Sieht es so in den Träumen von deutschen Sandkastengenerälen und Politikern wie Strack-Zimmermann und Kiesewetter aus? (Symbolbild:pixabay/ThePixelman)
Überall den Dilettantismus ist schon zu viel geschrieben worden, was die desolate Verteidigungsfähigkeit Deutschlands betrifft: Die völlig verweichlichte, auf vegane Ernährung, Regenbogenkult und Transideologie eingeschworene “Hosenscheißertruppe”, die international nur noch verlacht wird und Deutschland vermutlich nicht einmal mehr gegen einen Angriff von Luxemburg oder Liechtenstein verteidigen könnte. Die zugunsten der hochgerüsteten Ukraine leergeräumten Waffen- und Munitionsdepots. Der Sammelschrottplatz an nicht mehr flug-, schwimm- und rollfähigem Gerät, der in heimischen Basen vor sich hin rostet. Auslandseinsätze, als deren einzige Hinterlassenschaft Dutzende deutsche Soldatenleben, zig Milliarden Euro und bis heute nach Deutschland strömende Ortskräfte im gefühlten Zahlenverhältnis 100 zu 1 der eingesetzten Truppen nach Deutschland strömen.
Größenwahnsinnige Beteiligungen an Militäroperationen im Roten Meer, bei deren Auftakt die Bundesmarine bereits Friendly Fire gegen eine am Himmel erspähte US-Drohne eröffnet und nur deshalb keinen Schaden von 30 Millionen Euro beim verbündeten Hightech-Fluggerät anrichtet, weil in Deutschland nicht mehr nur Züge ihren termingerechten Bestimmungsort verfehlen, sondern auch der deutschen Marine das Zielwasser fehlt. Die Raketen fielen ins Meer zurück, womit das Pulver auch schon verschossen und die Fregatte nicht mehr weiter einsatzfähig war. Deutschland ist inzwischen auch hier beim genauen Gegenpol dessen angelangt, was es vor 80 Jahren war: Statt einer bis an die Zähne bewaffneten Großmacht heute eine internationale Lachnummer. Geschichtlich werden sich beide Extreme – die durchgedrehte Militärgesellschaft von damals und die durchgedrehte Zivilgesellschaft von heute – wohl als gleichermaßen verhängnisvoll erweisen.
Keine Zurückhaltung
Dieser Befund ist jedoch nicht annähernd so verstörend wie der aktuelle Abwehrskandal, bei dem ausgerechnet die Russen alle Einzelheiten vertrauliche Gespräche zwischen Deutschen Offiziellen mithörten – samt zwei hochbrisanten Inhalten: Erstens, dass sich bereits NATO-Militärs in der Ukraine befinden und der Westen damit sehr wohl schon aktive Kriegspartei ist. Und zweitens, weitaus gravierender: Die Erörterung eines möglichen Angriffs auf eine Krim-Brücke – und damit auf russisches Territorium. Russlands Ex-Präsident Dmitri Medwedew wirft inzwischen Deutschland offiziell vorgeworfen, sich auf einen Krieg mit Russland vorzubereiten. Nachträgliche Beschwichtigungen, die gefallenen Aussagen als ein ledigliches “Gedankenspiel über Raketen und Panzer” darzustellen, seien “böswillige Lügen”, so der Vizechef des russischen Sicherheitsrats auf Telegram. Unklar sei alleine, inwieweit auch der Generalstab und die Regierung in solche Vorbereitungen eingebunden seien, so Medwedew in diplomatischer Zurückhaltung, die man umgekehrt auf westlicher Seite vergeblich sucht. Die Geschichte kenne allerdings, sagte er, “viele Beispiele dafür, dass Militärs Kriege anzetteln oder provozieren” könnten.
Die steile These, dass im Zuge der Unterstützung für die Ukraine bei der Verteidigung ihres Landes gegen den Angriffskrieges der Russen nun seinerseits auch einen Angriff des Westens auf Russland als bloße “Verteidigungshandlung” zu werten sei , wird schon im Westen von vielen nicht geteilt – und erst recht sehen das die Russen anders. Natürlich wäre jeder Angriff auf dortiges Territorium unter westlicher Beteiligung eine Aggression – da die Ukraine weder Verbündeter noch NATO-Gebiet ist und Russland keinem westlichen Land den Krieg erklärt hat.
Bedrohliche Krisenverschärfung
Es kommt aber gar nicht darauf an, wie NATO und die US-hörige EU ihr Handeln interpretieren, sondern allein darauf, wie der Gegner es auffasst. Das betrifft bereits die gesamte Reaktion des Westens seit dem 24. Februar 2022, die aus russischer Sicht schon bislang – auch ohne die dümmlichen Versprecher der infantilen deutschen Außenministerin – ganz anders bewertet wird, als man es hier versucht darzustellen. Wenn sich inzwischen im Westen die Worte den Handlungen auch bei ernstzunehmenderen Politikern, etwa NATO-Generalsekretär Stoltenberg, anzugleichen bedingen, hat dies allerdings ein ganz anderes Gewicht. Deshalb ist die derzeitige Krisenverschärfung so bedrohlich.
Doch auch in Deutschland warnen Juristen inzwischen offen, dass mit der Lieferung (und zwangsläufigen Bedienungshilfe) von “Taurus”-Raketen, die ja allein dem Zweck dienen, den Krieg “nach Russland zu tragen” (wie es Roderich Kiesewetter fordert), die Kriterien der Vorbereitung eines Angriffskrieges erfüllt sind. Dazu ist das Grundgesetz recht eindeutig, worauf Markus Krall gestern treffend auf Twitter:
Unter diesem Aspekt gehört für manch einen schon jetzt die Bundesregierung auf die Anklagebank; zumindest die hochrangigen Luftwaffen-Offiziere, die bei ihrer Telefonschalte zu einem möglichen Taurus-Einsatz durch die Ukraine nicht nur gegen jegliche Sicherheitsregeln der Bundeswehr verstoßen haben (laut einer Sprecherin des Verteidigungsministeriums sagte zu “Bild am Sonntag”, es gebe “Anhaltspunkte, dass mit Blick auf die offensichtlich besprochenen Inhalte ein nicht ausreichend sicheres Kommunikationsmittel verwendet wurde”) , sondern auch die Bundesrepublik immer weiter in höchste Kriegsgefahr hineinziehen.
Dass für die Schalte keine geschützte Leitung benutzt wurde, wundert einen inzwsichen nicht mehr (Referatsleiterin für Einsatz- und Übungsplanung im Kommando Cyber- und Informationsraum in Bonn und damit mitverantwortlich für die Cyber-Sicherheit der Bundeswehr ist übrigens die “QueerBW”-Aktivistin Anastasia Biefang, die prominenteste transgeschlechtliche Offizieren der Truppe, die im Fernsehen bereits offen bekannte: “Ich lasse mich gerne vögeln in Darkrooms”. Noch irgendwelche Fragen über den unrettbaren Zustand dieser Armee und letztlich des gesamten Landes?
Neuer Flächenbrand
Der Abhörskandal wird nun zum Politikum; Alexander Dobrindt, Chef der CSU-Landesgruppe im Bundestag, fordert eine Erklärung von Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz: “Die Berichte sind in doppelter Hinsicht befremdlich: zum einen, dass sicherheitsrelevante Gespräche offensichtlich von den Russen mitgehört werden. Zum anderen, dass der Bundeskanzler seine Ablehnung von Taurus-Lieferungen möglicherweise mit einer Falschdarstellung begründet”, so Dobrindt laut “dts”. Beides müsse schnellstens aufgeklärt werden. “Der Bundeskanzler muss sich dafür vor dem Bundestag erklären”, fordert Dobrindt und geht noch einen Schritt weiter: “Bei dieser Sachlage kann ein Untersuchungsausschuss nicht ausgeschlossen werden.”
Das ist zu wenig. Hier müsste ein Sondergericht einberufen werden, das diesen Fall von mutmaßlichem Hochverrat und vor allem die von dieser Skandalregierung entweder gebilligte oder nicht unterbundene Kriegstreiberei ahndet. Mit jedem Tag gewinnt die bedrohliche Entwicklung mehr Eigendynamik, längst liegt es nicht mehr in der Hand dieses unfähig zugrunderegierten Deutschlands, ob die militärische Eskalation nicht zu einem neuen Flächenbrand führt.
On December 9, 2023, the European Parliament published a press release, where it stated that it reached a political deal with the Council of the European Union “on a bill to ensure AI in Europe is safe, respects fundamental rights and democracy“. The future bill is supposed to ban “AI systems that manipulate human behaviour to circumvent their free will“.
According to the press release the deputies also “agreed“ on “clear obligations“ with respect to “AI systems used to influence the outcome of elections and voter behavior“ (see this). No one and no place elaborated on those issues. In a reply to the petition of several representatives and members of the world human rights organizations, the chair of the Committee on Petitions of the European Parliament, Dolors Montserrat, quoted the preparatory document of the EP, which stated:
“The placing on the market, putting into service or use of certain AI systems with the objective to or the effect of materially distorting human behavior, whereby physical or psychological harms are likely to occur, should be forbidden. This limitation should be understood to include neuro-technologies assisted by AI systems that are used to monitor, use or influence neural data gathered through brain-computer interfaces insofar as they are materially distorting the behavior of a natural person in a manner that causes or is likely to cause that person or another person significant harm.“
Those statements both address and hide the feasibility of mass manipulation of the human nervous system (thoughts, emotions, perceptions, functioning of internal organs or even causing death of people) at a distance. It is evident that only when masses of people’s brains are controlled at distance, the AI systems can be “used to influence the outcome of elections and voter behavior“ by forming political opinions of voters and imposing their decision to vote for certain parties or persons.
For that matter, 11 human rights organizations replied to Dolors Montserrat:
“We are deeply concerned with your reply to the petition number 0716/2023.
After studying the information on the agreement between European Parliament and member states of the EU on artificial intelligence legislation (see this and this), we do not see their sincere intention to prevent the manipulation of human thinking emotions etc. by governments agencies with the use of pulsed microwaves, extra long electromagnetic waves or other as yet unpublished energies. This means that so far there are no measures taken to prevent the development of the European union member states into the totalitarian regimes where thinking of citizens will be controlled by the governments using those radiations and artificial intelligence. To prevent such situation, the governments would have to declassify the technologies of remote control of the human nervous systems and create agencies objectively capable and legally obliged to disclose the abuse of human rights and democracy by AI technologies. When the governments keep them classified, they keep for themselves open the option to manipulate the minds of their citizens, whenever they see fit. Possession of those tools will relieve them of responsibility in the face of their citizens in cases where catastrophes may happen due to the fact that they neglected dangers, connected with further development of civilization.
The scientific evidence proving that at least pulsed microwaves (including transmissions of cell phone systems) and extra long electromagnetic waves can be used to control human thoughts, emotions, perceptions, cause pains etc. at distance can be found here.
The proposal of legislation, which would satisfy requirements on the political system respecting human rights and freedoms of citizens in the electronic era, can be found here.
In summary, we believe the EU AI Act should include legislation that explicitly prohibits EU governments, including law enforcement, intelligence agencies and the military, from using artificial intelligence to manipulate at distance human thoughts, emotions, etc. using published or other as-yet unpublished energies. The legislation should also include the obligation of EU governments to protect their citizens from such manipulation by non-EU governments or other entities.
It is worth very serious consideration, whether in the not distant future, where majority of state’s citizens could be unemployed or underemployed due to the use of artificial intelligence, they will be allowed to have a freedom to vote according to their opinions or whether the state power will decide that they are not responsible enough to make the right choice in the elections and will produce their decisions in their minds instead.
In this way they would not even have the right to vote against the use of artificial intelligence, which deprived them of their jobs and dignity. According to the analysis of the International Monetary Fund, the introduction of the Artificial Intelligence “is set to affect nearly 40% of all jobs“ worldwide and about 60% in advanced economies and in this way “AI will likely, worsen overall inequality“ (see this).
Commander Cornelis van der Klaauw from Royal Netherlands Navy and Expert from Strategic Communications and Information Operations NATO Joint Warfare Centre wrote in an article in 2023:
“The reason why cognitive attacks go unnoticed by their targets is that cognitive activities bypass the conscious mind and directly target the subconscious of a person… most of our decisions are made by our subconscious… Cognitive attacks are aimed at exploiting emotions rooted in our subconscious, bypassing our rational conscious mind“.
You can sign the petition to the European Parliament demanding the deputies to produce the legislation which will secure the democracy and respect for human rights in the European union in the transparent and unequivocal way by clicking here. The text of the Petition is in the Appendix Below.
We, the undersigned, ask the European Parliament to include in the legislation on Artificial Intelligence the following:
1. Prohibit the use of Artificial Intelligence to remotely control and/or decode the activity of the human nervous system with electromagnetic waves, directed energies, potential waves, non-local photon or electron connections or any other energies, without explicit consent.
2. Prohibit all EU government organizations, including law enforcement, intelligence agencies, military, and their contractors, to use Artificial Intelligence to remotely control and/or decode the activity of the human nervous system of civilians using the above-mentioned means. The legislation should also include the obligation of EU governments to protect their citizens from such manipulation by non-EU governments or other entities.
3. Provide for the establishment of EU agencies that are objectively capable and legally obliged to investigate and disclose the abuse of human rights and democracy by Artificial Intelligence used to remotely control and/or decode the activity of the human nervous system using the above-mentioned means. Mentioned EU agencies should operate independently of EU member states and the EU should set itself the goal to engage the United Nations Organization as the last arbiter in deciding the cases where people from around the world will complain against abuse of their human rights by those neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence.
As well commander Cornelis van der Klaauw from Royal Netherlands Navy and Expert from Strategic Communications and Information Operations NATO Joint Warfare Centre wrote in an article in 2023:
“The reason why cognitive attacks go unnoticed by their targets is that cognitive activities bypass the conscious mind and directly target the subconscious of a person… most of our decisions are made by our subconscious… cognitive attacks are not science fiction anymore.
They are taking place already now… neural nanotechnology can be used to bring nano-sized robots close to a neuron via the bloodstream and make it possible to link the human brain directly (i.e. not intercepted by our senses) to a computer, making use of artificial intelligence in the process… Warfare is no longer a purely military concept; it has become much broader and more complex. In the future, there will only be one rule in warfare:
International Coalition Against Electronic Torture and Robotization of Living Beings (ICATOR) Avenue Paul Hymans 120/47, B – 1200 Brussels https://icator.be
(Belgium)
ACOFOINMENEF (Association against all forms of mental and neurophysiological interference and control)
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Mojmir Babacek was born in 1947 in Prague, Czech Republic. Graduated in 1972 at Charles University in Prague in philosophy and political economy. In 1978 signed the document defending human rights in communist Czechoslovakia „Charter 77“. Since 1981 until 1988 lived in emigration in the USA. Since 1996 he has published articles on different subjects mostly in the Czech and international alternative media.
In 2010, he published a book on the 9/11 attacks in the Czech language. Since the 1990‘s he has been striving to help to achieve the international ban of remote control of the activity of the human nervous system and human minds with the use of neurotechnology.
On February 14, 2024, France’s Assemblée Nationale adopted a controversial draft law “to strengthen the fight against “sectarian drift” (in French dérive sectaire).
The draft law was an initiative of the French government of Emmanuel Macron which will be presented to the Senate by the Minister of the Interior in the name of Prime Minister Elizabeth Borne.
Author’s Translation from the French
Presentation decree
The Prime Minister,
On the report of the Minister of the Interior and Overseas,
Having regard to Article 39 of the Constitution,
Decree:
This draft law to strengthen the fight against sectarian excesses, deliberated in the Council of Ministers pursuant to the opinion of the Council of State, will be presented to the Senate by the Minister of the Interior and Overseas, who will be responsible for setting out the reasons and supporting the discussion, with the assistance of the Secretary of State to the Minister of the Interior and Overseas, in charge of citizenship and to the Minister of the Interior and Overseas and the Minister of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, in charge of the city.
Paris, November 15, 2023
Signed: Élisabeth BORNE
By the Prime Minister:
The Minister of the Interior and Overseas
Signed: Gérald DARMANIN
The Secretary of State to the Minister of the Interior and Overseas, in charge of citizenship and to the Minister of the Interior and Overseas and the Minister of Ecological Transition and Territorial Cohesion, in charge of the city
Signed: Sabrina AGRESTI-ROUBACHE
Parliamentary Debate on “Dérive Sectaire”, Sectarian Drift
The draft law had first been debated on February 13. 2024
“A coalition of oppositions rejected the article [IV] on Tuesday evening [February 13], as the Senate did at the end of 2023. MPs LFI, LR and RN denounce a threat to “public freedoms” and to “whistleblowers” who criticize the pharmaceutical industry.
The following day (February 14, 2024) late into the night, following the question period, a narrow vote was taken (116-108) repealing the vote of the previous day. There were about 40% of the 577 members of the National Assembly present when the vote was called.
After long debates, the deputies adopted at first reading the draft law against “sectarian abominations” [dérive sectaire] on February 14, in which they reintegrated the controversial article 4, which creates a new crime of “provocation to abstain from medical care”.(“provocation à l’abstention de soins”)
…Article 4 of Chapter III, proposes to amend the Criminal Code to punish “provocation” on a sick person to “abandon or refrain from following medical treatment”, if this abandonment is presented as beneficial when it could lead to dangerous consequences.
Article IV, “aims to fight against “charlatans” and “gurus 2.0”, who promote on the Internet methods presented as “miracle solutions” to cure serious diseases such as cancers. Often without scientific training and in defiance of science, they can drift towards behaviors of sectarian influence.
The “dérive sectaire” (sectarian drift) has allegedly increased dramatically, …”in particular because of the Covid-19 epidemic and the use of social networks.”
By punishing these behaviors, the crime of “provocation to abstention from care” would therefore serve to “fill a real gap in our arsenal by equipping us with effective means to fight against therapeutic excesses of a sectarian”… Up to three years in prison for these “provocations”
After long debates, the deputies adopted at first reading the draft law against “sectarian abominations” [dérive sectaire] on February 14, in which they reintegrated the controversial article 4, which creates a new crime of “provocation to abstention from medical care”.(“provocation à l’abstention de soins”) (France Info, emphasis added)
Based on the experience of the Miviludes, which receives some 2,000 reports per year, the sectarian drift can be defined as follows:
The sectarian drift
It is a diversion of freedom of thought, opinion or religion that violates public order, laws or regulations, fundamental rights, the security or integrity of persons. It is characterized by the implementation, by an organized group or by an isolated individual, whatever his nature or activity, of pressures or techniques aimed at creating, maintaining or exploiting in a person a state of psychological or physical subjection, depriving him of part of his free will, with harmful consequences for that person, his entourage or for society. (emphasis added)
The Draft Law Extends the “Sectarian Drift” Concept
What is the purpose of the Draft Law:
“… strengthen the fight against sectarian aberrations (dérive sectaire) [sectarian drift], deliberated in the Council of Ministers
What this implies is to strengthen and extend the totalitarian sectarian drift concept to health and medicine.
The Draft Law:
“creates a new crime of “provocation to abstain from medical care”.(“provocation à l’abstention de soins”)
The text of this draft law is chaotic, with confused statements. It acknowledges that the sectarian drift increased dramatically during the corona crisis.
The Covid-19 Vaccine is the Unspoken Intent
The Draft Law does not explicitly refer to the Covid-19 Vaccine, which ultimately is the Bombshell. It constitutes an abominable threat. It criminalizes the protest movement against the Covid-19 Vaccine.
It provides legitimacy to a vaccine which has resulted in and upward movement in excess mortality.
What it intimates is a penalty of up to “three years of imprisonment and a fine of 45,000 Euros” forFrench citizens who dare speak out against the Covid-19 vaccine.
These include not only thousands of scientists and medical doctors, but also people from all walks of life in towns and communities across France.
Concurrently it derogates fundamental human rights. It also points to the criminalization of parliamentary democracy.
I should mention that “derive sectaire” is not a legal term.
“In reality, it is clear that anyone who has criticized vaccination against covid-19 could be considered of having committed an offence. However, the aforementioned offences do not make it possible to suppress dissident opinions on health policy.
In this case, it is necessary to have an opinion that is contrary to the scientific consensus and that is only likely to have serious consequences.
Consequently, such a text would be dramatic and would repress any challenge to the official word. This is why it must be fought.
The Lie Has Become the Truth. The Derogation of Fundamental Human Rights
What this decision –which is yet be voted upon by France’s Senate– implies is that THE LIE HAS BECOME THE TRUTH.
You can be arrested for informing friends and neighbours that the Covid-19 vaccine is a toxic substance?
Does this mean that you cannot even quote official data on mortality and morbidity?
Does this mean that the numerous studies on excess mortality pertaining to the Covid-19 Vaccine cannot be published or quoted?
Can you be arrested for saying that Pfizer –which leads the Covid-19 vaccine agenda Worldwide– has a criminal record with the US Department of Justice?
In other words, the Covid-19 “vaccine” distributed at the level of the entire planet is produced by a pharmaceutical company which was indicted by the US Department of Justice (2009) on charges of “fraudulent marketing”.
Bear in mind this a criminal indictment. It was not a civilian class action law suit.
Under France’s new draft law, can you be arrested for stating the truth:
Our Children and Adolescents are Dying Worldwide
Student at the Lycée Valabre de Luynes-Gardannem, Aix-en-Provence, France, Sofia Benharira, 16 years old passed away on September 21, 2021, 7 days after having received the deadly Pfizer vaccine. Heart attacks and Thrombosis.
Either the media fails to report vaccine related deaths or it states (with authority) that the deaths are attributable to Covid-19.
What is the Truth. Examine the Evidence. “Excess Mortality”
The evidence which has been blatantly ignored both by the French Government and the Assemblée Nationale is overwhelming:
Numerous studies confirm that the Covid-19 vaccine has triggered a Worldwide upward trend in mortality and morbidity.
Visibly the Assemblée Nationale failed to acknowledge the data from official sources which confirm a rising trend in Covid-19 Vaccine related mortality.
See the important study on excess mortality entitled:
What is revealing is that for most of the countries the same tendency characterizes the relationship between All Cause Mortality and The Number of Doses Administered
Vaccine Related Mortality: Selected Countries.
(Prof Denis Rancourt, Dr. Marine Baudin, Dr. Joseph Hickey, and Dr. Jérémie Mercier)
ACM All Causes Mortality. Number of deaths per month
Vax Doses Administered per week
Mortality. 1 year Moving Average
The vaccine administration by week (e.g., orange, Figure 2), for all-ages analyses in the present paper, is obtained from the original cumulative data (OWID, 2023a) by interpolating to obtain all dates, and then summing by week. As a result, where there are sudden jumps in the cumulative data, this can produce a large weekly value as an artifact, such as for the Philippines (Figure 2). Similarly, drops in cumulative values can produce artificial negative weekly values, as seen in a few cases, below.
Vaccine Related Morbidity
Covid-19 Vaccine related Mortality is accompanied by Vaccine related Morbidity.
The table below pertains to excess deaths related to malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor) in England and Wales, recorded in three consecutive years: 2020, 2021, and 2022 vs. a 10 year trend (2010-2019).
The data for excess mortality in 2020 (the year prior to the vaccine) are negative with the exception of “malignant neoplasm without specification of site”.
The upward movement in excess mortality (%) commences in 2021. The increase in excess mortality related to malignant neoplasm is tabulated for the two first years of the vaccine.
Evidence of Individual Cases of Vaccine Related Mortality and Adverse Events
See the more than 300 documented individual cases of Covid-19 vaccine related mortality and adverse events by Dr. William Makis
Oops: “Pfizer’s “Secret” Report on the Covid-19 Vaccine “Says the Truth”
What happens if you quote the Pfizer Report?
Can you be arrested and imprisoned for revealing the data on mortality and adverse events in Pfizer’s Confidential report which was made public under Freedom of Information? This report should be consulted and made available to millions of people:
The Confidential report is a bombshell. The vaccine was launched in mid-December 2020. By the end of February 2021, “Pfizer had already received more than 1,200 reports of deaths allegedly caused by the vaccine and tens of thousands of reported adverse events, including 23 cases of spontaneous abortions out of 270 pregnancies and more than 2,000 reports of cardiac disorders.”
This Confidential Pfizer Report provides data on deaths and adverse events recorded by Pfizer from the outset of the vaccine project in December 2020 to the end of February 2021, namely a very short period (at most two and a half months).
The data from mid-December 2020 to the end of February 2021 unequivocally confirms “Manslaughter”. Based on the evidence, Pfizer had the responsibility to immediately cancel and withdraw the “vaccine”.
Pfizer’s Worldwide marketing of the Covid-19 Vaccine beyond February 28th, 2021, is no longer an “Act of Manslaughter”.
Murder as opposed to Manslaughter implies “Criminal Intent”.
Pfizer’s Covid 19 Vaccine constitutes a Criminal Act. From a legal standpoint it is an “Act of Murder” applied Worldwide to a target population of 8 billion people. Sofar more than 60 percent of the World’s population have been Covid-19 vaccinated.
The French government, the National Assembly and the Senate must be challenged by a mass movement across France and the European Union,
What we are witnessing is the outright “Criminalization of the state apparatus” whereby politicians, members of parliament, senior government officials are routinely bribed, coopted or threatened to abide by a diabolical project which is literally destroying people’s lives Worldwide.
We call upon the Senate to dismiss the National Assembly’s Adoption of the Draft Law entitled
Le Project de Loi visant a renforcer la lutte contre les “Dérives Sectaires”
Should Pfizer be Fined 45,000 Euros, Imprisoned for Three Years??
What is contained in Pfizer’s “confidential” report is detailed evidence on the impacts of the “vaccine” on mortality and morbidity. This data which emanates from the “Horse’s Mouth” can now be used to confront as well formulate legal procedures against Big Pharma, the governments, the WHO and the media.
The members of France’s National Assembly must take cognizance of this report. In a Court of Law, the evidence contained in this Big Pharma confidential report (coupled with the data on deaths and adverse events compiled by the national authorities) is irrefutable: because it is their data and their estimates and not ours.
This is a de facto Mea Culpa on the part of Pfizer. #Yes it is a Killer Vaccine
Pfizer was fully aware that the mRNA vaccine which it is marketing Worldwide would result in a wave of mortality and morbidity. This is tantamount to a crime against humanity on the part of Big Pharma.
Pfizer knew from the outset that it was a killer vaccine.
It is also a Mea Culpa and Treason on the part of corrupt national governments Worldwide which are being threatened and bribed by Big Pharma.
No attempt has been made by the governments to call for the withdrawal of the killer vaccine.
Michel Chossudovsky, February 18, 2024
For a detailed and comprehensive analysis (Book released in August 2022)
The Worldwide Corona Crisis, Global Coup d’État Against Humanity
Translations in several languages are envisaged. The book is available in print form in Japanese. 仕組まれたコロナ危機:「世界の初期化」を目論む者たち
As a means to reaching out to millions of people worldwide whose lives have been affected by the corona crisis, we have decided in the course of the next few weeks to distribute the eBook for FREE.
Der Weg der Bankster-Führer ist komplex und in Verschleierung, Täuschung und List verborgen, um die Wahrheit zu verbergen und eine kleine Gruppe von Bankierfamilien zu schützen, deren Betrügereien jedes Land der Erde ausgeraubt und die Beute in Offshore-Steueroasen versteckt haben, in denen sich die gestohlenen Reichtümer befinden die Welt. Diese Elite-Bankerfamilien besitzen über Vermögensverwaltungsgesellschaften, Briefkastenfirmen, Offshore-Konten und tausende andere „alte Banktricks“, die seit der Zeit des babylonischen Königs Hammurabi angewendet wurden, Mehrheitsbeteiligungen an Fortune-500-Unternehmen. Die italienischen, jüdischen, deutschen und lombardischen Bankiers von Venedig verwendeten dieselben alten „Vater der Lügen“-Techniken, um private Zentralbanksysteme zu schaffen, die bis heute in den meisten Ländern verwendet werden und immer noch im Besitz derselben selbstverherrlichenden Bankinstitute sind. Familien.
Die Gier, bekannt als der böse Dämon „Mammon“, hat ihr Verhalten nicht geändert, seit die rücksichtslosen Machenschaften der Medici-Bankiers die Prinzipien des Firmenbankgeschäfts der Warlords festlegten, die von Natur aus unmoralisch sind und dem menschlichen Fortschritt entgegenwirken und zu Kriegen führen. räuberische Bankaktivitäten. und wirtschaftliche Sklaverei.
Letztendlich überzeugten diese „wucherischen Banker“ die Regierungen, Menschen ins Gefängnis zu bringen, weil sie ihre Kredite nicht rechtzeitig zurückzahlten. „Schuldnergefängnis“ stellte das Kommen von Bankiersfamilien dar, die später als Handelsbankiers bezeichnet wurden und Regierungen und Volkswirtschaften über „nationale“ Grenzen hinaus kontrollierten. Als Handel, Handel und Merkantilismus die Welt eroberten, gewannen die Bankiers weiterhin die Oberhand und schufen und zerstörten mit Hilfe der Kredite ihrer Familienbanken tatsächlich Könige und Königreiche. Diese Familien wurden zu Unternehmensblutlinien, die immer noch auf der ganzen Welt an der Macht sind und durch die Pilgrim Society, das Weltwirtschaftsforum, den IWF, die Weltbank, die BIZ und viele geheime Intrigen wie den Vatikan und die britischen Malteserritter, CFR und RIIA vereint sind . , die UN und viele andere globalistische Elitegruppen.
ERFINDER DES BANKENBETRUGS UND DES BABYLON-KAPITALS
Geld tauchte erstmals in der Antike in Tempeln auf, die den Überblick über die Getreide- und Lebensmittelvorräte für die nächste Saison hielten, was ursprünglich eine gute und moralische Absicht war, bei der keine Gebühren für Dienstleistungen oder Zinsen erhoben wurden. Münzen und Geld wurden geschaffen, um den Wert menschlicher Arbeit und gespeicherter Ressourcen darzustellen. Schließlich begannen die Tempel, ihr überschüssiges Getreide und ihre Münzen dazu zu verwenden, Kredite als Investitionen an andere zu vergeben. Dieses Geld wurde zum Wohle der Gruppe und nicht zum persönlichen Vorteil des Einzelnen verwendet. Als die Kontrolle über das Geld der Kontrolle des Tempels entglitt, wandte sich die positive Verwendung von überschüssigem Getreide und Münzen „der dunklen Seite zu“ und Dämonen begannen, mit den Tempelgöttern um die Kontrolle über das Geld und das Leben der Gläubigen zu kämpfen. Menschen. Bis wir ein vollständiges Bild der Entwicklung des Geldes (Mammon) haben, werden wir unbewusst diesen mächtigen dämonischen Kräften ausgesetzt sein, die unser persönliches und globales Wirtschaftsleben kontrollieren.
Die Geschichte des Geldes in der westlichen Welt beginnt um 2000 v. Chr., als sich die Babylonier zu einer stark kommerzialisierten Gesellschaft mit einem komplexen Währungssystem entwickelten. Gerste und Silber funktionierten Seite an Seite in einem dualen Währungssystem, das sie als Tauschmittel und Wertmaßstäbe nutzte. Historisch gesehen war Gerste vor Silber eine wichtige Währung. Das gesetzliche Verhältnis bestimmte den Wert von Silber im Verhältnis zu Gerste und umgekehrt. Die Gläubiger akzeptierten Zahlungen in Silber oder Gerste, je nach Wunsch des Schuldners. Silber gewann im Vergleich zu Gerste an Bedeutung, und später wurde babylonisches Gold zu einer konkurrierenden Metallwährung.
Der Kodex von Hammurabi (2123–2108 v. Chr.) definierte Getreidegeld für einige Zahlungen und Metall für andere. Händlern, die darauf bestehen, in der falschen Währung zu bezahlen, drohen hohe Geldstrafen. Die Standardwährung war der Schekel, der 180 Gerstenkörnern oder einem festen Gewicht Silber entsprach. Das Silber wurde in kleine Barren eingeschmolzen, die als Geld im Umlauf waren und in der Regel bei jeder Transaktion auf ihre Reinheit geprüft wurden. Einige Barren trugen das Bild oder die Inschrift eines Gottes, dessen Tempel die Reinheit des Silbers garantierte.
Seltener römischer Goldbarren aus dem 3.-4. Jahrhundert mit der Aufschrift EYΔ.
Tempel stellten in der Regel Waren aus ihren Geschäften im Tausch gegen Sachleistungen zur Verfügung. Für diese Darlehen wurden bei fristgerechter Rückzahlung keine Zinsen erhoben. Einige Kaufleute betrieben eine Art Bankgeschäft, indem sie Kredite in Silber und Getreide gewährten und verzinsliche Kundeneinlagen hielten. Diese Kunden könnten ihre Verbindlichkeiten begleichen, indem sie Wechsel auf diese Einlagen ausstellen. Der gesetzliche Zinssatz betrug 20 Prozent, aber Silberkredite brachten oft 25 Prozent und Getreidekredite mehr als 33 Prozent. Wechsel wurden auf Tontafeln geschnitzt.
Es wird angenommen, dass Händler damit begannen, ihre Schekel zu markieren, um den zeitaufwändigen Prozess des Wiegens jeder Transaktion zu vermeiden. Händler, die ihre eigenen Schekel „ausgaben“, konnten diese dann in Form von Schuldscheinen an ihre Kunden verkaufen. Jeder wiederkehrende Kunde konnte den markierten Schekel dann gegen eine bestimmte Menge an Waren oder Dienstleistungen eintauschen, und der Händler wusste, dass sein Standardgewicht die Zahlung gewährleisten würde. Diese Methode entwickelte sich schließlich zu einem Münzsystem, in dem Herrscher und Staaten ihre eigene souveräne Währung als Tauschstandard entwickelten.
Vorderseite: Melqart/Baal-Herakles. Rückseite: Adler am Ruder des Schiffes, griechische Inschrift „Heiliges und unantastbares Ufer“.
Babylonisches Bankwesen
Da Land ein wichtiger Teil des babylonischen Lebens war, waren Bankunternehmen zu dieser Zeit stark im Immobilienbereich tätig. Bankunternehmen wie das Haus Egibi fungierten als Landverwalter und verpachteten Felder an abwesende Landbesitzer, während andere Unternehmen sich ausschließlich mit königlichem Land befassten. Beispielsweise erzielte das in der zweiten Hälfte des 5. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. aktive Haus Murashu Erfolge, indem es „königliches Land an Pächter verpachtete und als Vermittler für die Umwandlung landwirtschaftlicher Einkünfte in Metall fungierte“.
Mit dem Wohlstand kamen Handelsbankiers und die breitere Bevölkerung, die an Handels- und Finanztransaktionen beteiligt war, deren Transaktionen auf dem Silberstandard basierten und sich an Schuldenverpflichtungen orientierten.
Es wurden Verträge erstellt, einschließlich der notariellen Beglaubigung von Ort und Datum durch Zeugen. Die Waren wurden in Silber gewogen und zu dem Betrag addiert, der dem Käufer geliehen werden konnte. Nach der Rückzahlung der Schulden zerbrach der Gläubiger die Schulden-Tontafel.
Auch private babylonische Banken unterstützten Risikokapitalgeber bei der Suche nach kommerziellen Unternehmungen. Eine Gruppe von Investoren bündelte ihre Ressourcen und übertrug das Kapital an eine Einzelperson zur Durchführung von Geschäftstätigkeiten, um einen Gewinn zu erwirtschaften, der unter den ursprünglichen Investoren verteilt wurde. So entstand das Unternehmensmodell.
In Babylon zur Zeit Hammurabis gibt es Aufzeichnungen über Darlehen, die Tempelpriester gewährten. Die Tempel erhielten Spenden und Steuereinnahmen und häuften enormen Reichtum an. Sie verteilten diese Güter an Bedürftige wie Witwen, Waisen und Arme und ermöglichten die Aufnahme verzinslicher Kredite. Kredite wurden zu reduzierten, unter dem Marktzins liegenden Zinssätzen vergeben. Manchmal wurden Vereinbarungen getroffen, um dem Tempel anstelle der Zahlung von Zinsen Lebensmittel zu spenden.
Als diese Wuchersysteme etabliert waren und die Macht des Mammon einen kulturellen Wandel auf der Grundlage von Geld herbeiführte, verschuldeten sich die Menschen natürlich und wurden Sklaven, um ihre Schulden zu begleichen.
Ein wegen Schulden inhaftierter Schuldner konnte seine Frau, sein Kind oder seinen Sklaven damit beauftragen, die Schulden abzubezahlen. Die Situation geriet so außer Kontrolle, dass König Hammurabi verfügte, dass niemand länger als drei Jahre wegen seiner Schulden versklavt werden dürfe. Andere Städte, deren Einwohner hoch verschuldet sind, haben ein Moratorium für alle unbezahlten Rechnungen verhängt. Die Mammonverehrung umfasste Kulturen, die Wucher nutzten und sich auf „Geld, das ohne Arbeit Geld macht“ konzentrierte – bösen Wucher.Benutzen Sie AdBlock?Werbung auf der Website trägt zur Entwicklung beiBitte fügen Sie meine Website zur Whitelist Ihres AdBlock-Plugins hinzu
Im 5. Jahrhundert v. Chr. entstanden in Babylon die „Bankiersfamilien der Kriegsherren“ in ihrer ursprünglichen Form; Solche Bankiersfamilien waren die Häuser Egibi, Murashu, Ea-iluta-bani und Borsippa. Diese „Bankster“ wurden als „Handelsbankiers“ eingestuft, sollten aber als Anbeter des Mammon angesehen werden, die die Kultur deutlich in Richtung Materialismus und Gierglauben lenkten und dabei viele Menschen verletzten und töteten.
MAMON – DER TEUFEL HINTER DEM GELD
Im Neuen Testament der Bibel wird allgemein angenommen, dass Mammon Geld, materiellen Reichtum oder jede Kreatur oder jeden Teufel bedeutet, der Reichtum verspricht und mit dem gierigen Wunsch nach persönlichem Gewinn und Selbstvergrößerung verbunden ist. Im Mittelalter wurde Mammon oft als Dämon verkörpert und manchmal zu den sieben Fürsten der Hölle gezählt, die über die „Sieben Todsünden“ herrschten. Mammon bedeutet auf Hebräisch „Geld“ und ist der Gott der materiellen Dinge, im Wesentlichen der „Materialismus“ unserer Zeit, der die meisten Menschen im Westen zu beherrschen scheint.
Bild aus der Serie „Sophia-Evangelium“
Die sieben Todsünden führen in die Hölle und Mammon gilt als einer der mächtigsten Dämonen, der die Menschheit auf den Weg der Zerstörung treibt.
Die sieben Todsünden und die sie begleitenden Dämonen werden oft genannt:
Luzifer: Stolz
Mamon: Gier
Asmodeus: Lust
Leviathan: Neid
Beelzebub: Völlerei
Satan: Zorn
Belphegor: Faulheit
Das Wort Mammon kann im ursprünglichen syrischen Dialekt Reichtum oder Gewinn bedeuten, ist aber auch der Name einer syrischen Gottheit, die der Gott des Reichtums war. Das hebräische Wort „mamon“ in der Mischna bedeutet Geld, Reichtum, Eigentum und „das, woran man glaubt“.
Aufgrund des christlichen Verbots, Zinsen für Geld zu verlangen, das einer anderen Person geliehen wurde (Wucher), wurde die gesamte Idee von Geld (Mammon) schließlich abwertend, ein Begriff, der verwendet wurde, um Stolz, Gier, Völlerei, übermäßigen Materialismus usw. zu beschreiben unfairer weltlicher Gewinn. Die „Anbetung“ des Geldes wurde als Sünde und als Werk des Dämons der Gier, des Mammon, angesehen. Später wird Geld zum Synonym für höllische Absichten und Sklaverei in der physischen Welt, die Menschen in dunkle Welten führen; Daher wurden Christen gewarnt, sich von Wucher und der Verherrlichung des Mammons fernzuhalten. Es war eine weit verbreitete Überzeugung, dass Wucher das Werk des Teufels sei und für einen Christen sicherlich nicht geeignet sei. Ein Christ muss „dem anderen“ treu sein und ihm aus Liebe helfen und nicht aus Profitgier zum persönlichen Vorteil. Ein Christ versucht, sich nicht durch die „Ungerechtigkeit“ von Reichtum und Geld sowie durch die Versuchung des Mammons verunreinigen zu lassen.
Das Erscheinungsbild des Dämons des Geldes und der Gier hat sich im Laufe der Zeit verändert. Mamon ist jetzt eine Kreditkarte oder PIN für Ihr Bankkonto, Scheck, Bargeld, Bitcoin, Direkteinzahlung oder Lastschrift oder Gutschrift auf Ihrem Konto digital. Der Materialismus, der Mammon erschaffen hat, ist bei Menschen im Westen so tief verwurzelt, dass er ein unbewusstes Hintergrundgeräusch ist, das kaum wahrgenommen wird. Mammon kontrolliert die menschliche Willenskraft durch Steuersklaverei, technologische Eingriffe in den Lebensstil der Menschen und die Kontrolle menschlicher Süchte. Die „Sieben Todsünden“ sind in den meisten Hollywood-Produktionen zu finden, und der Weg zur Hölle ist wie ein roter Teppich, der für die „Warlord-Bankiers und Makler“ ausgelegt ist, die sich im Stolz von Gier, Völlerei, Lust, Hass und Krieg verschwenden. Mammon ist ein globales Großunternehmen, und die Bankenfamilien werden kein Geld aufgeben, ohne gute Renditen für ihre Investitionen, belastenden Wucher und globale Kontrolle der Cashflows.
Man kann wohl mit Fug und Recht sagen, dass die meisten Westler entweder von diesem Mammonsystem verzehrt werden oder in seliger Unwissenheit im Schweinestall des Materialismus suhlen. Es handelt sich um eine komfortable, schäbige Sammlung von Abfällen der Bankenelite, die dazu gedacht ist, den Gaumen der Mittelklasse zu erfreuen. Weil die Westler wenig Verständnis für die wahre Geschichte der Welt haben, haben sie wenig Verständnis für das Wirtschaftskontrollsystem, das uns in die gegenwärtige verrückte, wirtschaftlich kontrollierte Welt gebracht hat, in der Amerika Bankiersfamilien über die US-Notenbank Schulden in Höhe von 25 Billionen US-Dollar schuldet. Dadurch entsteht eine dauerhafte Schuldenlast, die nicht zurückgezahlt werden kann. Ständig steigende Schulden sind eine gängige Methode, mit der Banker (Wirtschaftsgangster) ganze Länder durch Kriegsschulden kontrollieren – Kriege, an deren Entstehung kriegstreibende Banker oft mitwirken.
“Toward the end of 2021,” Thereports, “Mr. Putin was weighing whether to launch his full-scale invasion when he met with the head of one of Russia’s main spy services, who told him that the C.I.A., together with Britain’s MI6, were controlling Ukraine and turning it into a beachhead for operations against Moscow.”
Turns out, he was right.
The public’s view on a war can be shaped by the words that are used to describe it. The word “unprovoked” is attached to the words “invasion by Russia” every time they are spoken. The adjective is never justified or explained, just repeated. President Joe Biden’s February 24 address on the eve of the invasion was titled, “Remarks by President Biden on Russia’s Unprovoked and Unjustified Attack on Ukraine.” A year later, his address was titled “Remarks by President Biden Ahead of the One-Year Anniversary of Russia’s Brutal and Unprovoked Invasion of Ukraine.” The word “unprovoked” is repeated by government officials and media in the West every time the word “war” is used in reference to Ukraine.
As the Times has now reported, Russia did not see the war as unprovoked. Provocation does not entail justification or legality. But an analysis of perceived provocations is necessary if a war is to be avoided and if a war is to be diplomatically resolved.
Russia saw Western provocation in at least four key ways.
The Intelligence Partnership and the Secret Coalition Against Russia
A February 26 New York Times report provides, in greater detail than before, the extent of CIA involvement in the war in Ukraine. But the report is not only confirmation that the United States is deeply involved in a proxy war, but is confirmation that the U.S. was involved, long before the war, in provoking it.
Hidden in Ukraine are twelve “forward operating bases constructed along the Russian border” and two “secret bases to intercept Russian communications.” The bases, which are “almost fully financed, and partly equipped, by the C.I.A,” were not frantically assembled to assist Ukraine after Russia invaded. The intelligence partnership began eight years before, back in February 2014. By 2016, the CIA was training an elite group of commandos known as Unit 2245 and providing equipment.
The secret CIA-supported bases were tracking Russian satellites and intercepting Russian conversations. They were tracking Russian troop movement and building and supporting spy networks, including Ukrainian spies who operated behind the lines in Russia. The CIA had “transformed Ukraine… into one of Washington’s most important intelligence partners against the Kremlin.” Ukraine was now a “vital” partner in “a secret coalition against Russia.”
Unit 2245 received specialized defensive military training. There were red lines: the CIA would not help Ukraine conduct lethal offensive operations. But the CIA knew that “without their knowledge the Ukrainians could use the same techniques in offensive lethal operations.” And they frequently did.
After the war began, the “handcuffs were off.” The Biden administration “authorized spy agencies to provide intelligence support for lethal operations against Russian forces on Ukrainian soil.”
When U.S. personnel were evacuated from Ukraine in the days before the invasion, CIA Director William Burns exempted a small group of CIA officers who remained behind in a hotel in western Ukraine. They passed critical information on to their Ukrainian partners, “including where Russia was planning strikes and which weapons systems they would use.”
Soon that small group of officers would not be alone. Within weeks, the CIA “sent in scores of new officers to help the Ukrainians,” including providing “intelligence for targeted missile strikes.”
Military Buildup and the Anti-Russia Bridgehead
In 2017, half a decade before Russia’s decision to invade Ukraine, the Donald Trump administration reversed the policy of the Barack Obama administration and began pouring lethal offensive weapons into Ukraine. Far from reversing the Trump policy, Joe Biden accelerated it. In March 2021, the Pentagon announced that it would supply Ukraine with $125 million of “defensive lethal weapons” on top of the $150 million already provided by Congress in the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.
In September 2021, Biden spoke of “a new strategic defense framework” with Ukraine and promised “a new $60 million security assistance package” that included both financial support and lethal weapons. He boasted that the U.S. “has committed $2.5 billion in support of Ukraine’s forces since 2014, including more than $400 million this year alone.”
In the months preceding Russia’s decision to invade, there were ten NATO military facilities in Ukraine. Ukrainian territory hosted around 4,000 U.S. troops who were complemented by around 8,300 troops from other NATO countries. 400 NATO servicemen, from several NATO countries, were permanently stationed in Ukraine as trainers. Between April 2021 and the end of December, they had completed the training of 13 battalions and 8 brigades that brought them up to NATO standards. In August 2021, the U.S. and Ukraine signed a Strategic Defense Framework.
If Ukraine was not in NATO, NATO was certainly in Ukraine. In June 2021, Putin said, “Naturally, we cannot but be concerned over the continuous buildup of NATO’s military potential and infrastructure in the vicinity of Russian borders.” On December 2, 2021, Sergey Lavrov said, “I should like to make it very clear: the transformation of our neighboring countries into a bridgehead for confrontation with Russia and the deployment of NATO forces in the immediate vicinity of areas of strategic importance to our security are absolutely unacceptable.” On December 21, 2021, Putin told Russia’s Defense Ministry that it is “extremely alarming that elements of the U.S. global defense system are being deployed near Russia.” In February 2022, Putin called Ukraine “a knife to the throat of Russia” and worried that “Ukraine will serve as an advanced bridgehead” for a pre-emptive U.S. strike against Russia.
Buildup on the Donbas Border
Though there was justified alarm at the buildup of Russian troops on their western border with Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region, little notice was taken of the Ukrainian buildup along their eastern border with the Donbas region that preceded it. Prior to the Russian buildup, Ukraine had mobilized 60,000 elite troops, complete with drones, on its border with Donbas. There was “genuine alarm,” Richard Sakwa, Professor Emeritus of Russian and European Politics at Kent University says, that Ukraine was about to escalate the seven year old civil war and invade the largely ethnic Russian Donbas region.”
The Ukrainian Armed Forces by now had 250,000 armed personnel and “over 400 kilometers of complex engineering structures” along the line of contact with the Donbas as well as a “strong second line of defense [that] has also been built.”
Russia’s alarm at the military buildup was heightened in February 2022 by dramatically increased Ukrainian artillery shelling into the Donbas that was observed by the Border Observer Mission of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.
NATO and the Reddest of Red Lines
In March 1999, NATO broke its promise to Russia and flooded into eastern Europe, absorbing the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland. Five years later, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia joined. In 2009, NATO expanded into Albania and Croatia, followed by Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020.
Russia furiously absorbed the betrayal, the provocation, and the threat. But Russia had long warned that Ukraine was the red line. In 2008, William Burns, then-ambassador to Russia, warned that “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin).” If it came to Ukraine, Burns warned, “There could be no doubt that Putin would fight back hard.” Robert Gates, another former CIA director, called bringing Ukraine into NATO “overreaching” and said that it was “recklessly ignoring what the Russians considered their own vital national interests.”
Nevertheless, in 2008, the United States pushed NATO to promise Ukraine eventual membership: “NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agree today that these countries will become members of NATO.”
In 2019, the constitution of Ukraine was amended to make NATO membership a compulsory policy of all future governments. In June 2020, NATO recognized Ukraine as an Enhance Opportunities Partner, which grants it “enhanced access to interoperability programmes and exercises, and more sharing of information.” In June 2021, NATO retook its vow on the eventual membership of Ukraine.
And in August 2021, the United States and Ukraine signed a Strategic Defense Framework. In a September 2021 meeting with Volodymyr Zelensky, Biden spoke of his “support for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations” and American support for Ukraine’s “being completely integrated in Europe.” A month later, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin “stressed…that there is an open door to NATO” for Ukraine. In November, the United States signed the U.S.-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership that committed them to helping Ukraine make domestic reforms that are necessary for its accession to NATO. The document says that the U.S. and Ukraine will be guided by the 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration that guaranteed eventual NATO membership for Ukraine.
None of these four provocations justify the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Legally, nothing but United Nations Security Council authorization or the immediate need for self defense against an armed attack justifies war. Morally, perhaps nothing does. War is the abandonment of discourse and reason. If humans are rational animals, then the abandonment of reason is the loss of humanity. But that the provocations do not justify the war does not take away from the fact that they were seen as provocations. And understanding and analyzing that may provide hope for preventing further conflict in Ukraine and finally stopping the current one.
*Ted Snider is a regular columnist on U.S. foreign policy and history at Antiwar.com and The Libertarian Institute. He is also a frequent contributor to Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative as well as other outlets. To support his work or for media or virtual presentation requests, contact him at tedsnider@bell.net
RADHIKA DESAI: Hello and welcome to the 23rd Geopolitical Economy Hour, the show that examines the fast-changing political and geopolitical economy of our time. I’m Radhika Desai.
MICHAEL HUDSON: And I’m Michael Hudson.
RADHIKA DESAI: And working behind the scenes to bring you this show every fortnight are our host, Ben Norton; our videographer, Paul Graham; and our transcriber, Zach Weisser.
2024 is being billed as the greatest election year in history. More than 50 countries are going to the polls, that’s 7 out of its 10 most populous countries, with a combined population of 4.2 billion, that is more than half the world’s 8 billion population. Among these, for good or ill, one might add, the US election will be the most consequential, deciding life and death questions such as how much war the world will witness, how well its economy will do.
This is not because the US is a force for peace and development. On the contrary, it’s been weighing down on the prospects of peace and development for decades. Of course, the formal choices before the US public promise to change little, though a worsening on both fronts is entirely in the cards, no matter which of the two main contenders on the scene at present win the election. But will they even, will either of them win the election because there are so many uncertainties around this election? Will Biden run? Can Trump run? If not they, then who will represent this increasingly divided country? And if no one can, is civil war a possibility that has been canvassed in practically every major news outlet on the cards? And what will civil war in the US mean for the rest of the world? All these questions are part of the story of the 2024 elections. These are the circumstances in which they are being held.
Biden’s approval rating is only 38%. Indeed, it had dipped into negative territory by August of the first year he took office. And since then, they have only gotten worse.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, what does the public see that Biden and his supporters are not recognizing? That’s really the question that I think we have to talk about today.
RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. And what is the public seeing and what is the public experiencing to give him these negative ratings? Biden’s one hope was to unite the country behind him through good economic stewardship. After all, it was James Carville, Bill Clinton’s campaign manager, the guy who helped reshape democratic politics in the aftermath of the Reagan electoral earthquake, who said, it’s the economy, stupid. You can’t win elections without a good economy.
And you can’t say Biden hasn’t tried. He’s even ponied up a new term, Bidenomics. We are told that this is going to solve the US’s deep-seated economic problems. And certainly his Bidenomics has included considerable sops to the biggest US corporations, the idea being that somehow this is going to induce them to invest, although it is not clear what sort of quid pro quo had actually been set up. And nor is it clear that they’re actually investing even after receiving these sops.
The pro-Biden establishment, of course, has picked up this term and run with it. They’re trying hard to set up an election year narrative that under Biden, the US economy has done very well, Bidenomics is working, and it has moreover achieved that miracle of miracles, a soft landing, by which is meant that it has slain the dragon of inflation without inducing a recession. However, their job is not easy, and the holes in the story that they’re trying to weave together are widening.
So Michael and I thought it would be a good time to do a 360-degree check on the US economy, and we want to do it by going through a number of major topics. We’ll talk about employment, we’ll talk about the investment situation, the trade situation, the real story about inflation in the US, because it’s not so clear that the dragon of inflation has been slain, the problem of financial stability, and finally, of course, the issue of the budget. So these are the topics we are going to go through.
But before that, before we go through these topics, we must begin with a contrast. On the one hand, the stock market is soaring. Let me just show you a few of the stock market indices here. This is the S&P, so Standard and Poor 500. You can see it is at the highest point it’s ever been in its history. This is the Dow Jones Industrial Average, similarly at a peak. And the NASDAQ is, if not at a peak, at a peak pretty close to its previous peak. So you can see that all the stock markets are doing really, really well. But Michael, does this mean that the US economy is doing well?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, it certainly means that there is a tech bubble and a war industry bubble. But let’s look at all the things that are increasing. Since your chart, not only are stocks going up, but when stocks go up, economic polarization increases, because most of the stocks are owned by the top 10% of the population.
So economic polarization is increasing as wealth is concentrated at the top of the economic pyramid. And a lot of voters see this as unfair. So to say that the stock market and the 1% are doing well is not really a good political selling point, unless you can convince people that, well, you can be a capitalist in miniature. You can invest your pension funds in the stock market, you can invest your savings, and maybe you can get rich just like the billionaires. How do you get them to think of themselves not as wage earners, but as stock market investors? If you can convince voters to think that they’re finance capitalists instead of wage earners, you’ve got a good selling point.
But let’s look at other things that are up. Crime is up. Shoplifting, robbery, phone and internet scamming. I’ve already got my morning internet scam call. Rents are up, utilities are pricing, and food outside the home is pricing. I think we’ll get to these charts later. There we go. Basic food, eggs. All of a sudden, people are having to pay more, whether they’re eating at home or whether they’re buying the food at the stores. Everybody’s noticing the prices are rising and the packages are getting more and more empty. You’ll get a box of cornflakes and a lot of it is air now.
RADHIKA DESAI: It’s called shrinkflation. It’s called shrinkflation. Prices go up and what they sell you, the quantities go down.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s right. Exactly. Housing is also basically up. When housing prices are up, you also get homelessness up. Taking the subway in New York, you’ll see a very crowded subway car, and then all of a sudden, you’ll see cars with hardly anyone in it, and that’ll be a homeless person that maybe hasn’t had a chance to take a bath for quite a few days. You’re seeing that already.
RADHIKA DESAI: If I may just interject, this is the percentage of households who spend more than 30% of their income on housing. Overall, 30% of all US households are spending more of their housing, but among renters, this ratio goes up to 50%, while among owners, it is 21%. You can see that those who are wealthy and relatively better off who own their own homes are penalized less than those who are relatively worse off.
You see here, again, another really shocking statistic. This chart goes back to 1960. You can see that the ratio of house prices to the median household income went down after the 60s and remained low right into the 1980s, but from about 2000 onwards, basically coinciding with the easy money policy of the Federal Reserve, house prices as a proportion of median income has risen, and although they again fell after the 2008 housing bubble burst, they began rising again, and today they are even higher than they were in 2008.
MICHAEL HUDSON: The situation is actually much worse than that chart says, because not only have housing prices gone up, but the mortgage rates have gone up. They’ve doubled from about 3% to almost 7%. Now, if you have a mortgage, you want to buy a house, you don’t want to be a renter, you want to escape from being a renter, you buy a house, and your mortgage has to be 7%. That means the entire price of the house, the mortgage that you’re paying, doubles in 10 years, and if it’s a 30-year mortgage, it doubles again and it quadruples in 20 years and multiplies eight times by the end of the 30-year mortgage, so that the bank will get eight times as much for the house you buy as the person who sells the house to you. The mortgage rate and the debt attached to the house is expanding even more rapidly than the housing prices.
That’s what debt deflation is, and that’s part of why the economy is being malstructured.
So what voters are seeing is not simply the economy’s getting worse, but the whole way in which it’s structuring and the direction it’s going in, financialization and the whole neoliberal plan makes them want to throw the rascals out of office.
RADHIKA DESAI: Indeed, the approval ratings figures are showing exactly that.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, what they’re disapproving of is the economy above all, and people say, oh, it’s just because Mr. Biden’s getting senile. Well, it’s not that he’s getting senile, it’s that he’s a nasty, bad person running a nasty, bad economy. That’s really the key.
We haven’t even mentioned the medical costs going up for people who have lost their jobs or they have to stay home because of COVID. There’s a whole COVID effect of the economy. Long COVID is a problem that isn’t being counted. A lot of people are having to take part-time jobs. So what you’re seeing is a kind of crapification of the economy. You mentioned that about the prices that we’re seeing. A whole new vocabulary is being developed to describe what’s happening in the economy, and shitification, the whole bit.
So let’s look at what hasn’t increased. Maybe there’s a bright spot there. Well, lifespans have not increased, and health generally has gone way down. You have a reversal in the whole post-war rise of lifespans. They’ve gone down. They’ve gone down especially for people who earn less than $50,000 a year. For non-white people, they’re turning down. Wages have been turning down.
The Financial Times last week had a story that wages are growing more slowly for employers working at home because employers want to see them in the office. And yet what they’ve found in your country now, England, is that workers from home, the productivity is going up even faster than workers who actually have to go to the office and sit on the long transportation train to get in, whether it’s London or New York. So the Financial Times said this is a success story. Employers gain in both ways. The workers get to stay home, and they’re more productive, but you’re paying them less for the right to stay home.
RADHIKA DESAI: And you’re not paying for all those offices. We’ll come back to that as well. But shall we go into our discussion of the various topics now?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Sure.
RADHIKA DESAI: So the first topic we wanted to discuss was employment. So on the employment front, recently, as many of you will have seen, the Biden administration is making much of a report of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which reports that 350,000 new jobs were created in the previous month. However, there are huge problems with that.
First of all, let me just show you the story, the official story that the Biden administration would like to emphasize. So this is the official unemployment rate that is shown on the Federal Reserve website. And you can see this chart also goes back to 1950. And you can see that there have been various peaks in unemployment in the 1980s and again after 2008. And then unemployment went down. And then, of course, this huge narrow spike is the COVID pandemic, when, of course, it hit nearly 15%, officially, at least. And since then, it has declined. And so President Biden feels that he can pat himself on the back for bringing down the unemployment rate.
However, there are many, many other elements to this story, which are not being talked about. First of all, as opposed to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, coming up with this number of 353,000 new jobs, a private payroll company, which essentially gathers, you know, basically, it knows who is paying whom, how much in wages, etc. what is the payroll of different companies, reported that only 107,000 private sector jobs were created, which is a very small amount. And even if to this, you add the public sector jobs that are created, which will have expanded, because of Biden administration initiatives, nevertheless, it, you know, this would mean that if 353,000 new jobs were created, then job creation is being led by the government.
But at the same time, let’s also see something else, full time employment has fallen. That means, and this is, of course, been historically the issue, the United States always claims that it is such a wonderful job creating economy. But few people point out that the bulk of the jobs that are created are part time jobs, they may even be zero hours contracts, and so on. So, the actual quality, and of course, the kind of jobs there are, the benefits are low, the wages are low, etc. So, you essentially have an epidemic of McJobs rather than good paying jobs.
Furthermore, this unemployment rate that I showed you is, unemployment rate is always calculated as the number of people who have failed to find work out of a total number, which includes those who are, those who are either working or actively seeking work. But it does not include those who have stopped actively seeking work. And that number has actually gone up incredibly, particularly over the, I mean, it has been going up for, sorry, that number has been going up for a long time, but it has particularly spiked in recent years.
So, in reality, the actual number of American people who are employed as a proportion of the labor force is going, sorry, just one second, I want to show you the chart. The labor force participation rate was fairly low, just below about 60% in the 50s, because of course, at that time, most women did not work. But beginning in the 1960s, as women began entering the labor force, the labor force participation rate began to go up, and it rose steadily through all those decades, up to about 2000, when you see this final little peak here. And since then, it has been in decline.
So, essentially, what workers are saying is that as neoliberalism has matured, as labor legislation, which decreased the onus on employers and essentially allowed employers to offer workers worse and worse jobs for worse and worse conditions and pay and so on, people who could choose to leave the labor force have been leaving the labor force, of course, we’re not even counting those who become disabled, particularly after COVID and so on. But it has been declining, it declined massively during COVID. Since then, it has recovered, but it still remains short of the point it was at when COVID struck.
So, you can see that this is a relatively favorable story that the administration is trying to, is able to tell entirely because of this matter of labor force participation rates.
And finally, a couple of final points. Wage growth has been down for a year, particularly, as Michael was saying, for work-at-home employees. But the productivity is higher, so employers are gaining. Workers’ insecurity is very high, and it is high precisely because they don’t have stable, permanent jobs. They have jobs that don’t last very long, that are part-time, that they hold at the whim of the employer. So, the traumatized worker syndrome still remains.
Back in the late 1990s, when Alan Greenspan was asked why, if the economy was running so, you know, the economy was running so hot, essentially, it was running so well, how come there was not more inflation? And he said it’s because of the traumatized worker. Workers are unwilling to demand higher wages, even though, according to him, the labor force, you know, the employment rate was very high. But the simple reason was the workers were getting bad jobs, that they were getting insecure jobs. So, they were traumatized and insecure. They were unable to complain. So, and finally, the quitting rate is very high, partly for medical reasons, but also because hospital workers, teachers, etc., do not feel medically protected at their job. So, and according to the Biden administration, of course, COVID is over. So, these are some of the problems with this idea that somehow the Biden administration has given Americans a low unemployment rate.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, you’ve made all the points that I would have made, so I don’t have to make them. I would like to see a chart for statistics they don’t collect. The employment by U.S. multinational corporations worldwide. Their employment in the U.S. may have gone down, but their employment abroad, especially in Asia, the maquiladoras along the Mexican border, their employment has gone up, but just not employment for their workers in the United States because it’s not really economic to employ American labor, given the rise in housing costs that we’ve just discussed, medical costs, and all the other costs that are going up. America has priced labor out of the market, except for monopolies, especially artificial intelligence monopolies and military-industrial complexes. These are not competitive, so America doesn’t really have to do anything there.
You pointed to the structural shift in labor. It’s dangerous to go back to the office if they don’t have clean air and if you’re exposed to COVID, and the COVID rates continue to go up, and there’s nothing being done to encourage air purifiers or even the use of masks. You’ve made the points that I would have made.
RADHIKA DESAI: Okay. There’s another couple of points, though, and Michael, I think you wanted to talk about pensions as well, but let me make one point here further, which is that there’s a very odd discrepancy in U.S. growth figures that is increasingly being talked about.
And that is that there are two measures of GDP. One is GDP, gross domestic product, and the other is GNI, gross national income, and very often these two are basically supposed to match. I mean, there were maybe some statistical discrepancies, but the first, GDP, which measures essentially how much value was made out of the production of goods and services, and the GNI, gross national income, which measures how much people earned out of that process, this discrepancy is essentially being put down to the fact that workers are not buying, workers essentially are not, you know, they’re not getting high wages, they’re not buying enough goods, and a lot of their income is actually replaced by debt.
And the second thing is that, in fact, a lot of the things that are actually being produced are not, in fact, being sold. So, both of these things are also problems
Michael, you wanted to talk about pensions on the employment.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yes, that’s the problem. Not only are the workers’ conditions getting poor, but pensions are no longer defined-benefit pensions, and many of the pension plans in the United States are actually broke.
Again, there was a Financial Times article last week that said that, Brooks Masters wrote, that the typical Generation X household has just $40,000 saved for retirement, and 40 percent of their 401k pension plans are zero. So, this is the result of not having a pay-as-you-go pension policy like Germany has and Europe has. Pensions have been financialized. In other words, instead of just paying out of the current economic surplus that you’re producing, workers and companies have to pay, save up money in advance instead of investing.
The post office, for instance, post office rates, postage prices in America are soaring because the attempt by Congress to privatize the post office means you have to include the pension plans for the next 75 years all in the price of your postage by saving it in advance, not hiring more labor, not improving the mail delivery, but just the turnover to the stock and bond markets to invest so you can pay pensions if there are any postal employees left.
Of course, the whole objective in increasing the public pension plans is to say, oh, I’m sorry, the post office and other public agencies are broke. We’ve got to privatize them. You privatize them, and what happens is what happened in England under Margaret Thatcher. You wipe out all of the pensions because there’s no company to pay them anymore.
Now, Peter Drucker called this pension-fund socialism before because he said this is wonderful. Workers and companies are going to pay for stocks, and that’s going to create financial wealth that’s going to be spent on new factories and new employment, and workers will be capitalists in miniature. Through the pension plans, they’ll be stockholders. But the effect is simply to divert wage income into the financial markets, into the stock market. The pension system is a bonanza for the stock market and for bondholders because it’s financializing the economy, but it’s an awful noose for the workers who have to pay their own pensions instead of making pensions a public right like it is in socialist economies.
RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly, and if I may add a few points to this, this idea that the Peter Drucker idea that somehow you will get a kind of pension-plan socialism.
There’s a very interesting real-life example of this. In the 1970s in Sweden, thanks to a very high level of coordination between trade unions, governments, and employers, what had happened is that they had managed to create a fairly high-wage economy, a fairly prosperous working class, a very, very generous welfare state providing a whole range of services.
So then the question was, how would workers, whose wages will continue to increase thanks to rising productivity, what would be now done with the rising wages? What would they do? So they decided that they would create a wage earner fund, and the wage earner fund would slowly start buying up the stock of existing corporations for which they work, and slowly they would eventually become the owners of these companies, and that was the general idea. It was called the Renn-Miedner plan.
And this plan was much discussed. Everybody thought it was great, but what immediately followed, beginning in the 1980s, was a major capitalist counter-offensive, an attack on the unions, which essentially meant that this wage earner fund plan was watered down to an extent that it became meaningless. And of course, today, in many ways, people would say that Sweden has gone from a valhalla of socialism or social democracy to being a valhalla of neoliberalism. So I did want to say that.
MICHAEL HUDSON: I want to add a technical twist, and that already occurred in the 1970s in Chile under the University of Chicago guidance. You’ll have the Chilean companies found out how to do pension plans the neoliberal way. You do have the workers buy the stock in the company, but the company owner will also have a whole array of companies. They’ll have a holding company for the industrial company, they’ll have an offshore bank account to hold the stock in the company, and the company will continue to make basically loans to its holding company and be loaded down with more and more debt. It’ll borrow, borrow, and then the holding company, the actual industrial employer, will be left to go bankrupt. It’s a corporate shell, and all the money will have been taken by the holding company.
And so very quickly, Sam Zell, the real estate owner, did this with the Chicago Tribune. The Chicago Tribune had exactly what you’re saying. We’re going to be part owners, we reporters and news people. And so Zell bought the Tribune, then he took all the money in the pension plan, lent it to himself and the holding company, and then said, oh, it’s broke, and wiped out all of the stockholders. I discuss that in my book, Killing the Host. That’s the pension plan finance capitalism.
RADHIKA DESAI: Exactly. And this is exactly the reason why, as this is particularly true in the United States, one reads every few months, one reads that some or the other pension plan has essentially lost its money. And that means the workers who had put in their money, their hard-earned money into these financialized pension plans, essentially are getting nothing in return.
But there’s a couple more points to be made. First of all, when you financialize pension plans, workers are encouraged to think that somehow they are also becoming capitalists, that they have a stake in the stock market, et cetera.
Now, what really happens when our pension money goes into, essentially becomes privatized and is now being managed by some or the other private financial institution, is that our pension money just becomes so much throw weight that they can use in order to move markets in their favor. Remember, when you are speculating, if you are speculating with a few hundred or a few thousand dollars, you are a price taker, a market taker. But when you are speculating with millions of dollars and maybe even billions of dollars worth of money, you are a market maker, you are a price maker, which means that you essentially get to rig the system.
So, our money is used by these fund managers and so on as throw weight in their speculative activities. So, this actually increases speculation, it inflates asset bubbles, and it makes financial crisis, from which we all suffer as working people, more regular, more frequent, and so on.
MICHAEL HUDSON: The situation actually gets worse than fund managers. Because the pension plans are in deficit, the pension managers are desperate. How are they going to get more money? They turn the money over to private capital. And private capital is much worse than the pension fund managers. Private capital makes its money by buying a corporation and driving it bankrupt.
Private capital does to the U.S. economy what it’s done to Sears Roebuck, to Toys R Us. The company will borrow a lot of money from a bank. It’ll pay a special dividend to the private capital owners. The owners will immediately say, we’ve got the increased earnings, we’re going to cut back productivity. When workers leave, we’re not going to replace them. We’re going to work them harder. We’re going to give the traumatized workers syndrome with emphasis. And so, by workers thinking, I’m going to be a capitalist, just like the rich people, and my pension fund is going to make money for me as a capitalist. But making money as a finance capitalist means hurting their identity as a wage earner. What are they going to think of themselves as?
RADHIKA DESAI: Well, exactly. And so, definitely. And the other thing as well is that, of course, the companies that are brought into the control of private capital, these CEOs, etc., they borrow money in order to also, like Michael said, they certainly borrow money in order to pay huge dividends, but they also borrow money in order to engage in share buybacks, which increases the value of the shares. And all of this is being done on the backs of existing employees. And of course, in doing so, they very often misuse and misapply pension funds so that they can go bust as well.
But my second and third point are equally important, which is that workers who think that they are participating in the stock market and therefore rising stock markets are good for them, etc., should always remember two things.
Number one, when markets go up, they may benefit, but they always benefit much less than the people who are controlling these markets, the big financial institutions and so on. They are very low on the pecking order of benefit from financial speculation.
And number two, when there is a loss, they lose much more than those who are controlling these pension funds, etc., who have their golden parachutes and so on.
So that’s about the employment situation. Now, let us look at the next point, which is what is happening with investment.
So here again, you know, we are being told that parts of the US economy are finally doing much better because investment rates are somehow better and so on. But let’s look at what’s really happening with investment.
So this is a chart showing gross fixed capital formation in the United States from 1970 to onwards. And you can see that on average, if you drew a trend line in this chart, it would basically be pointing downwards. So basically throughout the neoliberal era, investment, which is in many ways the main driver of the economy, consumption is also important, but investment is essentially, you know, the more there is investment, there is the more growth there will be because investment itself creates growth and it increases productivity and growth.
So this has essentially been going down. This peak here is at the end of the 1970s. It’s going down. This is about 1990, going up again just with the tech bubble up here and then with the housing and credit bubble, but then essentially declining after 2008. Since then, it has risen, but as you can see, it remains below, in fact, even many of the low points of the previous 50 years, let alone the high points. So and in the last couple of years of the Biden administration, these figures are only available to us for now up to 2021. But you can see that under Biden’s first year, it effectively took a downturn.
And let me also add one other thing, which is that investment is a proportion of GDP. You know, the United States and the Biden administration make much of competing with China and so on. Let’s take a look at this graph. It only goes to 2015, but I don’t think the story has changed. And this graph, by the way, is the work of my partner, my husband and intellectual partner, Alan Freeman. And here you can see he has given investment as a proportion of GDP for China, which is this bold blue line, and for many other countries. But we just want to focus on China and the United States, which is the green line.
And indeed, as you can see, the green line is basically at the bottom of all these comparable countries, including Europe, Japan, other industrialized countries, and so on, and even the global south, which is here in this thin blue line. So you can see if you’re going to compete with China in terms of growth and productivity and so on, China at its peak is spending 45 percent of its GDP on investment. By contrast, the US is spending less than 20 percent, less than half in investment. So this is the sorry state of investment in the United States.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Oh, it’s much worse than that. It doesn’t say how the composition of this investment has shifted. This re-rising of the US investment is largely military industrial. A lot of it is also real estate. That’s probably the largest element of a lot of this investment. And the real estate investment has been transforming the whole economy.
And that includes buying out existing companies. That’s counted as a new investment. If you buy a building that was at a low price before, buying it at a high price is a new investment. In London, for instance, you just had the sale of the British telephone phone tower last week to a hotel company. So it’s privatized. They’re going to essentially use that as a new investment. But it’s not building a new building. It’s just taking something over.
In the United States, you had the last few months, you had Greyhound bus terminals sold. That was an investment, sort of like Stagecoach in London. The company that bought Greyhound is a real estate company. They said, we’re going to tear down the terminals that are put in the center of the city. The reason they’re in the center of the city is so that they’ll be convenient for people who ride the bus. They can go to the terminal, have a place to sit, buy tickets. We’re going to make them go to the outskirts of the city and wait outside, regardless of the weather, because we don’t care about the users of our service. We want the real estate. So we’re going to essentially dismantle the public service investment and make a gentrified version out of this.
And in New York, you’re having the Wall Street area. All of these commercial office buildings in New York, there’s a 40% vacancy rate on commercial buildings. So companies are coming in to try to invest the company, saying, well, there’s no more industrial economy to put in these buildings. Let’s gentrify it for all the people who are getting rich on the financial sector, making money de-industrializing the economy.
Well, there’s one problem with this that they’re suddenly finding out. You can take an office building, a bank, or a publishing company, or whatever, and divide it into residential units, but where are you going to put the kitchens? These buildings are not geared to have gas and electricity and venting for kitchens. And what about bathrooms? If you look at how your employer is set up at a company, this is not the kind of bathroom that you’re going to want near a bedroom or living room for a residential person. So there’s an idea that somehow you can do to the commercial office buildings in America what President Obama did to Chicago before president when his job was tearing down black neighborhoods and getting rid of the low-income blacks and gentrifying them for his sponsor, the Pittsburghs, to make a real estate fortune there.
So fortunes are being made by real estate investment, not exactly industrial investment. Real estate is, again, part of the FIRE sector, finance, insurance, and real estate. You’re having investment in research and development. That’s called capital investment. You’re getting the picture that the investment that is taking place isn’t the kind of investment that originally helped an industrial economy. It’s a de-industrializing form of investment.
RADHIKA DESAI: And there’s also, I mean, well, gross fixed capital formation will actually measure physical investments, so that there’s definitely some physical investment taking place. But as we see, it’s much lower than China’s, it is not really recovering. And more to the point, if there has been any kind of recovery or whatever little investment is taking place, let’s put it that way, whatever little investment in actual plant and machinery is taking place under the Biden administration is happening in large part because of the sops he’s giving to industry via his Inflation Reduction Act and other such initiatives. So essentially, he is giving certain corporations money to invest in certain sectors. And this is why you are seeing it. So it’s the dynamo or the dynamic, the mojo of American capitalism is definitely not back. It is definitely very weak.
MICHAEL HUDSON: You mentioned the inflation and that act. One of the high points of it was advertised by Taiwan, taking its computer chip company, wanting, getting, I think, over vast billions of dollars to set up a computer chip system in Arizona. The people came up here and they say, oh, it’s not going to work. There are no workers. You know, you said that you were going to provide us with American labor to work in the investment plant, but there aren’t any American workers because they’re not trained as working industrially. You know, who are we supposed to hire as workers for our computer chip plant if you don’t have workers trained to work in computer chip plants or other industries?
RADHIKA DESAI: And, you know, that also reminds me, I mean, we haven’t even talked about this, but the state of public education, that is the education that most ordinary American kids get, has actually been declining to such an extent, as we know, for decades. You know, teachers will complain that they spend all their time trying to keep control of the classrooms. How are they going to teach kids anything? So if your kids are not learning what they need to learn, how are they going to become even semi-skilled workers, let alone skilled workers? So absolutely, I’m not at all surprised.
Some time ago, I remember reading somewhere that the Japanese companies that were being encouraged to invest in car plants in the so-called right-to-work states, these companies were having to produce the literature to minimally give instructions to workers using symbols rather than putting it in writing, because many of these kids were functionally illiterate.
But let’s go on, because we have quite a few things more to talk about, and we don’t want to go too much over an hour.
So very briefly, we said that we would talk about the U.S. trade deficit, and once again, vis-a-vis the trade deficit, the Biden administration is crowing about its great achievement. You see here the U.S. trade deficit, which, of course, historically had been very low. That is, you know, in this graph, the higher the line is, the better the situation. So when the line dips, the deficit grows. So you can see beginning around the 1980s and then really taking off in the 1990s, the U.S. trade deficit was quite, you know, dipped quite low. People were really worried about the so-called twin deficits and so on. And then after 2008, precisely because of the massive recession in the United States, the trade situation improved. The trade deficit actually narrowed. And this is also very interesting, you know, historically because of deindustrialization.
The United States has a tendency that when the economy grows, the trade deficit grows. Why? Because American consumers prefer buying foreign goods. So this has been the case for many decades in the United States. So obviously, with incomes shrinking, so did the trade deficit. But once again, it resumed declining. And as you see here, in the Trump years and also in the Biden years, the trade deficit declined. You know, as you see, it reached a really, really low point already under the Trump administration. And it has recovered, but it still remains at historic high levels. So in that sense, if there has been any improvement in the trade deficit, again, this is largely because of the sickness of the American economy, the poverty of American consumers, not because of any miracle that the Biden administration has executed or has brought off in the U.S. economy.
MICHAEL HUDSON: I think the Biden administration has vastly helped the trade deficit. You know, what is Bidenomics? It’s a slogan for a war economy, financed by a financial bubble. And the State Department official, Victoria Nuland, just gave another plea for Congress to give a few hundred, a hundred million dollars for the weapons in Ukraine and Israel. And since our show focuses on geopolitics, I want to point out how war spending is contributing to the trade balance and also to American affluence against Europe’s NATO countries that America has just conquered economically.
Nuland picked up President Biden’s point that in reminding politicians that almost all the money for the war in Ukraine is going to be spent here in the United States, employing labor in the local districts of all the congressmen on the military and national security committees. That’s why war stops are going up. And it’s the merchants of death business.
And Biden is pretending to reindustrialize the economy by emphasizing how this military industrial sector is not subject to price competitiveness. You can do it with low productivity, high cost labor, because it’s a proprietary good. It’s an economic monopoly good for the weapons. Biden said, quote, but patriot missiles for air defense batteries made in Arizona, artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country, in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, and so much more.
Well, these are the swing states in the election. And you have Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and the other Democrats recognize that the world economy is splitting up between the U.S. and NATO neoliberal countries called “democracies” and the global majority seeking independence. Well, it’s almost as if they’re channeling Rosa Luxemburg. She said the choices between socialism and barbarism. And Biden and Nuland agree, except what socialism is, what’s occurring in the global majority. Barbarism is what’s occurring in the American NATO militarization and the fight in Ukraine and the Near East.
But the fight in Ukraine has helped the U.S. balance of payments, the trade balance, by essentially forcing the NATO countries to impose the sanctions against Russia that we’ve talked about. The anti-Russian sanctions have broken the German industrial economy for good. And that’s why German companies, Mercedes, Porsche, BASF, are moving to the United States, because they can’t get the oil and the gas and the energy that’s needed to make industrial goods.
And what’s happening as a result? America is not buying European investments. America is replacing Russia as a supplier of gas, liquefied natural gas. That’s way up for the exports. Oil, way up. Basically, America is gaining.
And also, this $100 million, all these billions that NATO have given to Ukraine have emptied out their war stocks. And they now say, we have to buy new arms of up to 2% to 3% of our GDP. And who can make it? America can make it, because we don’t have any oil and gas to power the industry to make these stocks. This is going to be a huge, huge increase in the American trade balance while the euro goes down and down and down.
RADHIKA DESAI: If I may add, one of the things that I forgot to mention earlier is that a large part of the improvement in the US trade deficit under Biden in the last couple of years, particularly, has come precisely from the export of liquefied natural gas. So think about it. Instead of having some kind of serious industrial policy, the United States is once again an exporter of primary products like natural gas, an exporter of energy.
Two more quick points. You’re so right to emphasize that, you know, many people think that NATO exists to defend the West against all, you know, originally against communism, and then now against all these vague, you know, dictators and what have you.
In reality, the NATO exists so that the US military-industrial complex will have an export market because of NATO interoperability considerations. Essentially, when a country joins NATO, they become a captive market for the American military-industrial complex.
But there is one final point I’d like to make. You know, many, many decades ago, a couple of decades, maybe two or three decades ago, Madeleine Albright is supposed to have said, what’s the point of having such a vast and sophisticated army if you don’t get to use it? Because she was saying, you know, we should, of course, we should go to war if we want to, etc.
I’d like to paraphrase her on this. What’s the point of having a $1.5 trillion annually military-industrial complex if it actually cannot produce sophisticated weapons today? As far as technological sophistication is concerned, Russia and even China are further ahead of the United States. They can produce things like hypersonic missiles. They can produce electronic technology to fight wars that is far superior to anything the United States has.
So, this is another really interesting point, which is that the United States today can only get customers for its coddled military-industrial complex, which has become incapable of producing anything decent, when it essentially makes people join NATO and essentially convinces the governments of various countries to act against the interests of those countries. Because every country that is being brought into NATO on the premise that its security is going to increase is actually going to have its security decreased.
First, because, of course, NATO is increasing in security around the world. And second, because in reality NATO is not capable of defending these countries. It has deficient armies, it has deficient industrial and military production, and it has deficient weapons technology.
So, for all of these reasons, and the reason why the Russians and the Chinese are able to surpass the United States in terms of military technology is very simple. Yes, they have also in military industries, but their military industries and their armies are actually devoted to the defense of the country, not devoted to their own expansion for their own reasons. So, that’s another thing that I wanted to mention, that this is really in terms of the trade deficit.
But we also have three more interrelated things to discuss, which is what’s really happened on inflation, what’s really happening to the financial sector and financial stability, and what’s really happening to the budget deficit, and how are all these things interacting.
So, let’s take inflation first. What I’d like to say about inflation is the following. Throughout the last many months, the story has been that the Federal Reserve has managed to create a soft landing. We have vanquished inflation while not being in recession. Now, Michael and I have already told you how the U.S. economy is doing far less well than you might imagine, and that if you look at the GNI statistics, the Gross National Income statistics, the U.S. economy is in recession. It has had several quarters of declining GNI.
On inflation then, the story that we are being told, the official story, is that the Federal Reserve has performed a miracle. It has achieved a soft landing, it has defeated inflation, and the U.S. economy is not in recession. But the reality of it is that if you go by the GNI figures, the Gross National Income figures, the U.S. is in recession in reality.
And the other problem is that, in fact, it’s quite possible that inflation has not been vanquished, because the fact is that while the more volatile prices, but particularly energy prices, have indeed gone down, at least they are down for the moment, core inflation remains stubbornly high, which is why the Federal Reserve, after talking for so many months about reducing interest rates in 2024, is already beginning to postpone the reduction of interest rates. So, in that sense, inflation has not gone away as a problem, and this creates massive problems for financial stability to which the widening U.S. budget deficit is making its own contributions, and we’ll talk about that in a minute.
Let’s take a look at financial stability then. The fact of the matter is that we already saw at the beginning of this year that we had a series of failures of American banks, the Silicon Valley Bank and a few other banks failed, and they failed chiefly because of the way in which the Federal Reserve is trying to deal with the problem of inflation.
We’ve already discussed in the past that the problem of inflation cannot be really resolved by raising interest rates. Indeed, one economist, Robert Solow, had essentially referred to the raising of interest rates as a means of dealing with inflation as burning a house to roast a pig. I mean, you don’t need to do that. You are basically creating a lot of destruction.
But nevertheless, the U.S. Federal Reserve started raising interest rates, and this began affecting the financial institutions like Silicon Valley Bank and the other banks that went bust that had relied on the continuation of easy monetary policy. So, in a certain sense, we are facing the prospect of another financial crisis, which in 2008, also the financial crisis occurred because in the mid-2000s, the Federal Reserve started raising interest rates once again because the dollar was falling too low, because commodity prices were rising, and as they brought interest rates up to about 5.25 percent, which is roughly where they are at right now, this was enough to prick the housing and credit bubbles, and you got the 2008 North Atlantic financial crisis as a result.
The new financial crisis has arguably already begun. It already began with the bank failures earlier in 2023, and now we read headlines like this, bad property debt exceeds reserves at the largest U.S. banks. This is a financial time story. Loan provisions have thinned even as regulators highlight risks in commercial real estate markets.
So, they are showing us these major banks, how many lost reserves they have in relation to loans that have already become delinquent, loans on which payments have already been missed. These are the six largest banks, and except for J.P. Morgan Chase, which has a ratio higher than 1 percent, compared to 2022, in 2023, which is this light blue line, practically every bank has less than one dollar of reserve for every dollar of its exposure to bad loans in the commercial real estate market.
And these sorts of problems are, by the way, not just commercial real estate is just one, but there is also private equity. There are many other asset markets in which trouble is brewing.
And this also goes for the market in U.S. treasuries, because as interest rates go up, the U.S. essentially has to pay a higher rate of interest in order to borrow money on the international market. And what’s more, over the last many years, the treasury market has been sinking. And yeah, the treasury market has been sinking and it has essentially not got enough buyers. As a result, the Federal Reserve has had to step in in order to prop up the treasury market. But even then, even with all the support the Federal Reserve is going to get, is giving, you can see here this up to 2023 is the real figures. And then from here on, these are estimates. And you can see that interest costs as a percentage of GDP, the interest costs on U.S. debt are going up and they will contribute to a worsening U.S. budget deficit. So you see here, interest costs have been just a little above 1 percent for a while, and now they will go up to 2 and 3 and 4 percent. And this is going to brew trouble.
And finally, this is an interesting story that appeared, even though the United States budget is in such deep doo-doo, basically, you have the United States government spending more and more money on the military-industrial complex. We are told that it was, the official story is that it’s worth about 750 billion dollars, three quarters of a trillion dollars. But studies show that the actual size of military spending in the United States is about 1.5 trillion dollars. That is a huge sum. The total amount of U.S. GDP itself is about 20 trillion. So you can imagine, it’s like about 7 odd percent of U.S. GDP.
So this is the state of the U.S. economy. And so we can expect in the near future to hear finally an official admission of the recession the U.S. is in, continuing inflation, and with continuing inflation, the possibility of the Federal Reserve increases interest rates. So maybe even if it does not increase interest rates, the possibility of another financial crisis. So this is the sort of cauldron of troubles that is already brewing as the U.S. approaches an election year.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, there are a couple of things. Let me go over your charts one by one again. You sort of went very quickly.
When you showed the chart about the banks being in negative equity, this is especially the case for small community banks. About 30 or 40 years ago, there began to be small community banks. The smaller banks, if you notice, are the ones that are in the most trouble because they’re the ones that have made loans to local businesses, local landlords.
You already have one of the big New York City community banks going broke in the last week, just like you had the Valley National Bank go broke before. What these charts show is that the U.S. financial system in general is in negative equity.
Now, just think of that. If you have a financial system that’s in negative equity, what do you need a financial system for? The whole idea of finance is people are supposed to be abstinent and save rich people and save their money. You remember Karl Marx’s quip that the Rothschilds must be the most abstinent family in Europe because they have so much money. Well, the fact is that if banks don’t supply money to the economy, but they’re broke and they get all the money from the government, this is just what China’s doing.
Why don’t we just say, okay, money is a public utility?
RADHIKA DESAI: Nationalize the banks.
MICHAEL HUDSON: If it’s a public utility like China, then it’s not going to make this de-industrial real estate kind of property investment.
Now, let’s look at the chart again for the interest rates going up in the U.S. economy. This has overjoyed Biden, and especially it makes Obama very, very happy. This is Obama’s dream to privatize Social Security. The government’s going to say, we have to balance the budget. The Republicans are going to close down Congress, as they’re threatening to do this Friday, by the way, in order to balance the budget. Because the market, the magic of the marketplace, has raised the interest rates.
Between the higher interest rates and the military charges that you just showed, there really isn’t enough money for social spending anymore. But we can do what Margaret Thatcher did to the English economy. We can privatize Social Security. And now all the money that you had for Social Security is not going to be your money anymore. It’ll be, we put it in the hands of the banks that have already driven themselves and then the financial sector into negative equity. Now they can take your Social Security and drive it into negative equity. That really is the grand plan, to privatize, to treat Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid like the post office. It’s all going to be privatized. That’s the neoliberal plan. And this is not an accident. This is, it’s a feature, not a bug in the economy. And that’s basically the direction we’re going in.
The privatization of finance, instead of doing the obvious thing, if finance is now broke, why not do it? The government can create the money instead of what it’s doing now. The banks are giving the bad loans and basically they’re putting their assets with the Federal Reserve and borrowing the money to stay in business. You can be in negative equity forever as long as the Federal Reserve, which basically works for the commercial banks as their customers, is creating enough money to subsidize the negative equity for the banks and the financial sector. What they’re not doing is subsidizing the negative equity of the wage earners, the negative equity as a result of their housing costs, their medical costs.
RADHIKA DESAI: Two things very quickly. And I think we should probably wind down because we are just about a little over an hour here. But just two quick observations that in the 2008 financial crisis, there were many people who were arguing that, yes, there should be a bailout, but not of the banks that caused the financial crisis in the first place, but of the homeowners who were not necessarily at fault. And of course, the economic benefit of bailing out the homeowners would vastly be greater for the good of the American economy than bailing out the banks.
But of course, a government that is beholden to the big financial institutions was not going to do that. And so it did what it did. It bailed out the big banks and not the poor people who lost their homes, who lost their jobs, etc.
The second thing is that, you know, I completely agree with you, Michael, that this is what neoliberal governments have done for many decades now. They essentially want to privatize everything in sight. And of course, by creating a crisis of social security and so on, that’s what they generally do. They first run down any institution, whether it’s social security or any other publicly owned asset, and then they say it’s time to privatize it because that will improve it.
But, you know, I wonder, I wonder if there are not even enough people who can buy U.S. Treasury securities, if the market for Treasury securities is not great, if the big financial institutions are already sitting on mountains of negative equity, where are they going to get the money to buy? Where is going to be the market to buy these assets that the governments are going to privatize?
Because in the history of privatization, there have been many privatizations that have had to be called off because there are not enough buyers. And we may very well be in that situation.
MICHAEL HUDSON: You pose a question, I get to answer it. The answer is they’ll get it from abroad. This is a geopolitical hour after all. Europe’s loss will be America’s gain.
What affluence is flowing in? You could say that since World War II, Europe and America have gained by keeping the prices of raw materials and the global South countries low and keeping the prices of their industrial goods very high.
What you’re seeing today from Europe is, I think, their way of solving the problem you’ve just posed. The bright spot is getting a flow of American, of European companies into the United States, relocating here because they can’t, the European economy is collapsing. You’re having a flow of labor and skilled labor from other countries into the United States. Affluence is this kind of flowing in.
If you’re not producing an economic surplus at home and you want to somehow sustain American living standards and corporate profits, it has to be done externally. It has to be done via foreign countries. And that’s the geopolitical implications of all this.
If America is turning into a deficit, parasitic economy, some other countries have to pay. And that’s why there’s all of this military spending.
RADHIKA DESAI: I would beg to differ, actually, because here’s the thing. The geopolitical economy of the North Atlantic financial crisis was roughly like this, that in the process of deregulation of European financial institutions that came along with the launching of the euro, a lot of European financial institutions ended up outside of North, the United States and Britain, becoming the main customers of the toxic securities that were being generated in the 2000s as a result of the housing and credit bubbles.
Once that bubble burst, once the crash occurred, essentially European money left and it has generally stayed away. And there, as I said, this money is not even available to buy U.S. treasury securities.
If the Europeans invest in the United States, they will be investing in creating new assets. They’re not necessarily going to buy up what the American government necessarily wants to privatize.
And what’s more, in recent decades, recent years, I should say, China and Japan have also been increasingly reluctant to buy treasury securities. So all in all, all I’m trying to say is that it is not a given that these assets, that the old tradition of essentially privatizing things at bargain basement price, even at bargain basement prices, is necessarily going to work. That’s all. I’m just wanting to raise some questions around it.
But so all in all, Michael, I think what we’ve done is we’ve painted a picture of an extremely precarious situation, an extremely dangerous situation in which people are suffering. They are unhappy. They are going to the polls. They are going, they’re being asked to choose between two candidates, both of whom have failed in signal ways. And there is not any simple way out. And so, as I say, it’s going to be a really, really rocky road to the election.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Yep. If you have a democracy, you cannot let people have a vote for the other candidate. That’s what our democratic hero in Ukraine, Zelensky, says, cancel the elections. That’s what’s happening in Israel. Netanyahu, no way of throwing him out.
And that’s what’s happening here. There can’t be a third party. You have to, as long as the Republicans and the Democrats have the same program, just with a different rhetoric, that’s the new meaning of democracy.
RADHIKA DESAI: Well, I think that you’ve said that, said it, Michael. So I think with that, we’ll say goodbye for now. And we look forward to seeing you in a couple of weeks. Thank you and goodbye.
And please remember to like our show and to share it as to other interested people and to subscribe to the channel. Thank you very much and goodbye.
Le viol des souverainetés et le remplacement des gouvernements étrangers semble devoir être une discipline réservée à la nation qui se présente elle-même comme indispensable et exceptionnelle.
Si l’on s’en tient à la seule période post-guerre froide, Washington a installé ses marionnettes (au prix de millions de morts) dans plus d’une dizaine de pays.
D’Europe en Afrique, d’Asie centrale au Moyen-Orient, de la Serbie à l’Ukraine l’empreinte sanglante de la rapacité américaine est visible de tous… et soigneusement occultée par nos médias.
La France ne fait malheureusement pas exception et la souveraineté populaire n’y est que nominale depuis la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale.
Mais de l’eau a coulé sous les ponts depuis lors et les banlieues françaises, ces « territoires perdus de la République » ne le sont pas pour tout le monde !
La France américaine
Nos « pères de l’Europe [1]» (Monnet et Schumann) sont des agents américains aussi certifiés qu’ont pu l’être un Batista ou un Pinochet.
Du plan Marshall aux Young leaders de la French American Foundation, la réalité de la trahison des élites françaises est patente.
Le Plan Marshall avant le Plan Marshall[2] pour la France, ce seront les accords Blum-Byrnes. Une lecture attentive de ces accords permettra de comprendre qu’en 1945, l’occupant n’a fait que changer d’uniforme : servile au-delà de l’imaginable, la France s’endettera pour acheter un bric à brac invendable et des bateaux rouillés.
Les accords Blum-Byrnes seront un « Munich économique » et la capitulation française sera cachée dans des annexes secrètes.
Comme chacun le sait, les pays qui reçoivent l’aide américaine devront accepter l’importation massive des produits américains. Les accords Blum-Byrnes seront généralisés à l’échelle européenne et les grandes marques américaines envahiront bientôt l’Europe.
Le point que le public français en retiendra, c’est la catastrophe culturelle — validée par les plénipotentiaires français — de l’effacement du cinéma national. Léon Blum a bien sûr capitulé en rase campagne, signant un véritable plan de désarmement culturel pour la France. La négociation fut préparée en amont par l’agent américain Jean Monnet, que de Gaulle avait déjà nommé commissaire au Plan [3].
Les productions hollywoodiennes seront outrageusement favorisées dans le cadre de ce qui s’avérera être une véritable guerre cognitive.
Il est à noter que déjà, la MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, le lobby des studios US) trouvera des journalistes français pour condamner la « tour d’ivoire nationale ». La trahison semble être intrinsèque à l’ADN national français.
Racaille du haut
Pour que l’avortement de la civilisation française soit complet, encore faut-il contrôler les élites par la formation scolaire et idéologique ; ce sera chose faite avec les bourses d’études « offertes » aux rejetons de la bourgeoisie française et la French American Foundation, usine à Young leaders qui fera don à l’hexagone d’irremplaçables patrons de presse, ministres et présidents de la République.
La droite atlantiste s’est toujours illustrée par une parfaite servilité à l’égard des États-Unis.
Considérant celle-ci comme acquise, les Américains orienteront donc prioritairement leurs financements vers la gauche. La CIA financera ainsi larga manu la gauche (non communiste) et les syndicats qu’ils créeront, au besoin, de toute pièce (Force Ouvrière).
Détail amusant : la ville de Marseille étant le point d’entrée des livraisons du plan Marshall, elle passera donc sous le contrôle étroit des services américains. Le résultat est connu, il s’appelle Gaston Deferre, gang Guerini et French connection !
Le rapport de la CIA au Congrès américain de 1973, intitulé «Alleged Use of Labor Organizations as Cover by the Central Intelligence Agency«, a officialisé le fait que la CIA avait fourni des fonds à certains groupes syndicaux en Europe, notamment la CGT-FO en France. L’agent de la CIA Irving Brown (sous couverture du syndicat AFL-CIO) promènera ainsi sa mallette de dollars dans les coulisses du monde syndical non-communiste non seulement en France, mais également dans le reste de l’Europe[4].
Chrétiens de gauche et autres gauchistes anti-PCF vont opérer la première révolution de couleur contre un de Gaulle devenu récalcitrant à l’influence américaine. Ils ont été largement supervisés par la CIA[5].
Le financement CIA est aujourd’hui avéré pour le PSU, matrice de ce qui allait devenir la deuxième gauche après l’épisode « révolution de couleur » de mai 1968.
Ils seront les « gauchistes préférés de l’ambassade américaine », Michel Rocard en tête. Claude Bourdet et Gilles Martinet, co-fondateurs du PSU et de L’Obs sont souvent présentés comme des visiteurs empressés de l’ambassade américaine.
Et les gauchistes de maison deviendront les agents très médiatisés du néo-conservatisme à la française (Kouchner, Bruckner, Goupil, Levy, Glucksman, etc.)
Aujourd’hui, le rédacteur en chef de Libération avoue de lui-même être un agent de renseignement israélien[6].
Au plus haut sommet de l’État, de droite à gauche, la destruction de la France par ses présidents a des jalons bien connus : Giscard, une créature de Monnet, qui initiera le regroupement familial[7], Sarkozy un agent américain[8], qui réintégrera la France dans l’OTAN, Macron, un Young leader, qui cédera les fleurons de l’industrie française à des groupes américains, etc.
Américanisée par le haut (le poisson pourri par la tête) la France va s’américaniser par le bas.
La France moche
Zonage urbain, centres commerciaux, zones industrielles : la France est défigurée sous les coups du pompidolisme immobilier et du giscardisme xénophile.
Front de Seine, Beaubourg, villes nouvelles (Sarcelles), lotissements : la France devient moche sous les vivats intéressés des médiocres apologistes du « rêve américain ».
Il faut voir ou revoir les films emblématiques de cette poussée de laideur dont les premiers furoncles mûrirent dans les années soixante : Mon oncle de Tati, Les valseuses de Blier, Série noire de Corneau…
Poussée de laideur sur fond de corruption politico-immobilière (affaires Aranda, Schuller-Marechal, etc.). Le modèle de vie pavillonnaire est emblématique du «rêve américain». Après la Seconde Guerre mondiale, les lotissements du « rêve pavillonnaire » deviendront les dortoirs de la classe productive.
A l’insu des Français [d’en-bas], la culture collective nationale est en cours de destruction.
La racaille du bas ne va pas tarder à faire définitivement partie du paysage de la France dévastée.
Racaille du bas
Avec la financiarisation de l’économie, le prolétariat, désormais immigré, disparaît en tant que classe et les nouvelles générations se trouveront rapidement dégradées en lumpen-prolétariat, car le globalisme se traduit par des délocalisations. Les grands ensembles construits à la va-vite dans les années 60-70 deviennent des trappes à misère envahies de chômeurs et de populations immigrées, qui continueront d’affluer (regroupement familial) alors même que la justification « économique » de leur présence s’est évaporée dans les éthers de la « mondialisation heureuse ».
Les Français de souche, trop pauvres pour vivre en centre-ville mais également inadaptés à la vie dans les cités devenues chasses gardées du lumpenprolétariat allogène, prendront la fuite (white flight) vers la France périphérique délaissée de tous les pouvoirs. Cette question centrale a été magistralement analysée par Christophe Guilluy dans «Fractures françaises» (2010) et «La France périphérique : comment on a sacrifié les classes populaires» (2014).
L’Amérique a transformé le dominion français à son image. Cela est manifeste dans le domaine de la planification urbaine : la question raciale est au cœur de la problématique urbaine aux États-Unis. Ce pays, qui abrite aujourd’hui 25 % de la population carcérale mondiale, a dès l’origine été le théâtre d’émeutes raciales. Dès le XIXe siècle, elles font partie du paysage urbain américain. Les tensions ethniques (émeutes anti-irlandaises en 1849, émeutes de Draft Riots en 1863, etc.) ont structuré une ville comme New York. Voir à ce sujet le film Gangs of New-York de Martin Scorcese.
Les règles de zonage et les réglementations de la construction, les incitations fiscales, le redlining (pratique utilisée par les institutions financières, notamment les banques et les compagnies d’assurance, le « redlining» tire son nom des cartes de quartiers utilisées par ces institutions, où les quartiers des minorités ethniques étaient souvent marqués en rouge, indiquant qu’ils étaient considérés comme des zones à haut risque), le développement ou non des infrastructures de transport font partie de l’arsenal des politiques de planification urbaine, qui n’ont rien de spontané. La gentrification de quartiers entiers – les bobos parisiens n’ont rien inventé — est née à New-York dans les années 60 (Greenwich Village et Lower East Side).
Les groupes communautaires et les organisations de défense des droits civiques (nouvelle gauche, Black lives matter et autres activistes « sorosiens ») ont attisé les conflits communautaires, neutralisant ainsi opportunément la question sociale.
En France, l’élite compradore va adapter les méthodes américaines d’ingénierie sociale (cf SOS racisme[9], CRIF, Femen, Gay pride, etc.) et « l’ordre » républicain s’effacera au profit d’une dérive communautariste, qui offrira de nouveaux sujets de guerre culturelle (minorités ethniques, sexuelles, etc.) et de l’anarcho-tyrannie.
La communautarisation est une pratique contraire à la Constitution française et elle a été importée des États-Unis.
Émeutes raciales : l’héritage américain
L’été dernier, la France était en proie à des émeutes ayant pour point de départ la mort d’un « jeune » délinquant de banlieue (15 mentions au fichier des antécédents judiciaires à 17 ans !) abattu par un policier à la suite d’un refus d’obtempérer.
Comment ne pas faire le parallèle entre ces émeutes suscitées par l’« émotion » des « racisés » péri-urbains et les émeutes suscitées par l’ « émotion » d’autres « racisés » après la mort du délinquant Afro-Américain George Floyd au cours de son interpellation le 25 mai 2020 à Minneapolis ? Sous le couvert de la « proposition 47 »[10], les pillages ethniques en mode flashmobs se banalisent dans les magasins de centre-ville.
Là-bas comme ici, la police a pour fonction essentielle de protéger le désordre et de garantir l’impunité des délinquants, sous le regard vigilant de médias parfaitement acquis à la logique de l’anarcho-tyrannie : dissolution de groupes s’opposant à l’immigration illégale, criminalisation de jeunes manifestants à la suite de l’attaque meurtrière d’une fête de village, émeutes raciales assorties de pillages, mise en accusation de l’homme blanc, déchaînement de wokisme et de cancel culture, ethno-masochisme alimenté par les médias de grand chemin, la France est-elle devenue le cinquante-et-unième État américain ? Surtout, par quel processus la culture américaine de l’émeute raciale a-t-elle traversé l’Atlantique ?
L’irruption dans la sociologie française de foules pillardes racisées a été rendue possible par des décisions publiques qui semblent absurdes et incohérentes du point de vue du droit. En France, un propriétaire, dont le domicile a été squatté, peut être placé en garde à vue pour « violation de domicile », dans l’hypothèse où il serait assez intrépide pour tenter de récupérer son bien.
Anarcho-tyrannie
Une manifestation de Gilets jaunes (français de souche ponctionnés fiscalement) sera réprimée dans le sang, alors que des émeutes violentes en banlieue ne rencontreront aucune réaction policière.
Une crise sanitaire impose-t-elle un confinement des populations ? La police réprimera sans faiblesse les citoyens sans défense revenant du travail, tandis que les rodéos se poursuivront dans les banlieues de la délinquance ordinaire.
Un match de football est-il gagné ou perdu ? Vous êtes comme citoyen respectueux des lois censés regarder cela sur votre poste de télévision, tandis que la racaille met votre ville à feu et à sang en toute impunité.
Une catastrophe naturelle entraîne-t-elle une vague de pillages ? L’État enverra sa police empêcher les citoyens de défendre leurs biens contre les pillards (cas de la Nouvelle Orléans au moment des exactions consécutives au passage de l’ouragan Katrina ou de St Martin en France coloniale).
L’immigration illégale devient-elle hors de contrôle ? Seuls les opposants à l’invasion sont traduits en justice.
La situation sécuritaire devient-elle alarmante ? L’État va concentrer ses efforts sur la confiscation des armes, au lieu d’arrêter les délinquants et assassins.
Cette nouvelle « doctrine » du maintien de l’ordre a un nom : l’anarcho-tyrannie.
Sam Francis (29 avril 1947 — 15 février 2005) en a donné la définition suivante :
«L’anarcho-tyrannie est un régime caractérisé par l’incapacité de l’État à maintenir la loi et l’ordre, pratiquement en même temps qu’il poursuit la répression arbitraire ou sélective des citoyens respectueux des lois et de leurs droits. Sous un tel régime, les criminels ne sont pas poursuivis avec la même diligence que les citoyens ordinaires, et en fait bénéficient souvent d’une plus grande tolérance de la part des autorités.»
En anarcho-tyrannie, l’État est sélectivement oppressant et plus intéressé par le contrôle des citoyens, afin qu’ils ne s’opposent pas à la classe dirigeante (tyrannie), que par le contrôle des vrais criminels (anarchie).
Elle a aussi une réalité, qui consiste à imposer aux populations autochtones un régime d’indigénat que garantissent l’inversion de la norme de droit et la terreur de rue.
Ce régime de terreur par proxies est ainsi l’un des lieux, où se rencontrent les intérêts de la racaille d’en haut et ceux de la racaille d’en bas.
Ce n’est pas le seul : prostitution de réseau, chemsex, trafics de drogue, sécurité privée fournissent, si l’on songe à l’actualité présente, d’autres points de contact.
Racaille d’en haut et ceux de la racaille d’en bas mettent la France au pillage, la seconde assumant la fonction criminelle (trafics divers) et d’intimidation (du Français de souche) au service de la première.
De la théorie à la pratique : Saul Alinsky et Charles Rivkin
Saul Alinsky, activiste juif et manipulateur des communautés noires des ghettos de Chicago, a été le maître à penser d’Hillary Clinton (elle lui consacra sa thèse) et de Barack Obama. Alinsky a placé la violence et l’émeute au cœur de son travail d’organisation des communautés. Auteur de «Rules for Radicals», le bréviaire du « social justice warrior », il met l’accent sur les tactiques de confrontation pour capter l’attention.
Face à l’injustice, l’émotion et la radicalisation du conflit seraient ainsi, selon lui, les seules issues possibles. Prompt à victimiser les criminels[11], il inspirera travailleurs sociaux et animateurs « socio-culturels » en France[12]. Il s’agit notamment de Christian Delorme, le « curé des Minguettes » organisateur de la première marche des beurs et VRP multicartes de l’activisme communautaire (immigrés, prostituées, délinquants, etc.).
Le « Community organizing » est devenu tendance au sein du gauchisme institutionnel international après l’élection de Barack Obama. Voici ce qui a pu être dit à l’occasion d’une conférence sur le « community organizing » tenue à Vaulx-en-Velin, les 14-15-16 mars 2012 dans le cadre de la chaire UNESCO « Politiques urbaines et citoyenneté » :
« Si l’élection de Barack Obama en 2008 a également rehaussé le profil du community organizing, sa diffusion en France n’aurait peut-être pas eu lieu sans la construction de réseaux internationaux lâches de community organizers et sans le soutien financier et technique de courtiers américains — et même de l’ambassade américaine. Cela a soulevé des questions sur les politiques d’organisation dans le contexte français.
Suivant à la lettre la tradition d’Alinsky, ils ont d’abord passé des mois à arpenter les rues de Grenoble afin de rencontrer les dirigeants locaux et de mener des centaines d’entretiens individuels, avant d’organiser leur première assemblée. ECHO a suivi de près le modèle Alinsky d’organisation à grande échelle, en réunissant des institutions religieuses, des groupes d’immigrés et des collectifs d’étudiants. Avec l’objectif explicite d’organiser des «communautés», ECHO s’est démarqué de la culture politique républicaine française, dans laquelle la reconnaissance d’identités collectives raciales ou religieuses est considérée comme problématique.
En février 2010, l’ambassade américaine en France a organisé un voyage d’étude de deux semaines à Chicago, directement axé sur l’organisation communautaire. Une douzaine de jeunes leaders, âgés pour la plupart d’une vingtaine ou d’une trentaine d’années et issus pour la plupart de minorités ethniques, ont été formés aux méthodes d’organisation communautaire par différents groupes et experts.
En 2011, elle a créé avec Ladji Real un cabinet de conseil en relations publiques, Studio Praxis, spécialement destiné aux jeunes leaders des banlieues. Studio Praxis est le principal acteur de la campagne Stop le Contrôle au Faciès qui, depuis 2012, lutte contre le profilage racial par la police. Cette campagne combine un travail d’opinion publique — par le biais d’une sensibilisation des minorités qui partagent leurs histoires de profilage racial — et une action en justice contre l’État français. L’accent mis sur la narration et le développement du leadership indigène sont des importations directes des États-Unis, tout comme la distinction entre les organisateurs (qui restent dans l’ombre de la campagne) et les leaders (qui sont au centre de la scène)
La diffusion des traditions d’organisation communautaire a été rendue possible par l’influence des réseaux d’activistes français liés à des organisateurs américains et britanniques, en particulier les dirigeants de l’Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) de Saul Alinsky et le groupe ACORN, autrefois très puissant. Des fondations philanthropiques américaines et l’ambassade des États-Unis à Paris ont assuré le financement, les responsables de ces organisations souhaitant favoriser l’émergence de leaders français issus de l’immigration
Plusieurs groupes antiracistes formés aux méthodes d’organisation communautaire ont été financés par l’Open Society Foundations (OSF) de George Soros. La campagne Stop le Contrôle au Faciès est née d’un rapport coordonné par l’OSF en 2009 (OSJI 2009). L’OSF a soutenu le collectif dans sa procédure judiciaire contre l’Etat français… »
Les émeutes raciales en France pourraient-elles être une coproduction Gauche sociétale — Department of State — Soros ?
Ce qui restera du « community organizing », c’est bien sûr la capacité opérationnelle à organiser des émeutes. La Nouvelle Gauche américaine a créé une version du socialisme remplaçant la lutte des classes par des « luttes » sociétales : droits civiques, environnement, féminisme, droits des homosexuels, légalisation de la consommation de drogues. L’Institute for Policy Studies (un think tank progressiste fondé en 1963 par Richard Barnet et Marcus Raskin, deux avocats du gouvernement américain !) a eu pour mission de coordonner l’action d’un large éventail d’organisations, allant des groupes suprémacistes noirs aux groupes terroristes telles que les Weathermen. On le voit, la patte de l’État profond américain est omniprésente dans ces réseaux d’activistes, dont certains ont aujourd’hui leur rond de serviette à Davos.
Or, pour ce qui est de la France, les États-Unis d’Amérique ne souhaitent pas favoriser l’émergence de leaders français de souche issus de la ruralité par exemple. La classe productive française n’intéresse, ni Washington, ni ses relais politiques hexagonaux.
Les fantassins de l’anarcho-tyrannie à Hollywood
Le 20 juin 2020, Assa Traore, matrone d’un gang de banlieue marketée comme une « Angela Davies » à la « française » a reçu aux États-Unis le prix BET Global Good, remis par la chaîne communautariste noire américaine BET (pour Black Entertainment Television). Cette chaîne, propriété de la Paramount (encore Hollywood), offre également un prix LGBT. Nous voici encore au croisement de l’industrie du divertissement, du mondialisme et du communautarisme made in USA.
Soutenue par SOS Racisme, Louboutin et Rothschild, cette fausse héroïne populaire, mais véritable racaille et chef de bande à Beaumont-sur-Oise, qui fait la Une de Time Magazine comme « Guardian of the Year » est également autorisée à s’exprimer dans l’enceinte de l’ONU au nom de la justice raciale.
On ne comprendra pas les répétitions d’émeutes à caractère racial, qui secouent régulièrement la France, si l’on méconnaît les stratégies d’influence américaines, dont le dernier avatar est la « Stratégie d’engagement envers les minorités », mise au point par le Département d’État américain avec la collaboration active d’une administration française complice de cette ingérence étrangère.
Voici quelques grandes lignes de cette « Stratégie d’engagement envers les minorités », telles qu’elles ont été révélées par Wikileaks dans la série de fuites dites « US diplomatic cables leak » :
Ambassade de Paris – Stratégie d’engagement envers les minorités
Charles Rivkin, envoyé le 19 janvier 2010 au Secrétariat d’État américain
«Notre objectif est de mobiliser la population française à tous les niveaux afin d’amplifier les efforts de la France pour réaliser ses propres idéaux égalitaires, ce qui par suite fera progresser les intérêts nationaux américains.
Les médias français restent très largement blancs, avec seulement une modeste amélioration de la représentation des minorités face aux caméras des principaux journaux télévisés.
De plus, nous poursuivrons et intensifierons notre travail avec les musées français et les enseignants pour réformer les programmes d’histoire enseignés dans les écoles françaises, de telle sorte qu’ils prennent en compte le rôle et le point de vue des minorités dans l’histoire de France.
Nous poursuivrons et élargirons nos efforts pour faire venir en France des leaders des minorités des États-Unis, influencer la jeunesse de France en employant les nouveaux médias, des partenariats privés, des concours sur le plan national, des événements de sensibilisation ciblés, notamment des hôtes américains invités.
En appuyant notre action sur deux sites internet très en vue tournés vers les jeunes musulmans francophones – oumma.fr et saphirnews.com – nous soutiendrons, nous formerons et nous mobiliserons les militants médiatiques et politiques qui partagent nos valeurs. Nous créerons et soutiendrons les programmes de formation et d’échanges pour enseigner les bienfaits durables d’une large inclusion aux écoles, aux groupes de la société civile, aux blogueurs, aux conseillers politiques et aux responsables politiques locaux.»
Qui est Charles Rivkin ? C’est un membre de l’appareil profond du Parti Démocrate, l’un des principaux collecteurs de fonds de la campagne de Barack Obama. Président-directeur général de la Motion Picture Association of America, le principal groupe de lobbying de l’industrie cinématographique, Rivkin a passé les 20 premières années de sa carrière à Hollywood après avoir travaillé comme analyste financier chez Salomon Brothers, il sera remercié en 2009 en obtenant le poste d’ambassadeur des Etats-Unis en France pour l’administration Obama.
Les Wikileaks (encore eux) révèlent que l’ambassadeur Charles Rivkin entend travailler « avec les musées français et les enseignants pour réformer le programme d’histoire enseigné dans les écoles françaises, pour qu’ils prennent en compte le rôle et les perspectives des minorités » ! Il développera un important réseau de détection des «leaders de demain», issus de la diversité, qui seront invités à visiter dirigeants et responsables associatifs aux États-Unis. Il invitera de grands noms d’Hollywood (l’acteur noir Samuel L. Jackson, l’actrice réalisatrice lesbienne Jodie Foster et le producteur « lithuano-américain » Robert Zemeckis) à s’adresser à des jeunes « défavorisés » en France.
La rhétorique communautariste et une vague promesse de bonheur individuel achèveront de faire de la France un non-lieu à la fois ensauvagé et parfaitement domestiqué.
Cette nouvelle banlieue du vide occidental, devenue parfaitement étrangère à ce qu’elle fût, illustre en elle-même le mot d’Henry Kissinger : « Être un ennemi des États-Unis est dangereux, mais être un ami est fatal ».
[1] Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs — Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 19 September 2000 – Daily Telegraph
[2] Les origines du Plan Marshall, Annie Lacroix-Riz – Armand Colin, 2023
[3] Jean Monnet a été commissaire au Plan en France sous la présidence de Charles de Gaulle de 1946 à 1952 dans le cadre du Plan Marshall.
Dès 1943, ses projets pour l’Europe intègrent les exigences américaines concernant les suppressions des droits de douane et des contingentements européens, ainsi que la création d’une « unité économique commune » — Wikipedia
[4] En fin de carrière, il convertira le Chili d’Allende aux beautés du libéralisme en participant à l’avènement du Général Pinochet.
[5] Comme d’autres meneurs étudiants, de préférence anarchistes ou trotskistes, « Dany le Rouge », comme le surnommaient des médias manifestement peu au fait de son idéologie postmarxiste, fut l’invité régulier du centre culturel américain de la rue du Dragon, alors dirigé par James Rentschler, diplomate de son état, mais aussi correspondant régulier de la CIA. — L’ami américain, Eric Branca
[7] Grâce à sa loi sur le regroupement familial — mis en place en 1976 en France et généralisé à l’Union européenne par la directive 2003/86/CE du 22 septembre 2003 – les banlieues rouges sont devenues des banlieues ethniques.
[8] Voici ce que dit Réseau Voltaire de ses relations avec Frank Wisner : M. Wisner est le fils de Frank G. Wisner Sr, cofondateur de la CIA et de Gladio. Avec Allen Dulles, Wisner Sr. a été l’un des architectes de la doctrine américaine d’intervention secrète : soutenir les démocraties qui font le «bon choix», s’opposer à celles qui font le mauvais choix.
Frank G. Wisner Jr. n’est pas connu du public américain comme un diplomate ou un maître espion, mais comme un financier sans scrupules. Il a fait partie de l’élite d’Enron, impliqué dans la faillite frauduleuse de l’entreprise, qui a ruiné d’innombrables petits investisseurs et, plus tard, en tant que vice-président d’American International Group, dont les actions ont chuté de 95 % lors de la crise financière de 2008, avant d’être renflouées avec l’argent des contribuables.
Peu connu en France, Wisner Jr. a joué un rôle majeur dans l’histoire récente du pays. Il a épousé Christine de Ganay (seconde épouse de Pal Sarkozy) et a donc élevé Nicolas Sarkozy pendant ses années new-yorkaises. C’est lui qui a présenté Nicolas Sarkozy, alors adolescent, aux initiés de la CIA et a facilité son entrée dans les cercles politiques français. L’un des fils de Wisner a été le porte-parole anglophone de la campagne politique de Sarkozy ; un autre de ses enfants est devenu un pilier du groupe Carlyle, la société de gestion d’actifs contrôlée par les familles Bush et Ben Laden.
En outre, c’est Frank G. Wisner qui a fortement recommandé son ami Bernard Kouchner pour le poste de ministre français des Affaires étrangères.
[9] SOS racisme, opération tordue de la « deuxième gauche » se créera une clientèle dans les quartiers tout en maintenant la tension sociale à un niveau élevé. A l’instar de SOS baleines, qui vise à la protection des baleines, SOS racisme semble viser à la protection du racisme. Son activisme, largement inspiré par l’UEJF, contribuera largement à la communautarisation de la société française.
SOS racisme a été abondamment arrosé de subventions (notamment du ministère de la Culture) tout au long des années 80-90.
[10] Dépénalisation du vol à l’étalage en Californie (depuis 2014)
[11] Pour Alinsky, le pouvoir construit par l’organisation du quartier doit s’exercer moins sur les jeunes délinquants membres de la communauté, que sur les multiples acteurs extérieurs – propriétaires, administrations, entreprises – qui ont de l’influence sur leurs conditions de vie. Wikipedia
[12] Rules for Radicals, traduit en 1971 sous le titre Manuel de l’animateur social, a circulé dans les instituts de formation des travailleurs sociaux mais a été rapidement épuisé. Au début des années 2000, il est cependant redevenu d’actualité, notamment dans les centres sociaux de la région Rhône-Alpes qui s’intéressaient au métier d’animateur socioculturel.
En janvier 2012, une nouvelle traduction de Rules for Radicals a été publiée : Être radical. Manuel pragmatique pour radicaux réalistes. En mars 2012, une conférence sur le community organizing s’est tenue à Vaulx-en-Velin à l’ENTPE. Il a réuni 400 militants, chercheurs et professionnels.
Selon Marc Nagel, «l’éducation populaire et l’animation socioculturelle en France lui doivent quelques principes d’action directe non violente et une méthode d’éducation». Wikipedia
According to the Munich Security Index, perception of risks differs greatly between the leading Western countries and the Global South (BICS, as they put it, that is BRICS minus Russia). However environmental risks are seen as the most serious ones in both groups.
The philosophical and historical roots of the present insanity, from Doug “Uncola” Lynn at theburningplatform.com:
I believe people are as they think. The choice we make in the next decade will mold irrevocably the direction of our culture… and the lives of our children.
– Author and theologian Francis A. Schaeffer in 1976
The picture at the top of this article shows one of America’s founding fathers according to Google’s Gemini image generation tool. Pursuant to complaints about the blatant inaccuracy and the ensuing maelstrom of negative press coverage, Google claimed it was “actively working on a fix”. Nonetheless, there remain claims that Google is “not telling the truth” and the company will never give up on its “desire to reshape the world in a specific way”.Advertisement
Privacy Settings
Indeed. It appears artificial intelligence, woke relativism, and Orwell’s “two plus two equaling five” are here to stay. And the “memory hole” first conjured by Orwell has increasingly manifested in The Borg’s nearly completed Simulacrum – as misinformation, false flags, and propaganda daily populate our collective screens.
With that in mind, amid the absurdity of Western culture in the twenty-first century, I will often seek credible information and insights where they are more surely found: in the printed past, and by the words of authors and researchers mostly forgotten.
Having written previously on the prescient prognostications of twentieth-century thinkers like C.S. Lewis and Augusto Del Noce, another book was recommended by a commenter in the thread of my last article. The book was said to have predicted the decline of empirical science, the rise of technological science, and a frightening future.
Through the years, U.S. policymakers have squandered a fortune in precious lessons. From Eduardo Vasco at strategic-culture.su:
True “multipolarity” will only be viable when there are no more imperial powers, that is, when the current political and economic regimes of the great capitalist powers, the U.S. and Europe, cease to exist.
In his interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, President Vladimir Putin mentioned a fact that, for those – like me – who didn’t follow international politics 20 years ago, seems surreal.
The Russian leader referred to a meeting he had with then-American President Bill Clinton in the Moscow Kremlin.
“I asked him, ‘Bill, if Russia raised the issue of NATO membership, do you think it would be possible?’” Putin told Carlson. “Clinton replied: ‘It would be interesting, I think so!’” he continued. On the evening of that same day, when the two met again for dinner, Clinton’s opinion had changed radically. “‘I talked to my team. It’s not possible now,’” Clinton told Putin, according to the latter.
Advertisement
Privacy Settings
“If he had said ‘yes’, the process of getting closer would have started, and, in the end, this could have happened if we saw a sincere desire from the partners,” he explained to Carlson.
A few days after this famous interview that went around the world, the BBC aired an interview with a former head of NATO confirming Putin’s intentions to join the military alliance in the early 2000s. “We had a good relationship”, revealed George Robertson.
The Putin he met “wanted to cooperate with NATO” and “was very, very different from this almost megalomaniac of today”, recalled the historic member of the British Labor Party, staunch defender of Scotland’s slavery under the English yoke – even though he is Scottish – and who doesn’t realize that he lacks absolute morality to criticize the Russian intervention in Ukraine.
Der Friedensstifter 