esprit) et de la Geschichtlichkeit (historicité). L’absence d’expériences prémodernes – telles que l’empire, la théocratie ou la féodalité – signifie que l’Amérique ne possède pas la perception profonde de l’histoire qui façonne une identité plus riche et plus authentique. Au lieu de cela, l’Amérique opère dans un état de Seinsvergessenheit (oubli de l’être), prise dans la superficialité du monde moderne. Cela contraste fortement avec l’Amérique latine qui, en tant qu’extension périphérique de l’Europe, a hérité et intégré des éléments prémodernes dans son identité, tels que les coutumes et structures sociales médiévales espagnoles et portugaises. Ainsi, la recherche d’une identité plus authentique dans la société américaine reste complexe et difficile, entravée par ses circonstances historiques et son individualisme omniprésent. »
Ensuite, von Hoffmeister développe une thèse qui établit un lien solide, sinon indéfectible entre Américains et Européens. Cette thèse diverge de la nôtre, et je dirais, de plus en plus et de plus en plus vite à mesure que se développent les événements. Pour nous, et pour moi sans nul doute, s’il est une civilisation et une spiritualité qui conservent un acquis fondamental européen face à la prédation dévorante de l’Amérique, c’est la Russie bien plus que les pays de l’UE complètement dévorés par leurs choix politiques assortis de l’emprise d’une communication d’une telle puissance qu’on peut se demander si elle ne modifie pas l’essence de l’être. (C’est une idée récurrente dans ces pages que la prise en compte comme un bouleversement ontologique majeur porté par le système de la communication.) Cela s’oppose au jugement de Heidegger selon lequel « le conceptuel est indestructible », en introduisant l’hypothèse selon laquelle la puissance de la communication est telle qu’elle touche à l’essence même de l’être.
Voici le passage du texte de von Hoffmeister. On y trouve notamment le terme ‘Dasein’ qui est a été introduit dans la philosophie par Heidegger pour signifier “être-là”, et qui est l’infinitif substantivé du verbe allemand ‘dasein’ signifiant dans la tradition philosophique “être présent”.
« Cependant, certains soutiennent que l’Amérique est une greffe européenne et que le passé de l’Europe est aussi le passé des Américains d’origine européenne. Dans cette optique, l’Amérique est une république européenne érigée par les Européens sur le sol du Nouveau Monde, imprégnée des traditions, de la politique et donc aussi de l’histoire européennes. Cette perspective suggère que l’identité américaine est inextricablement liée à la trajectoire historique européenne et que la composition culturelle et philosophique de l’Europe fait partie intégrante de la compréhension de l’être américain. Même si l’Amérique n’a pas sa propre histoire prémoderne, elle perpétue l’héritage dialectique de l’Europe, incarnant la modernité européenne dans un nouveau contexte. Cette connexion implique que les racines de l’identité américaine, bien que transplantées, restent liées à l’histoire riche et complexe de l’Europe, offrant une voie différente pour découvrir la véritable essence du Dasein américain, qui n’est qu’une autre variante du Dasein européen. »
La conclusion du texte répond parfaitement à notre constat d’ambiguïté et d’énigme métahistorique : s’il y a une telle proximité, comment expliquer que l’Amérique semble décidée à dévorer l’Europe, notamment avec ses moyens de propagande et de capitalisme prédateur, – « semblant déterminé à rompre ses liens primordiaux avec le Vieux Monde » ?
« Considérez le paradoxe de notre époque : l’Amérique, descendante de l’Europe, est devenue à la fois héritière et adversaire. Elle utilise les instruments de propagande comme divertissement et de prédation comme le capitalisme, semblant déterminé à rompre ses liens primordiaux avec le Vieux Monde. Pourtant, l’essence de la civilisation occidentale, imprégnée de la pensée et de l’esprit européens, reste inébranlable. Le cœur de l’être américain est imprégné d’héritage européen – un marqueur identitaire qui perdure. Le prétendu annihilateur est également porteur de continuité, car la création de l’Occident était donc un événement métaphysique et, en tant que tel, imperméable à la dissolution. »
Notre approche est différente, bien entendu. Nous croyons effectivement qu’il reste quelque chose de l’héritage européen chez l’Américain, mais il ne s’agit nullement d’une continuité mais bien d’une bataille défensive face au monstre de la communication qui dévore aussi bien l’Américain que l’Européen, que le reste. Cette bataille se marque aujourd’hui par l’affrontement au cœur des USA, avec une intensité de haine qui en mesure bien l’importance, et l’on voit bien, – nous le répétons souvent, – qu’un certain nombre d’Américains qui sont conscients de leurs origines civilisationnelles ont reconnu chez les Russes la subsistance de la Tradition qui est nécessairement la marque de la civilisation européenne, comme de toute civilisation.
Note de PhG-Bis : « Je parle de “civilisation” au sens cosmique et spirituel du terme, sans aucune référence géopolitique, raciale, ethnique, etc. Ce terme de “civilisation” mettant en cause l’Europe er les USA dans le texte considéré, concerne en fait toute la planète elle-même, parvenue, à cause de ses réalisations matérialistes et technologiques emportant tout dans le sens choisi qui est indéniablement pervers et satanique, à un point de rupture de toute sa métahistoire. »
Nous retrouvons la bataille de la Tradition contre la Modernité, et l’Amérique telle qu’elle se développa, et malgré les intentions de certains qui prirent vite conscience de leur erreur (« Tout, tout est perdu », disait Jefferson avant de mourir, en 1825), est devenue l’arme absolue de la Modernité. Aujourd’hui, nous nous trouvons dans la phase finale et les Européens, réduits à rien, ne sont certainement pas ceux qui peuvent prétendre soutenir le combat. Les centres de cette guerre ultime sont aux USA même et en Russie, et les Européens, s’ils sont encore vivants et capables de se dégager de leur zombification, – cette réserve pour ne pas paraître trop catastrophiste ni me décourager moi-même, qui suis Européen, – ont un choix évident à faire
Rachid Achachi reçoit Karine Bechet-Golovko, juriste et enseignante française installée à Moscou, professeur invité à l’université de Moscou, pour parler du conflit en Ukraine et du nouveau mandat que Vladimir Poutine commence.
Der Friedensstifter 