Connexion
Dans un précédent article nous avons présenté un Français catholique traditionnaliste et père de 10 enfants, qui vit en Russie
L’article Témoignage d’un français en Russie (2ème partie) est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Europe’s choice is to surrender or die.
By Rotislav Ishchenko at ukraine.ru.
(machine translation)
Alastair Crook, a retired British diplomat, has stated that the European Union is preparing a provocation on a scale comparable to Pearl Harbor, with the aim of drawing the United States into a war with Russia.
In principle, this is not news. We have been writing for two years that the British, realizing that Ukraine has failed and will be buried, have placed their bets on a pan-European war (under the auspices of the United States) against Russia. While Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. was trying to figure out who he was and how he got here, the mechanism for expanding the war was clear: a provocation in the Baltic Sea (less likely in the Black Sea or on the Belarusian border), which would leave Russia with no chance of resolving the crisis without shooting, and an outcry about the “attack” to the country of the EU and NATO, a statement of military support (sending troops and equipment, but without a formal declaration of war against Russia) by the leaders of the EU. In the last act, the United States and Britain enter the scene, demanding that Russia cease fire and threatening to provide all possible support to their allies.
I would like to point out that the mechanism of provocation assumed that in all cases, Russia would initiate military action against a specific country. Moscow, on the other hand, was only faced with the choice of whether to attack the Baltic states, which had blocked Kaliningrad, or to hope for a miracle, sink the transports carrying French and German troops and equipment bound for the Baltic ports, or to express protests, attack the territories of the United States and the United Kingdom in response to their ultimatum, or to agree to a ceasefire and negotiations mediated by them. In the end, acquiescence inevitably led to capitulation (since as soon as one set of demands was met, the West would immediately set forth another), and escalation inevitably led to a global nuclear war.
It is no coincidence that Trump claimed that Biden was leading the country towards a nuclear armageddon. Whether Biden was aware of his actions or was being manipulated by his entourage, the decision-makers in the United States (as well as the majority of the British establishment and the European bureaucracy) believed that Russia would not engage in a nuclear conflict and would retreat. However, there were other politicians in the West who had no doubt that if Russia was pushed to the wall, nuclear mushrooms would grow all over the West – no one would leave without a share. These people came to power in the United States with Trump, and their supporters are gradually pushing back against the European left-liberal supporters of war.
As a result, the United States fell out of the scheme, and Trump openly stated that if Europe wanted to go to war with Russia, it could do so on its own, without the United States. It’s not that the Europeans were particularly eager to go to war, but rather that they couldn’t help but go to war with Russia, as acknowledging defeat in the Ukrainian crisis would completely undermine the left-liberal European elites. To understand why this is significant, it would have political, economic, and social implications on a scale similar to those that shook Russia after the October Revolution and before the outbreak of World War II. The Europe we know will disappear, and a new Europe will be born in agony, compared to which the 1990s in Russia were like a light rain during a summer picnic.
But the Europeans also can’t go to war with Russia. They don’t have the armies, the warehouses, or the ability to quickly deploy the necessary military production. Without the United States, the EU is a paper tiger. Although no, a paper tiger is scarier than the EU without the United States. This is why Alastair Crook emphasizes that the provocation must be so severe and widespread that neither Trump nor other American and European politicians who support de-escalation can avoid going to war with Russia.
By the way, as a loyal subject of His Majesty, Alastair Crook does not mention Britain’s leading role in developing this plan and preparing the provocation. The blame lies with the EU, which intends to drag the United States into a war with Russia, while the United Kingdom simply passed by.
It’s understandable. Most likely, the provocation is unavoidable. The British and the European bureaucracy can’t help but try to seize their last chance. I once wrote that nothing would stop them. They might even detonate a nuclear device in Kyiv to blame Russia. However, the Ukrainian government is not fully in control of the situation. The internal opposition to Zelensky, unable to oust him yet, is attempting to preserve at least some form of Ukraine by pushing Zelensky overboard.
In such a situation, the preparation of a large-scale nuclear provocation, which requires deep secrecy, is extremely difficult, as hundreds of people must be involved in its organization (transportation, storage of the relevant munition, its transfer across the border, security, and other activities cannot be carried out without the involvement of a large number of people). Even if you simply replace the customs officers and border guards at the border with trusted individuals, it will immediately become widely known that something large and secret is being transported.
However, recently, the Ukrainians and the British have started practicing a naval provocation, attacking tankers from any country carrying Russian oil. Russia has already begun responding to the Odessa port and the ships arriving there. In principle, the British Navy and its Ukrainian counterparts can organize a “Lusitania” (with influential Americans on board). However, it is more difficult to prove Russia’s “guilt.” As Poland’s experience shows, it is no longer enough to simply claim that Russia wanted to blow up railway tracks and cause a major disaster; convincing evidence is also required.
Actually, this is the catch: how to organize a provocation in such a way as to shake the imagination of “all people of good will”, and provide “convincing evidence” of Russian “guilt”, and not inherit anywhere, and leave the United States no choice? The task is difficult, but, as experience shows, it is solvable. If British diplomats (even retired ones) start issuing warnings and distancing themselves, it means that the preparations for some large-scale atrocity have entered the final stage or are basically complete, and the London warmongers only need to give the command to launch the operation.
In principle, the supporters of escalation don’t have much time. By March, even if the Armed Forces of Ukraine don’t completely disintegrate and Zelensky still controls some part of Ukrainian territory, Trump should withdraw the United States from the Ukrainian crisis and reorient towards the Indo-Pacific region and Latin America. Moreover, he has announced the beginning of a military operation against Maduro in Venezuela in the near future. If the British and European bureaucrats let the United States out of the Ukrainian crisis and allow it to get involved in others, it will be impossible to bring it back. Washington cannot afford to run around the world like a mad rabbit, and it cannot handle two or three major crises in different parts of the world, either organizationally, resource-wise, logistically, or financially.
In the West, they like to coincide political actions with traditional holiday dates. This way, they are better remembered and evoke more emotions. We are just entering a period of holidays: Catholic Christmas, New Year, Orthodox Christmas, and Epiphany. In general, from mid-December to the end of January, almost any day is suitable for the organizers of provocations. All they need to do is manage and dare.
After February, although the danger will not disappear (it will not disappear until a final global settlement is reached), it will significantly decrease, and the further into 2026, the lower it will be.
Recommended by Jeff J Brown
Class must be prioritised in any analysis…
But over centuries and millennia, the collective “recipes for living” (Clifford Geertz’ famous definition of culture) that emerges from particular conditions and trajectories does become a force which also shapes history.
Materialism is the foundation and primary key to understanding human society in the capitalist era. But at the same time, the accumulated effects of culture, solidified into sets of distinct arrangements and convictions, in other words, civilisation, does also play a great role in national politics, in world affairs, in revolutionary process, and besides Marxism, in the rise of modern China.
The ideology of the Communist Party of China is not only socialism, but Socialism With Chinese Characteristics.
In this essay we will examine some of those characteristics as shaped by historical development, so that we may better understand The Central Realm, its contemporary governance, future trajectory, and what the coming Chinese millennium might mean for the world.
Seemingly trivial and insignificant, ordinary social conventions are often results of entrenched philosophical foundations and expressions of core cultural values. Lets take brief stock of a few in China and beyond, particularly pertaining to food.
Chinese chopsticks are longer than Korean and Japanese chopsticks because everyone shares the dishes placed at the center of the table, rather than only eat one’s own portions.
When Chinese people sit down to eat together, it is considered rude and childish to serve oneself first. Instead, one should always pass food to others before oneself, with the order determined by seniority — but the senior, for example an older sister, is also expected to make sure that her younger brother has enough to eat before she does herself.
Ordering food for a party is always a complicated group effort: the meal is a collective composition of contrasting and complementary elements that works for the entire group, but should also satisfy the particular palettes of every member — an experience more than the sum of its parts.
In restaurants of not only China, not only East Asia, but also South, South East, West Asia, as well as many parts of Africa and South America, it’s typical for people to argue over who gets the privilege of paying the bill — partly because who ever pays is seen as the bigger person. Travellers to every part of the Global South and anywhere indigenous cultures and sensibilities survive, have noted a supreme generosity, and that locals, complete strangers, often insist on buying or inviting them to their homes for a meal.
This generosity and propensity for sharing is biologically rooted in the evolved behavioural traits of human beings. It is seen clearly in indigenous cultures all over the world, especially those in arid and difficult conditions, such as the Amazigh of the Saharan desert who will slaughter their last goat for a starving stranger knocking at their door in the middle of the night.
State formation coinciding with the world-historic rise of Proprietary Patriarchy and its attendant class society around 6,000 years ago began a process of erosion and suppression of this original human convivial sociality, but not equally, not in the same way, and not to the same extent around the world. This is the main reason, not any innate deficiency of humanity, for extreme divergence from indigenous hospitality in some parts of the world; for example, cash apps in Northern Europe where friends request 2 or 3 Euros from each other for having consumed half a sandwich more than the other during lunch.
Keep these observations in mind while reading the rest of this essay; their relevance and meaning will become increasingly apparent.
INTERNAL GOVERNANCE
Massive, prolonged, recurring floods regularly devastated the Yellow River valley, destroying settlements and agriculture. It was a repeating crisis that threatened the very survival of the nascent civilisation.
After countless failed attempts to solve this problem, legend has it that Emperor Yu mobilised tens of thousands of people from various clans and chiefdoms, and laboured tirelessly for 13 years, digging channels to divert and manage water to the sea. Because of his monumental success in taming the floods and making the land habitable and fertile, Yu gained immense prestige. The various groups of people were so impressed and grateful that they transferred their loyalty to him, which allowed him to consolidate power and found the Xia Dynasty (c. 2070–1600 BCE), the first centralised state in Chinese history.
The very first state in China formed for the explicit purpose of combatting the existential threat of catastrophic natural disasters; its primary Staatsräson was building infrastructure, massive public works for the benefit of all.
The Xia dynasty was followed by the Shang and Zhou dynasties, the “Spring and Autumn Era, then a chaotic, roughly 300 years long Warring States period in which warlords fought for dominance and populations greatly suffered, ending in roughly 200 BCE.
During the Warring States era there emerged 3 main strands of political doctrines: Daoism, Legalism, and Confucianism.
Daoism and Legalism
Daoism, commonly referred to in the West as the grandfather of anarchism, focused on the natural energy flow of the universe (the Dao, or “path”), which human beings should not go against, but seek alignment and harmony with. The central concept of “Wu-wei”, roughly translated as “Do Nothing”, “Non-Action”, “No Force”, or “Spontaneously living in the moment”, is the way towards tranquility and happiness.
Daoism cautioned against competition and instructed that the emptying of the mind and ridding of Earthly desires is the way for humanity to change its violent ways that creates so much needless suffering. (The later fusion of Daoism with Buddhism came to be known as Chan Buddhism, late exported to Japan as Zen). Politically, Daoism is suspicious of centralised power, and urged rulers to be humble, restrained, pacifist, to avoid stringent laws and harsh punishments.
Stringent laws and harsh punishments are main features of Legalism. In many ways the dialectical antithesis of Daoism, this rigid ideology became the guiding principle of the Qin dynasty that ended the Warring States period in 220 BCE.
Legalists see human nature as inherently selfish and violent, and devises a system of absolute monarchic authority atop a centralised bureaucracy, enforcing unbending codes and severe punishment, as the only method with which it can be controlled. And for them, suppression of rival philosophical doctrines was the only way to prevent contending factions from gaining power. In Legalist society, warriors were rewarded based on the number of enemy severed heads they brought back.
Legalism produced very strong police and military, but also widespread resentment among the population, and quickly lead to a series of large scale rebellions that overthrew the Qin after merely 17 years, ending the only, very short period of Chinese history where Legalism dominated.
Brute force failed to maintain peace and unity, but its opposite, the lofty and relaxed, nature-loving, profoundly unfettered ideals of Daoism also, unsurprisingly, was not enough to deal with the real problems faced by monarchic governance over such a large and diverse territory, with objective contradictions between farmers and land lords, between land lords and merchants, between the people and their rulers. The succeeding Han dynasty rejected both, and chose Confucianism as its ideology and political system.
Daoism remains a constant underlying influence on Chinese culture and politics in countless ways, and will always be an important philosophy of life.
Elements of Legalism also live on in Chinese statecraft, even today: the punishments for political corruption and white collar, elite crimes, including seizure of entire companies, long prison terms, and the death sentence, is often much more harsh than those in the West.
In many ways, the most contentious political debates in China, regarding a general definition of good governance and optimum organisation of society, management of contradictions, were more or less settled around 2000 years ago. With some variation through out the eras where different ideas gain and lose favour, Confucianism would come to be the main guiding principle of Chinese governance, beginning with the Han dynasty.
Confucianism
Confucianism posited that human nature is essentially good; that with education, everyone can become virtuous; and that emperors should lead by example, with benevolence. At the same time, the Confucian state retained Legalist centralized bureaucracy, strict laws, and the option of forceful methods to control and maintain power.
Confucianism (儒家, Rújiā) provided a concrete set of guidelines for preserving balance between emperors and people, in attempt to recreate, approximately, what Confucian scholars and historians remembered as an ideal, peaceful, prosperous, harmonious era of the first, Xia dynasty some 2 millennia prior.
Classic Confucianism centered around Man’s connection to the heavens (universe), and posited that social order depends on individual autonomous study and ethical cultivation.
But at the same time, Confucianist doctrine also clearly stated that individual virtue is not possible with poverty — the idea that the state is responsible for the eradication of poverty and wellbeing of citizens was enshrined in China some 2000 years ago (a relative new, about 500 years old, idea in Western politics).
The creation of equality was always a centrally important goal of the state, the precondition for a harmonious society.
In response to continued social unrest and another period of chaotic infighting between warlords, the era of the War of Three Kingdoms (263 – 280 CE), over the centuries scholars further adapted Confucianism in attempt to make political hierarchies increasingly less arbitrary and less unjust, by reducing the importance of inheritance, and further basing the justification of power on objective merit and virtue.
The concept of the Mandate of Heaven (天命, Tiānmìng) is a foundational ideological principle of Chinese governance, and its origin is precisely dated to the founding of the Zhou Dynasty around 1046 BCE. The Mandate is granted by “the heavens” (the cosmos, nature, the supreme force of order and morality in the universe, not a single deity) to only virtuous and just rulers who made the people happy. If an emperor becomes corrupt or ineffective, Heaven will withdraw its support, leading to social unrest, natural disasters, and ultimately, the emperor’s downfall and replacement.
In later millennia, the idea increasingly came to mean approval of the population, becoming, essentially and effectively, an ancient version of democracy.
Crucially, as much as justifying monarchic rule, the “Mandate of Heaven” also embodies the “right to rebel”: the very concept was created by the founders of the Zhou Dynasty in order to justify their rebellion against and overthrow of the previous Shang Dynasty.
The Zhou leaders argued that the last Shang kings had become tyrannical, morally corrupt, and dissolute, neglecting the rituals, oppressing the people, and had lost the virtue necessary to rule. Based on these allegations, leaders of the Zhou rebellion claimed that Heaven had withdrawn the Shang’s right to rule and transferred the Mandate to King Zhou, who was virtuous and fit for the responsibility.
This was a revolutionary idea. The Mandate of Heaven moved the source of political legitimacy away from mere ancestry (the Shang’s claim) to moral performance and just rule.
Since the very beginning of China, the authority of the emperor, the “Son of Heaven” (Tianzi), has not been absolute, but conditional on incorruptibility, honesty, prudence, generosity, benevolence, and wisdom.
To keep the Mandate of Heaven, a ruler must be ethical, prioritise wellbeing of the people, and perform the correct rituals. A ruler who became corrupt, unjust, and lets society fall into chaos shows that he had lost the Mandate — at which point it is not only right but righteous to overthrow him. The success of a rebellion, dependent upon the will of the population, was itself proof that Heaven had transferred its mandate to a new dynasty.
Neo-Confucianism emerged during the Tang Dynasty (618-907 CE), was fully systematized in the Song Dynasty (960-1279 CE), and reached its canonical form in the 12th century. It was influenced by Buddhist and Daoist metaphysics, outlined a pragmatic methodology for social balance and well being, developed concepts like **Principle (_Li_ 理)**—the underlying rational order of the universe—and **Material Force (_Qi_ 气)**—the psychophysical stuff that constitutes all things, and later introduced ideas like learning based on evidence (influenced by Western empiricism).
In practical application, in more recent millennia Neo-Confucianism developed a fraught, as symbiotic as contradictory, relationship with Legalist-style statecraft. The question of when to lead by inspiration, example, and moral instruction, and when to use law and force to preserve order, was a constant dialectical debate.
During the Song Dynasty, in the 1070s, Confucianism took an explicitly leftist turn:
“The state should take the entire management of commerce, industry, and agriculture into its own hands, with a view to succoring the working classes and preventing them from being ground into the dust by the rich.”
– (attributed to a summary of Wang AnShi)
Wang AnShi advocated for alleviation of suffering among the peasantry, by preventing the consolidation of large land estates. He called elements that came between the people and the government “jianbing”: owners of large estates, rural usurers, urban businessmen, speculators responsible for instability in the market, those who monopolized wealth and made others dependent on them, and the bureaucrats who represented their interests in government. Wang believed that suppression of the jianbing is one of the most important goals of politics.
“Today in every prefecture and subprefecture, there are jianbing families that annually collect interest amounting to several myriad strings of cash without doing anything… What contribution have they made to the state to [warrant] enjoying such a good salary?”
— Wang Anshi
Wang Anshi and the left wing of Confucianism was ultimately defeated by the rightists, but this strand was later revived and today serves to inform and guide the Communist Party of China.
It must be noted that the Confucian idea of “harmony” is emphatically not “sameness”, as the word partially implies in the Western definition.
An important passage in the Analects of Confucius (Book 13: Zilu) reads:
“君子和而不同，小人同而不和。”
Which translates to: “The noble man seeks harmony but not conformity; the petty man seeks conformity but not harmony.”
The confucian state does not demand uniform opinions in the state, in the population, or of its neighbouring countries, but strives for peaceful co-existence and balanced diversity between people and groups with different ideas. This is how there can be multiple ideological factions within Chinese government today: to the right of Xi JinPing there are politicians calling for expanding the private sector and further liberalisation, and to the left of Xi JinPing there are those who call for re-collectivisation and Great Cultural Revolution Part 2.
This diversity of ideas and a political culture of vigorous debate is how Chinese governance and policy under the same party can change, adapt, and evolve, according to circumstance and historical necessity, so drastically. The Communist Party is constant, but its policies during the Great Leap Forward, during the GCR, during Reform and Opening up, and even between the early 2000s and the current Xi JinPing period — are extremely different.
The idea of “Harmony without conformity” in Chinese political philosophy since ancient times is also what makes possible the “One country, two systems” arrangements that the central government has used for Hong Kong before reclamation, for Macau with its unique laws with regard to gambling, for Taiwan with a government independent of the CPC, etc. No other nation has any similar tolerance for different ideologies, political systems, and laws within its borders.
This Confucian tolerance for difference is in sharp contrast to the ideological homogeneity demanded by liberal democracy, which tries to impose the same values on not only their own populations but also on other nations with extremely different histories and cultures, and force developing countries to adopt the same neoliberal economic model.
The concept of Da Tong, “The Great Unity,” “Grand Harmony,” is one of the most influential and enduring political and social ideals in Chinese thought: a vision of a perfect, utopian world order.
The most famous and definitive description of Da Tong comes from the “Liyun” (Record of the Rites) chapter of the Confucian classic, the Book of Rites (Liji). It is presented as a description of the golden age of antiquity, before decline.
Here is the key passage, which is memorized by generations of Chinese students:
“When the Great Way (Da Dao) prevailed, the world was shared by all alike. The virtuous and the able were selected. Sincerity was emphasized, and harmony was cultivated. Thus, people did not love only their own parents, nor did they treat only their own children as children.
The elderly were provided with a means to see out their lives; the adults were employed in work that utilized their abilities; the children were supported to grow and learn. Compassion was shown to widows, orphans, the childless, and the disabled—all had the means of support.
Selfish schemings were repressed and found no development. Robbers, filchers, and traitors vanished. Hence, the outer doors remained open and were never shut. This was the age of the Great Unity (Da Tong).”
The core tenets of Da Tong:
Immediately after describing Da Tong, the original text contrasts the ultimate ideal for future society with the current era of Xiao Kang (Small Tranquility), a lower, more pragmatic level of a well-ordered society. In the time of Xiao Kang, society before Da Tong can be acheived, people love their own parents and children; rulership is hereditary; and rituals and righteousness are established to maintain order in a society of propriety and stability built on distinctions (self vs. other, ruler vs. subject).
The deeper understanding of confucianism is that the adherence to strict heirarchies, to filial piety, etc. are not end goals, but temporary features during the current era of Xiao Kang, which anticipates and will eventually lead to a much better future time of perfect human harmony on Earth.
This confucian idea of historical progress through struggle is akin to the Leninist socialist path towards global communisation, on which political power, in its continuous optimisation, striving for more legitimacy and further intimate reflection of the will of the people, will incrementally dissolve. As human understanding and society advances, the trust, respect, empathy, mutual care, and harmony within the family and extended family will increasingly expand to include the neighbourhood, then the city, the province, the nation, clusters of nations, and eventually, the world.
The concept of Da Tong, China’s native, classical vision of the permanent resolution of societal contradictions, of a harmonious, egalitarian, and moral society, has served as a powerful inspiration and a critical standard for political thought for over 4,000 years. Da Tong became the ultimate Confucian ideal, a benchmark against which all governments were measured, inspiring countless later thinkers, including the founder of modern China, Sun Yat-sen, whose Three Principles of the People were aimed at achieving a modern form of Da Tong.
Many Chinese intellectuals in the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw parallels between Da Tong and communism/socialism, which helped facilitate the acceptance of Marxist theory in China. The Communist Party of China has also invoked the language of Da Tong to describe its socialist and communist goals, framing the ultimate aim of communism as a modern realization of this ancient Chinese idea of utopia.
During the 20th Century revolutionary period, Confucianism, the ideology of feudal China which justified monarchism, was widely discarded as outdated and decadent. But on the road of socialist construction in the contemporary era, the ancient wisdom of Confucianism found new purpose and application for steering society during a transitional period full of not-yet-resolvable contradictions.
Today, the Mandate of Heaven and Confucian meritocracy endures in the Chinese version of Democratic Centralism, the political system of the Communist Party of China (same as that of USSR 1.0). Just like in ancient times, legitimacy of the CPC and its leadership rests entirely on approval of the population. If Xi JinPing loses support of the central committee and the higher governing bodies, he would have to step down immediately; and if the communist party itself loses support of the people, another will soon take its place.
In this democratically centralised hierarchical system, local leaders of villages, cities, and provinces are chosen by popular elections; while leaders in the central government are appointed by the party. Democratic centralism ensures that the entire government is connected to the wishes and will of the people, at the same time able to make big decisions concerning the nation and the world, such as those regarding climate and geopolitics, free from the short sighted financial self-interest of citizens. (more on contemporary PRC domestic and foreign policy in the essay “The Long Game and its Contradictions”)
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Tributary System
China has never been an “empire” in the European definition and understanding of empire.
Instead of constantly seeking to conquer and directly administer neighboring territories, like Rome and every Western empire, ancient China set up the Tributary System. Neighboring states (such as Korea, Vietnam, Tibet, and various steppe peoples) would acknowledge Chinese cultural and political supremacy by sending periodic tribute missions. In return, they received gifts, legitimacy for their own rulers, and the benefit of trade. This was a more cost-effective and stable way for China to secure its borders and maintain its perceived cosmic role than conquest, occupation, violent and coercive domination.
In the tributary system, often overlooked by Western understanding, the return gifts to the smaller nations must always be of greater value than the tributes — because a bigger, “superior” nation should of course be more generous, and has a responsibility for ensuring the wellbeing of others, for the preservation of peace and the promotion of prosperity.
If a greater nation takes more than it receives, or acts in an immature, impulsive, imposing, controlling, or even violent way, it would no longer deserve its perceived greatness on the international stage, and the emperor responsible would lose face and legitimacy at home. All of this is especially true of the greatest nation of all, the central celestrial kingdom.
This was also a kind of “supremacism”, but a drastically different kind than that of Wesern civilisaion: “superiority” and “dominance” means being more charitable, considerate, tolerant, patient, wise, fair, ethical. To be domineering, manipulative, to force one’s way of life on others, to meddle in the affairs of others, to use coercive methods or even military force to get one’s way, was seen as stupid, ugly, vulgar, petty, arising from insecurity and a low level of understanding, the behaviour of small minded weaklings.
The contemporary Chinese political principle of non-interference emerges from such a value system, and is merely the next step in the continuous evolutionary path of a mutualist political philosophy.
Peace and War
The central emphasis and conclusion of the famous Daoist treatise on war-strategy, The Art of War, is that war should be always and absolutely avoided with diplomacy, because who ever “wins”, both sides lose, and the civilian populations of both suffer. If war cannot be avoided, it should be fought strategically and psychologically to minimize damage and the wasting of resources. Warfare should only be the very last resort after all attempts at negotiation fails, and heading into battle is already admitting a kind of defeat.
In imperial China, a statesman who resorts to military methods without exhausting every possible peaceful means of settlement and even beyond (if an agreement is not reached, a certain amount of self sacrifice in order to preserve peace is expected), is considered an inferior and stupid leader, and would, after the dust settles, face demotion or worse.
Compare and contrast this with the valorization of violence in the West, regarding the successful waging of war as sign of a great leader. Currently USAmerican politicians are attacking each other for being “too soft on (insert official enemy)”, for not being aggressive enough. The competition to be seen as the most combative and bellicose is something that does not exist in Chinese political competition, which proceeds according to a set of very different core values. Speaking in broad general terms, non-violence, restraint, and patience is usually seen in the West as weakness — for evidence we only have to look at contemporary Western mockery of its geopolitical enemies’ caution and moderation, interpreting it as weakness.
Softness is central to Asian ideas of strength. In the age-old concept of “Bamboo Diplomacy”, the ability to bend (while being firm) is seen as an attribute of power. And indeed, Chinese Traditional Medicine has maintained for thousands of years after the fall from the harmonious period of antiquity (the first Xia dynasty), that “the world is too Yang”, meaning too masculine, too calculating, too hard, not enough feminine, not enough empathy, not enough softness. And to this imbalance can be attributed much of the great illness of the world.
While in European culture to be soft tends to be seen as a shortcoming, as feminine, as silly, as embarrassing, as inferior, and as cause for mockery and ridicule.
Clash of Civilisations
These policies, arrangements, modes of engagement with others, are very different from those of Western empires, and emanate from a fundamentally different set of core values and ideas of governance.
But Chinese society in antiquity was basically the same monarchism/feudalism as that of ancient Greece or Rome, with the same hereditary hierarchical power structure presiding over the population. So class alone cannot explain why Zheng He, with ships and fleets 10X bigger than those of Christopher Columbus and 100 years earlier, equipped with unmatched weapons and technology, sailed around Asia and Africa, and merely traded, instead of conquering, colonising, or enslaving.
For much of the past 2000 years, the Central Realm, world’s top economic, military, cultural super power, was relatively stable, prosperous, and self satisfied, with a form of internal governance and foreign policy which prized above all the preservation of harmony and peace. During the last 1000+ years, China engaged in virtually zero expansionist wars.
Contrast with Europe at the time of global colonisation: emerging from 1000 years of constant warfare, Roman infrastructure laid waste, rampant diseases, peasants living without much hope under brutally oppressive feudal theocracy — all of which made European peoples accustomed to violence, excel at military matters, and thirst for new horizons where the oppressed poor can become oppressive kings (or at least that was the propaganda to get the peasants and prisoners to take the gruelling and dangerous journeys to the New World and do the dehumanising work of genocide, all to create new markets for the newly emergent bourgeoisie).
Seems obvious but it must be said: It isn’t due to any innate, unchanging qualities within the people that China tended to trade and Europe tended to conquer, but only different sets of socio-economic conditions and path of historical development. But at the same time, the real cultural, civilisational differences do objectively exist, and continues to shape geopolitics.
Class must be foregrounded, but to reduce the complex interplay of ideas and objective factors to *only* a straight forward, deterministic materialism, to only economic concerns, is to neglect entire dimensions of social dynamics, the dialectical part of dialectical materialism.
And this kind of reductive, one-dimensional thinking is itself an expression of a certain deeply seated civilisational character, shaped by the developmental path of the Western philosophical tradition, in many ways typified by the work of René Descartes. It is a perspective that tends toward a mechanistic and discontinuous conception of the world, where independent actors are motivated solely by short term self interest, producing a predilection for playing the game of zero sums, of “winner takes all”, rather than one of continuous reciprocity and mutual benefit.
As China continues to rise, and re-assumes its position at the center of world affairs after a brief aberrant period, let us not mistakenly make universal claims about “all empires”, “all governments”; make false equivalencies between socialist and capitalist states and between Western and Eastern civilisations; project the motivations, intentions, and modus operandi of the US and European colonial empires onto the People’s Republic of China.
China emerges from 2000 years of statecraft focused on the preservation of peace and building of mutually beneficial relationships, and very literally does not have the institutional genes for domination, colonisation, or imposing its cultural values, political system, and economic model on the rest of the world.
The socialist super power is embarked on a world-historic mission to re-balance global economy by developing under-developed regions, to democratise international power by displacing uni-polar hegemony, to build a New Silk Road connecting the world, to bring a permanent end of the historic imperialist era.
If we take a sober look at the 20th Century, how strong waves of international movements toward socialism in the 1930s, in the 1950s, were brutally crushed by imperialism, we see that there has been 1 single block on the road of human progress —— and that removal of this block can only mean global socialism, the planetary path towards Da Tong.
Internationalism
Any kind of exclusively unique Chinese disposition that is conducive to modern socialism is the wrong conclusion to draw from this essay. Lets remember that the outcome of the civil war which ended with communist victory was anything but certain, that it was a very close fight, and that China could have strayed away from its Daoist and left-Confucian roots to embrace Legalism and nationalism, and become an imperialist power.
And we must remember that while the same choice is open to all nations, every people on this planet comes from ancient egalitarian traditions with matricentrality, animism, and a deeply embedded sense of community with high levels of trust, empathy, and cohesion. For these are the evolved social traits, the inherited biological reality, of the Homo Sapien Sapiens species, which is only, to various degrees in different places, ruptured by the proprietary/patriarchal world historic counter-revolution of 6 to 10 thousand years ago (much more on this in separate essays).
Sure, different cultures in different regions are to different levels connected to or severed from their pre-proprietary/patriarchal roots. But no matter how buried, how cut-off, all peoples have the potential of remembering, drawing from, and restoring their own ancient traditions of sharing and cooperation, towards building home grown socialism with local, native cultural/civilisational Characteristics.
“The genie is out of the bottle. The provocation of a “USV privateer war” on trade routes threatens to collapse global maritime trade.”
By Rotislav Ishchenko at ukraine.ru.
(machine translation)
The oil tanker Virat has been attacked twice by unmanned boats near the Bosphorus Strait. On one occasion, the ship Kairos was also set on fire. Western media outlets have claimed that the tanker belongs to Russia’s “shadow fleet.” This expands the list of potential suspects. Naturally, Ukraine, which has been waging a long-standing war against the Russian military fleet using unmanned combatants, is at the top of the list. However, it is unlikely that Kiev would have dared to attack merchant ships, especially near one of the world’s most important transportation hubs connecting the Black Sea and the Mediterranean, which is controlled by Turkey, without the direct approval of its Western allies. The consequences, both direct and indirect, would have been far-reaching, affecting the entire world. Ukraine may no longer exist, but the unmanned surface vehicle’s (USV) attack on merchant ships could echo for decades, shaping the maritime trade landscape.
So it doesn’t matter whether these USVs belonged to Ukraine or whether the British and Americans decided to use their own or those belonging to a third country. The genie is out of the bottle. And not only because this game can be played by two people.
In this case, Britain is unlikely to hope to remain outside the scope of retaliatory actions. It is clear that it is more difficult to use USV to disrupt shipping in the open ocean than in enclosed waters such as the Black, Baltic, Mediterranean, White, Red, Yellow, and Japanese Seas, as well as all Chinese coastal seas. However, the ports of the United Kingdom are within direct reach of USV strikes from the continent and/or from ships and vessels passing through the English Channel. The situation for shipping may be even more dangerous in the classic pirate stronghold of the Caribbean Sea, which borders dozens of countries, many of which are home to both drug cartels and ideological guerrillas.
The threat to American southern ports in the Atlantic is clear.
At the same time, although USVs are more complex than the simplest air drones, they do not require high-tech enterprises for their creation. The problem of guidance, especially at shorter distances, is also solvable. This means that it is not always possible to determine the nationality of a USV that has not exploded, especially if the manufacturer deliberately conceals it.
Almost all strategic global maritime trade routes, no matter how far they extend into the open ocean, eventually pass through bottlenecks like the Bosphorus. Moreover, almost all of these bottlenecks are within the reach of the USV from the coasts of dozens of countries and/or hundreds of ships passing by simultaneously. Only the Northern Sea Route is relatively protected by national means. The rest can be blocked.
The provocation of a “USV privateer war” on trade routes threatens to collapse global maritime trade. This does not require sinking all ships. It is enough to make the threat significant enough to increase insurance premiums, crew salaries, and security costs, as well as delivery times. As a result, significant volumes will be excluded from global trade due to their unprofitability. Additionally, USV can be produced in large quantities (or purchased) and used by dozens of countries against each other. As we know, the greater the demand, the cheaper and easier to use the technology becomes. The first AK-47s were secret and carried in tarpaulin cases, but now the entire world, including the poorest tribes, is using them, and only the lazy ones are not producing them. Finally, the Ukrainian military crisis, as well as the wars between the Houthis and the Saudis and Israel, have demonstrated how easy it is to use high-tech weapons against a third country under the guise of a proxy ally. If Ukraine can launch American and European missiles, which require satellite guidance, at targets deep within Russia, and the Houthis can use hypersonic weapons to attack their enemies, what is stopping Somali pirates or Colombian drug lords from developing similar technologies for the USV?
I want to emphasize that the problem is not that a tanker that could theoretically belong to Russia’s “shadow fleet” was attacked. Russia is primarily a land-based power, and its main trade routes are located within the Eurasian continent and are well-protected. The main targets of the “USV privateer war” may include China, Taiwan, Japan, both Koreas, the Philippines, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar, Taiwan, India, the Gulf oil monarchies, Iran, Singapore, Turkey, Indonesia, and countries in the Caribbean, Mediterranean, North Sea, and Baltic regions.
These are either trade competitors of the United States and the United Kingdom, or allies of the United States who are in a leading geopolitical position and are used as a springboard for military and political pressure on the United States’ trade and economic competitors.
In recent years, the West has been losing not only the financial and economic struggle, but also the struggle for control of global trade. The dollar and the euro are losing their positions as the main and auxiliary global currencies and currencies for trade settlements. The yuan, rather than the ruble or the rupee, is actively replacing them. The traditional trade between the West and countries in the Gulf, Latin America, and Southeast Asia is gradually shifting to China. China is also actively expanding its presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, moving through the Greater Middle East.
In all of China’s advancements, maritime trade routes are of utmost importance.
The land-based trans-Eurasian trade routes that connect the continent into a unified economic Greater Eurasia serve as the foundation, but it is the control over maritime trade routes that allows China to build a “fairy-tale castle” of global profitable trade. It is no coincidence that China is building a navy that surpasses the United States in terms of the number of ships and is poised to surpass it in terms of overall combat power. China needs to control the routes that facilitate the sale of its goods. Russia can exist as an autarky, but China will quickly explode from within if its trade is blocked.
During the Ukrainian military crisis, Western UAVs, which were limited in their use in Ukraine, proved to be highly effective in controlling the water area dominated by the enemy’s navy and aviation, as well as in blocking ports and posing a constant threat to military bases. Russian sailors gradually learned to combat the UAV threat, but they were unable to completely eliminate it.
It should be noted that the military fleet, which exercises dominance in a closed water area, has impressive capabilities for combating enemy USVs. However, as mentioned earlier, the threat of USVs in the Black Sea has not been completely eliminated. For the military, repelling attacks is a natural activity. The merchant fleet, on the other hand, is not equipped to handle this task. Any measures taken to enhance the security of commercial ports and the surrounding water area will immediately impact the speed and cost of shipping goods, while the threat of USVs remains high.
The West is not just not afraid of playing a “double game” in the “USV privateer war.” It is provoking this war, deliberately seeking to paralyze global maritime trade.
We can say that this will hit the West itself. It will hit it, but not as hard as we would like. As mentioned above, the West has already lost its trade supremacy to China, and it will only continue to lose ground. However, the rules of geopolitical warfare require us to try to destroy the mechanism that benefits our geopolitical adversary rather than ourselves. During the two World Wars, when maritime trade was an Anglo-Saxon monopoly, Germany attempted to wage war against it using its submarine fleet. The West is now trying to strike a blow to global maritime trade, which is gradually being taken over by China.
We have repeatedly said that the paralysis of Chinese trade will inevitably plunge Beijing into a financial, economic, and then a social and political crisis. The Anglo-Americans have failed to isolate China through legal means, so why not try proxy piracy, since they are already waging a proxy war on land against Russia.
It is clear that we should not expect hundreds of USV attacks on sea routes tomorrow. However, we should not expect them to take decades to organize. As the development of UAV technology during the Ukrainian military crisis has shown, it is possible to transition from isolated attacks to large-scale use in a matter of months (or even a couple of years), which can change the entire dynamics of the conflict and require the development of appropriate countermeasures, which may not always be as quick as desired.
The fact that the incidents involving attacks on merchant ships by the USV occurred in the area of the Bosphorus, a trade route controlled by a NATO country, indicates that the organizers of this provocation are preparing for a global undeclared war on trade routes (similar to the war between English pirates and Spanish transatlantic trade in the 16th to 18th centuries), and they do not intend to tolerate the transfer of control over these routes to their geopolitical opponents. Given that the United States is developing an icebreaker fleet and actively expanding its presence in the Arctic, we should also consider strengthening the security of the Northern Sea Route.
Tags de l’article
Verily, it is Victory or Martyrdom.
Venezuelans have a “true sense of belonging to a project worth saving.. This is a project of collective self-emancipation. .. Those who are committed to the Bolivarian revolution assume themselves as subjects of transformation, not as victims. And this is something to be reckoned with.”
Video Description:
“I’m joined by Cira Pasqual Marquina, author and educator at the Pluriversidad Patria Grande and co-host with Chris Gilbert of the Marxist education program and podcast Escuela de Cuadros.
I ask her:
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina interviews at Venezuelanalysis.
The Imperialist Offensive is Nothing New for the Bolivarian Revolution’: A Conversation with Ana Maldonado
A Chavista organizer examines the US militarization of the Caribbean and the Bolivarian Revolution’s enduring resistance to imperial aggression.
In recent months, Washington has stepped up its military presence in the Caribbean, sending warships, aircraft, and even a nuclear submarine to waters near Venezuela amid extrajudicial attacks on fishing vessels. For many, this new phase of aggression is all too familiar — part of a decades-long campaign of hybrid warfare designed to undermine Venezuela’s sovereignty.
In this context, Cira Pascual Marquina spoke with Ana Maldonado, a sociologist, international relations coordinator for the Francisco de Miranda Front—a national Chavista movement—and member of the Venezuelan chapter of ALBA Movements. In this interview, Maldonado offers her perspective on how Venezuelans are experiencing the latest imperialist escalation, reflects on the country’s long resistance to hybrid war, and situates the current threat within the broader struggle for sovereignty in Latin America and the Caribbean.
How are the Venezuelan people experiencing this new imperialist escalation?
President Nicolás Maduro has said that in this scenario of maximum pressure, our response must be maximum preparation. At the same time, he has called on us to combine vigilance with calm, to continue our daily lives, and to defend the peace with social justice that has cost us so much to build and preserve.
You can see this clearly in the fact that, even amid the current military escalation, the new school year began normally across the country. More than 20,000 educational institutions opened their doors without disruption, and over six million children and youth returned to class, as they do every year around this time.
While we are indeed facing a serious threat of war, people are also carrying on with their everyday lives and that, in itself, is a victory, since the enemy seeks precisely to disrupt our life.
People abroad are often surprised to learn that daily routines here continue undisturbed and that Venezuelans are not living in a state of panic. How do you explain this?
This is far from our first encounter with imperialist aggression. The tactics may shift, but the strategy remains unchanged: hybrid warfare. For years, US imperialism and its allies have waged a relentless campaign against Venezuela, beginning in earnest in April 2002 with the coup d’état and the people’s heroic counteroffensive that restored democracy. That was followed by the oil sabotage, mercenary incursions, and global media campaigns against our democracy.
After Comandante Chávez passed in 2013, a new and sustained period of aggression began. Initially, they bet that we would fail to hold peaceful elections or that President Maduro would never be elected. The dominant narrative was “Maduro is not Chávez.” With that simplistic argument, they sought to demoralize the Chavista social base, implying that the Bolivarian project would not withstand the loss of the Comandante. Yet we won the elections and, even as we mourned Chávez, the project continued.
But the US and their local agents were determined not to let us go on with our revolution. In 2014, the opposition launched a violent campaign called “La Salida” [The Exit], led by Voluntad Popular and María Corina Machado, the same factions now openly calling for foreign intervention. The following year, the United States took another war-like step: Obama’s 2015 executive order declaring Venezuela an “unusual and extraordinary threat.”
That decree was followed by the 2016 economic strangulation, marked by deliberate shortages aimed at making everyday life unbearable. Ten years later, we remain under a blockade that has killed tens of thousands.
In 2017, the most extreme factions of the opposition returned to the streets with fascist violence, committing atrocities such as the burning alive of a young Black man, Orlando Figuera, targeted simply for looking like a Chavista. More than 100 people were killed during this period of intensified fascist terror.
President Maduro responded by calling for a National Constituent Assembly, once again raising the banner of peace and democracy in the face of fascist violence. People from all sectors, including residents of middle-class neighborhoods whose polling centers had been attacked, were able to vote in peace at the Poliedro de Caracas.
Since then, we’ve lived through multiple phases of hybrid war: Juan Guaidó’s self-proclamation as “interim president” in 2019 and the “Battle of the Bridges,” when the opposition attempted to stage a false-flag operation on the Colombian border under the guise of a humanitarian aid effort. That was followed by massive blackouts that left the country in darkness for days and the 2020 Operation Gideon, recently further exposed in a Max Blumenthal interview with its US organizer, Jordan Goudreau, a former Green Beret.
None of these were isolated incidents: they are coordinated fronts in a sustained hybrid war combining political, psychological, economic, and military aggression.
Yet, in each of these moments, the government and the organized pueblo have responded effectively. During the 2019 electrical sabotage, for example, communities mobilized to ensure access to water and basic needs, while Operation Gideon was defeated by the same fisherfolk who are now being attacked in the Southern Caribbean.
So, to return to your original question: yes, people are alert because the threat is real, but we are also seasoned and organized. We know we are capable of defending the Revolution with unity and discipline. We are in a phase of maximum preparation, with millions voluntarily enrolling in the militia and preparing for the defense of the Patria [homeland].
Indeed, people are not only enlisting in the Bolivarian Militia but also preparing collectively. You’ve given us a historical account of the attacks faced by the Bolivarian Revolution over the past 25 years. But as we know, the current military buildup in the Caribbean is not only against Venezuela: it is an attack on the continent. How do you understand its broader implications?
The imperialist onslaught on the Caribbean is nothing new. Haiti, still punished today for its revolution more than two centuries ago, remains under siege. Now, armed gangs tied to the Dominican Republic are also involved. Puerto Rico continues to endure capitalist dispossession, with five million Puerto Ricans now living in the US while barely three million remain on the island. All the while, revolutionary Cuba has faced a brutal blockade for many decades.
However, the recent imperialist military buildup should deeply concern the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, since it signals a shift in Washington’s military policy. Around 10,000 US troops are currently stationed in the Caribbean, mainly in Puerto Rico, to say nothing of the destroyers, nuclear submarine, and air force deployments.
They are not there only to threaten Venezuela; this is the revival of the Monroe Doctrine. As Trump once said, “Why pay for Venezuelan oil, if we can just take it?” That’s how they think about the resources of the continent.
When it comes to Venezuela, beyond seizing our resources, the US also aims to strip away our sovereignty and destroy the example that we represent. If our project succeeds, it will inspire the entire continent. From Canada to Patagonia, people are struggling for liberation, and the Bolivarian Revolution represents a living example of how that can be done.
Attacking Venezuela serves two purposes: to loot our resources and to extinguish the example of participatory democracy. Since 2021, Venezuela has experienced renewed economic growth and the strengthening of its communes and popular power.
That is precisely what Washington wants to halt: they fear that the peoples of Latin America, and even within the United States, will draw inspiration from our experience.
Why the military escalation at this particular moment?
Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” is itself an admission of decline. The US is no longer what it once was, and its elites are desperate to recover lost ground. Yet even within those elites, fractures abound between the neoconservatives, the Zionist zealots, and the MAGA bloc. Their internal contradictions often produce erratic foreign policy decisions.
However, on one point they all agree: war is profitable. The military-industrial complex remains central to sustaining the US economy. So even amid domestic tensions, there is a bipartisan consensus around war as business.
Before the recent attacks on Venezuelan vessels, President Maduro warned that they might attempt to recreate a Gulf of Tonkin incident, because their hunger for war is insatiable. He was right: this aggression is ultimately driven by the economic imperative of feeding the war machine. In a post-Cold War world, it survives through perpetual “hot wars”—and what better front than Venezuela, which is rich in resources and defiant of imperial domination?
Let’s close with Chávez. He declared the Bolivarian Revolution anti-imperialist in 2004, but in truth, it always had a sovereign and anti-imperialist character. Could you reflect on Chávez’s anti-imperialism?
Indeed. The formal declaration came during a historic rally at the Botanical Garden in 2004, but the Revolution was Bolivarian from the start, and Bolívar himself was profoundly anti-imperialist. He warned that the United States seemed “destined by Providence to plague the Americas with misery in the name of liberty.” That same spirit lives in our revolution since day one.
Chávez revived Bolívar’s anti-imperialist legacy as early as 1977, when he created the People’s Army for the Liberation of Venezuela, whose founding document enshrined Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism as guiding principles. Later, in The Blue Book [1991], he outlined the vision of sovereignty and dignity that still guides us. President Maduro calls that text a “historical compass” pointing us steadfastly, no matter how much we have to maneuver, toward our strategic goal: the defense of sovereignty and the rejection of imperial domination.
For us, being anti-imperialist means not only refusing to surrender our resources, but also defending our identity, our dignity, and our very being. The empire’s elites belong nowhere; they want the world to belong to them. We, by contrast, define ourselves by belonging to a land, to a pueblo, and to a history.
That is why even symbolic aggressions, such as the attempt to erase “Bolivarian” from the Republic’s name during the 2002 coup, or mocking us as “venecos” in an attempt to erase our identity, are part of the war.
Bolivarianism and anti-imperialism are also deeply rooted in your organization, the Frente Francisco de Miranda. Can you tell us about it?
Indeed. In 2003, Fidel and Chávez founded the Frente Francisco de Miranda as a movement of Bolivarian, anti-imperialist social workers. However, anti-imperialism isn’t limited to my organization; it’s in the bloodstream of millions of Venezuelans who have resisted International Monetary Fund impositions since 1989 and continue defending the Bolivarian project today.
To be Chavista is to be anti-imperialist. Chávez was the first Latin American president to recognize Palestine, to support the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, and to speak of our historical debt to Haiti. His backing of these and other liberation struggles was not just a matter of words but also about material support. He also linked the defense of Haiti to a history that, for him, didn’t begin with Pétion and Dessalines, but with Hatuey, the first known hero of an anti-colonial Caribbean rebellion.
That is our Chávez—the anti-imperialist Chávez—whose legacy continues to guide us!
≈≈≈
Cira Pascual Marquina is a Political Science professor at the Universidad Bolivariana de Venezuela in Caracas. She is also co‐producer and co‐host (with Chris Gilbert) of the Marxist education program Escuela de Cuadros. She is actively engaged with grassroots organizations in Venezuela and abroad, and is dedicated, both as a militant and as an investigator, to communal initiatives.
Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov: The Anglo-Saxons resisted their creation. They wanted summary mass executions, not justice nor exploration of root causes.
≈≈≈
The fundamental root cause of conflict between the Anglo-American led West and the Rest of Humanity, especially the civilizational-states, is the hypocritical bifurcation in International Law, due to recent precedence of “rules-based order” imposed by the West. This was never agreed to by the others.
It was within artificially created spaces in international law (“one law for thee, one law for me”) that a singular supremacist civilization worked to rule all the others.
“Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi” the Latin for “What is permissible for Jupiter is not permissible for a cow” is the fundamentally unjust hierarchy of the law of the jungle, intolerable to the civilized. It largely worked until recently as they used to hold the incontestible combination of a monopoly on war of scale and economies and wealth accumulation and set the standards and management criteria on which supranational organizations function. But we are at a moment when these fundamental accumulated imbalances are being corrected. A key mechanism involves the return to the letter and spirit of universally agreed tenets of International Law by all.
Of note, Russia led similar efforts at the fair universal application of one law on all. Just prior to WW1, Russian Tsar Nicholas II was instrumental in the creation of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, establishing the first formal statements of the laws of war and war crimes in the body of secular international law. And it is not a coincidence, as just before 1914, that under the pressure of being coerced into comity and equal relations with Others, that yet again the western realm currently flees forward into more War in order to maintain their predatory way of life.
≈≈≈
Video description & excerpts:
Russia’s foreign minister Sergey Lavrov said the Soviet Union was the driving force behind establishing the Nuremberg Tribunal, arguing that Western powers initially resisted the idea. He claimed the United States and Britain feared a full investigation would expose their pre-war dealings with Nazi Germany. Lavrov also said some Allied leaders preferred mass executions over legal trials, while Moscow pushed for a formal judicial process. He added that core Nuremberg principles remain under pressure in today’s geopolitical climate.
“Question: What do you consider the historical significance of the Nuremberg trials in the post-war years and how did they influence changes in the global order?
Answer: The Nuremberg Tribunal’s founding principles were first formulated during those trials and have become the foundation of modern international law.
They also largely take into account the achievements of Nuremberg in their work. The particular significance of the Nuremberg judgment lies in its establishment of no statute of limitations for crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes.
And to our great regret, this decree states that there is no statute of limitations for these crimes and that Nazi ideology, the Nazi party and Nazi structures such as the SS, SD, and others are forever banned. Regrettably, these parts of the decree are currently being seriously tested and are often simply violated.”
Takaichi: the Honeymooner. When will the divorce come?
with gratitude to Julian Macfarlane at News Forensics.
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s poll numbers have risen to over 65%. I am not sure whether Takaichi is the Japanese Thatcher— or the Japanese Blair both of whom came into power with great numbers. .
She has already sparked controversy.
One is her work-life concept, where “work” IS “life” – as it used to be in the 60s in Japan. Her conservative values are not exactly female-friendly. Men are supposed to work – do overtime – and women stay home and have babies as they once did. They can’t make any money in the workplace anyway.
Not that young men aren’t willing to die trying either.
“Karoshi” – “death by overwork” – what’s that?
Takaichi thinks that its’ something positive.
In a speech after winning the party leadership race on Saturday, Takaichi said, “I will work, work, work, work and work.”
She also called on LDP lawmakers to “work like a horse.”
While such remarks seem to demonstrate her resolve to shoulder heavy responsibilities, they apparently came as a surprise to Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba.
“As she clearly said she would throw away her work-life balance, I can’t help but wonder if that’s okay. But I believe that is her expression of determination,” said Ishiba, who gave an address after Takaichi’s victory speech.
That appears to be how middle class Japanese women are taking the speech—determination. After all, they saw their mothers working around the clock, including part-time.
Takaichi grew up in a middle class family too.
But this is not the only example of her ultra right views.
Sinophobia, of course, has been a Japanese things since…forever… maybe because of a an unspoken, hidden suspicion that the Imperial Family is Chinese, or at least Korean. The average Japanese still has nothing much good to say about China – or Chinese people.
Takaichi has already angered the Chinese by suggesting Japanese intervention should the Chinese seek a military solution to Taiwan.
She cites reasons of “self defense” , saying Taiwan is only 60 miles from Japan, by which she means from the Diaoyu Islands which both China and Taiwan claim, with considerable reason.
Senkaku / Diaoyu Islands
Keep in mind that the Ryukyus were not part of Japan until 1879. The Ryukyus were an independent and prospered through trade with China. The Japanese took over, banned the language and culture.
Then there is Dokdo Island, which is occupied by South Korea and which the Japanese call Takeshima. She has said that a Cabinet Minister should attend the ceremony to mark “Takeshima Day,” held in Shimane every February to demonstrate Japan’s sovereignty over the islet — although this is a local rather than national event.
Dokdo / Takeshima Island
OK. Not exactly WWII again . But. .
Kurile Islands / Hokkaido
Let us keep in mind that Japan only took Hokkaido after the Boshin War of 1869. It was its first step towards emulating the colonialism and imperialism of the West. The Ainu peoples were to the Japanese what Native Americans were to Americans. Japan’s first attempt at genocide.
The Russians understand history only too well.
Japan’s new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, in a speech last week, scolded Russia for its “aggression against Ukraine” but also said that Japan maintains “its policy of resolving the territorial issue and concluding a peace treaty.”
The territorial issue is of course the Kurils which Japan lost as a consequence of WWII, just as Russia lost the southern part of Sakhalin as a consequence of the Russo Japanese War fo 1904. What goes round, comes round.
Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said she had not seen anything new in the remarks by Takaichi, and that for any progress Tokyo would have to change its tone.
“We have repeatedly stated before that the path to resuming dialogue with Japan will open only after Tokyo actively abandons its anti-Russian course aimed at harming our country and its citizens,” Zakharova told reporters when asked by Reuters about the prospects for a peace deal.
Zakharova said Tokyo’s “unfriendly” policy towards Russia had led relations towards a dead-end.
“This unfriendly dead-end approach was chosen by the Japanese side, not by us,” Zakharova added.
Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi has sidestepped a commitment to maintain Japan’s decades-old pledge not to produce, possess or host nuclear weapons over apparent concerns about the U.S. “nuclear umbrella.”
Formulated in 1967 and known formally as the country’s Three Non-Nuclear Principles, the pledge has consistently been upheld by governments since.
Takaichi told opposition lawmakers in parliament Tuesday that, as her government gears up to revise the country’s key national security documents by the end of 2026, “it is not yet at the stage” where she could “definitively state” that the wording of the principles will remain the same.
Of course, the Three Principles is an excuse for permitting American bases all over the country. Do they have nuclear weapons? Japan allows nuclear armed American ships and aircraft to “transit” through Japan How long is the stopover? Don’t ask, don’t tell.
Without the three principles, things get complicated. Japan might want to develop its own weapons and reduce the number of American bases.
Let us remember, however, that this winging to the right is what that declining nations do.
We see this in Europe too. Beat the drums of war, build up a sense of threat and fear, so that people will invest their hopes for the future in a strong leader, who is somehow “different”, but adhering to traditional beliefs. Change but no change. Or as Obama said, “Change you can believe in”.
But Japan needs China —not just for its huge market but for its technologies ==for example the rare earth magnets that Japanese consumer electronics rely on.
Should China — Japan’s main trading partner — stop cooperating economically, Japan is in trouble. The G7 economies no longer represent viable markets for its products in the future.
Japan needs Russia and South Korea too. So alienating these countries is not a recipe for economic success.
In addition, Japan needs access to the vast resources of Russia— not just Russian gas and oil, but wood, minerals, and the like, including foodstuffs.
Economic cooperation with South Korea is important too. Again, technologies matter.
As for “work-life” balance, a grueling balance between men in the workplace, women in the home was an aspect of Japan’s reindustrialization in the 50s and 60s. Ironically Japanese society then was one of the most egalitarian in the world—except for women, of course. 90% of Japanese then thought themselves “middle class”.
It must be said also that in those days Japanese white collar workers at least rarely did much from 9 to 5 — everything was accomplished in overtime—which paid extra.
Now things have changed.
Wealth in Japan today is flowing upwards as it is in all financialized societies. It isn’t as bad as in the France or the UK or the US— but is that a valid comparison?
Japan is more and more unequal. Of course it was always unequal for women But with future money earning partners in short supply, things are worse.
Marriage rates have dropped. Birthrates too. Nobody has sex anymore.
How long before the Japanese population reaches 50,000,000?
This is Takaichi’s honeymoon but it will be over sooner or later. She might well win the next election but she has no new ideas, no solutions, just same-old, same-old. Yes, she’s a woman— an honorary member of the Old Boys Club.
Just like Thatcher was.
An echo of History provides insight into the zero-sum equations, and the worth of humanity, to Technofascism
By Rotislav Ishchenko at ukraine.ru.
(machine translation)
No one is perfect, so the saying goes, “Learn from your mistakes.”
At the end of November 1942, Soviet forces encircled the 6th Field Army and part of the 4th Panzer Army of the Wehrmacht, as well as the remnants of four Romanian divisions near Stalingrad (approximately 220,000 Germans and 18,000 Romanians). Hitler forbade the encircled forces from breaking out, and an attempt by Field Marshal Erich von Manstein’s Army Group Don to break through failed. The group under the command of Field Marshal General Paulus fought in the encirclement for more than two months, until February 2, 1943.
During this time, about 30,000 wounded soldiers, vacationers, and highly valuable specialists were evacuated from the pocket by Luftwaffe aircraft. A total of 72,000 people surrendered. As a result, approximately 100,000 Germans and almost all the Romanians died in the pocket. Only 5,000 of the prisoners returned home after the war. The rest died despite the Soviet Union’s attempts to save them due to their extreme exhaustion. In the last weeks of the war, the Luftwaffe lost the ability to fly into the pocket, and the encircled forces ran out of food before they ran out of ammunition.
Field Marshal Paulus, General Heitz and other German officers of the 6th Army after its surrender, 4 February 1943.
The Sixth Field Army fought to the last and was almost completely destroyed. After the war, German generals repeatedly accused Hitler of the unnecessary loss of the Sixth Field Army. Indeed, the Wehrmacht was unable to replace the two hundred thousand seasoned veterans who had fought for several years.
However, over time, military analysts came to the conclusion that Hitler’s decision was correct, while his generals were mistaken. The 6th Field Army, if it attempted to break through the encirclement, would have undoubtedly lost all its heavy equipment. They had enough fuel for their tanks to cover a distance of 50 kilometers. However, in the reality of continuous combat, they would only have enough fuel for about 30 kilometers. After that, they would have to abandon their surviving vehicles. Even if two-thirds of the encircled troops managed to break out of the pocket (it is more likely that about half of them would have succeeded), they would have been armed only with light small arms, and they would have been extremely exhausted after a hundred-kilometer march across the winter steppe in constant combat. The remnants of the army would have had to be withdrawn to the rear for reorganization.
At the same time, there was already a huge gap in the front, which Manstein was barely able to control in December with the help of the remnants of the defeated German and Romanian divisions, which had been formed into combat groups. If Paulus’s army had left the encirclement, the Soviet command would have immediately released more than a dozen divisions that were holding the perimeter of the encirclement and had been conducting an offensive to eliminate it for two months, suffering significant losses.
The Red Army had already almost cut off Army Group A in the Kuban region. The last divisions of the 1st Panzer Army were breaking through the ice of the Sea of Azov to bypass Rostov-on-Don, while the 17th Field Army was forced to defend the Kuban region, with only the Kerch Strait as a reliable link to the rear. If the Soviet offensive on Rostov had been carried out by the armies that had been strangling Paulus at Stalingrad, Army Group A would have been blocked in the Caucasus, and the southern flank of the Eastern Front would have collapsed completely, from the Caucasus in the south to Voronezh in the north. The Reich would not have survived such a catastrophe. The war could have ended in 1943.
More than two months of hopeless battles in the encirclement by the soldiers of the 6th Field Army, which diverted significant forces of the Red Army, allowed the Germans to stabilize the front. In March, Manstein launched a counteroffensive, recaptured Kharkiv and Belgorod, and formed the southern flank of the future Kursk Bulge.
No one knows whether Hitler deliberately sacrificed Paulus’s army or whether it was a spontaneous decision, but it allowed the Wehrmacht to avoid the catastrophe on the southern flank of the Eastern Front and prolong the war for an additional year and a half or two years.
After Putin’s order to ensure access to the areas where Ukrainian troops are being blocked for foreign journalists, some of the ever-concerned patriots began to worry in advance that, God forbid, the Ukrainian Armed Forces would be allowed to break out of the encirclement, and they would wonder why we needed foreign journalists there at all. They might even kill a journalist and blame it on us.
Protocol of military defeat: “Initially, representatives of the German command were brought to the location of the 64th Army, where a preliminary ceremony was held under the leadership of Lieutenant General Mikhail Shumilov. The main negotiations were held at the headquarters of a higher-level military unit. The procedure was led by Colonel-General Konstantin Rokossovsky, commander of the front group, and Nikolai Voronov, a representative of the top military leadership.” [01]
At the same time, the remnants of the defeated brigades would have left without heavy equipment and almost without weapons (the Ukrainians would have enough automatic weapons for them anyway). The very fact of abandoning positions and equipment is seriously demoralizing, and most importantly, such troops cannot be immediately used on the front lines. They need to be reorganized, re-equipped, and only then can they be sent into battle. The most that Syrsky could immediately do with this contingent would be to distribute it as reinforcements to other brigades. But for this to happen, these units would have to be disbanded, and the best forces of the Armed Forces of Ukraine were deployed to defend Pokrovsk and Kupyansk. In other words, by disbanding these elite units with significant combat experience, Syrsky would simply receive reinforcements for less effective units, which the Armed Forces of Ukraine would lose within a week or two.
Russia would be able to free up the units that were engaged in the blockade of Pokrovsk and Kupyansk to launch an offensive in an almost empty area. Syrsky does not have the reserves to plug the gaps in the front.
I will repeat that no one is going to let anyone out of the cauldrons yet. The role of foreign journalists is to convey to the Ukrainian public (relatives of the blocked military) the proposals made to the garrisons of Pokrovsk and Kupyansk to surrender. Our media in Ukraine do not read (do not watch), and those who read (watch) cannot admit it. Therefore, no matter how much we write about Russia’s proposals to save the lives of the blocked Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers by allowing them to surrender, this will not become a factor in Ukraine’s public or political life.
But the Western media will read (watch) it and refer to it. As I wrote above, it is highly unlikely that this will force Zelensky to order the garrisons to surrender, but ordinary people who receive information from the Western media will call their relatives who are under blockade and tell them that the Ukrainian government does not intend to save them, while the Russian government will ensure their lives and permanent conditions of captivity. Eventually, the special military operation will end, and the prisoners will be allowed to return home. Such information will contribute to the demoralization of the garrisons, reduce the tenacity of their resistance, make it easier for Russia to end the battles for Pokrovsk and Kupyansk and launch a strategic offensive in the areas where the front has been breached, accelerate the collapse of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the disintegration of the front, and the catastrophe of the Kiev regime, and allow for a faster conclusion of the special military operation while preserving the lives of Russian soldiers.
Of course, it is unlikely that Western media reports alone will be enough to achieve the complete surrender of the encircled Ukrainian garrisons. However, at the very least, their faith in their leadership will be undermined, and their suspicions of their comrades will increase, which may lead to some of them surrendering. The faster the encircled units are eliminated, the greater the likelihood of effectively continuing the offensive before the enemy can gather any reserves and stabilize the front line.
So, of course, we want to save the lives of those who are surrounded in a humane way, but not without benefiting ourselves. We need to hurry up with the victory in Ukraine, as Lithuania is already starting to fuss suspiciously about the transit through Kaliningrad.
From the archives: “U.S. game-plan to conquer Russia & China is clarified”
Posted on December 29, 2016 by Eric Zuesse.
America’s Secret Planned Conquest of Russia
The U.S. government’s plan to conquer Russia is based upon a belief in, and the fundamental plan to establish, “Nuclear Primacy” against Russia — an American ability to win a nuclear war against, and so conquer, Russia.
This concept became respectable in U.S. academic and governmental policymaking circles when virtually simultaneously in 2006 a short-form and a long-form version of an article endorsing the concept, which the article’s two co-authors there named “nuclear primacy,” were published respectively in the world’s two most influential journals of international affairs, Foreign Affairs from the Council on Foreign Relations, and International Security from Harvard. (CFR got the more popular short version, titled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy”, and Harvard got the more scholarly long version, which was titled “The End of MAD?”.)
This article claimed that the central geostrategic concept during the Cold War with the Soviet Union, Mutually Assured Destruction or “MAD” — in which there is no such thing as the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. conquering the other, because the first of the two to attack will itself also be destroyed by the surviving nuclear forces of the one responding to that attack — will soon be merely past history (like the Soviet Union itself already is); and, so, as the short form of the article said, “nuclear primacy remains a goal of the United States”; and, as the long form said, “the United States now stands on the cusp of nuclear primacy.” In other words: arms-control or no, the U.S. should, and soon will, be able to grab Russia (the largest land-mass of any country, and also the one richest in natural resources).
Neither version of this article mentioned the key reason why nuclear victory is exceedingly dangerous even under the most favorable conditions, which reason is the concept (and the likely reality in the event of nuclear war between the two superpowers) “nuclear winter” — the scientific studies showing that a resulting sudden sharp cooling of the atmosphere after all those enormous explosions would produce a global die-off. America’s aristocracy and its vassal-aristocracies controlling the U.S.-allied nations (billionaires, centi-millionaires, and their top agents in both the public and private sectors) are buying and building deep-underground nuclear shelters for themselves, but they wouldn’t be able to stay underground and survive on stored feedstuffs forever. (As for everybody else, those other people are not involved in geostrategic decision-making, and so are being ignored.) However, many of America’s (and associated) elite are paying those bomb-shelter expenses, but none of the West’s elite are condemning the path toward nuclear war that their governments are on. So: buying or building nuclear-war shelters is more acceptable to them than is stopping America’s planned conquest of Russia. The higher priority is to conquer Russia.
A far less influential scholarly journal, China Policy, published later in 2006 a critical article arguing against nuclear supremacy, but that article has had no impact upon policymaking. Its title was “The Fallacy of Nuclear Primacy” and it argued that, “American nuclear supremacy removes the root source of stability from the nuclear equation: mutual vulnerability.” It presented a moral argument: “U.S. leaders might try to exploit its nuclear superiority … by actually launching a cold-blooded nuclear attack against its nuclear rival in the midst of an intense crisis. The professors discount significantly the power of the nuclear taboo to restrain U.S. leaders from crossing the fateful threshold. If crisis circumstances grow dire enough, the temptation to try to disarm their nuclear adversaries through a nuclear first-strike may be too strong to resist, they argue.” The concept of “nuclear winter” wasn’t even so much as just mentioned (much less dealt with) in this article, just as it was ignored in the two that it was arguing against.
The co-authors of (both versions of) the article that had proposed and endorsed nuclear primacy, then published in 2007 (this one also in International Security), a response to that critical article. This reply’s title was “U.S. Nuclear Primacy and the Future of the Chinese Deterrent”. But it had no more impact than did the obscure article it was arguing against.
Thus, nuclear primacy has become U.S. policy, and MAD no longer is U.S. policy (though it remains Russian policy). The U.S. government is planning to take over Russia (basically, to install a puppet-regime there). That’s the reality.
Central to the nuclear-primacy concept is that of what’s variously called a “Ballistic Missile Defense” (BMD) or “Anti Ballistic Missile” (ABM) system: a system to disable or knock out Russia’s retaliatory nuclear weapons so that a U.S. blitz nuclear attack won’t be able to be met by any nuclear counter-attack.
As “The End of MAD?” put it: “Russia has approximately 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads today, but if the United States struck before Russian forces were alerted, Russia would be lucky if a half-dozen warheads survived.”
In other words: America’s aristocracy aren’t necessarily hoping to protect all of the U.S. population from a counter-attack, but are willing to sacrifice perhaps a few million Americans here and there, in order to achieve the intended result: conquest of Russia.
That article then says that a BMD-ABM system wouldn’t necessarily indicate America’s determination to pursue nuclear primacy against Russia, because it could instead be intended purely and authentically defensively, to protect against nuclear attack from Iran, North Korea or some other country. However: “Other U.S. nuclear programs are hard to explain with any mission other than a nuclear first strike on a major power adversary. For example, the decision to upgrade the fuse of many SLBM warheads (the W76s) to permit ground bursts makes sense only if the mission is destroying hundreds of hardened silos. One might argue that ground bursts could be useful for a variety of other missions, such as destroying North Korean WMD bunkers or remote cave complexes housing terrorist leaders. The United States, however, already has a large number of highly accurate, similar-yield warheads that would be ideal for these purposes.” The article even notes that: “Other analysts have noted that the current U.S. nuclear force looks surprisingly like an arsenal designed for a nuclear first strike against Russia or China.” And, “A group of RAND analysts agrees: ‘What the planned force appears best suited to provide beyond the needs of traditional deterrence is a preemptive counterforce capability against Russia and China. Otherwise, the numbers and the operating procedures simply do not add up.’” So: the co-authors here are claiming to be merely giving a name, “nuclear primacy,” to America’s existing strategic military policy — not to be inventing or creating it. They are, above all, saying that this is the reality now in U.S. policy-making circles; that MAD no longer is.
And their article has, indeed, described the guiding strategic-planning objective not only of the George W. Bush Administration, but also of Barack Obama’s — as will now be documented.
U.S. President Obama has always been saying that the reason why America is installing anti-ballistic missiles (“ABM”s, otherwise known as ballistic-missile defense or “BMD”) in Romania, Poland, and other nations that border (or are near to) Russia, is in order to protect Europe against Iranian missiles that might be aimed against Europe. He says that this is purely defensive, not aggressive, and that what it’s defending from is Iran, not Russia — so, Russia has no reason for complaint about it.
But then, Obama reached his nuclear deal with Iran; and this deal ended, for at least ten years, any realistic possibility that Iran would develop any nuclear-weapons capability — Obama himself emphasized that this was the case; he wasn’t denying it.
So: Obama’s claimed reason for installing ABMs in Europe was now, quite simply, gone. (Not that it had been credible anyway, since Iran didn’t have any nuclear weapons. It was merely a pretext, not honestly a reason.)
Here is how Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, stated the matter, at that time, during the meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club, on 22 October 2015:
“The use of the threat of a nuclear missile attack from Iran as an excuse, as we know, has destroyed the fundamental basis of modern international security – the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The United States has unilaterally seceded from the treaty. Incidentally, today we have resolved the Iranian issue and there is no threat from Iran and never has been, just as we said.
The thing that seemed to have led our American partners to build an anti-missile defence system is gone. It would be reasonable to expect work to develop the US anti-missile defence system to come to an end as well. [But] What is actually happening? Nothing of the kind, or actually the opposite – everything continues.
Recently the United States conducted the first test of the anti-missile defence system in Europe. What does this mean? It means we were right when we argued with our American partners. They were simply trying yet again to mislead us and the whole world. To put it plainly, they were lying. It was not about the hypothetical Iranian threat, which never existed. It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all: to their geopolitical competition and, I believe, to their allies as well. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful to all, including, in my opinion, to the United States.
The nuclear deterrent lost its value. Some probably even had the illusion that victory of one party in a world conflict was again possible – without irreversible, unacceptable, as experts say, consequences for the winner, if there ever is one”
He called Obama there a “liar,” and that’s a blatantly truthful characterization of the situation. But Putin missed there saying what’s even more basic for an understanding of what Obama was doing in this matter — and which makes that “lie” from Obama particularly heinous: Putin missed saying that an anti-missile system can be at least as important as an aggressive weapon as it is as a defensive one, because if a first-strike attacker wants to eliminate the defender’s ability to strike back from the attacker’s first-strike attack, then an anti-missile system is the weapon to do that, by eliminating the defender’s missiles before those strike-back missiles can reach their targets. It nullifies the other side’s defense — and to do this is enormously aggressive; it strips the victim’s retaliation. The whole distinction between offensive and defensive can thus be pure propaganda, nothing having to do actually with aggressive and defensive. Whether the use will be defensive, or instead offensive, won’t be known until the system is in actual battlefield use. Only the propaganda is clear; the weapon’s use is not.
So, Putin understated the heinousness, and the danger to Russians, that was actually involved in Obama’s tricks. All that Putin did was to vaguely suggest an aggressive possibility: “It was about an attempt to destroy the strategic balance, to change the balance of forces in their favour not only to dominate, but to have the opportunity to dictate their will to all.” Most people don’t relate to such abstractions as “strategic balance.”
Obama and other agents of the U.S. aristocracy know that their public have been trained for decades, to hate, fear, and despise, Russians, and especially the Russian government, as if it were the Soviet Union, and as if its Warsaw Pact and communism still existed and Russia hadn’t ended its hostility to the U.S. in 1991 (though the U.S. continued its hostility to Russia — that rump remaining country from the former communist empire — and during Obama’s second term the hostility soared). So, for example, at the conservative website Breitbart, when that statement quoted here from Putin was posted as part of an honestly written and presented article titled “Vladimir Putin: U.S. Missile Defense System Threatens Russia”, almost none of the reader-comments indicated any ability or inclination of the readers to sympathize with the plight for Russians that Putin had just expressed. Instead, to the extent that the comments there were relevant, they were generally hostile, such as:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday he has concerns that the U.S. ballistic missile defense system threatens Russia’s nuclear capability.”
Vlad, its supposed to, its called defense. The only way it could harm your nukes is if they were shot down…………….after you launched them!
and
How can a defense system threaten anything? Like Obama would attack Russia. That is laughable.
Most people’s minds are straightjacketed in bigotries of various sorts, preconceptions such as that a “missile defense” system, and a “Defense” Department, can’t be aggressive — even extremely aggressive and war-mongering. The first thought that comes to mind about anything that’s ‘defensive’ is that something else must be ‘aggressive’ or ‘offensive’, and that whatever is ‘defensive’ (such as an ABM) is therefore good and even necessary. That’s thinking, and receiving the term “defense,” like thinking just one move ahead in a chess-game, but this is the mental limit for most people, and every propagandist (such as the people who professionally design propaganda or PR slogans and campaigns) do precisely what Obama and the rest of the aristocracy and their agents do in order to deceive their gulls: they phrase things for one-move-ahead-limit thinkers, like that. The cardinal rule in the deception-professions is therefore, first, to find people with the desired prejudices, and then to play them as that, with one-move-ahead-limit sales-pitches, which are directed to precisely those prejudices. This report at the Breitbart site was instead presenting a high-quality news-report, to a low-quality audience, and so the reader-comments it generated were few, and generally hostile.
Obama is a master at deception. Another good example of this was 26 March 2012, during Obama’s campaign for re-election, when he confidentially told Dmitry Medvedev, “On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this can be solved, but it’s important for him [the incoming President Putin] to give me space. … This is my last election. After my election, I have more flexibility.” Obama was privately communicating to Putin (through Medvedev) that Obama was pushing the ABM installations only so as not to be politically vulnerable to charges from the knee-jerk Russia-haters, Republicans, and that Obama’s fakery regarding the supposed ABM-target’s being Iran was only in order to appeal to yet another Republican bigotry (against Iran), and so Obama was intending to back away from supporting the ABM system during his second term.
But actually, Obama had had Russia in his gunsights even prior to his coming into office. Two specific objects in focus were Moscow-friendly leaders of nations: Assad of Syria, and Yanukovych of Ukraine. America’s strategy, ever since 24 February 1990, has been to strip Russia of allies and friends — to leave Russia increasingly isolated and surrounded by enemies. When Obama entered the White House on 20 January 2009, there already was a plea in the pipeline from the Syrian government for urgently needed food-aid to address the all-time-record drought there, which had decimated Syrian agriculture. Obama’s Administration never even answered it. Well before the Arab Spring demonstrations in 2011, Obama was hoping for turmoil in Syria and the overthrow of Assad — lots of starving Syrians would be just the thing.
Moreover, the planning for the February 2014 coup to overthrow the Moscow-friendly democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, started in the U.S. State Department by no later than 2011.
So: when Obama told Medvedev and Putin, on 26 March 2012, not to worry about Obama’s intentions toward Russia, he was lying. He wanted his intended victim to be off-guard, unprepared for what was soon to come.
On Obama’s way out the door, he did two things that significantly advanced America’s ABM-BMD threat against Russia.
On 10 December 2016, ‘Defense’ Secretary Ashton Carter stated, burying it in a speech he gave in Bahrain — site of a major U.S. military base — “just this week, we reached an agreement for Qatar to purchase a 5,000-kilometer early-warning radar to enhance its missile defenses,” and he said nothing more about it, as if this announcement weren’t the bombshell it actually was. Alex Gorka headlined about that at Strategic Culture, “US-Qatar Deal Threatens Russia: Reading News Between the Lines” and he explained that this system “is designed to be used as an early warning system against strategic offensive assets – something Iran does not possess.” Near the start of Carter’s speech, Carter had said that he would be talking about “checking Iranian aggression and malign influence, and helping defend our friends and allies,” including Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, and Saudi Arabia. Gorka noted, “The announced range of 5,000km (3,100mi) by far exceeds the requirement to counter a missile threat coming from Iran,” and, “There is no other reasonable explanation for the choice, except the fact that the AN/FPS-132 can monitor large chunks of Russian territory,” the objective being “to surround the Russian Federation with BMD sites and neutralize its capability to deliver a retaliatory strike if attacked.”
One of Obama’s last actions as the U.S. President was to sign into law a bill that had been quietly passed in Congress, which included a key change in U.S. law that would enable the government to spend unlimited funds on realizing former President Ronald Reagan’s dream of a space-based ABM system, “Star Wars.” On December 22nd, David Willman of the Los Angeles Times, headlined “Congress scrapped this one word from the law, opening the door to a space arms race”, and he reported that the eliminated word was “limited.” Willman explained that, “The nation’s homeland missile defense system is designed to thwart a small-scale, or ‘limited,’ attack by the likes of North Korea or Iran. As for the threat of a large-scale strike by China or Russia, the prospect of massive U.S. retaliation is supposed to deter both from ever launching missiles.” He noted: “The bill awaits action by President Obama. The White House has not said what he will do.” Willman also noted that on an earlier occasion, “the Obama administration criticized the changes in the Senate bill, saying it ‘strongly objects’ to removing ‘limited’ and to placing anti-missile weaponry in space. The statement stopped short of threatening a veto.” But then, the next day, on December 23rd, Willman bannered, “President Obama signs defense bill that could spur new space-based arms race”. Whereas Obama’s public rhetoric portrayed himself as being the type of person who had deserved to win the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, almost all of his actual decisions in office were the exact opposite — and here was a superb example of that.
Whether Obama’s successor, Donald Trump, will continue with that longstanding (ever since 24 February 1990) plan to conquer Russia, or instead finally end the Cold War on the U.S. side (as it already had ended in 1991 on the U.S.S.R.’s), isn’t yet clear.
This is what happens when what President Eisenhower called “the military-industrial complex” takes over the country, and everything (including the ‘news’ media) serves it, rather than the military-industrial complex’s serving the public.
It fits in with the massive data which indicates that the U.S. government is run by an aristocracy or “oligarchy”, instead of run by people who represent the public — a “democracy.” Obama as President fit right in.
Additional details “Summing Up Russia’s Real Nuclear Fears” were provided by a superb article from Jonathan Marshall, on December 28th.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
… it’s not so easy to escape from a war you started yourself, leaving your allies to fend for themselves.
By Rostislav Ishchenko at Ukraine.ru.
(machine translation)
We are currently facing a moment of truth: either Russia will be able to complete its military operation in Ukraine within the next three to five months with a victory that will be unassailable by even the most ardent domestic skeptics, or the danger of a global confrontation will increase dramatically. On the external front, criticism will always be present, and our achievements will always be subject to discrediting, as there will always be forces seeking revenge and continuing the global confrontation. The format of peace in Ukraine should not leave any chance for foreign revanchists to ignite a new conflict in the next 10-20 years (it is impossible to make realistic plans for a longer period under the current conditions).
Until recently, the pace and direction of the Russian Armed Forces’ offensive indicated their intention, under favorable conditions, to defeat the most combat-ready Ukrainian forces assembled in the area from Kharkov to Pokrovsk and reach the Kherson-Zaporozhye-Dnepropetrovsk-Pavlograd-Kharkov line, with the expectation that a catastrophe on the front and the loss of new territories would make both the Kiev regime and its Western allies more constructive, leading to a peace agreement that would leave Ukraine without Novorossiya and thus severely undermine its demographic and industrial mobilization capabilities. In general, Kiev could lose up to 10 regions that were part of Ukraine in 1991 (Crimea, Sevastopol, the Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics, the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson regions, which have already become part of Russia, as well as the Dnipropetrovsk, Kharkov, Nikolaiv, and Odesa regions, which still need to be liberated).
Given that Dmitry Medvedev had been much more radical about the scope of future territorial changes throughout the summer (not excluding the possibility of Ukraine’s complete elimination), Moscow clearly wanted to demonstrate to its “partners” that there was an influential group within the Russian leadership advocating a more aggressive peace plan that would exclude Kyiv from the negotiation process and establish peace directly with those Western countries that were willing to accept it. Ukraine and those Western countries that were unwilling to take a constructive stance would be the ones to pay for the peace.
Judging by the way events unfolded since the meeting in Anchorage, and the careful nature of the Russian leadership’s statements regarding a peaceful resolution, Trump agreed to at least attempt to follow this path. However, it soon became apparent that the United States lacked European allies in its readiness for a compromise peace with Russia. Europe, in general, and its leading countries, in particular, supported Zelensky’s uncompromising stance. After some hesitation, and under serious pressure from American supporters of a hard line on Russia, including several members of his own team, Trump abandoned the idea of a separate peace with Russia and moved on to a “no peace, no war” project, in which the United States does not directly participate in the European crisis, but also does not seek a global compromise with Russia. Washington agreed to sell all types of weapons to its European partners and withdrew from restraining the provocative nature of their policies towards Russia. The principle was “Let Europe fight Russia if they want, and the United States will benefit.”
But it’s not so easy to escape from a war you started yourself, leaving your allies to fend for themselves. The Europeans, taking advantage of the Americans’ statement that they are willing to sell any type of conventional weapons in any quantity, have demanded that Ukraine receive at least several hundred long-range missiles. While the official request is for Tomahawk missiles, it is more likely that Ukraine will receive less powerful but equally long-range missiles of other types. However, the transfer of a certain number of Tomahawks, at least for the purpose of testing them against Russian air defense systems in real large-scale combat operations, is also not ruled out.
The transfer of long-range missiles to Ukraine will raise the question of a Russian response. Despite Moscow’s attempts to avoid another escalation, a response targeting the military infrastructure of countries that have provided missile weapons to the Kiev regime would quickly become inevitable. In this regard, Poland is the most vulnerable country, as it is home to the main hub for the supply of Western weapons to Ukraine, and it is actively involved in lobbying for Kiev’s interests and disrupting any negotiations for a compromise peace with Russia. Additionally, Poland hosts American troops, including the Aegis missile defense system, which could potentially be used for both missile defense and Tomahawk missile launches. In any case, the use of Kalibr, Iskander, or Kinzhal against a NATO military facility on NATO territory would have raised the question of NATO’s response. The situation threatens to spiral out of political control.
Judging by the latest actions of the Russian Armed Forces, Moscow has decided to accelerate the operation to defeat and destroy the most combat-ready units of the Ukrainian Armed Forces as much as possible and to give it more profound and decisive goals. This is a kind of response to the deployment of missiles before it takes place, in order to make this provocation meaningless.
Experience tells us that if the transfer of a particular type of weapon has become the subject of public discussion, it means that the Kiev regime will have access to that weapon in the near future. Initially, in a few instances, and then in a more significant number. Therefore, the sooner there is no one to transfer the weapon, the better.
In recent weeks, the Russian Armed Forces have been launching increasingly powerful strikes on Ukraine’s energy and railway infrastructure. As a result, all major Ukrainian cities, from the eastern border to the Dnieper River, have been plunged into darkness. Ukraine has also stated that Russia is attempting to logistically isolate the entire Left Bank region, including the Chernihiv and Sumy regions. This isolation is being carried out both before and during the offensive operation to prevent the enemy from maneuvering forces and resources and transferring reserves and supplies from the rear to the front, or at least to severely limit such capabilities.
Since the Russian Armed Forces are already conducting an offensive operation on the left bank of the Dnieper River with decisive goals, the sharp increase in missile strikes on Ukrainian rear areas should indicate Russia’s attempt to accelerate the pace of the operation without increasing its own losses, by leveraging its advantage in production and the number of missiles and UAVs it has accumulated compared to the collective West supplying Ukraine. Russia’s actions to isolate the combat zone and significantly reduce Ukraine’s ability to promptly repair equipment and produce UAVs in “garage” settings are effective in the short and medium term. Then, if the enemy is still alive, they gradually find ways to overcome the crisis, while their own strike forces are depleted, their reserves need to be replenished, and the intensity of their strikes decreases.
It could be assumed that Moscow is simply trying to speed up the operation to defeat the Kharkov-Donbass group of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, but the expansion of the geography of attacks on Kiev, Odessa, Chernihiv and Sumy suggests that while maintaining the previous goals of the operation, the maximum program is also considered as a minimum program: in case of successful development of the offensive, expand its geography to the limits of February- March 2022, to reach the Dnieper River along its entire course, if conditions allow, to occupy several strategic bridgeheads (the right bank of the Kherson region, the districts of Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye. Kremenchug and Kiev) and in the face of a full — scale catastrophe of the Ukrainian front, either dictate ultimatum peace terms to the Ukrainian authorities, or continue the pursuit of the APU further (possibly to the western border, but at least to the Zhytomyr-Vinnytsia line, which provides Russia with security from almost all types of non-strategic weapons in service with NATO).
Today, only the complete exclusion of Ukraine from the game on the Western side gives a fairly high, albeit not 100% chance, of avoiding the development of a Russia/NATO missile crisis, which will immediately acquire a partial global character in addition to its European nature. The acceleration of the operation against Ukraine is possible only through the maximum intensification of attacks on the rear: the maximum use of Russia’s air and space superiority, which will serve not only as an effective means of combating the Armed Forces of Ukraine but also as a demonstration and warning to Europeans who wish to wage war against Russia.
The window of opportunity for Russia is not wide open, but it is ajar, and it is into this gap that Russian missiles will have to fly in order to make it a gateway to a victorious world.
Concluding his three-day stay in the Republic of Tajikistan, the President of Russia answered questions from representatives of the mass media.
There were a number of speeches and discussions during these meetings, which also included the meetings of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). I selected this one to comment on as it highlights the significant issues. The CIS now also has a CIS+, and this plus will be invited from the SCO. So we have growth here as well. CIS came into being when the Soviet Union ceased to exist. He also explains the confusion of the time. Putin explains the interactions and roles of CIS, the Russia–Central Asia summit, and the EAEU.
—
RT headlines: “The multipolar revolution you missed: The alliance everyone forgot is shaping Eurasia’s future”. At the CIS summit, Russia’s regional alliance quietly evolved from post-Soviet bureaucracy into a functioning pillar of the multipolar world.
—
The CIS consists of Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Moldova was part of this group, but suspended participation. Mr Putn explains that when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, people were not very clear about the role of CIS, and generally believed that it replaced the Soviet Union. I was looking for a map on Wikipedia, and sure, I found that it said CIS replaced the Soviet Union. “As the Soviet Union disintegrated, Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine signed the Belovezha Accords on 8 December 1991, declaring that the Union had effectively ceased to exist and proclaiming the CIS in its place.”
A cursory reading of this incredibly complex history soon makes it clear that the plan was for a group of countries like the EU (which came into existence more or less in the same historic period) to be relatively homogeneous and nicely manageable. Then came Mr Putin. I haven’t read much of this very recent history, but from what my father-in-law told me, it seems like the planning involved the creation of a manageable group of scattered countries. The world was being divided into blocs or groups to serve a master and simplify management. This was much less about the ‘dirty commies’ and much more about creating a world where one master would be in charge. This is evident even with a cursory investigation of the fall of the USSR, the creation of the Russian Federation, and the process of creating the EU. On the Russian side, it was during the era of Yeltsin and Gorbachev, with the happy Glasnost and Perestroika, which is the last that the Westoids heard of this vibrant Eurasian area. We westoids only saw mockumentary comedies such as Borat. Judging by what Mr. Putin explained in this presser, this ignorance of that Eurasian world was widespread, and not even the participants clearly knew what was going on.
Again, then came Putin.
[Note: By going through these questions and answers, we gain a clear lesson from Putin on how problems should be resolved in the tumultuous relationships as we transition to a new world order with new poles forming. We should have a different descriptor than the New World Order, though, as we are only now moving to the world order envisaged and clearly documented at the initial steps of creating the UN. This presser also illustrates the BRICS concept of decisions made by consensus and not by a vote. It is only highly developed civilizationals that will put in the time for problem solving, debate, even a fight or two, to clarify consensus. Again, from the West, the principle of voting, in a sense, disrupts consensus, and one continually faces the unhappy side of the vote. Westoids and unevolved societies cannot help but think that the opposite of a vote is a diktat, hence the nomenclature of anyone outside as a dictator. BRICS as an evolving group must learn the consensus mechanisms and embody them].
Mr.Putin starts with labor migration into Russia from Tajikistan, where they are combining police forces in order to calm down the migrants, through to unanswered questions on the Russian plane that crashed in Kazakhstan. He ends with the New START treaty, which, by all indications, currently will not be renewed.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good evening.
I will forgo any opening remarks or statements. If there are questions, I will gladly endeavour to answer them.
You are welcome to proceed.
Anastasia Savinykh: Mr President, good evening.
Anastasia Savinykh, TASS news agency.
You have been working here, in Dushanbe, for three days now, with approximately half of this time dedicated to the programme of your state visit to Tajikistan. You have spent many hours in negotiations with your counterpart, President Rahmon, both in a restricted format and within the delegation framework, the composition of which underscores the mutual commitment of our two countries.
Could you please summarise the outcomes of this state visit and highlight which areas are currently demonstrating the most active and dynamic development, as well as the prospects ahead?
If I may, a brief follow-up question on this topic: we have signed a programme with Tajikistan on developing labour migration. The Ministry of the Interior is opening representative offices both in Russia and Tajikistan. In your view, does this help regulate migration flows? Does it assist in minimising illegal migration and criminal activity, and are there plans to sign similar programmes with other countries in the region?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I will begin with bilateral relations. Tajikistan is an important partner for us, both in general and specifically within Central Asia. Its significance lies in its position on the frontiers of the CIS – on the southern flank of the Commonwealth. While our two countries do not share a common border, this remains an issue of utmost importance for the security of the Russian Federation. It is not by chance that our border service personnel continue their work here, in close cooperation with their Tajik colleagues, and that our military base is stationed here.
Naturally, we have devoted considerable attention to reviewing all these matters. Indeed, we observe that the current government in Afghanistan is taking all necessary steps to normalise the situation in the country. Nevertheless, numerous challenges persist, as acknowledged by the Afghan leadership itself. Therefore, the border between Tajikistan and Afghanistan must remain entirely secure. That is the first point.
Secondly, we maintain substantial and serious economic cooperation. It suffices to mention our collaboration in the energy sector, including hydropower. Tajikistan, with its mountainous rivers, is one of the most robust hubs for this industry. Our projects – both those already completed and those under development – are well known. There are other areas of cooperation as well, including the extraction of mineral resources.
All this holds significant interest for our economies – mutual interest, I would clarify, for both Russia and Tajikistan. We observe the establishment of joint enterprises and continued investment from Russian businesses. I would also note Tajikistan’s competitive advantages in areas such as cotton cultivation and others. This is of considerable importance to us.
Of course, humanitarian cooperation is an essential area of our relations. It is extremely important that some time ago the President of Tajikistan proposed opening schools that not only teach Russian but where education is entirely in the Russian language and the curriculum is similar to that in our schools.
Many of our teachers are working here, and we will certainly help improve conditions for the branches of Russian universities that have opened here, and will also support the ambitions of young people from Tajikistan to study at Russian universities. One of the largest, if not the largest, quotas in the CIS has been approved for Tajikistan.
It is widely known, yet I would like to repeat that special attention is given in Tajikistan to the study of the Russian language and Russian culture. This includes theatres, but the most important thing is that the status of the Russian language has been enshrined in law. This is extremely important; it is the basis for the further development of our interstate ties.
As for migration, we are aware of the demographic situation in the Central Asian republics, of course. Several years ago, slightly more than five million people lived here [in Tajikistan]. The current figure is above 10 million. The population growth is rapid here, while Russia needs an additional workforce.
At the same time, we are interested in attracting the trades we need. This is the first point. And second, we want these people to live in good conditions, to respect our laws and rules and to be law-abiding citizens, as I always point out. Incidentally, this is primarily connected with knowing the language of the host country.
Nevertheless, there are quite a few problems, which the citizens of the Russian Federation point to. We must above all think about our own citizens. In this context, it is essential for the personnel of the concerned departments, in this case the interior ministries, to work in Tajikistan, I mean Russian police officers, and for their Tajik colleagues to work in Russia. This is extremely important.
Why? The reason is that they, as the legal representatives of the Tajik authorities, will be able to see for themselves what is going on, and second, will take part in adopting relevant administrative decisions together with their Russian colleagues.
In this case, the citizens of Tajikistan who live and work in Russia will see this in a totally different way. It is one thing when the police demand that they comply with some rules and laws, and it is quite another matter when law enforcement personnel from Tajikistan are involved. This will build trust on both sides and enhance the effectiveness of [law enforcement] efforts.
Kira Latukhina: Good evening, Mr President.
My name is Kira Latukhina, and I am from the Rossiiskaya Gazeta newspaper.
Two major international summits were held – the CIS summit and the Russia–Central Asia summit. How successful are they? And to what extent do we need such a format as the Russia – Central Asia summit? How popular is it, and what “added value” does it have?
Vladimir Putin: Some time ago, when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, the establishment of the CIS was announced. I believe that an overwhelming majority of our countries’ citizens did not have a very clear idea of what was going on – they believed that the CIS had replaced the Soviet Union. They believed that, in essence, very little would change. In reality, everything changed drastically.
Unfortunately, the citizens of our countries were not informed in detail about the changes underway. But we are living in conditions that have evolved historically. Apart from living in these conditions, we should see how we can improve this vast region, how to move forwards and what should be done so as not to lose competitive advantages that emerged following the establishment on the territory of the former Soviet Union of common logistics, common industrial cooperation projects, and a common cultural code, despite the cultural diversity of the Soviet Union’s nations. The CIS is called on to preserve all this.
It became obvious at a certain stage that the level of intra-CIS collaboration was not enough for addressing current complicated economic issues. For this reason, on the initiative of Kazakhstan and its President, Nursultan Nazarbayev, another association emerged – the EAEU, where its members are working within the framework of more profound cooperation between countries that deemed it possible, expedient and advisable to establish this association. But the CIS is not losing its significance; it essentially aims to maintain this common space, including its cultural and humanitarian aspects.
Regardless of the scale of cultural differences between the most diverse nations of the former Soviet Union, Soviet people had their own common and distinctive moral code, which is very significant. The CIS is called on to preserve the heritage of the Soviet Union, and it is accomplishing this objective rather successfully.
People-to-people contacts remain robust. Again, we are committed to preserving a seamless transport space, which is of paramount importance, and we actively support the Russian language as a language of interethnic communication. This is a fundamental element in uniting our efforts and preserving the competitive advantages that I mentioned earlier.
This collaborative spirit extends to addressing security challenges and combating the most dangerous types of crime, such as drug trafficking. If you examine the package of documents we adopted and signed today, you will see that it speaks directly to these priorities.
Ultimately, the preservation and strengthening of our unity is crucial for our shared future.
The situation in the Central Asian countries follows a similar logic, albeit with local specificities. We all recognise the region’s rich ethnic diversity. The further, the more each nation is developing based on its own foundation – its own economy, its own cultural code, its own traditions. Russia is developing in the same way. This makes it all the more important that we do not drift too far apart. We must maintain our shared conviction that something unites us – a great deal actually – because that is the reality.
Consider the movement of people: is there no surplus workforce in other countries? There certainly is. Yet Russia remains a primary destination for workers from the former Soviet space. Why? Because they feel that fundamental connection. They want to learn Russian – why? For the same reason. This underscores the need to actively seek out and nurture all the common ground we share and value so deeply.
Our shared history is an important unifying force. Today, we have discussed the common Victory over Nazism – a shared legacy and a source of pride for all our nations. We will talk more about it in our ongoing meetings. That is, while we are connected by the past and the present, we must constantly seek and build upon the things that will unite us in the future.
This format has been designed precisely to give special focus to this track of our foreign policy.
Alexander Yunashev: Good afternoon, Mr President.
Alexander Yunashev, Life.
Yesterday, you met with Ilham Aliyev. During these negotiations, were you able to outline pathways to resolve the current crisis in bilateral relations, or does a certain chill remain?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: You know, I would not even describe it as a crisis in interstate relations. Why? Because if this had been a crisis in interstate relations, we would not have seen growth in trade and economic ties. Yet despite everything we have witnessed and encountered, growth – significant growth – has continued. So, what kind of crisis in interstate relations would this be?
I would say it was more likely a crisis of emotions. It is clear why. We were confronted with a very grave incident, a tragic event – the loss of an aircraft and its passengers. Therefore, we needed to calmly analyse the situation; we required time to properly examine it.
It was necessary to conduct highly complex technical examinations – that is true. We had to locate the so-called black boxes, decode them, cross-reference all the data obtained by investigators from the Ministry of Defence, verify this information, and compile all the records gathered from air traffic control services – both ours and those of Kazakhstan. All of this had to be pieced together and analysed. This demands extensive, meticulous, highly responsible, and professional work.
I myself once, while studying at the Law Faculty of Leningrad University, undertook an internship at the transport prosecutor’s office, where I was assigned to an investigator handling such cases. I understand what this entails, you see. It is extremely painstaking, seemingly tedious work where mistakes cannot be permitted.
But in the end, we accomplished this. We agreed with Mr Aliyev that we would do everything to ensure this investigation was conducted objectively, including by the International Aviation Committee (IAC), which carried out its inquiry using all the materials provided to it.
The investigation is now nearing completion, and overall, the situation is clear. There may still be some details or nuances that specialists need to document properly. I discussed this yesterday with the President of Azerbaijan.
I sincerely hope that we have turned this page, that we will move forward, and that we will continue to develop our contacts without complications, implementing the major, truly large-scale plans that both our countries share in logistics, industrial cooperation, and, I would add, in the cultural and humanitarian sphere as well.
Let me remind you that Azerbaijan is largely a Russian-speaking country: Russian is studied practically everywhere there. This also reflects the country’s deep and enduring commitment to developing relations with Russia. I very much hope this will remain so in the future.
Emotions are inevitable, but it is always better to keep them under control so that they do not interfere with our work or hinder progress. I believe all of this is now behind us.
Please.
Yelena Shiryaeva: Thank you.
Yelena Shiryaeva, Mir TV Channel.
Back to the topic of the summit. Today, during the meeting, an agreement was reached to create a new format, CIS+. Is there an understanding which international partners are ready to join the organisation in this format, under what conditions, and, most importantly, what benefits will it bring to the people of our countries?
Vladimir Putin: Thank you for the question.
This is indeed an important decision, as it marks the organisation’s transformation from what was essentially a family gathering into a full-fledged international structure. There are many countries interested in participating in our work, in developing cooperation, finding shared interests, and addressing common challenges.
We have agreed to establish this CIS+ format, and we also decided to invite representatives of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation as observers. I believe these are very sound and timely decisions. They will undoubtedly strengthen both the CIS’s capacity and standing as an organisation. I have no doubt that we will soon see the benefits of this decision.
Thank you very much.
Please.
Andrei Kolesnikov: Good afternoon, Andrei Kolesnikov, Kommersant daily.
Prior to your visit to Dushanbe, one of the Deputy Foreign Ministers of Russia said that the potential of Anchorage has been exhausted. Do you agree with this assertion? Is that the end of the matter?
One more question, if I may. It has just been announced that Donald Trump did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize. In your opinion: should he have received it, did he deserve it, was he worthy of it?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: Regarding the first part of your question. What exactly would you like to hear?
Andrei Kolesnikov: I can say, yes. I would like to hear that it has not, in fact, been exhausted.
Vladimir Putin: Do you understand the issue? We did not fully disclose what was discussed in Anchorage. We simply stated that, in general, there is an understanding – both on the part of the United States and the Russian Federation – of where we should move and what we should strive for in order to end this conflict, and by peaceful means at that. These are not simple matters.
We agreed with Donald that I, too, would need to consider the matter in Moscow and discuss it with our colleagues, as well as consult our allies. He told me the same.
These are complex issues requiring further elaboration. But we remain grounded in the discussions that took place in Anchorage. We are not changing our position on this and believe that some additional work is needed on both sides. However, overall, we remain within the framework of the Alaska agreements.
Now, regarding Trump. You know, it is not for me to decide who should be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. First of all, I doubt anyone here – among you, your viewers, or your listeners – would object. Let me clarify what I mean.
There have been cases where the committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to individuals who had done nothing for peace. In my view, these decisions inflicted enormous damage on the prize’s prestige. A person comes along – good or bad – and within a month or two, boom. For what? They had done absolutely nothing. Is that how it should work? It ought to be awarded for actual merits. Consequently, I believe, its prestige has been significantly undermined. But that is neither here nor there – it is not for me to judge.
Whether or not the incumbent President of the United States deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, I do not know. But he has genuinely done much to resolve complex crises that have persisted for years, if not decades.
I have said this before – I know for certain: regarding the crisis in Ukraine, he sincerely strives for a resolution. Some things have worked out, others have not. Perhaps much more can still be achieved based on the agreements and discussions in Anchorage. But he is certainly making an effort, certainly working on these issues – issues of achieving peace and resolving complex international situations.
[Note: The language used by Russia is straight out of diplomacy. They refer to the discussions at Anchorage as the guiding principle because it was the last summit between presidents and set the tone for relationships. This is what diplomatic relations are all about. But, we see each time when Russian diplomats visit this topic, the language refers to Trump’s ‘sincerity’ in wanting the Ukraine war to end and to play a part in it. Never do they recognize progress or success. The words used would always be ‘striving’, ‘trying’, ‘sincerity’, ‘hopes’, or other forward-looking and clearly emotional terms. Good Buddy 10:4, 10:4. We received your message, over and out. Take a look at the next statement and confirm. If there is progress and a positive result, then it would be historic. Anyone who supposedly ‘decodifies’ Putin-speak should be aware of the straight diplomat-speak.]
The most striking example is the situation in the Middle East. If everything Donald has sought to accomplish, everything he has spoken about and attempted to achieve, is brought to fruition – it would be a historic event, truly a historic event.
If you noticed, I spoke yesterday with the Prime Minister of Iraq [Mohammed Shia Al-Sudani], who currently chairs the Arab League. We agreed with him that we would even postpone our meeting – between Russia and the Arab League. This was my initiative. I did this precisely because I did not wish to interfere with the process that has now, as we hope, been set in motion – incidentally, at the initiative and with the direct involvement of Trump – in the Middle East. Is that not an achievement? It is an achievement.
But I repeat, it is not for me to decide whether he deserves this prize or not, and whether the prize itself is worthy of such accomplishments.
Sargon Hadaya: Could you clarify something about Gaza?
Vladimir Putin: Yes, please.
Sargon Hadaya: Good afternoon, Mr President. Sargon Hadaya, Russia Today.
You have said that you will continue to cooperate with Arab colleagues on the Gaza issue. May I know in what format? And will Russia take part in various working groups, which will be set up on monitoring, on humanitarian issues – everything related to settlement and recognition of the Palestinian state?
Vladimir Putin: We have a very high level of trust with our Arab friends and with Palestine. I said it from the very beginning when I spoke at the Valdai Club meeting that we support the US, President Trump’s initiatives in this area at this track.
[Note: For those who are expecting Russia to flare up into anger, you will wait a long time. Mr. Lavrov noted: Trump’s Peace Plan is the best that is on the table currently.]
Still, the question of establishing a Palestinian state is one of the key issues. And, of course, this is the question for the future. As far as I understand – I haven’t yet looked closely at all the proposals – there is a question related to the transfer of power in the enclave to the Palestinian Authority after some time, its formation, there are questions related to ensuring security and the creation of local police.
You know, given the level of trust existing between Russia and our Arab, including and above all our Palestinian friends, of course, I think that our participation may be required. If our friends think it might help, of course, we will always be ready to take part in this process.
And we participated in it for decades. I think Russia has something to say and propose for resolving the issues, which will certainly arise in implementing the agreements achieved.
Welcome.
Pavel Zarubin: Good evening,
Pavel Zarubin, Rossiya TV Channel. Happy belated birthday to you.
Vladimir Putin: Thank you.
Pavel Zarubin: On that day, we were again wondering where you were and what you were doing, because normally nobody ever sees how you celebrate your birthday. In the evening, we saw you with the military at the Peter and Paul Cathedral in St Petersburg, in the sepulchre with the tombs of Russian emperors, beginning with Peter the Great. Why there? And why with the military at that?
Vladimir Putin: I think it is clear why I was with the military. Because Russia’s fate is largely, is always exclusively in the hands of the Russian people. And right now, our military are in the foreground, on the frontline – in the literal and figurative sense of the word. They are resolving the tasks fateful for our country – both the men at the front, on the line of engagement, and their commanders, of course.
As you have noticed, I met with the commanders of all our groups of forces that are active on the line of engagement. I invited them to the Peter and Paul Cathedral, the cathedral of the Peter and Paul Fortress, namely, to the sepulchre of our sovereigns, our tsars. And indeed, we first laid flowers at the tomb of Peter I.
Why? I think it is also clear. Because it was Peter I who laid the essential foundations of the contemporary Russian state, whatever you call it – the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, but the basic essential foundations were laid exactly by Peter I.
Meanwhile, our military in general – both commanders, soldiers and officers on the ground – are, in fact, defending what Peter I created and what his successors continued to strengthen.
Russia’s fate has evolved differently throughout history – it has grown larger or became smaller in size at different times. Under Catherine II – her tomb is actually next to Peter I’s – Russia made the greatest acquisitions of territory, as you know. That is, on that day we paid tribute to those persons who had made a unique, fundamental contribution to the establishment of our state.
And then we just had a briefing with the military colleagues. They reported to me on the situation at each section of the front, the sections they were personally responsible for. Following the meeting, we had a luncheon together, while, in fact, continued the same conversation informally.
Pavel Zarubin: Traditionally, people come to someone’s birthday with gifts. Did they give you a birthday present?
Vladimir Putin: They did, indeed. There were different military-themed presents – figurines and books. Yet two of them are of special value. One of the commanders gave me two icons our soldiers had on them, and those icons saved their lives. The icons were indented by bullets, and the soldiers sent them to me as a present. I am very grateful to them. I will make sure to find them and talk to them.
Even now, taking this opportunity, I would like to convey to them, via the media, my most sincere words of gratitude. And may the Lord protect them as he did before.
Pardon, what? About which Tomahawks?
Stanislav Ivashchenko: The American ones.
Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.
Stanislav Ivashchenko: Stanislav Ivashchenko, Zvezda TV channel.
In Kiev, Zelensky threatens to strike Russia with Tomahawks, even targeting the Kremlin itself. There is even talk that this constitutes a form of posturing… blackmail against Russia.
Vladimir Putin: You did not misspeak – posturing as well. There is certainly an element of showing off here.
Stanislav Ivashchenko: In this context, a question. The Americans say that whether they will transfer the Tomahawks or not depends entirely on Russia’s negotiating position regarding Ukraine. If our negotiating position does not suit them, they will proceed with the transfer. Is our response to this ready?
Vladimir Putin: Our response is the strengthening of the Russian Federation’s air defence systems.
Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: May I ask about START?
Vladimir Putin: Go ahead.
Konstantin Kokoveshnikov: Good afternoon.
Konstantin Kokoveshnikov. Thank you for the opportunity to ask a question.
As is already known, you have proposed extending the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires very soon, in February 2026. Judging by initial statements from Washington, Trump appears not to oppose this.
Are there any signals through closed channels, perhaps, that Washington is indeed prepared to hold such consultations? Will four months be sufficient to complete this process? Am I correct in understanding that a new personal meeting between you and your American counterpart will be required?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: We maintain contacts through the Foreign Ministry and the Department of State. Will these few months be enough to reach a decision on extension? I believe it will suffice if there is goodwill to prolong these agreements. Should the American side deem this unnecessary, it is totally not critical for us – everything in this regard is proceeding according to plan.
I have spoken about this before, and it is no secret: the novelty of our nuclear deterrent systems surpasses that of any other nuclear state, and we are advancing this very actively. What I mentioned in previous years is all being developed. We are refining these systems, and I believe we will soon be able to announce new weapons that were previously unveiled. They are materialising and undergoing successful tests.
Regarding the intercontinental components at sea and in the air, I reiterate: the novelty and modernity of our systems, as military experts say, are at a very high level, which we maintain. We are prepared to negotiate if this proves acceptable and beneficial for the American side.
If not – then so be it. It would be regrettable, as nothing would then remain in terms of strategic offensive arms control.
Please.
Anna Sedykh: Good afternoon.
My name is Anna Sedykh, Interfax news agency.
My question follows up on the Nobel Peace Prize topic. Zelensky stated that he would support Trump’s candidacy if he supplied Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine: essentially, a peace prize in exchange for weapons. How would you assess this “businesslike approach”?
Vladimir Putin: I do not think the Nobel Committee was interested in the opinion of the current Kiev regime’s leader when making its decision. This is the first point.
Second, linking the Nobel Peace Prize to arms supplies is absurd. It simply speaks volumes about the current Kiev regime’s level.
Thank you very much.
Anything else?
Olga Matveyeva: Olga Matveyeva, Mayak and Vesti FM radio stations.
At the Valdai Club meeting, you mentioned that one country is preparing to test nuclear weapons. Could you please clarify whether that country is the United States? If, as you said, Russia responds in kind and also conducts a nuclear test, wouldn’t that throw our countries and all of humanity back to the 1990s, when the entire world refused to test nuclear weapons? And wouldn’t this provoke a new nuclear arms race between Moscow and Washington?
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I think that, frankly speaking, a certain arms race is underway. Whether it will be a throwback or not is hard to say.
However, I never said the United States is preparing for such tests. I said that some countries are preparing. This is well known to specialists, because there is always a temptation to test the effectiveness of the combat fuel that has been stored in missiles for many, many years.
All of this is currently simulated on computers. Specialists believe this is sufficient, but some of those same experts think that full-scale tests should still be conducted. As far as we know, some countries are considering this and even making preparations. So I said that if they do it, we will do the same.
Is that good or bad? From the standpoint of ensuring security, it is good; from the overall perspective of deterrence and efforts aimed at – if not reducing, then at least containing – the arms race, it is probably not bad either.
But our proposal to extend the New START Treaty for at least one year is in the same context. Let everyone think about it.
Goodbye, thank you very much. All the best.
Current events in America gallop towards the dark.
with appreciation to Dr. Karl at karlof1’s Geopolitical Gymnasium.
Most Gym readers are familiar with Orwell’s 1984 and how he envisioned the role of technology in controlling the masses. Much of what he described is now reality, although some are unaware that your “smart” TV is capable of watching you. We have security cams placed with high densities inside cities, and almost every store starting with banks has a video surveillance system. Facial recognition is now a norm. Cellular phones have tracking devices within them so you can be targeted and bombed. Computer chips have backdoors allowing the so-called security agencies to discover what you’re doing. The GPS system in your car can also be a tracking beacon. I recall what the Supreme Court ruled years ago on the issue of privacy—you essentially have none. Highly tuned “ears” can hear what you say to your partner as you take a walk in the woods. Walls can now be seen and heard through. The eye way up in space can read the license plate on your car. The resolution’s so good that your lips can be read as you talk. With the age of the semiconductor and microchip, Big Brother arrived in ways only imagined by Sci-Fi authors and Mr. Orwell.
All this has become very important because it’s now being made into a threat to what freedom Americans have remaining. It’s not just ICE. It’s the fact that an enemy needed to be invented for ICE to be deployed—the dreaded immigrant, or what the Scorpions called The Alien Nation. Once upon a time it was Communists and Socialists, Labor Union organizers, and the workers themselves, all of which remain to be resurrected when needed. But the main instigator is the intrusion of Zionist control of the federal government and its need to control American public opinion. And here I defer to the awesome work done by the team at The Grayzone—Max Blumenthal and his comrades. What began as an investigation into the clear political assassination of Charlie Kirk has become an investigation into the deep subversive activities of Zionist-American Billionaires aimed at controlling—distorting if you will—American public opinion of Zionism and Occupied Palestine: The state committing Genocide with the active complicity of the US Government beginning with Biden and continuing with Trump that in reality began in 1948 with the first Nakba. The presentation of evidence by Mr. Blumenthal to Judge Napolitano during this 40-minute chat is an absolute must see if you want to know how your freedom and children’s future are threatened. I highly suggest watching it before continuing to read this article.
Now that you’ve seen and understood the insidiousness of what’s planned and grasped the fact that it will be close to impossible to halt, I suggest you stop and take the time to notify your close circle of what you’ve learned and where they can also learn what you now know. This isn’t about immigrants anymore; this is about the ability of Americans to be free from undo influence, to not be propagandized, to be left alone, and certainly not to be goaded into doing something that’s actually very un-Christian. They are trying to get commonfolk to support Genocide; to somehow see benevolence in Zionist actions. They’re going to track you via your phone so they can further harass you with propaganda, and who knows what else they’ll do to you. Look at what they did to innocent Lebanese with their pager and cellphone terrorist devices. And they laughed and applauded. Occupied Palestine is a land populated by a people lacking morals of any sort.
There are other presentations of evidence by other people that have examined the ways and means of the Head Genocidal Zionist Netanyahu. One of them is the retired US Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson who revealed a great deal in his chat today with Nima of Dialog Works that complements what Blumenthal revealed. Previous revelations by others have detailed the extent of Big Brother infiltration into American lives and those of the entire planet. Much was provided by Edward Snowden and Julian Assange. Indeed, Wikileaks still provides a great deal of information the US government would rather you not know. Reading Snowden’s Saga is highly educational. Now the big issue is AI, which the Zionists employ in their Genocide and assassination programs. Recent US Supreme Court rulings have okayed racial profiling despite the fact that there’s only one Human Race. Given what the Outlaws are doing and getting away with, the Constitution is now what George W. Bush called it: Just A God Damned Piece of Paper. The Enemy Nation must constantly be reinvented. Trump now calls everyone who disagrees with him a terrorist, including members of Congress and judges.
What can citizens do now that they know they’re being targeted? The only real way to defend ourselves is to form community groups based on the neighborhood watch format while making it clear what the aim of the group is—to protect our Civil and Legal Rights from a federal government gone rogue. And it must be made clear that the D Party is just as complicit in this behavior as the R Party since both are controlled by AIPAC and Zionist Billionaire monies—Team Biden supported the Genocide just as much if not more than Team Trump. I’m not advocating going around with firearms. Just being in solidarity with your neighbors and community is enough, while also informing local government what you’re all about. Adopting a name like Citizen Civil & Legal Rights Brigade says what you’re all about to whoever you meet. Read the Second Amendment—being well armed begins with being well informed. Know that the military and almost all government officials at every level of federalism swears an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Implore those people to obey their oath, local police especially since they’re the ones your Brigade will come into contact with. I did, and I consider what I’m doing part of my neverending duty. One of our oddities here in America is that Naturalized Citizens must also take that oath but not native-born citizens. The Declaration of Independence says the duty of the citizen when confronted by Tyranny is to rebel to secure what were seen as Natural Rights.
IMO, it’s imperative you watch the talk between Max Blumenthal and Judge Napolitano and share the link with everyone you know. The only way to beat the foes we face is to act collectively, and that means everyone as every conceivable group is being targeted except Zionists and Billionaires.
A documentary of the missilemen of Iran. “…. the one who finishes a War, is the one claimant of expertise.”
https://x.com/AryJeay/status/1974164482088996971
@Fotros Resistance (Arya – آریا):
Exclusive footages of Iran’s underground missile complexes during the 12-day war.
An IRGC member recalls how they operated inside the deep underground missile tunnels during the 12-day war.
He explains the tunnels were not damaged and everything inside was operational, the only issue was the entrance that sometimes got hit which would delay launches until it’d get dig out.
The tunnels in the footage displays Haj Qassem & Kheybar Shekan missiles.
The IRGC operators says the morale among the IRGC was very high and they did everything to not delay launches.
One of the IRGC members says at one time, an Israeli Hermes drone had hit one of the launchers that caused him to get injured on the spot, but got up and continued working to launch the rest of the missiles.
One of them rejected Israeli ridiculous claims about having bombed Iranian missile capabilities “to dust” and says we’re not even above the ground to bomb us to dust.
MICHAEL HUDSON: In our minds, there’s a different set of books. There’s one set of books for the majority of the world population. The German history books, the French history books, and the American, the English history books have all been rewritten in a more and more extreme distortion of what actually happened.
GLENN DIESEN: Hi everyone and welcome back. I’m very pleased today to be joined again by Michael Hudson, professor of political economy, to discuss US economic coercion against allies. So welcome back to the program.
MICHAEL HUDSON: It’s good to be back Glenn.
GLENN DIESEN: So there is this interesting development. I mean my thesis is that in the unipolar era, states that followed the US would be rewarded, and those who did not could be punished – because there were no alternatives. Now in the multipolar order, the game appears to change – at least the rules of the game. That is, opponents of the United States, and also neutral states who don’t want to ally too closely, have the option of diversifying their economic partnerships, and thus any effort to pressure them simply results in an incentive to diversify more – away from the United States.
In other words the US doesn’t really have that much advantage as we see vis-à-vis China or Russia. In contrast, I think we see allies of the US who are worried about the rise of other great powers and have hitched their wagons completely to the US. They seem more prepared to sacrifice even their own economic interests to preserve the US’s leading position, but also their own ties and connections with the US. This puts the US in a very favorable position. It can take advantage of this subordination of allies. The US can then also sever them from other centers of powers to extract – be it political security or economic concessions.
So, I guess my point is: it seems that the U.S. has an advantage in having an economic war against allies. And it’s through this that I found an article of yours I recently read very interesting. You compare some of the things the United States is doing today to the policies of Britain and France in the 19th century. I was wondering if you could flesh out your arguments.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, I want to take issue from the start with your use of the word opponents of the United States. I guess you’re referring to the BRICS, China, Russia, Iran, and the other countries that are meeting. In all of their announcements that their presidents and representatives made at these meetings, there wasn’t a word about the United States as an opponent, or in fact, there was no mention of the United States at all. They look at themselves as being under attack by the United States, much as the United States is indeed treating Europe. They’re not trying to retaliate against the United States; they’re trying to defend themselves against Trump’s demands that he’s making on these countries.
And the demands he’s making are the same for the BRICS as they are for Britain, for the European countries, for Japan. And in fact, right now, in Korea, you have discussions. Even Korea, one of the U.S. allies that the United States would like to drain, is standing up. The United States threatened Korea, like Japan, saying, if you don’t lend $350 billion to the United States to be handled by me, President Trump, to decide how to spend it (and you’ll get 10% of the earnings, if there are any, and we get 90%) – If you don’t do that, we’re going to raise tariffs on you and create a crisis. And you’ll have unemployment, and that’ll lead voters to vote against you. And, you know, we’ll create a crisis.
Just the other day, the U.S. Commerce Secretary, Howard Lutnik, told the Koreans bluntly, quoted in yesterday’s Financial Times: “The Japanese signed a contract, $350 billion. The Koreans either accept the deal or pay the tariffs, black and white. Pay the tariffs or accept the deal.”
Well, that’s just what he’s told Europe. The question is, what makes Europe different from the BRICS countries that are trying to make an alternative, saying, “Well, all right; Trump is threatening to deprive our export industries of access to the United States market. If we agree to his demands, it’s going to cost us more money to just pay tribute to the United States in what’s really a protection racket. ‘Either pay us money and accept our import duties and our demands for you to dismantle your industry and invest here, or we’ll raise tariffs and cause a crisis for you.’” Same demand is made all over.
And you asked, why is the United States making, you know, this demand on Europe specifically? The demand’s exactly the same. Europe is giving up – won’t say Europe, certainly not its voters, but the European leaders, basically NATO leaders. In the EU, foreign ministers have made a decision that they’d rather live in the short run, like politicians do, and not have destruction of their industry than live in the long run. They have a choice. The choice was made before 2022 when they essentially agreed to blow up the North Sea pipeline – or let the United States blow it up– and depend completely on the U.S. for oil. They said, “Well, at least we can depend on the United States”. That’s what Ursula von der Leyen said. “We can depend on the United States.”
And yet Trump has made it clear, most recently yesterday in Britain, when he said: If you do any move that is at the cost of American industry, for instance, in information technology, imposing minimum taxes against U.S. information technology companies, like Europe’s doing, I, we, will simply raise tariffs on you. Trump can raise tariffs, and of course, Europe has already tried to stand up to this, but von der Leyen, who was doing the negotiation, never even tried to fight back. She said: Well, at least we can depend on Trump never to change his mind or change the deal. At least we have certainty.
Well, that’s crazy. There was no certainty at all. And so Europe doesn’t have it. Europe had two choices. The choice before 2022 was to have a balanced and basically independent economy as long as its industrial economy was symbiotic with Russia as a raw material supplier of oil, gas, fertilizer, and other basic materials. The advantage of this for Europe was that Europe, Russia, and China and the BRICS are the growing part of the world economy. The U.S. is a shrinking part of the EU economy. Trump’s policies are actually destroying U.S. agriculture, U.S. industry. It’s making the United States uninvestable. Companies are closing down now. The profits are going down because of the [cost of] imports, especially on steel and aluminum. So you think, why on earth would Europe agree to tie its long-term fortunes to the United States and lose its domestic self-sufficiency and self-reliance (that it had as long as it had free access, open access, to Russian raw materials and energy) to energy that costs five or six times as much.
Once this independence is lost, it loses the option that the BRICS countries have taken by saying, “Well, we’re willing to lose the U.S. market because that’s a shrinking market over time. There will be a cost in the short term, but that cost is less than having to pay $350 billion in the shakedown fee to the United States just to keep our short-term market open. The U.S. market is not worth $350 billion, either to Japan or Korea. Each of these countries could have paid $350,000 to subsidize their own exporters so that they could afford to cope with the tariffs. They didn’t do it. Japan just surrendered.
Korea right now is refusing to surrender. And yesterday, its foreign minister team was in China trying to say: “Isn’t there some way that we could… Suppose we lose the American market. We’re faced with a demand that we can’t possibly meet. We may walk away from them. What deal could we make with you and your Asian neighbors in order for us to have our own self-reliant, individual geographic system of self-sufficiency so that we’re immune from the kind of threats that the United States is making?
Well, Europe has not made itself immune from these threats. Part of this is military. Again and again, the leaders of Germany and France, as well as Britain, have said, well, we need America’s support in case Russia mounts a land invasion and is willing to sacrifice 20 million of its soldiers trying to march across Europe to the British Isles. Well, this is crazy. This is a parallel universe threat. It has no basis in reality because no country, no industrial country in today’s world, can afford a military infantry invasion of any other country. Because not only would masses of soldiers die, but such a country, if it tried to impose a draft, would be thrown out of office right away.
So you have Europe’s policymakers essentially acting on behalf of NATO, which is controlled by the United States instead of on behalf of their own voters. And you have the public relations polls showing that the voters don’t want war in Ukraine. The voters don’t want their social spending in Europe to be cut back in order to spend the limited budgets on military instead of on domestic things.
So it’s not a question of the United States focusing its demands on the BRICS. Its demands are across the board. They’re the same for every country. Either we’ll close off our markets or you have to pay us money not to disrupt your economy and cause at least temporary short-term chaos. Other countries are protecting themselves from chaos. Britain is not protecting itself from chaos. That’s the basic problem that I see.
GLENN DIESEN: Well, I think a lot of it is tied, as you suggested, to the war in Ukraine, because when the Cold War came to an end, the Europeans became less dependent on the U.S. as a security provider (given that the Cold War was finished). We saw that the main objectives in Europe were that of autonomy. They were speaking of using collective bargaining power to have an economic position that would make them an equal to the United States. The Europeans, even immediately in 1992, as the Soviet Union had just collapsed a month or two thereafter, began to discuss how we can develop our own military. Obviously, there was no threat, but this was also an effort to have more autonomy. They wanted their own foreign policy and to pursue this as well; that is, a collective EU foreign policy. So this is what you can do when the dominant state can’t convert security dependence into economic loyalty.
But what you’ve seen since the Ukraine war, though, when the external threats appear and the security dependence becomes evident, it’s quite predictable that the dominant power, the security provider, will then seek to extract economic and political concessions from its vassals or protectorates. And so I don’t know, from my perspective, this has been a key argument of mine since NATO started the conflict in Ukraine with the coup in 2014: Europe is putting itself in a very vulnerable position because the US, you know, it keeps saying friends and allies, which is nice and well. I mean, we are close and we should be close, but states behave like states. And when you make yourself excessively dependent on another state, it will seek to have some material benefits from this. But you mentioned that the conquest of Europe as it is…
MICHAEL HUDSON: Before you go on, you used the word security provider. That’s quite a euphemism. The United States is imposing unparalleled insecurity on Europe because you have Germany and France and Britain offering to provide long-range missiles to Ukraine in order to use against Russia and to launch against Russia, especially Moscow and St. (And the U.S., the European leaders, say, like Starmer yesterday, they want to bomb Russia) Petersburg – that are in range of these missiles that are to be sent. Well, both President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have said: if a foreign missile is launched by Ukraine against Russia, we realize that our fight is not against Ukraine. Our fight is against NATO. This is a war between NATO and Russia. And if a bomb comes from a German manufactory, then we’re going to bomb the source. We’re going to bomb Germany, at least the factory in Germany, maybe the power plants that supply energy to this factory. Same thing in France, same thing in Britain.
Now, the question is: once you have intercontinental missiles flying from Russia, Russia doesn’t need atomic weapons. It has a much broader range of weapons than NATO countries have. And these weapons are not atomic. And the NATO countries themselves are pretty much out of weaponry. They’ve given them all to Ukraine and to Israel. And any thought of actually engaging in war, it is such a fantasy that it would be like Bambi meets Goliath. Russia would respond very quickly. And the result is because of the belligerence of von der Leyen and the Estonian assistant Kellas, this is putting Europe in insecurity and in great military danger.
There’s no danger at all from an armed military infantry invasion. And without a military invasion, you can’t control and gain control over another country. That’s what Russia is doing now in Ukraine. And you see the enormous problems that it has, even in Ukraine. What countries can do in the democratic form of war is by missiles, simply to destroy the other countries. Wars, the modern post-World War II, a modern type of war, is mutual destruction by missile, by air, whether it’s from submarines or land-based missiles. That’s the kind of war and hence insecurity that Europe is going to have.
So not only is Europe’s plan to sort of have a bastardized Keynesianism and military Keynesianism of, well, let’s spend our money on military industry, and that will maybe create the employment that we’ve lost in our civilian industry as a result of having to depend on American gas and oil instead of Russian gas and oil. But it’s going to threaten the actual existence of the European countries. Russia has made it clear that it has no interest in taking over Europe. It wants to be simply left alone. And Europe is obeying the United States, not simply in these tariff demands and the givebacks that Trump is making, but in a much deeper connection of following the U.S. Cold War, now increasingly hot war, leadership. That’s what’s essentially bankrupting Europe. It’s joined a new military axis that is in no way militarily capable of taking on Russia. And I think your military guests on your show have made this very clear over the last few months.
And the question is: why is it that Europe’s leaders, political leaders who are in charge of committing Europe, able to make this choice on behalf of their whole nations in the face of the public’s voters saying, you know, we want Europe to stand up for itself, to be more nationalistic. And if the social democratic and Christian parties are the pro-war military parties that are basically accepting our dependence on the United States and are giving up our hopes for growth by trade with Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Asia, East Asia, then we’re going to support a nationalistic opposition when there are elections.
Well, unfortunately, there are no full national elections coming up, either for Germany or for France shortly or for England. And so you see the problem that Europe is stuck with – a U.S. client leadership, not its own leadership. And this U.S.centered leadership is backed by a U.S. centered neoliberal mass media, the press, the television. The whole context, the whole narrative of economic development is twisted in Europe. They actually think that Ukraine has a chance to win, according to Starmer and Mertz and Macron. And there’s no chance of it winning. They think that the war is somehow leading to a Russian collapse. But Russia is self-sufficient. There’s no way that Russia can collapse from foreign sanctions any more than China or its allies can collapse from American sanctions because they’re self-sufficient.
Europe had this self-sufficiency before. It’s given it all up in exchange for dependency, not realizing that the cost of dependency, when you have an American leader such as Donald Trump acting on behalf of American large businesses and monopolies, and most of all, the military-industrial complex, is going to make demands that basically bankrupt Europe and reverse its GDP growth, reverse its living standards and impose austerity on it.
GLENN DIESEN: Well, the problem though is that when political leadership doesn’t pursue its basic economic national interests and subordinates itself in the way the Europeans are, you would expect a vacuum to emerge that is being filled by actors who would actually pursue national interest. And this is the problem because if you have leaders subordinating themselves, they might actually end up killing democracy as well because they will want to seek to prevent that vacuum to be filled by people who actually respond to public interest.
So in Germany you have IFD, which is now the most popular political party, and they want to restore the peace with Russia. But they label them an extremist organization. They’re discussing banning it. In France, I guess the closest you would have would be Le Pen, but she was arrested. As everyone knows, the presidential election in Romania went the wrong way, so they just cancelled the result.
And I was reading Politico today, actually; they’re having an election in the Czech Republic, and they might get a new prime minister. But Andrei Bavi is the one who is leading the polls. They might block him from being allowed to be prime minister because, and Politico cites one of the two major reasons is, he has an ambiguous relationship with NATO. He is not clearly supportive. But we did this to Ukraine too. When Zelensky won on that peace platform back in 2019, which 73% of Ukrainians voted for, many of the NATO countries’ financed NGOs drew a red line and essentially threatened Zelensky to abandon this idea. He wasn’t allowed to talk peace with Russia without having NATO in the room. So you have this when you have a political elite which doesn’t pursue national interest and they prevent anyone from filling the vacuum left behind by their incompetence. You’re going to kill democracy at some point, though.
MICHAEL HUDSON: That’s what has happened not only regarding Russia, but regarding Israel. If you make the claim that you’re against Nazism; if you make the claim that you’re against treating any national ethnic religion as being physically subhuman and a different species; if you say that everybody’s a human being; we’re the same species, you can’t have genocide, that’s a crime in Germany because you’re saying that the Palestinians are human beings. That’s a crime in Germany because the Palestinians, well, I don’t have to explain that. If you say in Ukraine that the Slavs, the Russian speakers, are not subhumans, that’s a crime. You’re having a resurgence of Nazism sweeping across Europe, centered in Germany as it was before.
And the result is that all of Europe has joined with Germany to say, let’s refight World War II in the belief that they can win this time. And I think part of this illusion is a whole generation of Europeans has grown up not only on American movies, but on a false idea of who fought World War II. The two main fighters of World War II were Russia, which lost 22 million people, and China, which lost 18 million people. This is far more than the Westerners, the Europeans and Americans, lost. It was the Russians who broke the Wehrmacht strength, and it was China that broke Japan’s strength that began in 1931 with Japan’s takeover of Manchuria.
The Europeans imagine that somehow they, really the Americans won World War II. And all the Americans did was pretty much put them on rations. It charged for the effort. They came in at the end. They very quickly ended World War II in Japan by using the atom bomb in Japan before the Russians had a chance to drive the Japanese out and lead to a communist domination of Japan. The same thing happened in Western Europe. The Americans delayed and delayed and delayed. The Americans wanted the European war to continue as long as it could, as long as it was killing Russians and Japanese.
This is how the Russian historians see the war. It’s how Chinese historians see the war. That’s not how the Europeans see the war. They think, well, we beat Russia before with American help. We can do it again with American help. In this way, just as we carved up the Near East after World War II and Africa between France, Germany, France, England, and the United States, we can do it all again. There’s this myth that has somehow created a false narrative guiding how Europeans think about what they can achieve in the future. And it’s a false narrative that is almost suicidally self-deceptive.
GLENN DIESEN: Well, on that fact, and it has to be stressed, is a fact that the Russians and the Chinese, or more correctly, the Soviets and the Chinese, were the ones who did the heavy burden, carried the heavy burden in terms of defeating fascism. But recently you have Kaja Kalas, the EU foreign policy chief, mocking it, saying, “Oh, these Chinese and Russians, they’re claiming that they defeated fascism. Oh, they don’t read books over there.” I’m not sure, I think she watches a lot of movies, perhaps, as well, thinking maybe World War II was won by Tom Hanks. I’m not sure where her information comes from, but she even mocked the idea in front of the camera that this was the case.
MICHAEL HUDSON: In our minds, there’s a different set of books. There’s one set of books for the majority of the world population. The German history books, the French history books, and the American, the English history books have all been rewritten in a more and more extreme distortion of what actually happened.
GLENN DIESEN: But there’s been polls over the decades since World War II from France and other countries where they ask, you know: who cared the greatest? Well, who more or less did the most to liberate France and save Europe from fascism? Immediately after World War II in France, I think it’s like 85, 90% who said, well, obviously it was the Soviets. Then you see through the decades of powerful propaganda, it ends up now, the most recent one, with a tiny minority. I think it’s like 18 or 21% who believed it’s the Soviet Union who did the most to defeat Nazi Germany.
So propaganda works. You just tell the same stories over and over again, and after a while, people buy it. And now we’re told that, well, World War II was actually caused by both the fascist and the Soviet Union. And it was the freedom and loving states of the West that beat fascism. I mean, it’s quite an extraordinary tale.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, that’s a false way of framing it. Was Europe saved from fascism? If you look at Europe today, it was not saved from fascism. If Europe was saved; it was for Fascism. Fascism was rescued by the United States almost immediately. The United States immediately hired the main Nazi bureaucracy and put them to work fighting the left wing. You had Operation Galatio in Italy. You have the terrorism organized by the CIA and American foreign policy. And the United States hired the Ukrainian fascists, the Nazis, to organize a Ukrainian nationalist movement. The United States saved fascism from being defeated by Europe.
Fascism was America’s response to socialism and a working class movement. Aldo Morrow was killed in Italy. European politicians were killed, just as Lumumba was killed in Africa, and Pinochet killed Allende in Chile. You had political assassination. You have a whole extension through America’s National Endowment for Democracy of creating non-governmental organizations that have acted as funding processes to bring what you can only call fascist leaders to Europe. Mertz is a fascist. There’s no other word for it. And you could say, the same as Kallas; you could say, the same as von der Leyen with her Nazi background family.
Was Europe saved for fascism? And if so, why is there a resurgence of fascism today – of supporting ethnic genocide in countries that the United States declares is necessary for its control of various regions of the world? This is really the fight. You’re quite right in pointing to the crackdown on civil rights, on free speech. That’s fascism. You’re seeing the same kind of takeover in the United States in the last week or so, just by Donald Trump – imposing a new epoch of McCarthyism, like the 1950s – attacking what he calls the left as if somehow the left was in charge of assassinating Charlie Kirk.
You’re having something political occur from Europe to the United States that I don’t think anyone at the end of World War II, in the whole optimism of that time, was believing – that because they defeated Germany and Italy, they defeated fascism. The fact is that this brought back the class war between American dominance and oligarchy – and socialism, to put labels on it. And that fight has gone on. There’s this ongoing fight against socialism and against democracy.
The movement of Europe has not been towards democracy. It’s been away from it. It’s been towards dependence on an increasingly undemocratic imperialism and even dictatorship by U.S. neocons and neoliberals that are trying to push for a refight of World War II – against Russia and China this time. And just as they (Russia and China) won, they were able to end up defeating fascism, whether it’s German or Japanese, in World War II. The same thing would happen today, but the fight is going to be much more violent and fought by missiles, not by infantry.
GLENN DIESEN: Yeah, this idea that the U.S. wouldn’t have worked or supported fascists, that this was only an anti fascist alliance, is kind of interesting because – I just looked it up here– a quote by Harry Truman before he took the presidency said, “If we see that Germany is winning, we ought to help Russia. And if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany.” In that way, let them kill as many as possible. And towards the end of the Second World War, we also had the British who then developed this plan called Operation Unthinkable, developed in May of 1945 when the war was coming to an end, which entailed not just the US and Britain, but also using what remained of the fascist army to attack, do a surprise attack on the Soviet Union immediately after the common victory. But you know, give this 80 years of Hollywood, and we have a very different story. I did want to shift a bit back towards the economic conquest, if you will, of allies, because we mentioned the Europeans, but the U.S. also has some, I guess, loyal allies in East Asia. I’m thinking of Korea, Japan, and Taiwan, each of them also have strong, well, let’s call it security dependence on the United States. How is the US trying to, I guess, put a squeeze on these, well, two countries and one island, let’s say?
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, again, the word “security dependence” is a euphemism. It’s Orwellian doublethink. Japan has talked about rearming, and it’s even talking about perhaps becoming an atomic power again. If Japan rearms, this is going to immediately lead China to defend itself. Japan’s already met a devastating loss in World War II. There’s no way in which Japan can be a real military threat to anyone. Certainly, the North Koreans, like the South Koreans, have no love for Japan at all because of its brutal occupation of Korea for so many generations. There’s almost a hatred of Japan there via the Liberal Democratic Party being installed by the United States as America’s compact with the Japanese Yakuzas, the criminals.
MacArthur in Japan and the U.S. State Department made deals with the criminals to go and beat up, attack the socialist demonstrations. There was a chance of socialism in Japan after World War II, a reaction by the Japanese. The American alternative was to make Japan basically a largely criminalized mafia-like oligarchy controlled by the LDP. Well, the recent elections now are for the first time threatening to dethrone the pro-U.S. Liberal Democratic Party and put in a more nationalist party. All nationalism means, it doesn’t mean the Japanese nationalism of the 1930s, military style. It means independence from the United States. The aim is not to put Japan at risk of any kind of war again.
Well, again, Japan is host of the U.S. military bases. A few weeks ago, you had China’s great military demonstration very explicitly showing missiles that they pointed out: This missile can hit Guam, America’s military outpost in the West, the Pacific. It can hit the other Japanese military outposts. So it’s not that Japan’s risking its security. The same thing with Taiwan. There’s a very heavy Taiwanese investment in mainland China. There already is a kind of economic symbiosis between the two countries, but the United States is trying to drive a wedge in that.
The Chinese have said, you know, if for any reason you’re able to co-opt the Taiwanese leaders in the way that you’ve co-opted, say, the European leaders, we’re going to hit down very hard. And it’ll be no contest. Your naval fleet are just sitting ducks. Your naval power that helped win World War II is no longer an active military tool because we can wipe them out in one day. The entire Navy. Navies are obsolete as the tool for control which they were for so many centuries when Britain had the greatest Navy in the world. The whole idea of navies for Britain was to deal with economic development around the seacoast. That was because Britain was promoting foreign trade and inter-commercial interdependence among countries.
Well, China has tried to counteract this whole McKinley type strategy of controlling the periphery of continents by trade. China is developing internal connections through the Belt and Road Initiative with railways, pipelines, highways, all sorts of interconnections. So the whole vehicles of foreign trade are now becoming more inland and domestic. What that does is create domestic regional spheres of influence and self-dependency to become independent.
The effects of the United States demands, that it’s made on everyone from Europe to Asia to Latin America, are so overreaching that they’ve created a reaction against the whole last two centuries of liberalism that saw foreign trade and interconnections as a, I won’t say a rules-based order, but an economic order of stability. You have these interconnections now being weaponized. Trump has weaponized foreign trade, both foreign access to the U.S. market for European and other exporters, and the ability to import basic needs that the United States controls, headed by oil and also agriculture, and now by high technology electronics, trying to create, trying to weaponize all this trade to create a form of dependency that the United States can use as a demand: We will destabilize your economy if you don’t give in to our demands.
The real reason, going back to your first question again – why is the United States treating Europe that way and trying to treat the BRICS countries the same way? That’s because the United States is no longer industrialized. It’s deindustrialized. It’s made all this growth of wealth since 2008, the junk mortgage crisis, the stock, bond, and real estate markets. It’s financial wealth. It’s not the wealth of real production. It’s not the wealth of living standards. Living standards have not risen for more than half of Americans since 2008. It’s all been so concentrated in the wealthiest 10% that the wealthiest 10% of Americans are responsible for 50% of all the growth in consumption goods.
But of course, the consumption goods of the wealthy, wealthiest 10%, are not the same kind of consumer goods that the bottom 90% buy– food and basic needs. They’re luxuries, they’re Andy Warhol etchings, and they’re trophies and Italian fashions. All of this was, way back in the 17th century, 18th century, was being debated and realizing that the financial sector does not really behave like an industrial sector.
We’re seeing a whole transformation in the dynamics of what capitalism is all about, what economies are all about. Well, you and I have talked about that before – all of that has a political dimension. The political dimension means that if America is to avoid an even deeper squeeze on its living standards today, it has to get support from other countries – to get from them the wealth and the imports and the money and the subsidies to keep its economy going that its domestic economy can no longer provide.
So the United States has lost its ability to be self-sufficient, and its response to Europe is to destroy Europe’s ability to be economically and commercially and financially self-sufficient. While the BRICS, Asia, now in conjunction with the Global South, Africa, parts of Latin America, are putting their own self-sufficiency as a chief economic aim so that they will not become subject to the U.S. browbeating and extortion and the threats of disrupting their economies. If you insulate your economy from the United States, there’s nothing it can do to you to impose sanctions or to raise tariffs or to weaponize its import and export trade and financial trade.
GLENN DIESEN: Well, this is why the whole U.S. led alliance system has changed so fundamentally. Because after World War II, the United States actually had some extremely generous trade agreements with frontline states, be it Germany or all the Europeans for that sake, or South Korea, Taiwan, Japan. So it’s just in this era… All countries are now faced with a dilemma as the US is seeking to extract concessions. That is, either they fall into the demands, but by doing so, of course, they have to sever themselves off from other countries and then isolate themselves more, make themselves more dependent on the US, or they seek full autonomy by actually diversifying. But then they have to lean more into BRICS, SEA and similar institutions. But there’s not that many middle grounds anymore. I think that’s why the US overreach with India was so spectacular, because the assumption was they could make Europeans out of them in terms of their cutting themselves off from all other centers of power, subordinating themselves to the US and signing whatever they put in front of them. It turned out that they had to go the other way.
But the fact that Modi had to go to China kind of pointed out, from my perspective, this dilemma that there is no middle ground anymore. Either you have to subordinate yourself or you have to protect yourself by diversifying, but then you have to lean into the multipolar institutions. So it’s a fascinating time. It’s an interesting social experiment as well for that sake. I’m not sure if you have any final thoughts before we wrap up.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Only the countries that America defeated in World War II have turned into surrender monkeys. Japan has become an abject victim of the Stockholm Syndrome. And of course, Germany. They’re the two countries that have given in. And the other great opponent of the United States in World War II was, of course, Britain. The British loan of 1944 and the trade agreements that you just mentioned that were favorable to other countries were aimed specifically at breaking up the British Empire. By opening international markets, they ended British imperial preference. That meant that all of the foreign exchange, the earnings made by India and Argentina and other global south raw materials exporters, were no longer required to be spent within the British Empire, but could be spent anywhere.
Well, Britain’s economy was destroyed, and so that meant free to be spent in the United States. Trade agreements were made, it’s true, with Germany, with European countries. Of course, the United States favored the trade there because the European companies were being bought out by American multinational firms. What was supported above all in Europe were the international firms. That’s exactly what the fight is this week, in the last month, by Trump against England and the EU. Today’s Financial Times has a whole wonderful article: Britain must stand up to U.S. pressure on tech rules. This is about the digital services tax of Europe.
Europe at least is trying to impose a digital services tax on American technology firms because they’ve been able to use Hollywood accounting to avoid having to pay income taxes there. And Trump has told England, Britain, if you try to stand up to us and impose your digital services tax on American companies or try to limit what my contributors in Silicon Valley want to do, we’re going to raise tariffs on you again, despite the agreement we made last spring.
Well, if he can say it to Britain, he can certainly say it to the EU. He made it very clear to the EU that if anything the EU does that is at the cost of American firms, as long as these multinationals contribute to Trump’s Republican campaign and his personal campaign and invest personally in his cryptocurrency scams and the other scams, he’ll just squeeze these, tighten the screws onbthese countries. So that’s basically what’s been happening there. I guess that’s my final thought.
Europe has succumbed to giving all of the diplomatic, trade, commercial, and financial initiative to U.S. planners who are not making open-ended trade and financial agreements that benefit all countries. But as Trump said, the United States has to be the winner in any deal that it’s making with foreign countries. And that’s why the United States is not making international deals anymore. Trump says, we’re going to make deals on a country-by-country basis. We’re going to divide and conquer. It worked for Britain for a couple of centuries. It’ll work for us. And as long as we can play different countries against each other, and it’s us, the U.S. economy versus much smaller individual economies, they’d rather hang separately. As long as we can make them willing to hang separately instead of hanging together, then we’ve won the diplomatic fight for control.
GLENN DIESEN: Yeah, well, I think the fault of the Europeans is that they think they should just wait out Trump as if this is only about Trump. I mean, I think he’s quite extreme and radical in his approach in terms of recognizing a problem and seeking to solve it. But I think the alternatives, well, the Bidens of the world, wouldn’t necessarily go in a very different direction. Of course, it might be a bit milder, but the overarching problem isn’t, I mean, we tend to focus on personalities, but what is the end stage? I mean, how else is this ex-capitalist system, being so exhausted – what else is it going to do? I mean the U.S.– if it can’t compete anymore. It’s losing the technological lead; it’s drowning in debt; there are massive economic inequalities fueling social and political problems. I mean, one sees that this has reached the end of the line. There are no more ways to deal with the coming financial crisis. You can’t put the interest rate down or up. As either it’s going to collapse the dollar or it’s going to make the debt repayment unmanageable.
So, it is a brick wall, it seems. I think Trump deals with this in a, let’s say, a very authoritarian way. But the idea that we can just go back to the way things were, I think this is quite delusional. It’s wishful thinking.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Well, that’s the whole problem, Glenn. You put your finger on it. The way things were, the way things are today is not how they were in 1945. There was still an active left wing in Europe. There was a chance of Europe going socialist in a mixed economy. And certainly, the British Labour Party in the 1940s was progressive like that. There were progressive movements throughout Europe. All of that was counteracted by the United States to prevent that.
And you had the old European moneyed aristocracy fighting against this, pushing essentially for neoliberalism, for a dismantling of government strong enough to regulate the financial oligarchies that were emerging and making fortunes on a mutual interdependency with American multinational firms and multinational investments. And the whole world economy was restructured in U.S.-centric lines that have led to this problem.
So in order for Europe to prosper again, it needs to rethink the whole direction of history. And of course, that’s what you and I have been talking about for the last few months. They have to reinvent the economic wheel to analyze: how do we create a mixed economy that’s going to promote growth, rising living standards, and industry instead of creating financial fortunes American style that’s leading to our deindustrialization, just as it’s led to America’s deindustrialization. How do we end up avoiding looking like the United States? What is China doing right in its takeoff that really is following the very policies that made Britain and Germany and the United States industrial powers in the late 19th century?
GLENN DIESEN: Well, that’s an interesting part when they, the way that China’s capitalism is defined as managed capitalism, all these strange words, which, but if you look at it, it’s very, very similar to the industrial capitalism of the U.S. itself in the 19th century. But yes, Michael Hudson, as always, thank you so much for sharing your insights. And I will leave a link to your blog in the description as well. So thank you again.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Thank you very much, Glenn, for the compliments.
I can’t think of any country more disunited. So appropriately, it’s ruled or at least fronted by a master divider. The self-adoring psycho is enjoying every second.
with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.
MAGA Situation Report — Sep 08, 2025.
First off, I want to thank Ling Ding Dong for allowing me to come on here to counter, point by point, his endless bullshit. As a free subscriber to this asshole’s SubStack, I haven’t read most of his articles in full, but his name alone is enough of a clue. This motherfucker also lives in Communistic Vietnam, when he’s not panhandling in South Africa, India or Albania. He’s obviously too broke to travel to any First World or white country.
Rejected by America, he’s missing out on President Trump’s Golden Age. This explains his seething bitterness. This lost loser is too poor to fly back, not that we want him. Landing at Philadelphia International Airport, he’d be arrested within five seconds, then placed on the next flight to South Sudan, where he could mingle forever with other savages of color.
Just now, he’s gloating over the supposed collapse of Las Vegas. Foreign tourists are boycotting it, he claimed. Fact is, we don’t want Chinks, Japs, Gooks, Dotheads, Ragheads and Spics to ruin that beautiful city. Shit, man, we don’t need Frogs, Krauts and Puckheads either. Europeans are freeloaders and Canadians have stupidly refused to become our 51st state. Shunning California, Florida, Arizona and Las Vegas, they’ll just freeze their nuts of.
More good news: Singapore Airlines, Japan Airlines, Korean Air, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, British Airways, Air Canada, Emirates and Qantas have all cut back flights to our beautiful country, thus making it even more gorgeous. Nothing is more breathtaking than empty streets with boarded up stores, such as we’ve seen for decades in Normal Rockwell type burgs across America. Soon enough, Las Vegas will look like Welch, West Virginia.
Having never flown, I didn’t even know there were more than ten airlines, but why, you ask, should we celebrate fewer British Airway flights? Doesn’t MAGA Land need many more white people? Each flight from London is packed with child raping dotheads, who the Brits call Asian groomers. No, thanks.
Any second now, Ling Ding Dong will announce Vietnam Airlines has stopped direct flights from Ho Chi Minh City to San Francisco! Until a minute ago, I didn’t even know there were such outrages. Kenyan Obama must have greenlit that human trafficking pipeline!
Our country is already overrun by Viet Cong run nail salons and dogmeat pho joints. You can’t pay me to even sniff a fuckin’ bowl. What’s wrong with a $12 Bacon Quarter Pounder with Cheese Combo at some ghetto McDonald’s? Haven’t had one in a while, I must admit. We have a family of four. A hearty eater, my wife must have her $24 Classic Big Mac Pack. Two more bucks for a large Coke. Don’t even try to steal one of her fries. Can’t complain. More cushion for the pushin’, my daddy always said.
Having chased most of the yellow, brown and black tourists away, we must do a better job at keeping them out of our colleges. All the Chinese kids are spies anyway. With President Trump flipping off China for years, slitty eyed nerds are no longer so numerous at Ivy League schools, MIT or even Georgia Tech, so that’s a start. These schools have tried to replace them with Indians and even Nigerians, however. That’s seriously fucked up.
Since each Chinese student spent twice as much as an Indian, and thrice as a Nigerian, many more of these savages must be brought in to replace the Chinks!
Where are the white students?! There must be enough who can handle plasma physics, molecular biology, rapid prototyping, neuro science, ordinary differential equations, computational linear algebra, combinatorial analysis and advanced applied probability courses? I have no idea what any of those words means, not one! Gave me a fuckin’ headache just typing them. In 12th grade, I did get a C- in geometry.
Under President Trump’s firm and erect leadership, this previously flaccid nation is finally ejaculating in the right direction. Don’t let pussies like Ling Ding Dong tell you otherwise. One last bit of good news: our corn, soybean and wheat farmers are all in deep shit. Thanks to ICE, their Spic laborers have disappeared, and those Chinks ain’t buying. This is fine, actually.
Like President Trump wisely pointed out, farm work is for black, brown and yellow peasants. Even fat face JD Vance knows this. Us whites have no business growing food or raising animals. With trillions flooding in from Trump’s tariffs, we can just cash our dividend checks.
Didn’t our greatest president ever say, “We’re going to become so rich, you’re not gonna know where to spend all that money. I’m telling you—just watch!”
Freezing my white ass off in a used RV after losing my fuckin’ farm founded by my great, great, great grandfather, a passenger on the Mayflower, I’m watching away, daddy!
Vung Tau, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (L): Coffee Seven on 8/25/25 ; (R): 9/4/25
Lovable Messes! — Sep 08, 2025.
Matthew Rossman is beyond nauseated by my Trump coverage. Having escaped North America, he doesn’t want to hear about that monster. A long time resident of Vietnam, Matthew worked for years in Saigon, and is now in Vung Tau. Typing at Cóc Cóc, I would see him ride by on his motorbike, sometimes with his teenaged daughter. I think she takes violin lessons, and is also in a badminton club.
Vietnamese kids in blue martial art uniforms are studying Vovinam. When still fighting in a boxing ring, MMA star Cung Le would use its signature scissor kick takedown.
Anyway, as a Canadian Matthew is especially disgusted by Trump. To spare him further pain, I will now talk about some Vung Tau characters. Since Matthew isn’t Vietnamese, his access to this culture must be limited. Though I’m not working in this economy, and can’t even ride a motorbike, I can dig out stories Matthew can’t. Plus, I’m a lurker. Even if I wasn’t a writer and photographer, I would still lurk.
For at least two weeks, Mrs. Seven has been obsessed with the K-pop singer Lisa. Since most YouTube videos on this Thai-born singer are in English, Mrs. Seven must sometimes ask me to translate a caption, such as, “Lisa’s sad and tearful moment back home.”
Seeing this 28-year-old chick crying on stage in Bangkok, I couldn’t help but blurt, “Look at her! She’s faking it!”
Wrong, wrong, wrong! Sixty-seven-year-old Mrs. Seven walked away, looking hurt. Her beloved Lisa can’t be a phony! Even her obviously fake nose must be real!
Other times, Mrs. Seven can be very tough. Yesterday, she decided one of her two dogs needed the hair around his asshole trimmed. Since Milk Cow had gone through this routine, he was cowering under a table. Holding her scissors, Mrs. Seven shouted for him to come out. As she clipped away, I observed, “You’re not even an inch from his balls! Click, click, click, click! He’s traumatized for life!” She thought it was hilarious.
I’ve already told you about Mrs. Seven cutting the tail off all her puppies and kittens, just after they’re born.
Just as important as hygiene is obedience. When her younger daughter was in the 12th grade, she came home near midnight once, so was caned three times on her ass while lying face down in bed, sobbing. When her older daughter, already 21-years-old, came home in the morning after a night out, she was slapped, hard, three times at the door. When Mrs. Seven was told her husband was seen with some slut, she went looking for them with a barber’s razor. As an organist playing at restaurants and nightclubs where booze was served, he must have had many chances.
Telling me these stories, Mrs. Seven boasted, “I’ll knock you out, send you flying with a kick.” As a girl, she practiced her punches on her dad’s heavy bag. Even today, there’s a five-foot-long hard plastic pipe she keeps by the door, just in case there’s trouble.
This morning, Lisa was again mentioned. Mrs. Seven does concede K-pop stars are all sliced up and reconfigured, every single one of them but her Lisa. Like most people, she knows South Korea leads the world in plastic surgeries. To my surprise, she added, “But if you need to fix things down there, you must go to Thailand! They can cut if off and give you a hole. They can go the other way, too.”
“But it won’t work!” I retorted.
“Of course, it will work.”
I turned to Sơn the security guard, “How does Mrs. Seven know so much about this?”
He just grinned.
In five months, NaLi Beach’s lease will run out. Though Sơn could be assigned somewhere else, he will likely work for his son-in-law as a manager at a construction site. Sounds like a better gig. When Sơn showed up in Vung Tau in 1991, he didn’t even have a thousand đồng [three pennies]. His first job here was at a lumber mill. Though Sơn earned next to nothing, he somehow got married soon after to a woman not so destitute.
“How did you manage that, brother?”
“Technique,” he smiled.
“Did you hear that, Mrs. Seven?! Brother Sơn has technique!”
“I wouldn’t know. I haven’t tried.”
In just six hours, I will see those two again, plus Nọng, of course. She’s always ecstatic to see me. Sometimes this bitch disappears into the kitchen, way in the back, to lie quietly in a dark hovel. Like everyone, she’s more complex than we can imagine, so preoccupied, each of us, with our laughable, or lovable, if you will, mess.
(L): Manila, 4/19/25 ; (R): Vung Tau, 9/4/25
Nation of United Races?! — Sep 09, 2025.
In late 2019, I showed up in Vung Tau to stay for a month, then disappeared for 2 1/2 years. From mid 2022 until now, I’ve spent two more years here, so I’ve had a chance to see Vung Tau change. There are many more itinerant sellers of lottery tickets and recent rural transplants wandering around peddling food or dirt cheap items. Most alarmingly, some beggars have reappeared. From 1975 to 2000, there were so many. During that span, I spent nearly three years in Vietnam, with trips to very remote areas of both north and south, so I saw these beggars. I’m not speaking from statistics.
Last night at Cóc Cóc, I gave money to a woman in her mid 40’s. There’s something off about her. The young barista sensed this too.
This is the seventh month of the lunar calendar. In Southeast Asia, it’s calculated from the year of Buddha’s death, so we’re in 2568. (Basically, I’m living 543 years ahead of you.) This is when dead souls are allowed by Yanluo Wang, the ruler of hell or just the afterlife, to return to their old haunts. Setting up altars with food offered to these spirits, many businesses also give food to the living. This attracts scammers. Mrs. Seven, for example, saw a woman who kept changing blouses and hats so she could return to the same charity line as a different person. Another woman she knew went all over Vung Tau to collect food, then bragged about how much she got. This goes against the spirit of neighbors helping neighbors or the truly destitute.
Last night’s beggar complained the bills I gave her were too old. Overhearing this, the young barista suggested I stop giving her money again.
“Have you seen her before?” I asked.
“Just once.”
“She’s weird, but who knows? Maybe she’s really hungry.”
At Cóc Cóc recently, some guy was caught on camera stealing its plastic plant pot. I can’t imagine it selling for more than 10,000 đồng, or 38 cents. This is enough, though, to buy sticky rice with mung beans, lotus seeds, peanuts, gấc or even pork floss. Six years ago in Dak Lak, I would get shit faced with three other guys on just 10,000 đồng’s worth of moonshine. No longer sipping socially, I can’t recommend any rice wine that may kill you for next to nothing, but you can certainly feel fine after work for five or six days on just two bucks, or just 10,000 đồng a day. Turn off your TV, then, and scour your neighborhood for plant or flower pots, even huge, ornate ones. What’s the worst that can happen? Running from bullets is great exercise. Ding dong ditching is for kids.
“You don’t know how bad it was 25 years ago. You weren’t even born!”
“I wasn’t, uncle.” She smiled.
“Look at these.” I then showed her five photos on my laptop. “Just look carefully at each.”
She stared at people, including children, sleeping on sidewalks. One image had a pantless boy standing next to a woman in a beatup wheelchair.
“Where do you think this is?” I asked.
“Africa?”
“Africa?! Look at them! They look like us.”
To many Vietnamese, a Cambodian is black enough, so he’s just black. Those images, though, were of Manila. Sleeping on sidewalks for months or even years would darken your skin, too, so the barista thought she was looking at Africa. Ignoring their hair, eyes and lips, she only saw skin color. For millennia, we were conditioned to detect the smallest differences, for life and death might depend on it. Even before he could open his mouth, we could tell he wasn’t from our tribe. Even today, many Vietnamese will insist they can differentiate, by sight alone, a Mekong Delta native from a Red River one. Genetics, climate, food, history and culture must leave clues, often obvious.
Working at least 360 days a year, the barista hasn’t traveled anywhere, so you can’t really blame her for confusing a Southeast Asian nation for Africa. Africans rarely show up in Vung Tau. If he’s tall and well dressed enough, most Vietnamese would just call him a Westerner, ông Tây.
As a child, I still heard the USA referred to as Hiệp Chủng Quốc. Derived from the Japanese 合衆国, it’s supposed to be a translation of United States, but 衆 is clearly mass or crowd. Hiệp Chủng Quốc or 合衆国, then, is literally United Crowd Nation.
Smart asses will point out that 衆 is really chúng, and not chủng, which means race and not mass. What we have then, is a Japanese mistranslation further mistranslated, at least colloquially, by the South Vietnamese, perhaps willfully. Dimwit South Vietnamese like me imagined the United States as the Nation of United Races.
Speaking of race and crowds, South Korea just beat the US in soccer by 2 to zero in metro New York. At MetLife Stadium, South Korean fans far outnumbered US fans. It was the visiting Orientals who had home field advantage. For decades, this has also been true of Mexico vs. US on American soil. Who cares, you say, but the world cares more about soccer than just about anything else!
Roger Bennett, “South Korea, Bong Junho, BTS, New Jeans just turned the US men’s national team into Bibimbap!” Just a decade ago, so many Korean references strung together would have been impossible. There is indeed a cultural shift.
This game came right after that ICE raid in Georgia where over 300 South Koreans were arrested. Even when foreigners bring jobs to Americans, they’re treated like enemies.
On the same day in the same city, Trump was loudly booed at the US Open tennis final, and this blustery clown is a New Yorker! This June, Trump was also booed at the Kennedy Center, the nation’s premier space for the performing arts. He’s also despised in LA, San Francisco, Chicago, Philadelphia and just about every other American city. His only remaining supporters are the farmers he’s bankrupting and depressed blue collar types who think wearing a red hat will transform their lives.
I can’t think of any country more disunited than this Nation of United Races. As its economy collapses further, this seething hatred between Americans so divided by race, national origin, class or favorite TV station can only get much worse. So appropriately, it’s ruled or at least fronted by a master divider. The self-adoring psycho is enjoying every second.
Such absolute self-love leaves no room for affection or just basic awareness of anything else. Nothing means anything unless it serves him immediately. Fortunately, madness so pure and public doesn’t plague every nation.
(L): Chuck Workman’s Superstar: The Life and Times of Andy Warhol (1990) ; (R): Mickey Rourke as Charles Bukowski in Barbet Schroeder’s Barfly (1987)
Post Siesta Thoughts on Global Cultural Collapse — Sep 10, 2025.
In hot countries, taking a nap in the afternoon is most natural, as is getting much done early in the morning, even before dawn, when it’s coolest.
Finished with an article by 10AM, I walked around a bit, cooked, ate, washed dishes, gathered news, thought about this and that, then fell asleep. Getting up much later than usual, I didn’t leave my room again until past 5PM. Just getting dressed, I thought about Chuck Workman’s Superstar: The Life and Times of Andy Warhol and Robert Altman’s Short Cuts, a film based on Raymond Carver’s short stories. These flicks I saw in theaters more than three decades ago. For some reasons, they made me think of Barfly, a 1987 film about Charles Bukowski I never saw, and Paul Schrader’s Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters. I did catch that in 1985. Still in college, I had a classmate, a black girl, who was a Mishima freak. Another girl, a Canadian, turned me on to Andrei Tarkovsky.
Walking to Cóc Cóc, I thought about Nguyễn Huy Thiệp’s 1986 short story, “Tướng về hưu.” In my translation as “The Retired General,” it was published in the American Poetry Review, then Crossing The River. Twenty-three years after publication, this Curbstone book has but nine reviews on Amazon. A JD Vance sideway fart generates more critical attention, including PhD dissertations.
With increasing excitement, but also rage, I thought about the Tennessee Williams stories made into movies, and of his drunken interview with David Frost in 1974. Despite all its problems, hypocrisy and violence, that was America’s Golden Age. Those plopped into Biden’s wokedom then MAGA’s cesspool have no ideas.
As led by the USA, our global cultural collapse occurred over decades. Within 24 hours of arriving in Hanoi in 1995, I had a heated discussion with strangers about Nguyễn Huy Thiệp at a random café. Granted, most of them were only familiar with his fiction through film versions, just as Americans could watch Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958), The Rose Tattoo (1955), Baby Doll (1956), Suddenly, Last Summer (1959), Summer and Smoke (1961), Sweet Bird of Youth (1962) The Night of the Iguana (1964), and two versions of The Glass Menagerie (1950 and 1987). Now, most people would prefer a lethal injection over being stuck on a comfortable chair in an air conditioned room next to a tub of popcorn to endure over two hours of any film made from a serious work of literature. That’s infinitely worse than death by a thousand cuts!
Ashland, Oregon was famous for a Shakespeare Festival where MAGA types would pay to get their perfunctory dose of high culture. Once a lifetime ain’t so bad. It spared them from driving five hours to Portland just to sidestep Antifa freaks, either panhandling, bent over from heroin or dead from Fentanyl, lying weirdly on the sidewalk. Maybe those plays in incomprehensible English are still being staged? At least the costumes are cool. Getting fucked up beforehand also helps.
Before Warhol, there was Salvador Dali, but the Spaniard did paint. Warhol mass produced his art in studios he called, most tellingly, The Factory. Having assistants do most of his work allowed the artist to spend nearly all his time just looking cool. Warhol’s main task was self-promotion. With his magazine, Interview, Warhol also made money by turning whoever into superstars, at least for 15 minutes. Before dropping dead, Warhol lent lotsa shine to Jean Michel Basquiat. With his black face often white with coke, Basquiat actually died from smack at age 27. His Whitney retrospective in 1992 was mostly financed by Madonna! Basquiat was the last American artist to receive any sort of general recognition.
In fiction, Bret Easton Ellis’ American Psycho (1991) hit the big screen in 2000. By then, movie theaters were barely hanging on. Denis Johnson’s excellent 1992 collection of short stories, Jesus’ Son, hardly made a splash as a film in 1999.
I can’t claim to be a huge fan of Raymond Carver, but he’s heavily promoted when I was just learning to write, so I read pretty much all his stories. I even endured fiction by his pusher, Gordon Lish. When Short Cuts came out, I immediately went to the Theater of the Living Arts on South Street to see it. What struck me then was how all the female stars had to be frontally nude at some point, so porn was used to sell literature. Hollywood as a sexist whorehouse couldn’t have been more naked. Only in 2017, though, was serial rapist Harvey Weinstein arrested.
(L): Bùi Cường as Chí Phèo in Phạm Văn Khoa’s Làng Vũ Đại ngày ấy (1982) ; (R): Ken Ogata as Mishima in Paul Schrader’s Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters (1985)
Arriving at Cóc Cóc, I saw only one customer, a man in his 50’s I had talked to several times. Let’s call him Tuấn. After the army, Tuấn went to the Soviet Union to study, then work. This northerner has traveled a bit. Now he works at Vung Tau’s small airport. Helicopters to oil rigs and Côn Đảo take off from there.
Already frothed up, I started to rant about cultural collapse, including in Vietnam. I mentioned how in nearly three years in Vung Tau, I saw just one person with a serious book, a collection of Nam Cao short stories, how in Dak Lak, I quoted a Hồ Xuân Hương line, “Spread me to three points, there’s not enough skin,” only to have it not understood, much less recognized. It’s a vagina talking. I mentioned how a motorbike taxi guy had never heard of Nguyễn Du. He’s only Vietnam’s greatest poet, with schools and streets named after him all over. In Phnom Penh, there’s even a Nguyen Du Aesthetics Plastic Surgery Center.
Sitting outside the Walt Whitman house in Camden, NJ one July 4th, I talked to a panhandler who claimed he did odd jobs for “Mr. Whitman.” His grave in the same city is nearly as forlorn as Ivana Trump’s.
Understanding me perfectly, Tuấn agreed something must be done. He mentioned how cultured Putin sounded when interviewed by Tucker Carlson. We laughed at Trump’s illiteracy.
We discussed the Philippines. “They have a slave mentality,” Tuấn actually said. Their English proficiency is actually a mark of this. Minalonan born Carlos Bulosan’s best known work is America is in the Heart, written in English. Manila native Jessica Hagedorn’s Dogeaters is about Manila, but in English. Their national hero José Rizal’s Noli Me Tángere is in Spanish. F. Sionil José wrote in English but had a Manila bookstore with a Spanish name, Solidaridad.
Of course, there’s also a Saigon chump who wrote about his native city in English. Worse, he has four books with America in the title, but massa, I was airlifted to Guam as a chide. Growing up on your bountiful and beauteous plantation, I gorged on Shirley Temple, Leave it to Beaver, Donny and Mary, Happy Days and The Gong Show. I wrote a fan letter to Slick Watts. Please don’t whip me, massa, though I gone bad!
“You know, I used to sit at Ca Dao.” The name means folk poetry. “The music played is from Saigon before 1975, plus some songs from Hanoi before 1954. Over half of their songs, though, are American, so what’s being evoked here? Almost none of their customers can understand a word, so they’re in there only to relive American occupied Saigon! Most Saigonese at the time had no interest in American culture, however. Only bargirls listened to American music, because they had to. Yes, there were a few bands influenced by American music, but most people ignored it. Growing up in Saigon before 1975, I didn’t even know what a hot dog or a pizza was, I never ate fried chicken, and my dad wasn’t poor! No one wore a hoodie. That’s for a much cooler climate. It’s so hot here!”
As Tuấn’s eyes glazed over, I waved at the stores in front of us, “Look at the English!” Actually, it’s much worse further on Ba Cu. “Our kids make all these mistakes,” in Vietnamese, I meant, “and their vocabulary has shrunk! Whenever I’m in the library, I’m the only one in there!”
I did shut up long enough to hear Tuấn talk about the importance of national pride, with respect and love for one’s culture a key component.
“What Vung Tau needs,” I ranted on, “is for its writers, painters and musicians to be recognized by people living here, and for them to write, paint and sing about being here.”
Though Tuấn agreed, I suspect he doubted it could ever happen. We’re too far gone.
In days, my three Vietnamese books will arrive in the mail. Each has a print run of 200, more than I need, but 100 would have cost only slightly less.
Emailing Saigon poet Lý Đợi, I said, “I don’t see how I can give so many books away. Those boxes will go into my coffin then,” not that I’ll have a coffin.
We’re not too far gone. Since respect for one’s language, history and land, for one’s nation, in short, is essential for having a meaningful life, it must be cultivated continuously. If eroded over centuries or raped away overnight, it must be recovered.
The second half of this piece was written the morning after, at Coffee Seven. At 5:36AM, the sun is up. This morning, the sky has a pale pink tint. Across the street, Morning Star Kindergarten’s gate is open, but no kid has arrived. In an alley, someone is sweeping.
About Linh Dinh (@linhdinh):
‘Before being canceled, I was an anthologized poet and fairly prolific author, with my last book Postcards from the End of America. Now, I write about our increasingly sick world for a tiny audience on SubStack. Drifting overly much, I’m in Cambodia.
Born in Saigon, Vietnam in 1963, I lived mostly in the US from 1975 until 2018, but have returned to Vietnam. I’ve also lived in Italy, England and Germany. I’m the author of a non-fiction book, Postcards from the End of America (2017), a novel, Love Like Hate (2010), two books of stories, Fake House (2000) and Blood and Soap (2004), and six collections of poems, with a Collected Poems cancelled by Chax Press from external pressure. I’ve been anthologized in Best American Poetry 2000, 2004, 2007, Great American Prose Poems from Poe to the Present, Postmodern American Poetry: a Norton Anthology (vol. 2) and Flash Fiction International: Very Short Stories From Around the World, etc. I’m also editor of Night, Again: Contemporary Fiction from Vietnam (1996) and The Deluge: New Vietnamese Poetry (2013). My writing has been translated into Japanese, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Korean, Arabic, Icelandic, Serbian and Finnish, and I’ve been invited to read in Tokyo, London, Cambridge, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, Leipzig, Halle, Reykjavik, Toronto, Singapore and all over the US. I’ve also published widely in Vietnamese.’
AHH: Please support this wonderful writer on his Substack! Thanks
Tags de l’article
it’s all about sticking it to your political enemy even as your nation is imploded and you go bankrupt. Over a century of professional sports has conditioned the American mind for such fanaticism.
with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.
Images of America’s Golden Age — Sep 06, 2025.
The Smithsonian or any other major museum should mount a monster exhibition to chronicle how Trump is depicted, by himself, his admirers and his detractors. Never before has anyone exerted so much energy in crafting his own image. This, in turn, has provoked a fierce backlash, so there’s a dizzying array of Trump images online. Being virtual, they’ll disappear unless printed out then preserved. A thick coffee table book would do, too.
The White House’s TikTok account’s images of Trump are weird and provocative enough. Standing at a podium next to an unguardedly smiling young woman, Trump with his puckering mouth and scanning, leering eyes doesn’t spell wholesomeness, I don’t think.
There’s Trump, in a McDonald’s uniform, waving from a drive through window, Trump in a hard hat at a construction site, Trump looking very serious, even menacing, from the passenger seat of a heavy truck. All these images are meant to convey how down to earth and close to the working man is this silver spooned lover of virgin flesh and gold leafed cherubim. Jackie Parker comments, “I voted for this. Trump 2028 [bookended by two flags].” So a third term is in order. Screw the Constitution! Clanker has Trump laughing over a red map of the USA, “PLACES WHERE TRUMP IS STILL YOUR PRESIDENT AFTER ALL OF YOUR PROTESTING.”
At Amazon, there are all these “WOKE TEARS” or “LIBERAL TEARS” mugs for sale, so it’s all about sticking it to your political enemy even as your nation is imploded and you go bankrupt. Over a century of professional sports has conditioned the American mind for such fanaticism. Nothing feels better than backing your team, especially when it’s winning.
For just $19.99, you can get your MAGA grandpa a tumbler with Trump’s face, plus this mess, “YOU ARE A REALLY, REALLY GREAT GRANDPA. THE BEST, REALLY TERRIFIC. JUST FANTASTIC. OTHER GRANDPAS? LOSERS! TOTAL DISASTERS, EVERYONE AGREES [three stars] YOU ARE THE BEST [three stars] BELIEVE ME.” Trump’s bombastic style spreads.
His praises are generic and disingenuous. His insults are more creative yet prepubescent. They’re not even juvenile. Trump is reshaping American English. Mocking Trump, Gavin Newsom is outtrumping Trump.
In 1858, Lincoln debated Stephen A. Douglas seven times. Each lasted about three hours, in front of crowds averaging 13 thousand people. Of course, there were no microphones, so manly voices had to carry. With no YouTube videos to rewatch later, everyone had to pay closest attention. In November of 2024, Trump mimicked giving a microphone holder a blow job as his fans laughed and cheered. He’s praised the size of Arnold Palmer’s penis. Even gayer than Obama, he’s obsessed with interior decorating.
Most comments at TikTok are intensely negative, with many accompanied by a computer generated image. One shows Trump, Weinstein, Epstein, Bill Cosby and Diddy on “Mount Rapemore.” Another has Trump as “The Lying King.” An X-ray of his head shows a minuscule brain. On that preposterous banner at the US Department of Labor with Trump’s “big beautiful face,” Epstein is added. Behind this Satanic child rapist, then, lurks his Jewish pimp.
Meant to hype the Trump cult, the White House’s TikTok account has become a survey of how much he’s despised. The Mount Rapemore response has 1,930 likes, more than any other on that thread.
With everything a joke, it’s often hard to detect irony, but perhaps there’s none in a “MAGA DYNASTY” image showing Vance, Rubio and Hegseth as presidents after Trump.
Billions across the globe are astounded that Trump’s approval rating is still at 41%, as of 9/6/25 according to The Economist, hardly a left wing or liberal bastion. It’s a damning indictment of the American brain. At TikTok, there’s a fine image of five MAGA cultists licking Trump’s boots as he stands on stage. Obscured by his legs is the US flag.
Before I had published my first poem, story or article, I posed as an art critic. I published reviews at the now defunct New Art Examiner, out of Chicago. I curated a show, Toys and Incense, at Philadelphia’s Moore College of Art. I was critic in residence at Art in General in New York City.
Sitting ugly in Vung Tau, I await that urgent call from the Smithsonian, so I can start assembling that blockbuster show of Trump images. After DC, it will travel to New York, LA, Paris, London, Rome, Tokyo, Shanghai and Sydney. Jostling crowds will laugh their nuts off.
(L): Madison Zhao ; (R): International Kid
Flexing Fools — Sep 05, 2025.
Yesterday, I ran into Dzuy, that habitual liar. I met him just days after moving into DC HomeStay in January of 2024. A housepainter, Dzuy told me was a retired highschool teacher. The girlfriend he was staying with, he introduced as his wife. Working in Germany, she comes back for a couple months each year.
When Dzuy told me he had just returned from Germany, I said bullshit! “Let’s go for a cup of coffee,” I suggested, “so you can tell me all about Germany.”
As we sat at this leafy sidewalk joint on Nguyễn Tri Phương, Dzuy couldn’t say anything.
“You must have taken some photos in Germany?”
“Many!”
“So show me a few.”
Cornered, Dzuy put his phone away. Months ago, he said he had visited Cambodia. When asked, Dzuy couldn’t even name that town or city. Always boasting, Dzuy claims women look for him because he can last over an hour. I know who you’re thinking of, but unlike that frantic chest thumper, Dzuy doesn’t have 500 bucks to his name, and he’s not stinking up each room with his loaded diaper.
Having claimed Trump as thinker is more influential in Vietnam than Confucius, Laozi and maybe even Buddha, I must clarify. Confucius stresses temperance in action and modesty in speech, so the exact opposite of Trump’s behavior. In the Orient as elsewhere, boasting has become so easy thanks to the internet, but there’s a twist. Nearly always, yellow flexers flaunt how ultra Western they’ve become. There’s no Confucianism, Taoism or Buddhism in any of this.
Consider, for example, just two famous Chinese influencers, Madison Zhao and International Kid. Their names alone say much. In appearance, too, they’re straining to be not Oriental. Madison’s hair, eyes, nose, lips and even skin are desperately Occidental, and she only wears the most expensive Western brands. International Kid is the same. To mostly swooning audiences, they crow nonstop.
Judge for yourself. Madison Zhao in a typical TikTok video:
Here’s a breakdown of all the money I made and spent in a day as a public company CEO and content creator. On this day, I started work at 8AM and worked for 16 hours. My hourly rate is $5,000 per hour, so I made $80,000 for my main job.
I mean, this is kind of ridiculous because I get paid the same rate even I work overtime, while everyone else in my company gets paid 1.5 times more. Can you believe that? But luckily, I made around $1.3 million from the stock market today, so it kind of offset my underpaid salary. Now, let’s talk about the money I made from my side hustles.
I made $719 from one video on TikTok and $1,587 from my course. My lunch was around $900 and my dinner was around $1,000 because that’s usually how much it costs when we dine out, even though it was the worst dinner I ever had in my life. Literally tastes like shit!
Then I went shopping and spent around $500,000 in the LV store. But here comes my biggest expense slash investment of the year. I ordered a $2.5 million Richard Mille Watch that only have 50 pieces in the world, but my shareholders paid for it, so the total for that was zero.
So I made $1,380,000 and I spent $502,000, which leaves me a positive $878,000 for the day.
Even worse, International Kid sounds like parody:
My name is Jay Ma, and I’m the richest international student at NYU. This is how we spend our break time between classes. I need to buy new gym clothes, so I went to shop on everyone’s favorite fitness brand, Celine.
I bought this nice track jacket, but they did not have the matching track pants in my size. Next, I need the new headphones, because the AirPod Max is too basic for me. How’s everybody supposed to know my music is more expensive than yours?
Snack time. I rent out the whole restaurant for me and my friend, to keep me as safe from the people with a low credit score, so I can enjoy a black caviar in peace. I go to Gentle Monster to buy new sunglasses, but there’s no time left to try them on, so I just asked them to ship it all to my penthouse at 432 Park Avenue.
Vung Tau, 9/4/25
At “my friend,” there’s a brief shot of a white girl. She never reappears. In Japan, there are host and hostess bars where fake boyfriends and girlfriends can be had. Fake families can also be rented in Japan. Having modernized much later, Chinese aren’t quite as lonely, but they’re catching up fast, I’m sure.
Last week, I sneaked into Salt Water in Vung Tau. Those preening girls I encountered were but silly hicks compared to Madison Zhao.
Of course, Vietnam also has internet flexers, including AI ones. E.M ƠI [roughly O.H. HONEY] promotes domestic fashion brand, Môi Điên [Crazy Lips]. From its English only website, “Môi Điên Studio was founded in the heart of Saigon, Vietnam in 2016 by Tom Trandt Minh Đạo—a Parsons graduate […]” Trần, or Chang in Chinese, is now vaguely Germanic. I’m sorry, but fick dich, Trandt!
Those who flex or worship flexers, then, are Trumpian in spirit. Luckily, most Vietnamese can only afford the cheapest T-shirts or pyjamas ridiculously emblazoned with Channel, Gucci or Dolce n Gabbana, etc.
Impotently, old heads mourn. This morning at Coffee Seven, I talked for the first time with an actual retired highschool teacher. We lamented the deterioration of our language, including comical misuses of common words. We also noticed the disappearance of eyes from boat prows and phoenix flowers from school yards. Also, fruit bearing trees are no longer planted at schools because wimpy, fried chicken fattened boys might fall climbing them. Hard to believe their forefathers defeated the Chinese, Mongols, French and Americans.
Boats needed eyes to scare away sea monsters, by the way. Viet fishermen also forbade all women, including their wives and daughters, from stepping on their vessels. With amusement, the teacher recalled when a famous actress, Thẩm Thúy Hằng, showed up in Vung Tau around 1960 for a photo shoot. Every local hick chased her from his boat, however.
“Some progress is necessary,” he concluded.
Soon enough, such appalling or amusing tales will be forgotten or whitewashed, here, there and everywhere.
Child Rape Privilege — Sep 06, 2025.
In 2008, a 76-year-old Saigon professor, Nguyễn Văn Ân, was put on trial for marrying a 15-year-old. Then as now, Vietnam’s age of marriage for a female is 18. Though this is often ignored among Highland tribes, this case occurred right in Vietnam’s biggest city. Of course, what made it sensational was their enormous age difference. Plus, the professor was fairly well known.
The old creep said he had taken her in a year earlier to be his housekeeper, and to keep him company. With her family so poor, this was also an act of charity, more or less. How could he be blamed if this peasant girl fell in love with such a towering Saigon intellectual who spoke several languages? It was she who suggested marriage, Ân claimed.
The girl’s mom had a different story. So destitute, she had agreed to sell her daughter to Ân for 50 million đồng, or less than $3,000, to be payable in two installments. After paying her 30 million, he returned the daughter, and refused to pay the rest, so he stiffed her, she declared with justifiable outrage. Both sides concurred this marriage was never consummated, since the professor’s crane no longer lifted, but what is sex, really?
Decades ago, I read Kawabata’s House of the Sleeping Beauties. In it, old men pay to sleep next to a drugged woman, so there’s no interaction. I don’t remember any description of fondling or molestation, though, you’d think, it has to happen. When the protagonist is assigned a different beauty on a visit, he balks by saying, “I’m not so promiscuous as that!” Something like that, I sold that book long ago.
With Ân so feeble, the court showed mercy by not jailing him, and the girl, it is said, betrayed no trauma. Returned to her village, she was training to be a makeup artist for brides.
This case reminded literate Vietnamese of Nguyễn Công Trứ (1778-1858). This poet, mandarin and general had 13 wives. The last was a 17-year-old he married at age 73. Clearly proud of this fact, he celebrated and even joked about it in a poem, “Marrying in Old Age.” Its best two lines:
Bride asks groom, How old are you? Fifty years ago, I was just 23.
Its last line is still repeated in conversations, “The older the more pliable and long lasting!” Càng già càng dẻo càng dai! Most who do it has no idea it comes from this poem.
Like Ân’s bride, this unnamed 17-year-old had to be destitute, for why else would she want to be the 13th wife of an old man?
Nguyễn Công Trứ died at age 80. Trump is 79. Melania is just 55, so 24 years younger. If alive, Trump’s first wife Ivana would be 76. Dead three years, she’s buried in a pitiful, minimal grave at a forgotten corner of Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, NJ. A typical Vietnamese peasant is interred with more dignity.
It’s horrible enough for any teenager to be in bed with someone old enough to be her grandfather. It’s much worse when she’s raped.
(R): Ivana Trump’s grave in Bedminster, NJ
Three weeks ago, I mentioned testimonies on 6/3/25 by Israeli girls raped and tortured by some of the most powerful men in that society, including members of the Knesset. On 9/3/25, victims of the Jewish pimp and blackmailer Jeffrey Epstein appeared in Washington DC to demand, finally, transparency into that evil network.
Though deeply involved, Trump declared this Epstein scandal was “a Democrat hoax that never ends.”
Victim Haley Robson countered, “It feels like you just want to explode inside because nobody again is understanding that this is a real situation. These women are real. We’re here in person.” This registered Republican has offered to meet Trump to hash everything out. I wouldn’t bet on it happening.
Another victim, Jena-Lisa Jones, said, “I’m a Republican. I voted for him. I voted for Trump. For him to say what he’s saying is beyond me. Because I put my hope in him, and he’s supposed to protect us. And for him to say that this is a joke…”
Victim Chauntae Davies, “Epstein surrounded himself, I’m sorry, with the most powerful leaders of our country and the world. He abused not only me but countless others, and everyone seemed to look away. The truth is, Epstein had a free pass. He bragged about his powerful friends, including our current president, Donald Trump. It was his biggest brag, actually.”
Everywhere throughout time, old men near death have fantasized about sleeping with beauties decades younger, but most don’t act on it, especially with force. When they do, there should be severe consequences. The more corrupt or Satanic a society, the more they can get away with this. Trump just might. Many have.
Trumpocalypse Now! — Sep 07, 2025.
Before, Mrs. Seven opened around 4AM, with her first customer, nearly always, Mr. Sơn the security guard at NaLi Beach. He rarely arrived before 4:30, however. Since she had wifi, I started to show up as early as 3:10AM. Sitting in the dark on her only bench, I would read the news, do some research and think about that day’s article.
Sniffing my scent, one of her two dogs, Nọng, would go berserk inside Mrs. Seven’s bedroom. Having no choice but to get up earlier, she now opens around 3:30AM, just to serve me a 38-cent glass of black coffee, plus free hot tea. Some days, though, I may not arrive at all.
Sitting in a lit up Coffee Seven, Nọng would look anxiously down Lê Ngọc Hân Street. Behind her display case with its cigarettes, soft drinks and talismans, Mrs. Seven also waits.
Though I didn’t disappoint Nọng or Mrs. Seven this morning, I couldn’t get anything started, so left early.
“I’m still so sleepy.”
“So go home and sleep!”
Moseying home, I passed a baby girl in the cheapest stroller. As I smiled at her, her grandma said, “Behave yourself or grandpa will yell at you!” This was said in a gentle, playful way. The baby simply stared at me.
“Who’s so pretty? Who’s so well behaved?” To not alarm her, I only touched her shoulder lightly. The Vietnamese adjective for well behaved is ngoan.
“She’s very ngoan,” the old lady said. “Now greet grandpa!”
A child greeting an old person should fold her arms and bow slightly. This gesture is called ạ. As a kid, I did this all the time. It’s rarely seen these days. So ngoan, this baby ạ me properly.
“So pretty! So well behaved!” Smiling, I walked away. I had never seen them before, and may never see them again.
(R): Vung Tau, 9/7/25
Turning left on Thủ Khoa Huân, I noticed a snail in the road, so picked him up to place under a tree. He would have been crushed within an hour or two. Since it was only 6:25AM, cocky bastard thought he was immortal. Just days earlier, I had run into another snail on the same street. If the same one, he’s dumber than me.
Resisting the French, Thủ Khoa Huân was exiled to Cayenne, French Guiana, where he spent five years. Released, he resumed his guerilla activities, so was finally decapitated in 1875 at age 45. Vietnamese history is filled with such fearless nationalists.
Before leaving Coffee Seven, I did have a quick chat with that retired highschool teacher.
“What do you make of this?” I asked while showing him a Truth Social post by Donald Trump.
It flaunts this draft dodger in shades and a black cavalry hat with its crossed sabers. Behind him is the Chicago skyline, five Vietnam era helicopters and flames, suggesting war. “I love the smell of deportations in the morning…” it says at the top, then “Chicago is about to find out why it’s called the department of WAR.” Three cartoony choppers serve as exclamations. “Chipocalypse Now,” it says at the bottom.
Few Vietnamese have seen Apocalypse Now. Those who have would have laughed hysterically at Coppola’s declaration, “My film is not about Vietnam. It is Vietnam.” Based on Conrad’s Heart of Darkness and filmed in the Philippines, there’s no Vietnam in that flick, but don’t let any Vietnamese persuade you. Americans know best.
Though the retired teacher could read English, he couldn’t decipher any of the referents, so I had to explain, “There’s this famous film, Apocalypse Now. In it, there’s this famous line, ‘I love the smell of Napalm in the morning.’ It’s written by a Jew. Americans think it’s funny. Trump is using Vietnam War imagery to threaten an American city!”
We also talked briefly about Trump’s decision to kill 11 Venezuelan fishermen while claiming they’re drug traffickers. Nothing about it makes sense. Even if true, it’s illegal, but what do you expect from a child raping supporter of Jewish genocides?
Just now, Trump’s masked assholes also raided a Huyndai plant in Georgia. Most of those arrested were South Koreans. With short term visas, they only came to the USA to bring jobs to Americans, but whatever, man. Trump is pretty much at war against the entire world, including Americans. Even white tourists are staying away.
South Koreans are appalled at photos of their businessmen treated like gangbangers or drug dealers. Cheering MAGA cultists don’t realize their nation, under Trump, is committing suicide. They’ll find out soon enough.
Finishing this at Pato’s Bingsu, I’m surrounded by screaming children, running around. They’re just having a good time. At nearby Triangle Park, the ladies are dancing to upbeat music. The sights of people doing anything together always cheer me. Only those addicted to idiocy on tiny screens are depressing.
“Stop running around and stop screaming!” a woman says, but these kids can’t stop. Life is just too exciting. Of course it is, but only if you’re swimming in it. Knowing this, grandpa will now run outside.
About Linh Dinh (@linhdinh):
‘Before being canceled, I was an anthologized poet and fairly prolific author, with my last book Postcards from the End of America. Now, I write about our increasingly sick world for a tiny audience on SubStack. Drifting overly much, I’m in Cambodia.
Born in Saigon, Vietnam in 1963, I lived mostly in the US from 1975 until 2018, but have returned to Vietnam. I’ve also lived in Italy, England and Germany. I’m the author of a non-fiction book, Postcards from the End of America (2017), a novel, Love Like Hate (2010), two books of stories, Fake House (2000) and Blood and Soap (2004), and six collections of poems, with a Collected Poems cancelled by Chax Press from external pressure. I’ve been anthologized in Best American Poetry 2000, 2004, 2007, Great American Prose Poems from Poe to the Present, Postmodern American Poetry: a Norton Anthology (vol. 2) and Flash Fiction International: Very Short Stories From Around the World, etc. I’m also editor of Night, Again: Contemporary Fiction from Vietnam (1996) and The Deluge: New Vietnamese Poetry (2013). My writing has been translated into Japanese, Italian, Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Portuguese, Korean, Arabic, Icelandic, Serbian and Finnish, and I’ve been invited to read in Tokyo, London, Cambridge, Brighton, Paris, Berlin, Leipzig, Halle, Reykjavik, Toronto, Singapore and all over the US. I’ve also published widely in Vietnamese.’
AHH: Please support this wonderful writer on his Substack! Thanks
Tags de l’article
What’s emerging in America is not a retreat from hegemony, but a reformatting of it.
By Artyom Lukin on Russia in Global Affairs.
[Ed.: this is a machine translation]
For half a thousand years, the West has been the dominant civilization in the world. Recently, this dominance has weakened, but has not completely disappeared. The West – and above all the United States of America as its core – is still the most powerful subject in world politics and economy. The colossal power of the West can be both a creative force and a source of existential threats to the rest of the world.
Today, in the West, primarily in the United States, a new ideology is being built, under certain circumstances no less dangerous than fascism and Nazism a hundred years ago. The second term of President Donald Trump could be a turning point when America will be under the control of ambiguous people and ideas.
The emerging ideology of the “new America” is still heterogeneous and represented by at least four key groups. The first is Trump himself and those his entourage, who professes views borrowed from the era of classical great-power imperialism and economic nationalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The second is politicians and media figures, which can be attributed to right-wing populists. The third is Silicon Valley, committed to libertarian hypercapitalism and the cult of technology. Fourth, intellectuals who generate and promote the ideas of the “dark Enlightenment.”
If the views of the first two groups are not new to the American political landscape, then the last two are the phenomenon of the 21st century.
[1] Good old imperialism?
Trump’s ideology is in many ways a classic inconclusive imperialism on the “right of the strong.” Already in his inaugural speech, he openly declared the desire for territorial acquisitions: “The United States will again become a growing nation – increasing its wealth, expanding its territory, building its cities…”[1] Here, Trump speaks of America as an “exceptional nation” and “the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.” America’s geopolitical ambitions and exclusivity will be backed up by “the most powerful military force ever seen by the world.”
Claims to exclusivity, the desire for territorial expansion, military-force domination are essential signs of imperialism.
It is no coincidence that in the same inaugural speech, Trump approvingly mentions William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, presidents who have introduced the United States to the club of imperialist powers.
[2] Right-Populist Conservatism
This ideological faction includes figures such as Vice-President JD Vance, political strategist Steve Bannon and journalist Tucker Carlson. Their main slogan is America First. They act from the standpoint of the cultural and value traditionalism of the deep American people and the hostility to the liberal-cosmopolitan elite, which concentrates on the east and west coasts, position themselves as defenders of the working class, advocate tough economic protectionism for the revival of American industry, and in the sphere of foreign policy gravitate towards isolationism.
[3] Libertarian Techno-Capitalism
This trend of the new American ideology is represented by technillionaires – mainly immigrants from Silicon Valley. The most famous, of course, is Elon Musk, who from January to May 2025 served as head of the Department of Efficiency of the Government [DOGE] in the Trump administration. However, the level of publicity does not always correspond to the degree of political influence. The notorious venture capitalist Marc Andreessen (the creator of the first mass Internet browser Netscape) may have had an influence on the White House initially, being an unofficial adviser and helping Trump recruit to key posts. [2] Until recently, Andreessen was a supporter of the Democratic Party, but in 2024 he supported Trump – in part because Andreessen did not arrange the Biden administration’s course of tighter regulation of the crypto industry and artificial intelligence.
Andreessen, like Musk, advocates maximum freedom of business activity and minimize state interference in private business.
In 2023. Andreessen has published the Techno-optimistic Manifesto. The main idea is simple: scientific and technological progress is the greatest benefit and the key to solving the problems of mankind, but only free markets, coupled with the elimination of burdensome restrictions and barriers, will ensure the development of a high-tech economy. Andreessen advocates for “accelerationism” – the spurring of technological development, which should accelerate progress to unprecedented speeds. This is the literal way of the word “undisper” acceleration will be achieved through the synthesis of technological innovation and the capitalist economy (techno – capital machine), the term that Andreessen borrowed from the British philosopher Nick Land. Artificial Intelligence: “We believe that artificial intelligence is our alchemy, our Philosopher’s Stone… We believe that artificial intelligence should be approached as a universal solution to problems. [3]
However, in the optimistic picture drawn by Andreessen there are semantic nuances. With a clear reference to Frederick Nietzsche, whose name is mentioned in the manifesto in the list of the most respected Andreessen thinkers, the techno-billionaire sings the upcoming “technological supermen”: “We are not victims, we are the conquerors… We are the strongest predator on top of the food chain (apex predator).”
When Andreessen, talking about “technological superhumans”, uses a predator metaphor, is it not a typical Freud clause? At the top of the food chain, by definition, there can be only a few, the strongest predators, while the rest of the creatures have a different role. The Andreessen Manifesto contains a response to who is supposed to be the main predator: “We believe that America and its allies should be strong, not weak. We believe that the national power of liberal democracies is derived from their economic power (financial force), cultural power (soft power) and military power (hard force). Economic, cultural and military power stem from technological. Technologically powerful America is the power of good in a dangerous world. Technologically powerful liberal democracies guarantee freedom and peace. Technologically, weak liberal democracies are losing to their authoritarian rivals.
In the extensive list of “sacraments-patrons of techno-optimism” and Andreessen are Filippo Marinetti, the founder of futurism and one of the ideologues of Italian fascism. The last act of Marinetti was a voyage as part of the Italian expeditionary corps to the Eastern Front, where he was wounded near Stalingrad.
The most politically influential techno-billionaire is apparently the founder of Paypal Peter Thiel. It is probably not a mistake to call it the second most important ideologist of the “new America” after Trump himself. Although Thiel has never held official political posts, he is the key figure that unites Silicon Valley, intellectual right conservatism and Trump populism.
Thiel became the first of the most authoritative figures of Silicon Valley who openly supported Trump and became a donor to his presidential campaign back in 2016. However, Thiel’s most successful political investment was not Trump, but the current vice president (and, quite likely, the future president) J. D. Vance, for whom Thiel became a mentor and employer (Vance was at one time an employee of the Thiel Mithril Capital Investment Fund). Subsequently, Thiel donated $15 million to Vance’s election campaign in the U.S. Senate from Ohio and presented a young promising politician to Trump.
As befits a businessman, Thiel diversifies political investment. Simultaneously with Vance, he sponsored another young and promising politician (also his student and former employee) – Blake Masters, who was given $20 million for the Senate elections from Arizona (unlike Vance, Masters lost the election).
Thiel calls himself a Christian and often quotes the Bible, although he is an open homosexual (in 2017 he married in Vienna with his partner Matt Dunzesen, an investment banker). The techno-billionaire is known as a philosopher and thinker, being very widely read and himself being a prolific author of books and essays. Unlike Musk and Andreessen, who give away the expositions and memes designed for the public, Thiel’s target audience is an educated elite. He categorically quotes such difficult political philosophers as Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, is a fan of the ideas of anthropologist René Girard. Thiel positions himself as a libertarian, but does not hide that he has long believed in liberal democracy, as well as in democracy at all: “I no longer think that freedom is compatible with democracy”. [4]
It is significant that Thiel compares today’s America with Germany on the eve of Hitler’s arrival:
“There are undoubted parallels between the United States of the 2020’s and Germany of the 1920’s in the sense that liberalism has exhausted itself. It can be argued that democracy … has exhausted itself and we will have to ask ourselves a number of questions that go very far beyond the window of Overton. [5]
Thiel’s Libertarianism did not prevent him from founding Palantir Technologies, which is engaged in developments in the field of artificial intelligence in the interests of the Pentagon and intelligence services. He also acts as a major investor in young billionaire Palmer Lucky Anduril Industries, who creates drones and other autonomous weapons systems.
Thiel believes that in recent decades, America has plunged into the abyss of degradation and stagnation. We need a leap to new heights and great goals. Like his billionaire counterparts from the valley, Thiel is convinced that the formulation and achievement of ambitious scientific and technological goals should be the main priority of society and the state. His personal favorite is transhumanism technologies associated with the improvement of the human body, the prolongation of life and, potentially, the achievement of immortality. One of Thiel’s current projects is the organization of the alternative “Enhanced Games”, where doping control will be weakened and athletes will allow the use of biohacking methods. One of the co-organizers of Enhanced Games is the son of President Donald Trump Jr.
Of all the billionaire libertarians close to the current government, it is Thiel who has the most articulated views on foreign policy. Its geopolitical concept is quite simple and boils down to the fact that the main external threat to the United States is China.
Unlike a friend and former business partner Elon Musk, who is considered a Pro-Chinese figure, Thiel is a supporter on Beijing’s firm deterrence policy, including by forming a broad anti-Chinese coalition led by Washington. The US should go for an economic divorce from China and put pressure on other countries so that they also minimize ties with Beijing. Thiel believes that the Trump supertariffs on Chinese goods are a step in the right direction. Back in November 2022, he declared: “I believe in free trade, I am not a supporter of tariffs, but I would make an exception for our major geopolitical and ideological rival.”[8] Thiel is one of the most synophobic figures in the highest echelon of the current ruling elite. He calls China “semi-fascist, semi-communist gerontocracy,” accusing Beijing of “nationalism,” “racism,” and “xenophobia. [9]
Thiel treats Russia without sympathy, but much more calmly – he does not see it as dangerous as China as a geopolitical adversary, but perhaps also because Russia is racially and culturally much closer to the West. Thiel believes that the West should not push Moscow into Beijing’s embrace.
Thiel has repeatedly spoken out in support of Israel, and Palantir Technologies supplies AI technology to the Israeli military. Chance or not, the Trump administration’s foreign policy is still almost identical with Thiel’s views.
[4] Theorists of the “Dark Enlightenment”
Finally, the fourth group of representatives of the new American ideology is the intellectual provocateurs that create narratives of the Dark Enlightenment. Also called the “neo-reactionary movement” (NRx), it is an intellectual and philosophical current that denies many ideals of classical Enlightenment, was formed in the late 2000’s – early 2010’s, mainly in the countries of the Anglosphere.
One of the fathers of the “dark Enlightenment” and the author of the term itself is the British philosopher and writer Nick Land, now living in Shanghai, mentioned in Andreessen. At the beginning of the academic career in the 1990s, Land, who then taught at the University of Warwick, held leftist views, but then swung sharply to the right. [10] Land believes in the onset of a singularity – a moment when artificial intelligence and other technologies will surpass a person and get out of control, which will mark the beginning of a “post-human” era. Land draws inspiration from the aesthetics of cyberpunk, predicting the arrival of hyper-capitalist techno-authoritarian systems that are controlled by technology and markets, not traditional politics. Such systems, in his view, are much more effective than classical liberalism and democracy. In the spirit of Techno-Social Darwinism, Land predicts the emergence of post-human beings, which, thanks to the merger with super-technologies, will dominate the new world.
Land rejects anthropocentrism, arguing that human values and morality are insignificant in the face of much larger and impersonal forces such as capital and technology. In his philosophy, humanity is nothing more than a temporary stage in a more significant evolutionary process that is driven by machine and economic systems.
Another intellectual father of the Dark Enlightenment is the American programmer and blogger Curtis Yarvin, also known under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. Unlike Land, Yarvin is directly involved in the political process. He is friends with Thiel and is well acquainted with a number of politicians and officials from the Trump entourage. Yarvin is in favor of replacing a more effective political system in the form of an autocratic monarchy or a business corporation where the sole governing body has absolute powers. One idea is the creation of a system of numerous corporate-controlled sovereign entities (Patchwork), within which it will be possible to freely experiment with laws, rules and technologies.
Like most of the ideologues of the “new America”, in the sphere of foreign policy, Yarvin advocated the dismantling of the “liberal international order” that developed after 1945, where the United States played the role of a world police officer and a guarantor of security. Yarvin advocates the withdrawal of the United States even from Europe, although it is stipulated that Great Britain, being an Anglo-Saxon country, should remain under the protection of America.[11] Yarvin will have nothing against if, for example, Turkey and Greece begin to fight each other. This is exclusively their business, not America’s problem. Unlike his billionaire friend Thiel, Yarvin calmly and even with restrained admiration speaks of modern China.
Yarvin, whose Jewish ancestors emigrated from Odessa during the Russian Empire, holds an unorthodox view of World War II. In his opinion, Hitler did not thirst for world domination. He wanted “only” to recognize his domination in continental Europe by using European Jews as hostages for negotiations with the US and Britain. If Roosevelt had agreed to a deal with Hitler, the World War and the Holocaust, it might have been possible to avoid. [12]
Land, Yarvin and other “dark Enlightenment” intellectuals can, at first glance, seem much less significant figures compared to billionaires Musk and Thiel. But one of the main capitalists of Germany, Gustav Krupp, who supported Hitler, or the brilliant political philosopher and subsequently the chief lawyer of the Third Reich, Karl Schmitt (by the way, like to quote Yarvin and Thiel), who developed the theory of the “exceptional case” and later, by the way, by which in 1933 the Reichstag was adopted?
American hegemony – end or reformatting?
The emerging ideology of the “new America” is heterogeneous and it has different scenarios. It is not necessary that it materializes into something malignant, reminiscent of the Third Reich or the “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere”. But in the ideas and meanings circulating today in America and other countries of the English sphere, there are many things that can not but alarm.
This is the desire for the cultivation of either “technological superhumans”, or “super-predators”, or “post-human beings” and rationalization proposals to delegate absolute power to the “single executive body”.
Although the ideologues of the “new America” are contemptuous of the liberal international order “rules” that for many years has been considered the sacred cow’s global hegemony of United States, this does not mean that they want to see America only one of the sovereign subjects of the multipolar world. American legions can be withdrawn from Europe, the Middle East or South Korea, but there will be more sophisticated and “technological” ways to control and dominate the bodies and souls. The main concept permeating the writings of Curtis Yarvin is “power”. Peter Thiel’s favorite book, a man who wants to live forever, is The Lord of the Rings.
Author: Artem Lukin, Professor of the Department of International Relations of the Eastern Institute of the Far Eastern Federal University.
[this is the RT (A.I.-abbreviated) version]
The superhumans are coming – and so is the danger
By Artyom Lukin, an associate professor of international relations at Far Eastern Federal University in Vladivostok, Russia
For the past 500 years, the West has reigned as the world’s dominant civilization. Though its grip has loosened in recent years, the West – especially the United States – remains the most powerful force in global politics and the international economy. This power, while capable of building plenty, also carries the potential to destroy a lot.
Today, a new ideology is taking shape in the West, particularly in the US. Under the right conditions, it could prove as dangerous to humanity as fascism and Nazism were in the last century. The reelection of Donald Trump may mark a decisive turning point, transferring power to people and ideas that are, at best, deeply ambiguous.
This ‘New America’ is not driven by a single worldview, but rather by a convergence of four ideological factions.
[1] The Imperial Restorationists
At the center stands Trump himself and his allies – throwbacks to the era of great-power imperialism. Trump’s inaugural speech to launch his second term left little doubt: He called for territorial expansion, industrial growth, and a resurgent military. America, he declared, is “the greatest civilization in the history of mankind.” He spoke approvingly of President William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, both architects of American imperialism.
The vision is unmistakable: American exceptionalism, enforced by military might and driven by the logic of conquest. It is the language of empire.
[2] The Nationalist Conservatives
Then there are the right-wing populists – figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, strategist Steve Bannon, and journalist Tucker Carlson. Their rallying cry is ‘America First’. They champion traditional values, claim to speak for the working class, and disdain the liberal elite concentrated in coastal cities.
They oppose globalism, support trade protectionism, and promote isolationism in foreign policy. This faction is not particularly new in American politics, but its influence has deepened, especially under Trump’s patronage.
Vice President JD Vance visits Los Angeles after unrest over ICE raids © Getty Images / Getty Images
[3-A] The Techno-Libertarian Billionaires
A newer – and perhaps more unsettling – element of America’s emerging ideology is represented by Silicon Valley billionaires. Elon Musk is the most visible figure, briefly heading Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency in early 2025. But the more influential actor may be Marc Andreessen, the venture capitalist and early internet pioneer who became an informal adviser to Trump.
Andreessen’s political turn followed his frustration with Biden-era regulations on crypto and artificial intelligence. In 2023, he published a manifesto called ‘The Techno-Optimist’, a document that preaches unrestrained technological acceleration. In his view, scientific innovation and free markets can solve all of humanity’s problems – if only government gets out of the way.
Andreessen quotes Nietzsche and invokes the image of the ‘apex predator’ – a new breed of technological superman who sits atop the food chain. He writes, “We are not victims, we are conquerors… the strongest predator at the top of the food chain.”
Such language might seem metaphorical, but it is revealing. Andreessen’s list of intellectual inspirations includes Filippo Marinetti, the Futurist who helped lay the aesthetic groundwork for Italian fascism and died fighting the Red Army at Stalingrad.
Marc Andreessen © Getty Images / Getty Images
[3-B] The Philosopher-Kingmaker
The most intellectually developed thinker of the techno-libertarian camp is Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and the data surveillance firm Palantir Technologies. Thiel is no longer a marginal figure – he is now arguably the second most important ideologue of the New America, after Trump himself.
Thiel is also a master strategist. He personally mentored and funded Vance, now vice president and possibly Trump’s heir apparent. At the same time, he backed Blake Masters in Arizona, although that bet didn’t pay off. Thiel reads the Bible, quotes Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss, and speaks openly about the limits of democracy. “Freedom is no longer compatible with democracy,” he has said.
He has compared modern America to Weimar Germany, arguing that liberalism is exhausted, and a new system must rise. Despite his libertarian leanings, Thiel’s companies develop AI tools for the Pentagon and fund next-generation weapons systems through firms like Anduril.
Thiel believes that America has entered a long decline – and that radical technological leaps are needed to reverse it. One of his pet projects is the ‘Enhanced Games’, a competition where doping and biohacking are allowed. Co-organized with Donald Trump Jr., the event reflects Thiel’s obsession with transhumanism and human enhancement.
In foreign policy, Thiel views China as America’s primary enemy. He has called it a “semi-fascist, semi-communist gerontocracy” and pushed for complete economic decoupling. Interestingly, Thiel is far less hostile to Russia, which he sees as culturally closer to the West. In his view, pushing Moscow into Beijing’s arms is a strategic mistake.
Peter Thiel © Getty Images / Getty Images
[4] The Dark Enlightenment
The final group behind the New America are the theorists of the ‘Dark Enlightenment’, or neo-reactionary movement. These intellectual provocateurs reject the Enlightenment values that once defined the West.
Nick Land, a British philosopher living in Shanghai, is among the founding thinkers of this school. He predicts the end of humanity as we know it and the rise of posthuman, techno-authoritarian systems governed by capital and machines. For Land, morality is irrelevant; what matters is efficiency, evolution, and raw power.
Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug), an American programmer, is another central figure. A friend of Thiel and an insider in Trump’s intellectual circle, Yarvin advocates replacing democracy with a corporate-style monarchy. He imagines a future of sovereign city-states run like companies, where experimentation with laws and technologies is unrestricted.
Yarvin is clear in his rejection of American global leadership. He believes the US should withdraw from Europe and let regional powers settle their own disputes. He speaks warmly of China, and his views on World War II are unorthodox to say the least – suggesting Hitler was motivated by strategic calculation rather than genocidal ambition.
Curtis Yarvin
What comes next?
Many of these ideas may seem fringe. But fringe ideas have power – especially when they echo through the corridors of political and technological influence. Carl Schmitt’s legal theories enabled Hitler to seize dictatorial powers in 1933. Today, the intellectual allies of Trump and Thiel are crafting their own narratives of ‘emergency’, ‘decadence’, and ‘reawakening’.
What’s emerging in America is not a retreat from hegemony, but a reformatting of it. The liberal international order is no longer seen as sacred – even by the country that built it. The new American elite may be withdrawing troops from Europe, the Middle East, and Korea, but their ambitions have not shrunk. They are turning instead to subtler methods of control: AI, cyber dominance, ideological warfare, and technological superiority.
Their goal is not a multipolar world, but a redesigned unipolar one – run not by diplomats and treaties, but by algorithms, monopolies, and machines.
The threat to the world is not just political anymore. It is civilizational. The superhumans are on the march.
This article was first published by Russia in Global Affairs, translated and edited by the RT team
Can we explain the relentless drive toward warfare of the Euro-Atlantic collective by way of individual psychology? Is at the core of the warmongering actually a psychological malfunction? Yes, indeed, says my guest today.
If we pare up psychiatric diagnosis with the functioning of societies, we find that in the absence of moderating domestic political mechanisms, states will tend toward fascism as those are the natural inclinations of power-seeking narcissist who will float to the top if not prevented from getting there alone.
How this impacts international relations is our topic of today. Dr. McLaren wrote—among other works—the insightful book “Narcisso-Fascism: The psychopathology of right-wing extremism”, in which he explores in great detail the connection between pathological narcissism, fascism as a societal phenomenon and the role of dominance in state systems.
After direct aggression of the messianic West on herself, Iran blocked US-controlled GPS and switched to the more advanced Chinese BeiDou. This is more than a technologic paradigm change..
Those whose calculus of a US/Iran war assumes overwhelming American air superiority will abruptly find the parameters of their equations altered.
By William Schryver at imetatronink.
How soon people have forgotten that, earlier this year, the US dispatched two carrier strike groups and a half-dozen B-2s (and other USAF assets) to disarm the Yemeni and open the selectively blockaded Red Sea.
They failed. Abysmally. For the second time!
First of all, in 2024, the USS Brave Sir Robin (CVN-69), USS Teddy Bear (CVN-71), and USS Fraidy Abe (CVN-72) gave it a try, only to eventually run away with their tail between their legs. The Brave Sir Robin left behind an F/A-18 at the bottom of the sea.
They were followed up by the USS Trembling Puppy (CVN-75) and the USS Timid Vinny (CVN-70). But they fared no better, with the Trembling Puppy losing two additional F/A-18 fighters over the course of its traumatic tour of the northern Red Sea.
And, not only did the Yemeni increase their score of MQ-9 Reaper drones to 23, they also targeted and credibly threatened both F-35s and B-2s, such that both platforms were summarily withdrawn from the fight for fear of one getting shot down.
Remember, Yemen is absolutely the bottom rung on the escalatory ladder of formidable adversaries.
Anyone who seriously believes the US Navy can operate in Iranian waters is just plain delusional.
Even if no ships got damaged or sunk, they’d still run out of munitions in a couple weeks or less — and they sure as hell won’t be able to reload in Bahrain.
As for an air campaign … well, I have yet to see any persuasive evidence that US/Israeli aircraft penetrated Iranian airspace to any appreciable extent in Act I of this war. Consequently, I am dubious that Iranian medium- and long-range air defenses were even used.
There is also zero credible evidence of top-shelf Iranian air defenses being destroyed.
From all indications, the Iranians were shooting down Israel’s big strike drones with short-range AD. And they shot down several.
The Israeli long-range air-launched ballistic missiles were apparently effective, but they simply don’t have very many of them, and as the war progressed into its second week, we saw fewer and fewer of them with each passing day.
In any case, when Act II of this war gets started (and it won’t be long), it will almost certainly entail penetration of Iranian airspace. And we will see not only the emergence of Iranian long-range AD, but I strongly suspect Russian and/or Chinese mobile air defense systems will suddenly appear on the battlefield.
Those whose calculus of a US/Iran war assumes overwhelming American air superiority will abruptly find the parameters of their equations altered.
The Russians and Chinese are not going to stand idly by and watch the US smash up their important southwest Asia ally in the rapidly emerging multipolar world.
And keep in mind: the US simply cannot logistically sustain a high-intensity air campaign for more than 2-3 weeks. And if even a dozen or so manned US aircraft are shot down, and a couple ships severely damaged … well, that will cause such overwhelming consternation in Washington that it might even result in a coup d’état, or something closely approximating one.
Tags de l’article
“US bases in Gulf which were once a first line of defense for the US and Israel have now proven to be 1st line of defense for Iran”
Part 1 of 3. The Anglo-Zionists’ military superiority is shattered. Their shields are even weaker than that of Iran. They’re all Big Fat Targets under endless waves of precision missiles and drones.
The myth of genocidal invincibility has been shattered forever .. that death cult in West Asia can indeed be mortally wounded .. TACO announced a one-sided ceasefire and fled .. There will be blood – over and over again.
By Pepe Escobar at the Strategic Culture Foundation.
In the end, predictably, the Circus Ringmaster went TACO (“Trump Always Chickens Out”).
He was terrified by three crucial reality-based developments.
The chain of events leading to the ceasefire remains murky.
A key accelerating factor was Putin’s personal meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi at the Kremlin on Monday.
Speaking on behalf of Ayatollah Khamenei, Araghchi may have asked for a solid supply of weapons and most of all defense systems; but these will take time, especially considering that the strategic partnership recently approved by both the Duma and the Majlis in Tehran is not – officially – a military alliance.
Yet according to sources in Moscow who were informed about the meeting, Putin did position Russia at the center of a possible resolution, thus displacing Washington. Team Trump 2.0 was incensed. Trump boasted that both Iran and Israel had called him almost simultaneously to arrange a ceasefire. Nonsense: only Tel Aviv did. As Putin made it clear, once again, that Russia would back Iran, he indirectly offered Trump an off-ramp.
True to character, the Circus Ringmaster jumped on it, marketing his own, branded ceasefire, reality show-style. And this only two days after gloating that the Iranian nuclear program was “obliterated” (he insists on it even as U.S. intel admits the program may have been set back for only a matter of months).
A supreme taboo has been broken
Iran has learned a few important lessons the hardest way, paying a horrendous price. Tehran was way too transparent and reasonable dealing with a bunch of gangsters: from allowing IAEA nuclear monitoring that turned out to be a process of amassing precious intel for Israeli targeting; and believing in diplomacy and honoring agreements that were unceremoniously ditched.
There’s no diplomacy when it comes to dealing with the imperial Leviathan/Behemoth – especially as it contemplates, in horror, its footprint being reduced all across the Global South.
Domestically though, Iran is going to the next level. There are at least three factions in confrontation: Ayatollah Khamenei and his close circle plus the IRGC; the reformists, embodied by the meek Pezeshkian presidency; and what could be construed as secular nationalists, who want a strong Iran but not as a theo-democracy.
The IRGC now has all the power. Defending the homeland against the deadly Zionist axis, Empire included, crystalized a widespread sentiment of national unity and pride.
All sectors of the Iranian population – 90 million, someone tell pathetic Marco Rubio – rallied around the flag.
Conceptually, the ceasefire – nobody knows how long it will last – is adverse to Iran, because its increasing deterrence capacity is now lost. Israel will have its air defenses feverishly replenished while Iran, alone, will need months and even years to rebuild.
The imperial modus operandi remains the same. The Circus Ringmaster saw that a monster humiliation was at hand –something like Israel’s Vietnam: so he announced a one-sided ceasefire and fled.
Yet the configuration for the next battles has changed. If Washington decides to escalate again, or resorts to the certified practice of using terror proxies, Iran as the de facto leader of the Resistance will resolutely counter-attack. The myth of genocidal invincibility has been shattered forever. The whole Global South has seen it, and now takes it in serious consideration.
It remains open to serious discussion whether Tehran will finally opt to follow a DPRK model to counteract the – failed, so far – imposition of a Libya and/or Syria model. Uranium enrichment will continue. With an added film noir plot twist: nobody knows where the uranium is.
The Empire of Chaos, predictably, will never stop. Only when the whole Global South unites with an iron will and force it to stop. The conditions are not in place – yet.
As it stands, the real ceasefire would be between the U.S. and the Global South, led institutionally by Russia-China, BRICS and several other multipolar organizations. The chance of the U.S. ruling classes honoring such a long-lasting ceasefire, if it ever happens, are less than zero.
As for the Iran-Israel ceasefire, that’s not the end of the war. On the contrary; it’s the – dubious – end of just the first hot battle. The dogs and hyenas of war will be back, sooner or later. There will be blood – over and over again. Yet at least a supreme taboo has been broken: that death cult in West Asia can indeed be mortally wounded.
Tags de l’article
Iran, the West, and the Illusion of Choice. The war launched by the United States and Israel inflicted not only physical damage, but ideological clarity; Tehran is turning to a posture of permanent resistance.
By Elijah J. Magnier on Twitter (X).
Iran appears unwavering in its resolve to retaliate in the face of the ongoing U.S.-Israeli war. Following American strikes on its nuclear infrastructure, Iran’s Army Chief, General Abdolrahim Mousavi, delivered a stark warning: “Every time the United States has committed a crime against Iran, it has faced a decisive retaliation—and this time will be no different. We will fight with all our means to defend our independence, our unity, and the integrity of our ruling system. We are not fighting for survival — we are fighting for victory.”
More than twenty-four hours after the U.S. assault, Israel was struck by a missile targeting Haifa — an attack that slipped past its air defense systems without triggering a single siren or interceptor. The breach exposed a serious vulnerability in Israel’s defensive shield and underscored the gravity of the unfolding conflict. It also sent a clear message:
Tehran is not backing down.
Far from deterred, Iran appears ready to escalate with precision and intent. The Haifa strike was not an isolated incident; it was followed by a series of additional missile attacks. The Iranian missiles are forbidding the Israelis from returning to a normal life until it is satisfied to say the last word in this war, signalling Iran’s willingness to shape the terms of any future ceasefire on its own terms.
Meanwhile, Israel’s calls for de-escalation appear driven less by diplomacy than by tactical self-interest. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, far from bowing to pressure, is wary of deeper and potentially uncontrollable damage within Israel’s borders. With the U.S. having already targeted Iran’s nuclear sites and Iran proving its capacity to strike back — inflicting significant harm on Israeli cities — Netanyahu now seeks to freeze the conflict while claiming strategic victory. His aim is to end the war on his terms, with another party brokering a ceasefire, allowing him to retain political capital while keeping Israel’s military posture intact for future contingencies.
President Donald Trump played a central role in shaping this dynamic. His decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities ensured a quiet night for Israelis—an action widely celebrated across Israel, and particularly by Netanyahu. At the Knesset, American flags flew beside Israeli ones in a show of unity, while digital billboards in Tel Aviv thanked Trump for defending Israel. These public displays reflected not just gratitude but the deep strategic synchronization between the two leaders — Netanyahu and Trump — waging a war defined by deception, calculated surprise, and tightly coordinated military operations.
Further underscoring its defiance, Tehran has declared its intention to continue enriching uranium — directly challenging U.S. and Israeli claims that the Iranian nuclear program has been dismantled. The move signals not only resilience but a calculated rejection of the narrative that Iran’s strategic capabilities have been neutralized.
Moreover, any Iranian retaliation at this stage threatens to shatter Israel’s carefully crafted narrative of having reestablished deterrence against Tehran. Netanyahu now seeks to conclude his war on favourable terms, having claimed that his actions have fundamentally reshaped the Middle East—weakening Iran, isolating its allies, and advancing normalization with moderate Arab states.
His broader ambition appears to be the imposition of a new regional order in which Israel serves as the undisputed security arbiter — a self-appointed policeman with the authority to strike pre-emptively at any actor perceived as a threat. Netanyahu believes he has inflicted serious damage on the so-called “Shia Crescent”— the axis of resistance stretching from Tehran through Yemen, Baghdad, and Beirut — which has grown more formidable over the past two decades. He now seems equally determined to prevent the emergence of a rival Sunni coalition, potentially led by Turkey, a country he has repeatedly criticized for its growing influence in Syria. In Netanyahu’s vision, no regional force — Shia or Sunni — should be allowed to patrol, shape, or challenge the strategic architecture of the Middle East. That role, he believes, belongs solely to Israel.
Meanwhile, the U.S. bombing of Iran’s peaceful nuclear facilities — combined with what Tehran sees as unlawful declarations of war by both Washington and Tel Aviv — has only deepened Iran’s determination to build a more formidable deterrent.
Iran is now expected to accelerate development of its missile capabilities and may reconsider its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), potentially restricting international inspections conducted under United Nations oversight.
Beyond bolstering its internal defense, Tehran may also double down on its support for regional allies such as Yemen’s Ansar Allah and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, viewing them as vital pillars of strategic depth in the face of a hostile alliance.
Yet, Iran now faces a critical and immediate challenge: the reconstruction of its damaged nuclear and military infrastructure. To address this, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei may tap into off-budget institutions like Setad or draw from sovereign reserves such as the National Development Fund of Iran — estimated to hold tens of billions of dollars — to support rapid recovery. Though the exact sums remain unclear, these financial mechanisms offer Tehran flexibility in responding to wartime damage and rebuilding key strategic assets.
At the same time, Tehran is expected to deepen military and technological cooperation with key partners such as China and North Korea, accelerating efforts to rebuild and modernize its defense capabilities.
Meanwhile, Iran’s trust in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been deeply shaken — if not entirely eroded — by the silence of its Director, Rafael Grossi, following the U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.
Under the IAEA’s mandate, any attack on safeguarded sites should be unequivocally condemned, regardless of the political context.
Yet no such condemnation was issued. For Tehran, this omission signals not neutrality, but complicity. The agency’s failure to defend the integrity of civilian nuclear infrastructure has led Iranian officials to increasingly view the IAEA not as an impartial international body, but as an extension of U.S. and Israeli intelligence interests. In this context, continued cooperation with an institution perceived as politically compromised appears untenable.
The war has also exposed the alarming effectiveness of multiple espionage networks operating within Iran —many believed to have directly supported U.S. and Israeli military operations. These spy rings, some reportedly embedded in critical infrastructure and government institutions, played a decisive role in enabling the precision and coordination of the attacks. In response, Iran’s security and intelligence services are expected to launch a sweeping and uncompromising crackdown to dismantle these networks and seal internal vulnerabilities.
However, this intensified focus on counterintelligence is likely to come at a domestic cost: tighter surveillance, increased repression, and a contraction of civil liberties. In this wartime atmosphere, the balance between national security and personal freedom is already shifting decisively toward the former.
Sanctions, once framed as a tool of last resort, have become a default mechanism of Western policy toward Iran— regardless of who holds power in Tehran. They are no longer reactive but structural. Iran is sanctioned not for what it does, but for what it represents: an independent, resource-rich nation capable of projecting power beyond its borders, outside the Western sphere of influence.
In this context, sanctions serve a dual purpose. First, they aim to economically weaken Iran, constraining its ability to invest in domestic growth or regional influence. Second, they are designed to sow internal discontent —fueling protests, shortages, and public dissatisfaction. The strategy is simple: if Iran cannot be coerced into compliance, it can be pressured until it collapses or capitulates.
This approach reflects a broader regional logic — one that seeks to enforce a strategic imbalance across the Middle East.
The Israeli Exception
Nowhere is this imbalance more visible than in the contrasting treatment of Israel and other regional powers. Israel maintains a sophisticated military, a known (though undeclared) nuclear arsenal, and a history of extraterritorial operations that would provoke global condemnation if undertaken by any other state. Yet it faces little to no accountability. Its dominance is not only accepted — it is protected.
When Iran develops defensive capabilities, asserts deterrence, or supports regional allies, these actions are labelled as aggression. When Israel carries out assassinations, sabotage, or airstrikes in neighboring countries, these acts are broadly justified as self-defense. This double standard is not born of legal nuance — it stems from strategic favoritism.
Seen from this perspective, the conflict is not about behavior, but about status. Iran is not punished for its actions, but for what it dares to become: a counterweight. And no counterweight to Israeli hegemony is tolerable under the current U.S.-backed regional order.
The core issue is the West’s refusal to accept strategic parity in the Middle East. For decades, the United States and its allies have worked to ensure that only one power — Israel — enjoys overwhelming superiority in military, intelligence, and technological domains. Any actor that seeks to challenge that monopoly, whether Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Syria under the Assads, or even Turkey when asserting independent policy, is treated as a threat.
Iran is the most resilient of these challengers. It has survived a revolution, a devastating war with Iraq, decades of sanctions, cyberattacks, and assassinations. Despite this, it remains a regional actor with influence extending from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. For the existing power structure, that persistence is unacceptable. Thus, parity is not just denied — it is criminalized and bombed.
The consequences for Iran are profound. Sovereignty can no longer be assumed; it must be actively defended. And that defense is no longer limited to military doctrine — it is now a principle that governs economics, foreign relations, technology policy, and even cultural identity. In Tehran’s view, the rules are selectively applied and strategically weaponized.
While the global narrative often casts Iran as a disruptor, Tehran sees itself operating within a system that punishes moderation and rewards submission. If peace can only be purchased at the cost of strategic paralysis, then for many Iranian leaders, peace itself becomes a trap.
Sovereignty as Resistance
The war launched by the United States and Israel has inflicted not only physical damage, but ideological clarity. It has stripped away the last illusions that diplomacy or moderation could earn Iran a place of respect within the Western-dominated order. The belief that strategic restraint would be rewarded has collapsed under airstrikes, sanctions, and the silence of institutions tasked with upholding international law.
The lesson for Iran is unambiguous: sovereignty is not granted — it must be asserted, relentlessly. Denied parity and recognition, Tehran is turning to a posture of permanent resistance. Its future will be shaped not by appeals to the West, but by the pursuit of autonomy, strategic alliances, and hardened deterrence.
What Israel and its allies call deterrence; Iran now sees as provocation. What the West labels aggression, Iran views as survival. And in this asymmetrical war of narratives, one truth remains: as long as sovereignty is punished and power is monopolized, peace will not prevail — only a shifting and dangerous balance of confrontation.
La Douma d’État a adopté le projet de loi sur la protection de la langue russe en deuxième et troisième
L’article La Douma adopte la loi de protection de la langue russe contre les anglicismes est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
Judge Nap interviews Alastair Crooke : Why Israel is to Blame
IRGC Statement on the Eighth Wave of Operation True Promise 3
Public Relations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC):
Victory comes only from God, the Almighty, the All-Wise.
Public Relations of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
A cargo plane from Guangzhou Baiyun International Airport flies southwest over eastern Turkmenistan, descending as it approaches Iranian airspace. 15.06.2025
America’s military humiliation: the Houthis exposed its waning power.
By Malcom Kyeyune at UnHerd.
When, in reaction to the war in Gaza, the Houthis of Yemen started imposing their blockade on the Red Sea, it was seen as a sure sign of waning American power: a global hegemon was allowing its control over a vital sea route to be contested. In their rush to fathom why this might be happening, detractors of the then president claimed he was simply too weak, too much of an appeaser to use the full width of America’s military might to quash the problem.
In fact, in response, Biden authorised not one but two military campaigns. The first was Operation Prosperity Guardian, which aimed to combine US naval power with a coalition of willing states to protect shipping and break the blockade. That fast turned into an embarrassing debacle, as most of the coalition partners walked away and ships kept getting hit by Houthi missiles. And so, in January 2024, Operation Poseidon Archer was launched, which involved British as well as American aircraft attempting to bomb the Houthis into submission. Here again, the operation was unsuccessful, doing almost nothing to dent Houthi attacks or open up the Red Sea to shipping. But even then Biden was blamed; the mighty US military was being held back somehow. Thus, the natural conclusion was that once Trump was in office, the gloves would come off.
Biden’s critics were actually half right. Once Trump came in, the gloves did come off. Operation Poseidon Archer was followed by Operation Rough Rider, in March of this year, which attempted to show a new, much more muscular American military response against Houthi targets in Yemen — for all of six weeks. For six weeks, US warplanes pounded Yemen around the clock, with rare and expensive stealth bombers flying missions out of Diego Garcia in support of carrier-based aircraft. Yet once those six weeks were up, Trump proudly announced that Yemen had “surrendered” and that there was no more need for the US to keep up the bombing. A ceasefire had been brokered by Oman. This was trumpeted as a glorious victory for the US military, with the Houthis finally promising to not attack US ships anymore, and America graciously returning the gesture.
Of course, Trump didn’t mention the terms of the “surrender”. The Houthis only had to stop attacking American ships in exchange for America stopping the bombing; they were free to continue blockading the Red Sea or firing missiles at Israel. America, in other words, had given the Houthis carte blanche to carry on the behaviour that was the reason America had gone to war in the first place. Thus, to call this deal a surrender was entirely appropriate; it’s just that it wasn’t the Houthis hoisting the white flag.
It is very commonplace to blame reversals and even defeats in America’s various wars of choice as merely a matter of lack of will. If America really wanted to win, it would win, the story goes; the failure of the US is just one where it never commits the force necessary to finish the fight. But today, that excuse rings hollow. Trump’s Operation Rough Rider, unlike Biden’s operations, utilised many of America’s most limited, expensive, and advanced weapons to try to bring the Houthis to heel. And still it surrendered. The lessons here are thus quite bleak. America’s preferred and increasingly only viable method of warfare — aerial warfare — is no longer cost-effective nor practical. But the US has no alternative modes of warfare to fall back on, which means that its days as a military hegemon are probably coming to a close.
To understand just how big a mess the air war against the Houthis has turned out to be, it’s important to understand a very basic rule to US military inventories. For while, on paper, America has 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, an impressive figure that far outstrips any other country on the planet, that top line figure is barely relevant in practice.
For comparison, look to the United Kingdom. The UK has two large aircraft carriers, putting it near the top of the international leaderboard when it comes to the ability to project military force. But as anyone with any familiarity with the Royal Navy can tell you, that number does not tell the real story. The number of carriers the UK can actually deploy is far lower, a number which is fairly close to zero. For while the ships exist, the Royal Navy lacks the crew, the planes, the escorts, and the logistical capacity to actually put them to use for any length of time in a real war. The UK Navy has become something of a Potemkin village, where superficial on-paper strengths hide a catastrophic reality of deferred maintenance, insufficient budgets, and lack of personnel.
Though the situation for the US Navy isn’t quite as dire, in practice, the problem is the same: it cannot realistically put more than two to four carriers to sea at any given moment. The ability to surge capacity in times of crisis is limited, because the various reserve components of the US armed forces have catastrophically atrophied. If you discount the American carriers that are slated for the scrapyard, or those currently lacking a functional nuclear reactor, or those which are tied up in deep maintenance, the number of active, usable carriers is roughly a third of the on-paper number. Half of those carriers were being used against the Houthis.
But carriers are not the only example we ought to look at. For Operation Rough Rider, the US Air Force contributed some six B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, arguably the most advanced (and by far the most expensive) airframe in the US arsenal. At first blush, this seems like only a fraction of America’s power, because it has some 20 such bombers in its inventory. But a closer look at these planes suggest that those six used in Rough Rider very likely represent the entire working inventory of US stealth bombers. Because B-2s haven’t been built for decades, the only way to keep them operational is to cannibalise other B-2s for spare parts: as a result, a large number have been functionally scrapped and cannot ever hope to fly again. Only half of US bombers even qualify for so-called “mission capable” status on an average day, a status which doesn’t actually mean that the plane works; it simply means the plane isn’t completely broken and inoperable. Only two thirds or fewer of those mission capable planes can hope to qualify for what the US military instead classifies as “full mission capable” status. “Full mission capable” is your standard Pentagon-speak; it means the plane is in working order, has nothing broken that’s really important, and can realistically be used for what it was built for.
From carriers to stealth bombers, the pattern here is fairly clear, and it is further corroborated by testimonies from inside the Pentagon itself. America essentially pulled out all the stops to attack the Houthis, waging an extremely expensive and intensive air war against a militia controlling most of Yemen, the fourth-poorest nation in the world. The cost to operate a B-2 stealth bomber is extremely high on a per-hour basis; and their fragile stealth coating is not particularly fond of the warm, salty sea air at Diego Garcia. You don’t send in all of them unless you really mean business. America also committed roughly half of its active carriers, spent a fortune in land attack and air defence missiles, and it even cannibalised ammo stores and air defence systems from the Pacific theatre of operations for the sake of the operation.
But as the stories of the campaign start leaking to the press, it’s clear that none of this effort did anything good. The US couldn’t establish air supremacy, meaning it couldn’t risk flying its older, non-stealth planes for fear of losing them. This itself might seem like proof that America was once again just not trying very hard; for what kind of war is it when you’re not ready to accept losses? But the problem is, America can’t afford to replace planes that get lost and pilots that get killed. This is not a problem of cowardice, but of force generation: even if the US military suffers zero losses due to enemy fire in the years ahead, it is still slated to shrink precipitously. This shrinkage and loss of capacity is just due to America’s planes and ships wearing out, with not enough workers, dockyards, engineers, and dollars to replace them. As America burns through its massive military inheritance bequeathed by Ronald Reagan and the Eighties arms race, there is no plan to replace it. For the US military, avoiding casualties is not a matter of caution or cowardice; it is the result of a total inability to replenish the force.
The result of this American Achilles’ heel has been an extremely expensive reliance — when it has come to defending the Red Sea — on so-called “standoff” weaponry; cruise missiles, for example, that can be launched from far enough away that anti-air fire won’t be a threat. But even then, there were problems: according to leaked reports, even the vaunted F-35 stealth fighter had to dodge incoming anti-air missiles on at least one occasion. In Operation Rough Rider, the US deployed many of its most rare and bespoke weapons, such as the AGM-158 JASSM (Joint Air-To-Surface Standoff Missile) as well as heavy, specialised bunker-buster bombs. Again, by all accounts, this had little effect. Partly, this was because the US kept losing so many of its MQ-9 reaper drones, which come with a price tag north of 30 million dollars apiece, and which were supposed to provide the intel to ensure the bombing campaign found its targets.
When Biden first lost interest in defending the Red Sea against the Houthis, people were aghast. Not doing enough was akin to telling the entire world that the US was too weak to keep the Suez channel open. But Trump, after berating his predecessor, has also walked away, and de facto recognised the Houthi’s control of the channel. It would seem that the US doesn’t actually have many cards to play.
Trump could have sent another carrier to the region in support of his operation, bringing the total up to three. But this would hardly have made much difference to the air campaign because the problem with this offensive wasn’t lack of deck space or fighter sorties — US planes were too wary to go anywhere near Yemen’s air defence, and even stealth jets were reportedly not entirely safe. The problem was the lack of standoff munitions which can be deployed from a point of relative safety. But these are so expensive and so limited that there is no budget to replenish them when stores are depleted (a single JASSM with a 450 kilogram explosive warhead comes in at slightly under a million dollars). Wargames show the US running out of most or all such critical munitions in a matter of weeks or even days in a real conflict against a peer enemy such as China.
Even worse, much of the US military’s most advanced weapons systems are dependent on components and materials such as rare earths from China, which has already started imposing harsh export restrictions in order to slowly choke the life out of the US military industrial complex. In practice, the US does not have the economy to produce the weapons used for aerial warfare at any sort of scale, and this has only been hidden from full view because the military has coasted along on an aura of invincibility.
As the appetite for ground warfare has waned, the allure of quick, cheap and easy air campaigns has grown. But air warfare is no longer what it once was. Operation Rough Rider was supposed to be a decisive show of force against an under-equipped, internally divided third-world nation. Instead, it ended up looking like the last hurrah of a truly antiquated form of warfare, unable to cope with cheaper and better anti-air weapon systems.
All of these limitations make the current talk about a new bombing campaign against Iran utterly surreal. Iran is far bigger than Yemen, with a much more robust air defence network. Moreover, the distances involved are such that carrier-based aircraft, even when launched from the very shores of the Persian gulf, can’t actually reach places like Tehran and return on a single tank of fuel. Fighter-bombers will need aerial refuelling over the Iranian interior, and tanker planes are slow, easy to spot on radar, and pretty much defenceless. Even attempting to destroy the Iranian air defence network will take huge amounts of precision standoff weaponry, which the US cannot practically replace, even if it weren’t struggling with a massive fiscal crisis and soaring bond yields. The critical parts of Iran’s nuclear programme are kept under hundreds of feet of solid mountain; the US, using the heaviest and most advanced weapons in its entire arsenal, did not succeed against the much shallower Houthi bunkers and missile storage facilities in Yemen. All of the problems that forced America’s tacit surrender of the Suez canal would be writ large — and be far more lethal — in any campaign against Iran.
With exploding deficits, a growing internal political crisis, and a slowly collapsing military, America is a leopard that lacks the wherewithal to even attempt to change its spots. The generals know that the jig is up: the old model is broken, there is no new model coming, and nobody has the energy left to do much about it all. And so, this massive crisis of US military power is playing out in the vein of Ernest Hemingway’s comment about the course of his own bankruptcy: gradually, then suddenly.
Once upon a time, there was always a bigger plane, a more advanced high-tech future weapon, yet another trick up the Air Force’s sleeve that you could point to in order to silence the doubters. But those days are over. The gravity of what happened in Yemen will only assert itself once the political class is ready to deal with the new world we are now living in: one in which the US has no new military rabbits to pull out of its hat, and those that it does have simply aren’t enough to get anywhere close to victory.
Malcom Kyeyune is a freelance writer living in Uppsala, Sweden
“… the state of Israel … was created by fraud, deception, crime, terrorism and bloodshed and has lived that way since it was created.”
By Professor Dr. Syed Mujahid Kamran at VT Foreign Policy.
“Eran Elhaik, an Israeli geneticist, who served seven years in the Israeli Defense Force, and no critic of Israel, developed genome studies at John Hopkins University. In tracing the geographical positioning of a number of Ashkenazim Jews, he found that their ancestral origins were not from the Middle East or indeed the Mediterranean but from a region that is now north-east Turkey. This scientific evidence underscores the historical findings of Shlomo Sand and others that make nonsense of the claims of an ancestral homeland and the diaspora.”
Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty [1]
“Zionism’s founders had to lie about their real objective because to achieve it, Zionism had to commit a crime – that of ethnic cleansing.”
BBC correspondent Alan Hart [2]
“Israel was founded on lies. The lie that Palestinian land was unoccupied. The lie that 750,000 fled their homes and villages during their ethnic cleansing by Zionist militias in 1948 because they were told to do so by Arab leaders. The lie that it was Arab armies that started the 1948 war that saw Israel seize 78 percent of historic Palestine. The lie that Israel faced annihilation in 1967, forcing it to invade and occupy the remaining 22 percent of Palestine as well as land belonging to Egypt and Syria.
Israel is sustained by lies. The lie that it wants a just and equitable peace and will support a Palestinian state. The lie that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. The lie that Israel is an ‘outpost of Western civilization in a sea of barbarism.’ The lie that Israel respects the rule of law and human rights.”
Chris Hedges[3]
Israel was created by violent and most brutal terroristic occupation of Palestinian territory by Russian and East European Ashkenazi Jews whose ancestors had never lived in Palestine. The original residents of Palestine, who had resided there for thousands of years, were literally expelled from their ancestral home in a bloody Talmudic exercise. Even today the overwhelming majority of Israeli Jews are Ashkenazi Jews.
Ashkenazis are descendants of the pagan Khazars who had tactically converted to Judaism around 740 AD, in an attempt to save the Khazar empire, from the onslaught of Russian Christians and Muslims[4]. The Khazar empire was primarily located north of the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, far from Palestine and the Mediterranean. The Ashkenazi are thus non-Semitic converted Jews. These Jews, descendants of pagan Khazars, hold the Talmud as their book of guidance and pay only lip service to the Torah, the book revealed to prophet Moses. As such their claim to be Abrahamic is also suspect, to say the least. The Mongols destroyed the Khazar empire in the 13th century and Khazar or Ashkenazi Jews were scattered in Russia, East Europe and Germany.
How did Israel materialize and what were the powers that conceived of it and used their money and machinations to create a hostile and utterly illegal state in the heart of the Muslim world? What was the purpose behind its creation? These questions can only be answered properly by looking at books and writings that are not published by mainstream publishers or media, because the Zionist Jews have absolute control of Western media, particularly US media.
The first important thing to understand is that four events of the twentieth century viz., WWI and II, the Bolshevik Revolution, and the creation of Israel are intimately connected. On account of the Zionist control of the Anglo-American Establishment, standard history books deliberately avoid this profound connection[5]. These events involved persistent and ceaseless intrigue and machinations of the usurious international banking families under Rothschild leadership with politically active and violent Jewry as their most loyal arm. Further, both Zionism and Communism, were used by these families to take the Western world in their ruthless grip.
Zionism and Communism were nurtured by these “Judaic”, Freemasonic, Satanic banking families which were referred to as the High Cabal by Winston Churchill. The profound Douglas Reed wrote about the cause of the failing strength of the West and how the Western leaders had become “willing slaves” of the Judaic master-sect, a slavery that repeatedly manifests itself when Western leaders are compelled to protect apartheid Israel and Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity. These days, when even the Jews in America and elsewhere, including Israel, are speaking out passionately against Israeli brutality and savagery, Biden et al and other Western governments are shamelessly and spinelessly defending it!
Reed wrote: “The West has come to this dilemma through the pressure of two millstones, Communism and Zionism, the nation-destroying world revolution and the new, nation-creating ruling class. The one incited the mob; the other has gained mastery over the rulers.” The creators and organizers behind both philosophies are the same. Reed concludes: “Conspiracy bred Communism and Zionism, and these took hold of the West in a pincer-like clutch.”[6]
Moses (Moshe) Hess (1812-1875), one the earliest founders of Zionism, was the mentor of Karl Marx and introduced him to Friedrich Engels. Hess formulated the communist ideology and stressed the abolition of personal property and maintained that Judaism would evolve into a godless socialist ideology. Deanna Spingola writes in The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power: “He felt that Rothschild’s red family banner should signal the struggle of the revolution or, as he implied elsewhere, the struggle of the Judaists… He said that the Jews’ function was to change mankind into a savage animal.”[7] Hess and his Jewish disciple Marx, who became a Freemason, advocated the abolition of personal property [for non-Jews] because the Talmud mandates that the riches of world will be controlled by the Jews. In 1961 Hess’s body was interred from Cologne to the Kinneret Cemetery in Israel.[8]
Another early Zionist Levi Baruch advocated that Jews should pretend to convert to Christianity to gain positions of influence. By occupying high administrative positions these crypto-Jews could enact laws prohibiting private property. Spingola writes: “According to Baruch, Jews would control the world, merge the races, abolish borders, eliminate the royal families, and establish the Zionist state.”[9]
On 17 May 1860 an Alliance Israelite Universelle was established in Paris. It was set up by a Jewish lawyer and diplomat named Adolphe I. Cremieux along with a group of people. Cremieux was funded by James Rothschild [James was Jacob “James” Mayer Rothschild (1792-1868), the youngest son of the founder of the Rothschild dynasty]. In 1862 this Alliance established a network of schools “in order to disseminate a multicultural, humanistic education” to over a million Jewish children. The students in these schools were taught about their Jewish heritage. Further, loyalty to Jewish tradition was inculcated in them, apart from imparting skills on how to engage in Jewish activism and how to build consensus. In the manifesto of the Alliance it is stated: “The union which we shall create will not be a French, English, Irish or German, but a Jewish World Union. Under no circumstances shall a Jew befriend a Christian or a Muslim; not before the moment comes when Judaism, the only true religion, shines over the entire World.”[10]
The Anglo-Jewish association with the Sassoons, Rothschilds, Goldsmids and Montefiores as its prominent members, initiated daily communication with the Alliance Israelite Universelle. A founder member of the Alliance Israelite Universelle and simultaneously a member of the dangerous Freemasonic Grand Orient Lodge, Jean Izoulet (1854-1929), wrote: “The meaning of the history of the last century has been that three hundred Jewish financiers, all masters of the chair, will rule the world.”[11] As early as 1861 his fellow founder of the Alliance, Adolphe Cremieux had written: “Nations must disappear. Religions must cease to exist. Israel alone will continue to exist, since its people have been chosen by God.”[12] Interestingly and most significantly, the disappearance of nations and religion as well as private property are common points between Communism, Illuminism and Zionism.
The first settlement of Jews in Palestine was organized by Hibbat Zion, Jewish pioneers, from Kharkov, Ukraine but was financed by Edmond de Rothschild (1845-1934), the youngest of the three sons of James Rothschild. This first settlement, Rishon LeZion, was founded on July 31, 1882. By 1884 there were seven Jewish settlements in Palestine and four of these were funded by Edmond de Rothschild. By 1887, on account of the heavy handed bureaucracy employed by Edmond de Rothschild, the Jewish settlers were in a state of mutiny against him. There was the Ekron mutiny (1888-1892) against Edmond de Rothschild. He finally ended it by declaring that he owned the settlement and would have the protesting settlers deported![13]
In the meantime, the Ottoman government had become wary of Jewish immigration and tried to stop it. It would only allow Jewish pilgrims to visit Palestine. But some of the pilgrims would stay on and never return. Further the Ottoman government imposed a ban on purchase of land in Palestine by foreigners. But there was no restriction on purchase of land by residents of Palestine. The local Jews simply bought land using the money of rich foreign Jews and had it registered in their own names! Finally, in 1892, the Ottoman government banned the sale of Palestinian land to all Jews, local or foreign.
In 1896 Theodore Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) was published. Its original title was Address to the Rothschilds![14] Herzl had studied law and was living in Vienna though he was born in Budapest. He argued for a socialist Jewish government on territory owned by the Jews. In the book, which was more of a pamphlet or a long essay, he wrote: “Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name of Palestine would attract our people with a force of marvelous potency. If His Majesty the Sultan were to give us Palestine, we could in return undertake to regulate the whole finances of Turkey. We should there form a portion of a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. We should as a neutral State remain in contact with all Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence.”[15]
Herzl sought to meet Sultan Abdul Hamid II through his contacts in Constantinople (Istanbul). In 1896 he visited Istanbul but the agent of the Sultan told him that a meeting with the Sultan was not possible because Herzl worked for a paper that had published negative reports against the Sultan’s treatment of the Armenians. Through Philip M. Newlinski, his hired diplomat in Constantinople, Herzl offered 20 million pounds to the Sultan in return for an issuance of a charter for Jewish colonization of Palestine.[16]
Newlisnki urged the Sultan to accept Herzl’s offer in view of the serious problems afflicting the Ottoman economy. “Without the help of the Zionists, the Turkish economy would not stand a chance of recovery”, he said. The reply of Sultan Abdul Hamid II reveals that he was not an ignorant sultan. He said: “If Herr Herzl is your friend as you are mine, advise him not to take another step in the matter. I cannot relinquish a square foot of land, for it does not belong to me, but to my people. My people have conquered and fortified this empire with their blood . . . The Jews should save their billions. When my empire is partitioned perhaps they will get Palestine for nothing. But only our dead body will be divided. (As long as we are alive) I will not permit a vivisection.”[17] Prophetic words indeed.
Herzl met Max Nordau, an influential Jew who joined hands with him in their quest for Eretz Israel. He visited London and met a well-known Jewish writer Israel Zangwill. It was Zangwill who introduced Herzl to influential individuals. He had a meeting with Sir Samuel Montagu who was a leading Jewish banker and a member of the British Parliament. In his book Herzl had written that the plan of setting up a Jewish state somewhere will be carried out by two organizations. “The plan simple in design, but complicated in execution, will be carried out by two agencies: The Society of Jews and the Jewish Company. The Society of Jews will do the preparatory work in the domains of science and politics, which the Jewish Company will afterwrds apply practically. The Jewish Company will be the liquidating agent of the business of the departing Jews, and will organize trade and commerce in the new country.”[18] In another chapter of the book he stated: “The Jewish Company is partly modelled on the lines of a great land acquisition company.”[19]
Herzl had told Sir Samuel Montagu that he would appeal to the Sultan for the award of 250,000 acres east of River Jordan. He was however unable to acquire the pounds 100 million he had set as a target for the said company. Lord Walter Rothschild was extremely reluctant at this stage to support him and did not meet him! Later on Walter Rothschild, who always suffered from ill health, was converted to Zionism by Chaim Weizmann, a Russian Jew. By 1899 Edmond de Rothschild withdrew from his direct involvement in the Palestinian settlements. In the words of Deanna Spingola: “Regardless of the continuing controversies, the settlements and Zionism would have totally collapsed without the assistance of Rothschild’s specialists, who helped to establish Israel’ agricultural economy. He transferred the stewardship of the settlements to the Jewish Colonization Association, which spawned the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association.”[20]
Herzl remained unsuccessful in many of his attempts to raise money for the Israel project. He managed to meet Sultan Abdul Hamid II on May 19, 1901 but could not mention his Zionist project because the Sultan was only interested in raising money, on acceptable terms, to meet the deficits of his budget, and also because Jerusalem was extremely sacred for the Sultan. The Sultan needed 1.5 million pounds immediately to meet that year’s deficit. He gave Herzl four weeks to arrange that money. Herzl sought the help of important bankers but they needed the permission of the Rothschilds to give that money. At this point the Rothschilds were opposed to the Zionist project even though they were settling Jews from Russia and East Europe in Palestine. This may have been due to fear of a backlash from the Ottomans.
The Turks offered Herzl “All the mines . . . gold and silver, coal and oil” to Herzl for development but Herzl rejected the restricted colonization offer that came with it. The Sultan had offered Mesopotamia, Syria and Anatolia to the Jews for settling and becoming Ottoman subjects. The Sultan was fully aware that the Zionists had plans for establishing their own government in Palestine. In the mean-time Chaim Weizmann had emerged on the scene and, by 1901, he began a campaign for founding of an institution of higher learning in Palestine. This led to the initiation, in 1912, for work on the Technion, now known as the Israel Institute of Technology. Weizmann first visited Palestine in 1907 and set up the Palestine Land Development Company that helped Jews to buy land. This establishment of Technion and the Company was partially what Herzl had desired.
Lord Jacob Rothschild wrote in the Jewish Chronicle on November 15, 2017: “Walter’s commitment to Zionism was fired by his very first meeting with Weizmann. He became convinced that the future of the Jews lay in Zionism and dedicated himself to the cause. After the [Balfour] Declaration Weizmann wrote to him: ‘May I offer you our heartiest thanks in making this possible — I am sure that when the history of this time will be written it will be justifiably said that the name of the greatest House in Jewry was associated with the granting of the Magna Carta of Jewish liberties….’.” [21]
Walter was the 2nd Baron Rothschild and was the eldest son of Baron “Natty” Rothschild. Weizmann thus managed to bring the most powerful and richest family on the planet to support Zionism, a support that they had hitherto been unwilling to lend. In an interview given to The Jewish Chronicle in 2019 he also mentioned James de Rothschild as a committed Zionist.[22] James de Rothschild was the son of Edmond de Rothschild of France and had, after the Dreyfuss affair, in which a Jew had been accused of spying against France, left France to settle in England.
According to Deanna Spingola, by 1908, the Jewish population in Palestine had reached 80,000, which was thrice their population in 1882. Further, the Jews owned 156 square miles of land in Palestine at that time[23]. The first world war was planned as early as 1890/91 by a small group involving Nathaniel “Natty” Rothschild. The innermost core of Zionists must have been aware of this planned conflagration. In his address to the 6th Zionist Conference held at Basle in 1903, Max Nordau made the following astonishing statement: “Let me tell you the following words as if I were showing you the rungs of a ladder leading upward and upward; Herzl, the Zionist congress; the English Uganda proposition, the future world war, the peace conference where with the help of England, a free Jewish Palestine will be created.” How could he know all this unless he was on the inside and it was all an intrigue planned by the secretive Rothschilds. At the same Congress Dr. Nahum Sokoloff completed Nordau’s sequence by stating, “Jerusalem will one day become capital of world peace.”[24]
One of the objects of World War I was the creation of Israel. This may not have been in the mind of the British leaders at the time but was in the mind of the Rothschilds and their Jewish banking brethren. Herbert H. Asquith, the prime minister of Britain from 1908 on till the mid of WWI, almost certainly did not have Israel as an objective in mind. In December 1916 he was quietly replaced by an asset of the planners of WWI, David Lloyd George. Why was the replacement needed right in the middle of WWI which had been going on for a little over two years? This is not the place to discuss the intrigue but it pertained to a demand to divert forces to Palestine.
Douglas Reed writes: “The motive offered to the masses was that Mr. Asquith was ineffective in prosecuting the war. The sincerity of the contention may be tested by what followed; the first act of his successors was to divert forces to Palestine and in the sequence to that Mr. Lloyd George nearly lost the war entirely.”[25] The outstanding General Sir William Robertson, who had resisted the diversion of forces to Palestine, was removed from his position as Chief of Imperial General Staff. Gen. Kitchener, who was also opposed to this diversion, was sent on a mission to Russia and the ship carrying was sunk by explosions on board. The media blamed a German submarine. That Gen. Kitchener was killed by insiders was established by Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty in Prolonging the Agony, published in 2018. Suspicion about his death was expressed by Douglas Reed in his book completed in 1956.
These events simply show the complete and secret grip of the Zionists, rather their patrons, the international bankers, on the British government. The entry of America saved Britain from defeat. But this shows, beyond doubt, that the Middle East was so important for the bankers that they not only effected a dangerous change of the British government right in the middle of a desperate war with Germany to achieve that, but also had the Chief of Imperial General removed, apart from assassinating Gen. Kitchener!
The entry of the US into the war had also been planned by the Zionist bankers. President Wilson was a puppet in the hands of four men, three of who were hard core Zionist Jews (Justice Louis Brandeis, Rabbi Stephen Wise, Bernard Baruch) and the fourth was a Rothschild agent, a banker named “Col.” Edward Mandell House. His victory was managed by the bankers who split the Republican vote by putting forward a third candidate “Teddy” Roosevelt, a thoroughly corrupt former U.S. president.[26]
Douglas Reed has made a very revealing observation. He writes: “The First World War began in 1914; long-memoried readers may recall that it appeared to be concerned with such matters as the rape of Belgium, ending Prussian militarism, and making the world safe for democracy. At its start Baron Edmond de Rothschild told Dr. Weizmann that it would spread to the Middle East, where things of great significance to Zionism would occur.”[27] It is quite clear from this that the Rothschilds had planned to take important steps towards the establishment of a Zionist state in the Middle East in consequence of WWI. How could Edmond de Rothschild know, right at the start of the war, that it would spread to the Middle East and work to the great advantage of the Zionist cause? He could know this only if it was planned that way and he was one of the leading planners.
Benjamin Freedman, an American Jewish businessman, who was part of the U.S. delegation at Versailles, made some startling revelations in a talk at Willard Hotel, Washington D.C. in 1961. He stated that the Jews were well off in Germany and because Germany was engaged in war against a coalition of Russia, Britain and France, the Jews in America, on account of their dislike of the Czar, supported Germany. He stated: “They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn’t like the Czar, and they didn’t want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: ‘As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!’ But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.”[28]
Mr. Freedman described the change that took place once the Zionists had made a deal with the British regarding Palestine, in the following words: “Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they’d been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies’ hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.”[29]
Winston Churchill confirmed the Zionist involvement in bringing America into war against Germany during a speech in the House of Commons on July 4, 1922: “Pledges and Promises were made during the War, and they were not made only on merits . . . They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the War. It was considered that the support the Jews would give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a palpable advantage.”[30] In 1937 Churchill told the Royal Commission on Palestine: “We did not adopt Zionism entirely out of altruistic love of starting a Zionist colony. It was a matter of great importance to this country. It was a potent factor on public opinion in America and we were bound to honor …”[31] David Lloyd George, during whose tenure the Balfour Declaration was issued also told the same Commission that the promise of a Jewish homeland was the result of an understanding in which the Jews had promised to rally support for Britain throughout the world.[32]
The United States entered the war on April 6, 1917. The Bolshevik Revolution, a coup of the Russian Jewry against the Czar, intensified in October 1917 and it was clear that they were going to control Russia within days or weeks. Finally, the Bolsheviks assumed power on November 7, 1917. The Balfour Declaration, promising the Jews a “national home in Palestine”, was issued on November 2, 1917, at the time when it was quite clear that the Bolsheviks had taken control of Russia. Quite significantly, it was addressed by the Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, the eldest son of Nathaniel (“Natty”) Rothschild who himself had passed away in 1915. It is quite clear that the Rothschilds had a central role in extracting the promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine from the British government at a time when Palestine was a part of the Ottoman empire and Britain had no jurisdiction over it at all.
The Zionists were determined to dismantle the Ottoman empire so that they could get hold of Palestine. For this purpose, the Zionists sabotaged a peace move that could have saved the Ottoman empire. In May 1917, the U.S. Foreign Secretary Robert Lansing received a report that the Ottomans were tired of war and wanted a separate peace with Britain. Zionists got wind of it when President Wilson decided to appoint Henry Morgenthau, a former ambassador to Turkey, to contact the Ottomans. Morgenthau was himself Jewish and decided to take Justice Felix Frankfurter in confidence. Frankfurter was an avowed Zionist. Alison Weir writes: “Felix Frankfurter became part of the delegation and ultimately persuaded the delegation’s leader, former Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, to abandon the effort. U.S. State Department officials considered that Zionists had worked to scuttle this potentially peace-making mission and were unhappy about it. Zionists often construed such displeasure at their actions as evidence of American diplomats’ ‘anti-Semitism’.”[33] They betrayed the U.S. government and when officials expressed displeasure at this betrayal, they called them anti-Semitic. Typical behavior! This one Zionist move, against the interests of the U.S., ensured the end of the Ottoman empire. For as long as the Ottoman empire existed the Jewish home in Palestine could not be set up.
Leon Trotsky, a Russian Ashkenazi Jew, was in the vanguard of the Bolshevik Revolution. Douglas Reed quotes Mrs. Blanche Dugdale (emphasis in Reed): “Years before, in Geneva, Trotsky and Weizmann had night after night expounded from rival cafes in the university quarter their opposed political beliefs. Both of them were Russian born … they had swayed the crowds of Jewish students from one side of the street to the other; Leon Trotsky, apostle of Red revolution; Chaim Weizmann, apostle of a tradition unbroken for two thousand years. Now by a strange coincidence in the same week each of them accomplished the fulfilment of his dream.”[34]
Reed elaborates: “Thus Chaim Weizman’s youthful fellow conspirators from the Talmudic area of Russia triumphed in Russia at the very moment when he triumphed in London and Washington. The only difference between him and them, from the start, was that between ‘revolutionary-Zionism’ and ‘revolutionary-Communism’ …”[35] Reed writes: “In truth, the pincers in which the West was to be gripped had been forged, and each handle was held by one of two groups of revolutionaries ‘Russian-born’ (but not Russian).”[36]
Trotsky had been sent from New York, with $10,000 in cash in his pocket [which led to his arrest by Canadian authorities], by Rockefeller. It has been established by Antony Sutton and others that Wall Street bankers funded the Bolshevik Revolution[37]. The grandson of banker Jacob Schiff (the Schiff’s and Rothschilds shared the same house in Frankfurt in the earliest days) had stated that the “old man” had sunk $20 million in the Russian Revolution (over 554 million i.e. over half a billion dollars in 2023)[38]. Eustace Mullins writes that when the Bolsheviks were failing President Wilson sent “his personal emissary Elihu Root with one hundred million dollars from his Special Emergency War Fund to save the toppling Bolshevik regime.”[39] Elihu Root was J.P. Morgan’s lawyer and a member of the super-secret Pilgrim Society.
The success of the Bolshevik Revolution posed a problem for the Zionists. They had been campaigning for a Jewish homeland in order to save the Russian Jews from the Czarist regime. Through the Bolshevik Revolution the Jews had become absolute masters of entire Russia. The Bolshevik regime was a Jewish regime and “anti-Semitism” was a punishable offence. The Times reporter Robert Wilton reported on the Jewish nature of the regime in Moscow but the Zionists compelled the Times to stop such reporting, lest people in the English speaking world find out, what needed to be concealed in the interest of the Israel project.
In his 1946 book Rabbi Elmer Berger wrote (quoted by Reed – emphasis in Reed): “The Soviet government even privileged Jews as Jews … at a single stroke, the revolution emancipated those very Jews for whom, previously, no solution other than Zionism would be efficacious, according to Zionist spokesmen. Soviet Jews no longer had need of Palestine, or any other refuge. The lever of suffering of Russian Jewry, which Herzl had often used in attempts to prise a charter for Palestine from some power, was gone.”[40] However, after WWII the Russian revolutionary regime was to come to the aid of the Israel project in a different way.
At the end of WWI Britain had troops in Palestine. In June 1922 the US Congress (emphasis in original- Douglas Reed) “passed a joint resolution of both houses, the wording of which was almost identical with that of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.” [41] Reed observes: “[T]hereafter the Zionist halter was firmly reaffixed round the neck of American State policy, and though the American voter only realized this, it became immaterial to him which party prevailed.”[42] On July 24, 1922, the League [of Nations] Council awarded Britain the “mandate” to remain in Palestine. Lord Balfour had introduced the subject of ratification of the “Palestine Mandate”. However, the House of Lords voted for the repeal of the Balfour Declaration by a large majority. This led Arthur Balfour (later to become a Lord himself) to remark to Dr. Weizmann: “What does it matter if a few foolish lords pass a motion?” [43] Thus the Zionist policy as laid down in the Balfour Declaration became something which no Parliament or House could undo! Why? What forces were more powerful than the British Parliament to determine a policy which even the Parliament could not change?
For almost a decade after the Balfour Declaration the British government maintained the deception that the Jewish national home would just be a cultural center, with scientific institutes and farmlands! But the Arabs and the Palestinians were well aware of the Zionist designs. Douglas Reed has put it very well: “The Arabs were never beguiled; they saw that they were the objects of an attempt to reinforce, in the 20th century AD., the Law of violent dispossession set up by the Levites in the 5th century BC. They responded with riotous protest and warlike uprising which have never ceased, so that ‘the war to end war’ started warfare without end.”[44] That warfare continues to date, for a century, with no end in sight. The British “liberated” the Arabs from the Turks and handed them over to subjugation by alien Jews from Russia and East Europe, aided by Anglo-American power, with the Anglo-American leaders utterly subservient to the Zionists.
The subservience of the Western leaders to the Zionists, at whose back stood the High Cabal, the international banking families, led to a step by step and deception by deception advance towards the creation of Israel. President Wilson wrote a letter to Rabi Stephen Wise, one of his four handlers, on August 31, 1918, expressing the “satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist movement I the United States and in the Allied countries since the declaration by Mr. Balfour…” On July 4, 1918 Wilson had issued a direction regarding the territories of the former Ottoman empire: “The settlement of every question, whether of territory, of sovereignty, of economic arrangement, or of political relationship upon the basis of free acceptance of that settlement by the people immediately concerned and not upon the basis of the material interest or advantage of any nation or people which may desire a different settlement for the sake of its own exterior influence or mastery.”[45] Lofty principles which Mr. Wilson would never be able to implement. He had been a tool and once used was to be cast aside.
In 1919, Mr. Wilson appointed Dr. Henry Churchill King and Charles R. Crane to “record the wishes of the people in the former Ottoman territories regarding their desired form of government and the degree to which outside intervention would be accepted.” Both these individuals were approached by Zionists in America to produce a report favoring Zionism, King and Crane spent forty-two days in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq (then Mesopotamia) and Asia Minor. They interviewed cultural, political and religious leaders of the region and drafted the King-Crane Report. The King-Crane Commission received 11 petitions, all from Jews, favoring the Zionist program and another 08 favoring a partial Zionist program with colonies in Palestine. But it received an astonishing 1,350 petitions rejecting the Zionist program. The population break up was as follows: Muslims 2.365 m, Christian 0.587m, Druses 0.28m, Jews 0.11m, others .045m. The total population was 3.3875 million. Thus 72.3% of the population opposed the Zionist program, while 0.59% favored the Zionist program and 0.40 percent favored a diluted Zionist program[46].
Naturally the King-Crane Commission Report reflected what the population felt. The Zionists wanted complete dispossession and displacement of non-Jewish residents by purchasing their land. Based on its interaction with leaders of Palestine and even Syria, the report stated that establishment of a Jewish state would lead to “the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”[47] The report also stated: “No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms. The officers generally thought that a force of not less than 50,000 soldiers would be required even to initiate the program … Decisions requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary. But they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interest of a serious injustice.”[48] The Zionist puppet government of the US suppressed this very comprehensive and fair report until 1922 when President Wilson ordered its release. The Zionists later on labeled King and Crane as Nazi sympathizers, even though Hitler was nowhere in sight when the report was submitted!
The King-Crane Commission was followed by several British commissions in view of the unrest that the Balfour Declaration and the veto of elections had produced in Palestine. Each of these teams that the British sent were in favor of Zionist position before they went to Palestine. There was the Haycraft Commission followed by the Shaw and Simpson Commissions. Members of each of these commissions were in favor of the Zionist project before they went to Palestine. But after meeting Palestinians their reports reflected the true picture on the ground. This was not to the liking of Mr. Weizmann at all. He remarked that it was “an almost universal rule” that those who were “favorably inclined” towards the Zionist project “turned against us in a few months.”[49] In 1922 Churchill had proposed that elections be held in Palestine. He was vetoed by Weizmann who knew that in view of the vast majority of Palestinians opposed to the Zionist project, election will produce a government that would kill the project.
In view of this, the strategy adopted by the Zionists was to acquire such control over the British and American leadership that they would not change the policy laid out in the Balfour Declaration, regardless of the actual situation in Palestine. This was ensured by the High Cabal. There was opposition to the Zionist project from the Jews in Britain and the US and that became a serious threat for Weizmann’s target. It became a threat because the Mandate required that any agency purporting to represent Jews must “secure the cooperation of all Jews” in establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine. He coined the term non-Zionist and, in 1929, set up his “Enlarged Jewish Agency” claiming that it represented all Jews, Zionist as well as non-Zionist, a claim the British government accepted [50].
The Palestinians reacted strongly to the “Enlarged Jewish Agency” because they could foresee that it would become the government of the homeland the Jewish wished to set up in Palestine. This led the British government to suspend Jewish immigration to Palestine via the Passfield White Paper of 1930, and to limit the authority of the Enlarged Jewish Agency. Weizmann met the British PM Mr. Ramsay MacDonald, who not only revoked the White Paper but also asked Mr. Weizmann about his choice of the next High Commissioner in Palestine. Douglas Reed comments: “What these politicians feared, none can confidently say; their memoirs are uniformly silent on this central mystery and their capitulations are unique in history. Mr. MacDonald’s surrender re-established the principle that ‘policy’ in this matter was ‘set’ and immutable, and during the ensuing twenty years this became the paramount principle of all British and American state policy.” [51]
In the mean-time Jewish immigration to Palestine seemed to become sluggish. Jewish immigrants arrived in Palestine and immigrants also left Palestine. In 1927 the number of those immigrants who left Palestine exceeded those that arrived by three thousand. Till 1932 the number of annual departures was one third of the number arriving. In 1933 the assumption of power by Hitler in Germany, and of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) in the U.S., paved the way for the planned WWII and gave life to the dying Zionist cause. The decision to install Hitler in power was taken at a meeting held on January 4, 1933, at the townhouse of the Jewish banker Kurt von Schroder! [52]
Hitler had been brought to power with the connivance of international bankers. Antony Sutton established that he was funded by some Wall Street firms. Further, in a letter written to Churchill in 1937, Heinrich Bruening, the German Chancellor from 1929-1932, revealed that from October 1928 onwards, two largest regular contributors to the German Nazi party were managers of two major Berlin banks, “both of Jewish faith, and one of them was a leader of Zionism in Germany.” Bruening did not allow Churchill to include the letter in his memoirs on the grounds that it would be too embarrassing for the Jews! He also stopped Life magazine from publishing it in 1948. [53] Max Warburg of the Rothschild connected Jewish banking family, whose brother Paul Warburg had played a key role in the Federal Reserve conspiracy in the U.S., continued to advise Hitler on financial matters till the eve of WWII.
Hitler was used by the international banking families to revive the cause of Zionism. On August 7, 1933, Zionist leaders arrived at a pact with Hitler known as the Transfer Agreement. Under this agreement 60,000 Jews and $100 million ($2.368 trillion in 2023 value) were transferred to Palestine. The Transfer Agreement was kept out of history books and the media until 1983 when the partially Jewish Edwin Black revealed the story in his book The Transfer Agreement [54].
The Transfer Agreement resulted from a Jewish boycott of German goods initiated by Zionists at the end of March 1933, less than two months after Hitler assumed office. The German Jews protested against the boycott as it would, they felt, add to their difficulties. Rabi Stephen Wise has been quoted by Douglas Reed as having recorded that he and his fellow Zionists were not deterred by urgent protests and appeals from Jews in Germany. Wise stated: “… that our Jewish brothers in Germany might feel moved or compelled to accept a peace agreement or pact that might mean some slight amelioration or mitigation of their wrongs. . . that the Nazi regime might decide to prevent some of the evil consequences of its regime by such palliative treatment of Jews that would disarm worldwide Jewish protest.” [55] Thus, as noted by Reed, Rabi Wise preferred that Jews suffer in Germany at the hands of the Nazi regime.
Douglas Reed has devoted an entire chapter of his book to “The Strange Role of the Press”. He refers, in particular to the case of “Jewish persecution” in Hitler’s Germany. He mentions three stages of phases of this coverage. In the first phase the persecution of “political opponents and Jews” was reported. This was then “imperceptibly amended” to “Jews and political opponents”. In the final phase the press spoke only of the “persecution of Jews” [56]. Why was this done? Such partial reporting blotted out of the public mind the sufferings of the vast majority of non-Jews in concentration camps.
Douglas Reed had himself, at much risk to himself, visited concentration camps and talked to the victims. He found that almost 90% of those in concentration camps were non-Jews. “But the manner of reporting in the world’s press in time blocked-out the great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.” What deception and injustice! The world press was controlled by the Zionists with the backing of the international banking families. Reed observes: “The result showed in 1945, when on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and the other hand half of Europe was abandoned to the selfsame persecution, in which the Jews had shared in their small proportion in populations everywhere.” [57] The usurpation East Europe by Communist dictatorships with the willing acquiescence of the Zionist controlled Western leaders was a great treachery. These were invariably Jewish dictatorships that suppressed Christians because of the deep Jewish hatred for Christianity. Communism was just a cover for suppression of Christians by Jews masquerading as Communists.
The case for Israel was built on repeated and well thought out Zionist lies and deception developed and carried out with the collusion of international banking families, who controlled, not just the narrative, but also the U.S. President Roosevelt. In 1949 Rabi Wise wrote an untrue version of the events meant to justify the brutal and inhuman creation of Israel. Douglas Reed quotes (emphasis in Reed): “The measures against the Jews continued to outstrip in systematic cruelty and planned destruction the terror against other groups. On January 29,1933, Hitler was summoned to be chancellor… at once the reign of terror began with beatings and imprisonment of Jews …” [58] This was a lie, as reported by Douglas Reed, an eye witness to the events. And this was exactly the purpose of the false reporting. Rabi wrote: “We planned a protest march in New York on May 10, the day of the ordered burning of Jewish books in Germany … the brunt of the attacks was borne by Jews . . . concentration camps were established and filled with Jews.” [59]
Was this really so? Douglas Reed, a most impartial and objective eye witness to the events, writes (emphasis in original): “All these statements are false. The measures against Jews did not outstrip the terror against other groups; . . . The reign of terror did not begin on January 29, 1933, but on the night of the Reichstag fire, February 27. No ‘burning of Jewish books’ was ordered. I attended and reported that bonfire and have looked up my report published in The Times, to verify my recollection. A mass of ‘Marxist’ books was burned, including works of many German, English and other non-Jewish writers; . . . the bonfire included some Jewish books, the brunt of terror was not borne by Jews, nor were the concentration camps ‘filled with Jews’. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to their ratio in the population.” [60]
While the persecution of the general German populace was transformed through deception into persecution of Jews by the Zionist controlled press, President Roosevelt in the United States was playing a key role in arming and empowering Zion in his own country. He created a new precedent – he had his cabinet sworn in by a Jew, Justice Cardozo, a committed Zionist. Immigration of Jews in massive numbers to the US was managed from behind the scenes – their population rose almost twenty-fold, from 230,000 in 1881 to 4,500,000 in 1926! Though small in number, the Jewry is organized and can tip the balance in an evenly matched election very easily. Further, members of active Jewry had always been involved in political assassinations.
FDR had been brought to power to involve the US into a planned world war. However, in 1935, FDR’s second election had become doubtful because of the emergence of a candidate from the South named Huey Long. Long could not have won the elections but his independent candidature would have split the Democratic vote to the extent that FDR’s re-election chance would have been fatally hurt. FDR’s reelection was ensured when he was shot dead in the Louisiana State Capitol by a young Jew named Dr. Carl Austin Weiss. Weiss himself was shot by the guard and the conspiracy was buried but, significantly, Mr. Long had forewarned of his possible assassination.
FDR had Jewish roots and was a believer in the New World Order. He surrounded himself by a very large number of Zionist and/or Communist Jewish advisors. Gentiles and non-Zionist Jews were not part of his advisory circle. He worked mostly through these “advisors” and many a time ignored those who had official responsibility to deal with a matter. He lied and deceived the American nation to drag it into war against Germany in the interests of Zionist Jews [61]. As Reed correctly assessed: “Historically purveyed, Mr. Roosevelt’s achievement may now be seen to be threefold and in each respect perilous to his country’s future: he helped to arm Zionism, he armed the revolution in the Moscow citadel, and he opened the doors of his American citadel to its agents.” [62] It was FDR who was instrumental in handing over half of Christian Europe to Communist Soviet Union at the end of WWII.
The Zionists had control over the British government which had a “Mandate” over Palestine. If the British government baulked FDR in Washington could bully them. The Zionists desired that the British government expel the Palestinians from their native land and make room for Jews from Russia. This is something that could not be easily done. British leadership had become subservient, not to its electorate, but to a secret and hidden party, which did not care for British interests but wanted to usurp Palestine at all costs through British help and influence. Since Weizmann had vetoed elections in Palestine the Palestinians rioted over the years and the British government, under Zionist pressure, was obliged to suppress these “rebels”.
The Palestinian pressures however put the British government in a difficult situation. On the suggestion of the Peel Commission, the fifth commission sent into Palestine by the British, the idea of a partition of Palestine was floated in 1938. In the bloodiest riots ever in that land 1500 Palestinians were killed [63]. In 1939 Chamberlain called a Palestine Conference in London in which the Arabs were represented for the first time. And that led to a highly important White Paper of March 1939 in which the British government expressed its intention for (emphasis in original) “the establishment within ten years of an independent Palestinian state.” The White Paper also called for “the termination of the Mandate”. [64] This would have led to a multi-religious Palestine with Muslims, Christians and Jews jointly running their land. It would have brought peace to the region.
The White Paper was a blow to the Zionists and any obstruction to the Zionist cause activates the hidden hands of the High Cabal. In December 1916 the Zionists ousted the prime minister Herbert Asquith because he did not wish to commit his troops for the conquest of Palestine. He was replaced by the Zionist agent David Lloyd George. Subsequent to the publication of the White Paper, the highly unpopular Winston Churchill (he had been given a bad press) seemed to come to the fore after being in the wilderness for a decade. From 1929-1939 he was not in the good books of the Zionists on account of his past utterances. In a White Paper of 1922 he had proposed a Legislative Council for Palestine with a majority of elected members [65]. This implied elections, and certainly elections were not what the Zionists wanted in Palestine. Even as s late as 1938 he had stated that the Arabs should be given a “solemn assurance” that the “annual quota of Jewish immigration should not exceed a certain figure for a period of at least ten years.”[66] This went contrary to the Zionist desire. The bad press that had led to his unpopularity had to do with this, it appears.
In his memoirs Weizmann mentions that he met Winston Churchill in October 1939 and Churchill told him that he will speak in the Parliament “against the White Paper” of March 1939. In effect Churchill reversed his earlier stand on being just towards the Arabs. This change of heart must have been promoted by background forces because Mr. Weizmann does not mention Churchill even once in his biography after the year 1922, till 1939 – a gap of seventeen years. According to Weizmann, he had lunch with Churchill on the day of the debate on the White Paper. Weizmann writes that Churchill “read out his speech to us” and asked Weizmann if he had any changes to suggest! Despite Churchill’s speech, the White Paper was approved with a majority of 268 to 179 but there were 110 abstentions indicating something was not right with Mr. Chamberlain’s party [67]. When WWII broke out Chamberlain was an obstruction for the Zionists and was soon ousted and replaced by their now willing agent Winston Churchill. With that, the highest offices in both the US and Britain, were occupied by men supporting the Zionist cause in Palestine.
Winston Churchill became prime minister on May 10, 1940. At that time France had been overrun by the Germans and the British stood alone. On May 23 he directed his Colonial Secretary Lord Lloyd to withdraw British forces from Palestine and instead arm the Jews so that they could “defend” themselves. The arming of Zion was so pressing and important for Mr. Churchill that within two weeks of assuming office he, amid the dire exigencies of war, issued such an instruction. He repeated his instructions twice in the next ten days and at a time when the Dunkirk evacuation was in process. Lord Lloyd saw the dangers in this and his resistance was not liked by Mr. Churchill who wished to arm the Jews. Those opposed to Zion in their own country’s interest, like Lord Kitchener in WWI, and many others, can die unexpectedly. Lord Lloyd died in 1941 at age 62! [68]
In view of the resistance that Weizmann faced in setting up armed brigade of Jews in Palestine he travelled, without difficulty, to the US during the war and, through Rabi Wise, who instructed FDR about helping Zionism, sent FDR a report. He wrote: “The British government ought to be made to understand how enormous would be the shock and how damaging its effect upon the democratic cause, if there should be a general slaughter because of failure adequately to arm the Jews as well as strengthen the defenses of Palestine with guns, tanks and planes.” FDR replied: “I can merely call to the attention of the British our deep interest in the defense of Palestine and our concern for the defense of the Jewish population there; and as best as I can, supply the British forces with the material means by which maximum protection to Palestine will be afforded.” [69] Rabi Stephen Wise was able to say that due to FDR’s intervention the business of parity had been dropped to a large extent.” Parity referred to the insistence of British administrators that if Jews were to be armed, then Arabs ought to equally armed too. Thus, while WWII was going on, the way was paved for arming Russian and other Jews to enter Palestine and kill and expel native Arabs from Palestine.
Men of conscience in Britain and the US however, in the interest of justice and their respective countries, continued to resist the disastrous policy of arming Russian Jews that Churchill, under Zionist influence, was foisting upon the two countries. Dr. Weizmann was to write: “our difficulties were not connected with the first-rank statesmen. These had, for by far the greatest part, always understood our aspirations, and their statements in favor of a Jewish national home really constitute a literature.” This meant that the first rank politicians had bowed completely to the Zionists, because they knew that behind the Zionists stood the High Cabal. Weizmann continues: “It was always behind the scenes, and on the lower levels, that we encountered an obstinate, devious and secretive opposition . . . All the information supplied from the Middle East to the authorities in Washington worked against us.” [70]
The Zionist control of the “first-rank statesmen” in Washington and in London was crucial to the success of the Zionist intrigue. That control was exercised by the invisible High Cabal, for whom the Zionists worked. The Zionists already had gotten Churchill to agree to arm the Jews because they could see that the British government was reluctant to use force against Arabs in Palestine with the object of expelling them to make way for Jews. WWII had been planned by the Zionists and they had expressed the intention of destroying Hitler. Weizmann has stated that Churchill had privately committed to the award of Jewish territory in Palestine but would not do so publicly. Weizmann wanted an amended Balfour Declaration in which, instead of the phrase “a national home” Jews, he desired the award of territory. Churchill delayed by saying that the war must first be finished.
After Yalta FDR met King Ibn e Saud on his ship, the Quincy, and asked him to admit more Jews in Palestine. King Saud said no to this and added that “there was a Palestine army of Jews all armed to the teeth and they did not seem to be fighting the Germans but were aiming at the Arabs.” FDR then agreed not to take any action hostile to the Arabs. FDR was aboard Quincy on February 11, 12, and 13, 1944 and returned to Washington on February 28. On April 5 FDR wrote, in reply to a letter from King Saud, that “no decision will be taken with regard to the basic situation of Palestine without full consultation of both Arabs and Jews.” [71] In writing this he had gone against Weizmann’s desire that “we could not rest the case on Arab consent.” On April 12 he suddenly died. He died at the estate of the influential High Cabal agent, the Jew Bernard Baruch, and there are serious suspicions that he was either assassinated or compelled to commit suicide (he was a 32nd degree Freemason). What was the sitting president of the United States doing at Bernard Baruch’s estate while the war had still not ended? [72]
Since Churchill had baulked at taking the final step of using force against the Palestinians, Zionist propaganda in the British press went full throttle against him and in favor of the Socialists led by Clement Attlee, who had stated: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in”. The Jewish parliamentarians switched en bloc in favor of Attlee and defeated Churchill. This. According to Weizmann, “delighted all liberal elements’” Douglas Reed comments: “This was the requital for Mr. Churchill’s forty years of support for Zionism; he had not actually ordered British troops to clear Palestine of Arabs, and, for a while, was an enemy.”[73] Thus the Zionists instantly switched horses when they found one horse reluctant.
The office of the mysteriously deceased Colonial Secretary, Lord Lloyd, was inherited by a Mr. Hall. As soon as he took office he was visited by a delegation of the World Zionist Congress. What he wrote about the attitude of the Zionist delegation is worth reading. He stated: “I must say the attitude adopted by the members of the deputation was different from anything which I have ever experienced. It was not a request for the consideration by His Majesty’s Government of the decisions of the Zionist conference, but a demand that His Majesty’s Government should do what the Zionist Organization desired them to do.” [74] They must have known that those, on whose behalf, they were acting, owned the British government at the highest levels. The defeat of Hitler had further emboldened them. Weizmann observed that despite Churchill’s support “exactly four years were to pass before, in September 1944, the Jewish Brigade was officially formed.” [75] A most crucial step towards the arming of Zion for the capture of Palestine by those who had never lived there (nor had their ancestors), was thus taken.
By the start of WWI Zionists had already acquired the ability to destroy anyone who stood in their way. Ernest Bevin was a robust man, a labor leader and a politician. He was appointed Foreign Secretary by Attlee. Bevin was blunt with Weizmann and told him that he would not be pressured into doing anything beyond the undertakings of the British government. Weizmann represented the High Cabal and therefore had instant access and influence with the American and British leadership at the highest levels – he was not used to such treatment. The Zionists “fell on him [Bevin] like a pack of wolves”. As a result of Bevin’s courageous understanding of the explosive nature of the issue and of Zionist “intrigue” (he used this word) the Labor government declared that it was not in favor of driving Jews out of Europe and favored their living in European countries “without discrimination”. [76]
A worldwide campaign against Ernest Bevin was conducted by the Zionists for two years. The Zionists added a term “Bevinism’ to their vituperative vocabulary. Still, the steely Bevin stood his ground and would have succeeded in thwarting the Zionist goal in Palestine but for the intervention of President Truman of the United States. He demanded that a hundred thousand Jews be admitted into Palestine. This undid all efforts of Mr. Bevin to maintain justice and avoid a situation that could and did lead to perpetual war.
In the mean-time the World Zionist Congress of 1946 agreed to resume the method of terror and assassination in its quest for a land that belonged to others. The phrases used were “resistance”, “defense”, “activism”, etc. against the British authorities in Palestine. Weizmann explains that these words used by the Congress possessed that same meaning: “[O]ne feature was common to all of them: the conviction of the need for fighting against British authority in Palestine or anywhere else, for that matter.”
The Congress merely gave approval to ongoing terrorism that had always been used by the Talmudic Jews when needed. Lord Moyne, the British minister of state in the Middle East was assassinated by the Jewish terrorist organization Irgun in November 1944. In July 2012, when Yitzak Shamir died, Joanna Saidel wrote in the Times of Israel that in 1993 Shamir told her the following: “He was an anti-Semite, Lord Moyne. And he had a hand in the White Paper, in carrying out the White Paper policy. I don’t say that I would have, if I had to decide, that I would decide that he ought to be shot, but once he was shot there were good reasons for him being shot.” [77] Shamir was referring to the White Paper issued under Ernest Bevin. Irgun had been set up in 1931. In the Zionist vocabulary anyone who does not submit to the Zionist dictates is “anti-Semitic”. However, there is little doubt, despite the carefully crafted language of Yitzhak Shamir, reported by Saidel, that his organization, Irgun, assassinated Lord Moyne. Although Churchill was very unhappy about the assassination, there was little he could do about it because he had been brought to power by the Zionists.
A Colonial Secretary, Mr. Oliver Stanley, told the House of Commons that Zionist terrorism against Britain in the Middle East had impeded “the British war effort” i.e. it had prolonged the war. Two British sergeants were slowly killed in an orchard and their bodies were left hanging. Reed notes: “The choice of Levitical form of butchery (‘hanging on a tree’, the death ‘accursed of God’) signified that things were done under Judaic law.” [78] But the astonishing thing is the total inability of the British government come to the defense of its men. It was shackled by the Zionist controlled press in both Britain and the United States. One disillusioned British soldier wrote a letter to The Times: “What use has the army for the government’s sympathy? It does not avenge who are murdered, nor does it prevent any further killings. Are we no longer a nation with sufficient courage to enforce law and order where it is our responsibility to do so?” [79] The British and the American governments were Zionist captives and did nothing to contain Zionist terrorism.
In the words of Douglas Reed: “From 1946 terrorists took command. They set to work to drive the British from Palestine first, and knew they could not fail in the state of affairs which had been brought about during the Second War. If the British defended either themselves or the semitic Arabs the cry of ‘anti-semitism’ would rise until the politicians in Washington turned on the British; then when the British left the terrorists would drive out the Arabs.” [80] The British administrative offices dealing with the Palestine Mandate were housed in a wing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. On July 22, 1946 King David Hotel was blown by bombs planted by Irgun agent disguised as Arab workmen and waiters. A total of 91 people were killed in this incident. The reason for bombing had to destroy the documentary evidence implicating the Jewish Agency in acts of terrorism against the British. The British authorities had recovered documents implicating the Jewish Agency in a raid on June 29, 1946 on the offices this agency. The documents directly implicated the Jewish terrorist organization Haganah in acts of terrorism against the British authorities. [81]
Alan Hart had correctly pointed out that during the 26 years of British Mandate, the British set into motion three major conflicts: “One between the indigenous and betrayed Arabs of Palestine and the incoming (extraneous and alien) Zionist Jews; One between the Palestinian nationalists and the forces of occupying British; and One, eventually between the Zionist Jews in Palestine and the British.” [82] The British mandate was, from day one, fraudulent and mala-fide. Lord Islington stated in the House of Lords very clearly: “When one sees in its Article 22… that the well-being and development of such peoples should form a sacred trust of civilization, and when one takes that as the keynote of the Mandatory system, I think your Lordships will see that we are straying down a very far path then we are postponing self-government in Palestine until such time as the population is flooded with an alien race.” [83]
Finally, one may quote Douglas Reed on the Mandate: “The ‘mandates’ also bestowed on Britain in respect of Iraq and Transjordan, and to France in respect of Syria, were soon relinquished, these territories becoming independent states. Other countries received ‘mandates’ in respect of various colonies and oceanic territories, which in time and in fact became their possessions. These other ‘mandates’ were from the start fictitious and served in the office of chaperones to the dubious ones which needed respectable company. Of the entire bogus arrangement only Palestine ‘mandate’ continued until the Zionists being numerous enough and sufficiently supplied with arms, it was abandoned and the country left to the invaders then able to take and hold it by force.” [84]
In the year 1946 a British military officer, General Stanley Morgan, noticed that the UNRRA was being used, not to rehabilitate displaced persons, but as an umbrella and a cover for transportation of a huge number of East European and Russian Jews to Palestine. These Jews were not displaced persons. The Communist regimes protected Jews through severe laws against anti-Semitism. These Eastern Jews were not displaced from Germany. Their mass-movement to Palestine only had Zionist motives. They were being driven by their Talmudic mentors, the Rabbis, and the bankers behind the Rabbis, to a new land where they, or their ancestors, had never lived. In January and August of 1946 General Morgan stated that there existed “a secret organization to further a mass movement of Jews from Europe, a second Exodus.” [85] He was labelled anti-Semitic (which he was not) and then he was dismissed from his post by the new DG, who was a Zionist Jew from New York. In his place a Mr. Myer Cohen (obviously a Jewish name) was appointed. The British government retired Gen. Morgan to please her Zionist masters and falsely stated that he had been retired at his own request.
In November 1946 a Select Committee on Estimates formed by the British House of Commons reported that a “very large number of Jews, almost amounting to a second Exodus, have been migrating from Eastern Europe to the American zones of Germany and Austria with the intention in majority of cases of finally making their way to Palestine. It is clear that it is a highly organized movement with ample funds and great influence behind it, but the Subcommittee was unable to obtain any real evidence who are the real instigators.” [86] Similarly, a War Investigating Committee of the Senate of the United States concluded that “heavy migration of Jews from Eastern Europe into the American zone of Germany is part of a carefully organized plan financed by special groups in the United States.” [87] Both these reports confirmed the assessment of General Morgan. Further, the Zionists had been armed by communist countries, particularly Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. And most of the Zionist armed group comprised Jews from East Europe and Russia.
Memorial Day Ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. President John F. Kennedy Visits Grave of Lieutenant James Forrestal. 30 May 1963
Thus the Zionists were able to either assassinate, or remove, any high official who stood for justice and truth. Lord Moyne was assassinated and General Morgan was dismissed. Earlier Herbert Asquith and Neville Chamberlain had been removed and replaced by agents of the High Cabal to implement the Zionist bidding. In the United States the Secretary for Defense James Forrestal resisted the Zionist onslaught, foreseeing President Truman’s capitulation, and was assassinated. [88] This kind of influence could be wielded only on account of the backing of the High Cabal, whose interests the Zionists represented.
One may ask as to why was Palestine so important for the Zionists or the international banking families which nurtured and backed them? An American Jewish lawyer Henry H. Klein, who struggled hard against the Zionists, wrote in his 1946 pamphlet (emphasis in original): “Hundreds of millions of dollars have been collected from Jews throughout the world for Palestine during the last fifty years. What has become of this vast sum? Some of it has been spent for land and construction there; some for overhead; some for private purposes; a large part of it for propaganda to keep the agitation alive and the golden stream flowing and some of it went into graft. ‘Back to Zion’ is a magic slogan among Jews and the Dead Sea in Palestine is the magic spot that will produce the Golconda of wealth that will further reinforce the efforts towards world rulership. The value of minerals and chemicals in the Dead Sea is estimated in trillions of dollars and some of it is already being extracted.” [89]
But the international banking families, who already own most the wealth of the world, are striving from a Satanic One World Government under their absolute control, a World Order in which traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. will cease to exist and none other than these families and their cohorts will own private property. The deeper reason for the choice of Palestine for the Israel of the bankers was stated by Nahum Goldman, President World Jewish Congress, in Montreal in 1947. The reason is quoted in the following paragraph.
He stated (emphasis added): “The Jews might have had Uganda, Madagascar, and other places for the establishment of the Jewish Fatherland but they wanted absolutely nothing except Palestine, not because the Dead Sea water by evaporation can produce five trillion dollars of metalloids and powdered metals; not because the subsoil of Palestine contains twenty times more petroleum than the combined reserves of the two Americas; but because Palestine is at the crossroads of Europe, Asia and Africa, because Palestine constitutes the veritable center of world political power, the strategic center for world control.” [90] There you have the real reasons for the forcible, illegal, and criminal occupation of Palestine by Russian and East European Talmudic agents of the High Cabal at the expense of the local population.
As a result of the death of FDR in 1944, President Truman, the then vice president, had automatically assumed the office of president of the country. The next elections were to be held in November 1948 and Truman, a 33rd degree Freemason, desperately wanted to be elected. This allowed the Zionists to manipulate things to their advantage. The nomination contests occurred in June and July of 1948 and the Zionists offered re-election to Truman if he supported the invasion of Palestine by the Jews. In November 1947 the Zionists wanted partition of Palestine and in May 1948, as the nomination contest approached, they desired recognition of their invasion. Both sides in the elections were approached by Zionists. “Thus the election campaign took on the nature of an auction, each candidate being constantly under pressure to outbid the other in supporting the invasion of Palestine.” [91]
In 1947 the President Truman made a demand for the admission of 100,000 Jews to Palestine. In response the British government announced that it will withdraw its forces from Palestine if impartial administration was rendered impossible. Truman was then advised to up the ante and make a demand for the admission for 150,000 Jews to Palestine! This advice was proffered by Mr. Robert Hannegan, ex-chairman of the Democratic Party. The rationale for this advice was that it “would have a very great influence and great effect on the raising of funds for Democratic National Committee.” He pointed out that, depending on what Truman did with the Palestine issue “very large sums … from Jewish contributors” could either be given or withheld! [92]
The Deir Yassin horror of April 9, 1948, in which men, women and children were butchered mercilessly by Jewish terrorists of the Irgun and Stern gangs, could only be carried out by Eastern Jews drenched in Talmudic hatred. The unfortunate Deir Yassin was a village of about 600 residents on the outskirts of Jerusalem. Once the resistance of the village to the attackers ended, those who emerged from their houses were lined up and shot. Those who remained in the houses were “butchered.” One survivor, an eye witness narrated: “I saw a man shoot a bullet into the neck of my sister Salhiyeh, who was nine months pregnant. Then he cut her stomach open with a butcher’s knife.” [93]
Alan Hart has described the dastardly act in some detail. He writes that a Swiss IRC representative named Jacques de Reynier, was the first to arrive on the scene Hart writes: “He [Reyneir] and his German escort found 150 bodies thrown in a cistern. In all they counted 254 dead, including 145 women of whom 35 were pregnant… One of the Irgun attackers told his German escort that they were still ‘cleaning up’. Reyneir wrote: ‘The first thing I saw were people running everywhere, rushing in and out of houses, carrying Sten guns, rifles, pistols and long ornate knives … They seemed half mad.” [94] He saw a young woman stab and elderly couple cowering on the doorstep of their hut.
Douglas Reed’s insight into the Zionist mind may be gauged from the following lines: “The massacre at Deir Yassin was an act of ‘observance’ of the ancient ‘statutes and commandments’, including the relevant passage in Deuteronomy. ‘When the Lord thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and shall cast out … seven nations greater and mightier than thou … then thou shalt utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them’, and the related passage, ‘thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth, but thou shalt utterly destroy them.” [95]
Deir Yassin changed the equation. The savagery, the Talmudic brutality resulted in the Arab population fleeing their villages. The terrorist Menachim Begin, who subsequently became one of a line of terrorist prime ministers of Israel, wrote: “Panic overwhelmed the Arabs of Eretz Israel. Kolonia village, which had repulsed every attack of the Haganah, was evacuated overnight and fell without further fighting. Beit Iksa was also evacuated… In the rest of the country too Arabs began to flee in terror, even before they clashed with Jewish forces…” [96]
On May 14, 1948, within five weeks of the Deir Yassin massacre, Zionists marched into Tel Aviv carrying Czechoslovak rifles, and the state of Israel was proclaimed into existence. It was created by fraud, deception, crime, terrorism and bloodshed and has lived that way since it was created. Yitzhak Shamir, another terrorist turned prime minister of Israel had stated in 1943: “Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war… We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle.” [97]
In his memoirs, President Truman mentions the extreme pressures to which he was subjected by the Zionists. Reed quotes (emphasis in Reed): “The facts were that not only were pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage, I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders – actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats – disturbed me and annoyed me. Some were even suggesting that we pressure sovereign states into favorable votes in the General Assembly.” [98] If Mr. Truman was so annoyed why did he succumb?
Author Texe Marrs has pointed out why President Truman issued a declaration recognizing Israel as a new nation on May 14, 1948. He did so despite “virtually unanimous opposition within his own cabinet.” Why did he do so? One reason was that he desired Jewish support in the impending elections. But there was much more to it. Texe Marrs wrote in 2011: “All Zionists were ecstatic, but the Zionist elite knew months in advance that Truman would do this. As I explain and prove in my latest investigative report and in my book Conspiracy of the Six Pointed Star, a Zionist powerbroker, Abraham Feinberg, had, just months before, given the President a two-million dollar bribe – $100 bills packed in suitcases – to recognize Israel. This bribe to Truman, confirmed by recently released FBI archives, means that Israel is today and always has been an illegitimate state established on the basis of a criminal act.” [99]
References
[1] Jim Macgregor and Gerry Docherty: Prolonging the Agony: How the Anglo-American Establishment Deliberately Prolonged WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years, Trine Day 2018, p 394.
[2] Alan Hart: Zionism the Real Enemy of Jews, Vol 1, p 30
[3] Chris Hedges: Israel’s Culture of Deceit, The Unz Review, Oct 19, 2023 https://www.unz.com/article/israels-culture-of-deceit/
[4] Arthur Koestler: The Thirteenth Tribe, Gsg & Assoc, 1976
[5] See for instance: Benton L. Bradberry: The Myth of German Villainy, AuthorHouse, 2012; Antony C. Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, Bucaneer Books Inc., 1974; Antony C. Sutton: Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler, Clairview, 2010, first published 1976 by ’76 Press, California. Jim Marrs: Rule by Secrecy, Perennial, 2004
[6] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, Bridger House Publishing, 2012, p 134
[7] Deanna Spingola: The Ruling Elite: The Zionist Seizure of World Power, Trafford Publishing, 2012, p 23.
[8] Ibid, p 24
[9] Ibid, p 23
[10] Ibid, p 22
[11] Ibid, pp 22, 23
[12] Ibid, p 24
[13] Ibid, p 32
[14] Ibid, p 35
[15] Theodore Herzl: The Jewish State
[16] Deanna Spingola: op cit p 37
[17] Ibid, p 37
[18] Theodore Herzl: op cit
[19] Ibid
[20] Deanna Spingola: op cit, p 34
[21] Lord Rothschild: “A Family That Helped Build a Nation”, The Jewish Chronicle, November 15, 2017 https://www.thejc.com/author/lord-rothschild-lord.rothschild
[22] Nicola Loftus: “Lord Rothschild My Jewish Roots”, The Jewish Chronicle, June 20, 2019, https://www.thejc.com/life-and-culture/all/lord-rothschild-my-jewish-roots-1.485601
[23] Deanna Spingola: op cit, p 44
[24] Douglas Reed: op cit, p 207
[25] Ibid, p 250
[26] Eustace Mullins: The Secrets of the Federal Reserve, Bridger House Publishing, 1991, p 18
[27] Douglas Reed: Far and Wide, CPA Books, 1950, p 285
[28] Benjamin H. Freedman: An American Warns His Countrymen, 1961, posted on rense.com https://rense.com/general91/amd.htm
[29] Ibid
[30] Quoted in Laurent Guyenot: From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, translated from French and edited by Kevin J. Barrett, Sifting and Winnowing Publications, 2018, p 226
[31] Ibid p 226
[32] Ibid p 226
[33] Alison Weir: Against Our Better Judgement: The Hidden History of How the US was Used to Create Israel, self-published 2014, pp 21, 22
[34] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 281
[35] Ibid, p 281
[36] Ibid, p 281
[37] Antony C. Sutton: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, mentioned in [5]
[38] Gerard Menuhin: Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, Castel Hill Publishers, 2016, pp 220, 221
[39] Eustace Mullins op cit, p 85
[40] Douglas Reed: Controversy of Zion, pp 281, 282
[41] Ibid, p 301
[42] Ibid, pp 301, 302
[43] Ibid, p 301
[44] Ibid p 303
[45] Deanna Spingola: op cit, p 696
[46] Ibid, p 698
[47] The King-Crane Report, World War I Document Archive, https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_King-Crane_Report
[48] Ibid
[49] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 304
[50] Ibid, p 305
[51] Ibid, p 306
[52] Eustace Mullins: The World Order: Our Secret Rulers. Omni Veritas 1985 &1991, p 198
[53] David Irving: Hitler’s War and the Warpath, Parforce, UK, 2000, p xxv
[54] Edwin Black: The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich Jewish Palestine, Dialog Press 2009, p xxi (first self-published 1983)
[55] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 321
[56] Ibid, p 309
[57] Ibid, p 309
[58] Ibid, p 309
[59] Ibid, pp 309, 310
[60] Ibid, p 310
[61] See, for example, Mark Weber: President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe: The Secret Polish Documents, The Journal of Historical Review, No 4, Vol 2, 1983; https://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/4/2/Weber135-172.html
Mark Weber: Collusion: Franklin Roosevelt, British Intelligence and the Secret Campaign to Push the U.S. Into War, Institute of Historical Review, February 2020, https://www.ihr.org/other/RooseveltBritishCollusion
[62] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 339
[63] Ibid, p 329
[64] Ibid, p 329
[65] Ibid, p 330
[66] Ibid, p 330
[67] Ibid, p 331
[68] Ibid, p 335
[69] Ibid, p 336
[70] Ibid, p 337
[71] Ibid, p 428
[72] It is difficult to locate articles related to the suspicious death of FDR – the search engines seem to repress such searches and websites posting such material seem not to survive for long. One may see
https://patriots4truth.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/did-fdr-commit-suicide-or-was-he-assassinated.pdf
or
https://drvenkatrsingh.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-fdr-commit-suicide-or-was-he.html
[73] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 430
[74] Ibid, p 430
[75] Ibid, p 335
[76] Ibid, pp 431, 432
[77] Joanna Saidel: Yitzhak Shamir: Why we killed Lord Moyne, Times of Israel, 5 July 2012, https://www.timesofisrael.com/yitzhak-shamir-why-we-killed-lord-moyne/
[78] Douglas Reed: op cit, p 436
[79] Ibid, p 436
[80] Ibid, p 301
[81] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
[82] Alan Hart: op cit, p 150
[83] Ibid, pp 149, 150
[84] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 301
[85] Ibid, p 437
[86] Ibid, p 438
[87] Ibid, p 438
[88] For a quick review see https://en.dailypakistan.com.pk/13-Apr-2023/the-assassination-of-usdefensesecretary-jamesforrestal
[89] Henry H. Klein: “Sanhedrin Produced World Destruction”, pamphlet 1946, published by Liberty Bell Publications, p 9. In the same pamphlet he defines the Sanhedrin as “a body of self appointed and self anointed Jews who presume to run all Jewish affairs and control all Jews.”
[90] Quoted in Gerard Menuhin: Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, Castle Hill Publishers, 2016, p 103
[91] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 439
[92] Ibid, p 438
[93] Alan Hart: op cit, p 228
[94] Ibid, p 228
[95] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 449
[96] Alan Hart: op cit, p 231
[97] Quoted in the Preface of Zahir Ebrahim: NAKBA 2020: World Order/Zionism, Palestinian-Goyim Studies, p xv https://tinyurl.com/Nakba
[98] Douglas Reed: The Controversy of Zion, p 451
[99] Texe Marrs: “President Harry S. Truman and the Jews”, For a thorough analysis of the assassination see David Martin: The Assassination of James Forrestal, David Martin/McCabe Publishing Co, 2019
https://www.texemarrs.com/092011/truman_and_the_jews_article.htm
Tags de l’article
Here’s a better translation of the IRGC’s response as the translator did a poor job imo:
Our battle with the US and the… https://t.co/MJfjWNUu3n pic.twitter.com/yBtLuaMcDs
— Arya – آریا (@AryJeay) May 5, 2025
— Azadar Hussain (@Azadar04) May 4, 2025
@Fotros Resistance:
— Journalist Pepe Escobar asked the IRGC General responsible for the Missile exhibition why True Promise-3 did not happen as the US & Tel Aviv saw this move as weak. Why did it not happen and will it happen?
(My translation as the translator did a poor job)
| IRGC General: I personally do not have any official responsibility to answer this question, but for the sake of clarification, let me tell you this:
Our battle with the US and the Zionist regime did not just begin, and it will not end anytime soon. The tactics we choose for this prolonged confrontation are based on our own conditions, and no outside (foreign) interpretation will influence them.
We are the soldiers of our Leader. As he has said: “We will neither delay, nor rush.”
General Hajizadeh also stated that the operation will be carried out at the right time. Any other claims are just external noise.
As we’ve demonstrated up to now, we have never retreated — not from our rights, and not from our red lines. I’m not in a position to say if TP3 is ready or not, for that the responsibility lies with those in charge, namely the General Staff of the Armed Forces, who will make that call.
Whenever the time comes, they will notify us — and by “us,” I mean the Armed Forces & the Aerospace Division. |link|
“Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing . . . this is total war. Time and the ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are.”
By Professor Dr. Syed Mujahid Kamran at Daily Pakistan.
The Korean War fought between Communist forces of North Korea, the U.S. puppet regime of the South and eventually involving the U.S. through the U.N. and the People’s Republic of China, was a brutal genocidal war, which has been consigned to well-thought-out oblivion by the Anglo-American Establishment. The Korean war broke out on the night of June 24 and 25, 1950 when the forces of Kim Il Sung attempted to unify Korea within one month. They almost succeeded. U.S. intervention, backed by the UN, eventually stopped and reversed the tide. The Chinese then entered the war against the advice of Stalin. The war ended on 27 July 1953 with an armistice. The South Koreans (ROK – Republic of Korea) never signed a treaty with the North Koreans (DPRK Democratic People’s Republic of Korea).
Were it not for the U.S. intelligence officer Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, nobody would have known that the Korean and Vietnam wars were planned during the dying days of WWII. It was Prouty who first wrote about Churchill’s extremely important statement regarding the High Cabal. Prouty narrates that at the height of WWII, Churchill, upon hearing of the bombing of Rotterdam, remarked: “Unrestricted submarine warfare, unrestricted air bombing . . . this is total war. Time and the ocean and some guiding star and High Cabal have made us what we are.” The High Cabal is a set of the wealthiest families on the planet that operate in complete and sinister secrecy and anonymity, and who have amassed their huge wealth through instigated wars and usurious lending to warring nations. Churchill knew of the High Cabal because he was their asset. It was the High Cabal that had planned the Korean and Vietnam wars in the dying days of WWII. The great bloodshed of WWII had not yet ended when they had begun planning the next one.
Despite enormous damage done to Japan by aerial bombardment, invasion of Japan was considered essential to secure “unconditional” surrender. Thus when the island of Okinawa became available as a launching pad for such an invasion, supplies and equipment for half a million men was piled up in Okinawa. The use of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki secured unconditional Japanese surrender rendering the piles of equipment on Okinawa Island redundant. Prouty happened to be on Okinawa Island on the date of the Japanese surrender. He narrates “Almost immediately, U.S. Navy transport vessels began to show up in Naha Harbor, Okinawa. This vast load of war material was reloaded onto those ships.”
During some business at the harbor, Prouty casually asked the harbormaster if the material was being loaded for return to the United States. He writes that he was surprised by the direct response of the harbormaster: “Hell, no! They ain’t never goin’ to see it again. One-half of this stuff, enough to equip and support at least a hundred and fifty thousand men, is going to Korea, and the other half is going to Indochina.” Prouty notes: “In 1945, none of us had any idea that the first battles of the Cold War were going to be fought by U.S. military units in these regions beginning in 1950 and 1965 – yet that is precisely what had been planned, and it is precisely what happened.” The natural question that arises is who decided that the equipment be sent to these regions? Prouty asks: “Who made that decision back in 1943-45? Who selected Syngman Rhee and Ho Chi Minh to be our new allies as early as mid-1945?” Referring to the High Cabal as the power elite Prouty writes: “This is another one of those windows that permits us to see that some decision had to have been made in some detail by the power elite, yet there is absolutely no record of who made the decisions and for what purpose.” The information provided by Col. Prouty must never be lost sight of when discussing the Korean and Vietnam wars and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
The High Cabal considers the entire globe with all its resources as “real estate”, meant to be captured by force or otherwise, and to be put to use for their profits. The High Cabal also believes in a Malthusian philosophy. In the words of Col. Prouty: “The Malthusian theory thus provides a rationalization for the necessity of somehow getting rid of large numbers of people, any people, in any way – even genocide.” The High Cabal has an argument that runs as follows: “Earth will never be able to support the progeny of so many anyhow. From this point of view, genocide – then as now – is accepted as all but inevitable. Who cares and why be concerned?” Finally the High Cabal has a Darwinian mindset. Those who survive and dominate are the “fittest” and have the right to kill off all other races.
The Korean and Vietnam wars reflect the genocidal, Malthusian and Darwinian mindset of the High Cabal. The same is true of the post 9/11 wars in the Middle East.
On the day after the atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Rockefeller agent John J. McCloy in the War Department held a meeting with Truman’s foreign policy advisor Dean Acheson and Charles Bonesteel of Pentagon to discuss the division of Korea which had been under Japanese occupation. They chose the 38th Parallel as the dividing line because it included the city of Seoul. The Soviet troops entered North Korea on August 8 and seem to have accepted the 38th Parallel as the dividing line. As a result Korean occupation by Japan was replaced by occupation by the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The U.S. forces entered South Korea on September 8, 1945 and soon occupied it south of the 38th Parallel.
The United States established a military government in South Korea. Its intelligence agents picked up several hundred Koreans, who had been Japanese collaborators, to aid the U.S. in running South Korea. The occupation of Korea by the Soviet Union and the United States was occupation of a country that was not a belligerent. Korea was not at war with the Allies or any other party. Thus the end of WWII resulted in the replacement of Japanese occupation of Korea by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. It also resulted in a division of Korea along the 38th Parallel.
Bruce Cummings writes in his book The Korean War that within three weeks of the start of the war a Chinese military intelligence group arrived in Pyongyang. Further, as early as August 4, Chairman Mao decided that if the Americans were to invade the North, China must come to the aid of the North in the name of a volunteer army. When, in mid-September 1950, General MacArthur masterminded the Inchon amphibious landing employing 270 ships, a high level North Korean officer requested Chinese help. On October 1, 1950, Kim Il Sung met the Chinese ambassador to request that the 13th Army Corps of the PLA come to their aid by crossing the Yalu River. Stalin opposed a major Chinese involvement fearing wider war, but Mao went ahead, much to Stalin’s surprise, and sent twelve infantry divisions to help the North Koreans. Stalin, however, backed off from a promise of air cover and that paved the way for aerial genocide of Koreans by the USAF. Apparently the October 1, 1950 crossing of the 38th parallel by the Chinese caused Mao a sleepless night, but he went ahead and informed Stalin the next day. Mao’s decision to back Kim ll Sung was based upon Mao’s straightforward determination that if the Korean struggle faltered, China was bound to support the Korean Communists in view of their great sacrifices during the Chinese revolution and their resistance against the Japanese.
As early as October 1950, General George Stratemeyer of USAF sought permission to attack a provincial capital Sinuiju. The city of Sinuiju had a population of around 60,000 and Strtaemeyer wanted to bomb “over the widest area of the city, without warning, by burning and high explosive”.
Such was the inhuman and genocidal mindset of the American establishment.
Gen. MacArthur denied this request initially. However, on November 3, 1950, MacArthur agreed to a firebombing campaign, accepting Stratemeyer’s request to burn Kanggye: “Burn it if you so desire. Not only that, Strat, but burn and destroy as a lesson to any other of those towns that you consider of military value to the enemy.” The firebombing of Sinuiju was also approved on November 3, 1950. The instructions were noted in summary in Stratemeyer’s diary as follows: “Every installation, facility, and village in North Korea now becomes a military and tactical target.” Stratemeyer gave the following inhuman orders to his bombers: “[D]estroy every means of communications and every installation, factory, city, and village”. Two days later, on November 5, Stratemeyer ordered the destruction of “all other targets including all buildings capable of affording shelter.” On that day, 75% of the city of Kanggye was destroyed by USAF bombers! These massive war crimes against civilian populations of North Korea were committed by the U.S. with impunity. North Koreans have done well not to forget this inhumanity.
The Allied forces had discovered during WWII that it was easier to burn down a city than to blow it up. Thermite sticks bundled together in millions supplemented by mixtures of benzene, phosphorous and other things were employed to set cities on fire. The resulting firebombs could set cities ablze and incinerate them in minutes. On March 16, 1945, the city of Wurzburg was burnt in a mere seventeen minutes!
The development of firebombing represents perhaps the most painful, inhuman and sadistic development in aerial warfare.
When Dresden was firebombed one eye witness who survived described “young women carrying babies running up and down the streets, their dresses and hair on fire, screaming until they fell down, or collapsing buildings fell on top of them.” Firebombing was conceived and developed by the brutal and utterly inhuman Anglo-American alliance. It burns innocent civilians and is a war crime of the highest magnitude.
The American military leaders decided to repeat the firebombing of WWII in North Korea. Germans had an air force and effective anti-aircraft fire that caused significant losses to Allied forces. But North Korea did not have any air force and thus had no air cover. Under these circumstances the bombing and firebombing of North Korea was a one sided affair. Not only was it one sided, the Americans dropped more bombs on North Korea in less than three years than the bombs used in the Pacific theater during the entire WWII. In the Pacific theater the Allies dropped 503,000 tons of bombs during WWII. The U.S. dropped 635,000 tons of bombs on North Korea and an additional 32,557 tons of napalm! Please note that napalm burns at temperatures ranging from 800 to 1200 degree Centigrade. It burns longer than gasoline and adheres to its targets making death much more painful for the victims.
The USAF seemed to have a penchant for napalm bombs because they inflicted the greatest possible pain on their unfortunate victims. General Ridgeway wanted heavier and better napalm bombs. He desired thousand pound versions to be dropped on targets in 1951. The object was to “wipe out all life in tactical locality and save the life of our soldiers.” On one occasion when American soldiers fell victim to “friendly” fire of napalm, their suffering was described by a witness James Ransome. His men rolled in agony in the snow and begged him to shoot them because the burning of their skin by napalm was unbearable. Their skin burned and peeled back “like fried potato chips”. This was the wonder weapon of the USAF!
Gen. Curtis LeMay, who, in the humble opinion of this author was too trigger happy and brutal to be entrusted with serious responsibility, and who may have played a minor role in the Kennedy assassination, wanted to burn down the big cities of North Korea at the very beginning of the war. The Pentagon ruled that “it’s too horrible”. Yet, in an oral history record, LeMay stated that over a three year period “We burned down every town in North Korea, and South Korea too . . . Now over a three year period this is palatable, but to kill a few people to stop this from happening – a lot of people can’t stomach it.” Such was the nature of attacks on the cities and towns of Korea that no sane person can stomach it. On July 11, 1952 a total of 1,264 air sorties over Pyongyang were carried out by B 29 bombers during daytime, followed by 54 sorties at night. Imagine what the residents of this city went though. Imagine the inhumanity of the Anglo-American Establishment, the champions of human rights, democracy and all that crap. The attack on Pyongyang was to be followed by similar attacks on thirty other cities and industrial centers as part of operation “Pressure Pump”.
Col. Fletcher Prouty has noted: “There had been a Malthusian movement, concealed at all times from the public, to uproot and destroy the existing and traditional system of communal society in many parts of the world. The activists of this movement fear the strength of the peasant and the ways of peasant life. They much prefer a society of dependent consumers. Indochina and Korea were the prime targets during the post-World War II decades.” Bruce Cummings has noted: “Korea recapitulated the air force’s mantra from World War II, that firebombing would erode enemy morale and end the war sooner, but the interior intent was to destroy Korean society down to the individual constituents.”
In May 1952, the great Suiho Dam on Yalu river was attacked. It was second only to the Hoover dam in the entire world. However, for fear of provoking the Chinese and Russians it was not demolished. In order to deprive the North Korean population of the 250,000 tons of rice that was to be harvested the USAF targeted its dams. In May 1953, soon after rice had been planted, three dams were hit by the USAF bombers. These were the Tukson, Chasan and Kuwonga dams. These were major dams. On May 13, 1953 fifty-nine bombers were used to breach the high wall of Toksan dam. The first breach at Toksan “scooped clean twenty-seven miles of river valley, and sent water gushing into Pyongyang.” The breach in Toksan generated a flood of onrushing water that destroyed “six miles of railway, five bridges, two miles of high way and five square miles of rice paddies.” After the war it took “200,000 man-days of labor to reconstruct the reservoir.”
Gen. William F. Dean was the highest ranking military officer (Major Gen.) to be captured by the North Koreans. When he was released from captivity he narrated that “the town of Huichon amazed me. The city I’d seen before – two-storied buildings, a prominent main street – wasn’t there any more.” Gen. Dean described “unocuupied shells” of “town after town, and villages where rubble or ‘snowy open spaces’ were all that remained.” The destruction caused by US. Bombing was total and ubiquitous. The Hungarian writer Tibor Meray told a Thames TV team: “I saw destruction and horrible things committed by American forces.” As he said:”Everything that moved in North Korea was a military target, peasants in the fields were often machine gunned by pilots who, this was my impression, amused themselves to shoot the targets which moved.” Such was the scale and nature of inhumanity of the Americans.
In his book Bruce Cummings has cited Meray, who arrived in Korea in August 1951 to witness “a complete devastation between the Yalu River and the capital” {Pyongyang). Meray states that there were just “no more cities in North Korea.” Because of continual bombing their party was compelled to travel by night. Meray states: “We traveled in moonlight, so my impression was that I am traveling on the moon, because there was only devastation . . . every city was a collection of chimneys. I don’t know why houses collapsed and chimneys did not, but I went through a city of 200,000 inhabitants and I saw thousands of chimneys and that – that was all.”
The absolute and inhuman and criminal destruction of North Korean cities has been concealed from the world and the insouciant U.S. public.
Such was the scale of barbarity and brutality of the U.S. forces that eighteen out of twenty two major cities of North Korea were obliterated. A partial table has been provided by Cumings. The percentage of destruction of seven cities has been given as follows: Pyongyang 75%, Chongjin 65%, Hamhung 80%, Hungnam 85%, Sinanju 100%, Sariwon 95%, and Wonsan 80%. Cumings quotes an official American history source: “So, we killed civilians, friendly civilians, and bombed their homes, fired whole villages with the occupants – women and children, and ten times as many hidden Communist soldiers – under showers of napalm, and the pilots came back to their ships stinking of vomit twisted from their vitals by the shock of what they had to do.”
On March 10, 1951 Gen. Douglas MacArthur requested “’D’ Day atomic capability” to retain air superiority in the war. The request was made in view of intelligence information that the Soviet Union was ready to move its air divisions into Manchuria, in the vicinity of Korea, coupled with the massing of huge Chinese forces near the Korean border . These Soviet air divisions could strike, not just targets in Korea, but also U.S. bases in Okinawa. By the end of March 1951, atomic bomb loading capabilities an air base in Okinawa wee operational. Around this time Gen. MacArthur was removed and in the ensuing confusion, an April 6 order of President Truman, ordering use of atomic weapons against Korean and Chinese targets was never transmitted! Reviewing A.B. Abram’s 2024 book Surviving the Unipolar Era, Richard C. Cook writes: “During the war, U.S. commander Douglas MacArthur recommended nuclear strikes against 26 Korean and Chinese targets. These were deterred by the Soviet Union’s possession of a nuclear strike capability that could be used against American East Asian bases. The Korean War also led China to believe it needed a nuclear deterrent against the U.S.”
Operation Hudson Harbor sought to establish the capability of using nuclear weapons in the battlefield in Korea. As late as September and October 1951 B-29 bombers were sent over Korea simulating atomic bomb runs. These planes were loaded with dummy A bombs or heavy TNT bombs. Thus, in 1951, the possibility of use of nuclear weapons in Korea was serious. The project seemed to indicate that nuclear weapons might not be useful simpy because timely identification of large numbers of enemy troops was extremely rare.
Cummings notes: ”But one can imagine the steel nerves required of leaders in Pyongyang, observing a lone B-29 simulating the attack lines that had resulted in the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki just six years earlier, each time unsure whether the bomb was real or dummy.”
In 1950 the total population of Korea was around 31.1 million. Of this 20 million resided in South Korea and the remaining 11.1 million in North Korea. A B Abrams pointsout that “Altogether, three to four million North Koreans died in the war, a number declared by many observers to be genocidal.” Additionally about six million became homeless. Thus about one third of the Korean population was either killed or became homeless. This massive human tragedy was caused by a power drunk, Malthusian and inhuman U.S. Establishment. The Anglo-American Establishment, working for the international banking families, is the greatest criminal and genocidal force in the entire annals of human history. Their crimes by far surpass any crimes against humanity committed by any other force in history.
The North Koreans have never bowed before the United States. They have survived the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, followed by disasters, likely US manipulated, that brought it to the brink of starvation. It has been a at war with the US and its lackeys for 75 years now because there never was a peace treaty and a state of war persists. Faced by persistent U.S. attempts to destroy it North Korea has developed massive underground fortifications and a deterrent capability of dropping H bombs on U.S. mainland. It has thus forced the U.S. to back down in its attempt to attack North Korea. Hats off to the leadership and people of North Korea.
Les éditions DMM viennent d’éditer un livre qui fera certainement date – il ne peut en être autrement ! -, Le dogme de l’antiracisme. Origine, développement et conséquences écrit par Pierre de Meuse, lequel s’est déjà remarquablement illustré lors de précédents ouvrages à l’instar de son Idées et doctrines de la Contre-Révolution (DMM) ou encore de son petit opuscule consacré à la famille, La famille en question. Ancrage personnel et résistance communautaire (Editions de La Nouvelle librairie). Pierre de Meuse a cette formidable capacité de s’attaquer frontalement à tous les sujets importants qui agitent notre société en y apportant des réponses, certes, inattendues, mais salutaires. La pensée contre-révolutionnaire revenant sur le devant de la scène, il nous permettra aussitôt d’avancer la question centrale : celle de l’holisme et du personnalisme, celle de la place de la doctrine chrétienne. La famille est attaquée et les conservateurs la défendent, certes, mais est-ce que le christianisme ne porta pas le premier coup à cette institution ? A l’heure où le racialisme revient dans les discours des indigénistes en même temps que l’antiracisme est érigé en dogme inattaquable – à la fois par la gauche et par la droite qui hurle au racisme anti-blanc -, il saisit le sujet à bras-le-corps et ne cède rien au politiquement correct. Pierre de Meuse a cette vertu rare de traiter des sujets les plus brûlants en ne cédant rien, ni à la pensée dominante, ni aux dogmatismes de nos écoles de pensée. Un livre à mettre entre toutes les mains.
L’Action Française : Cher monsieur, merci infiniment de nous accorder cet entretien. La première partie de votre ouvrage traite du chemin parcouru. J’aimerais que nous commencions par une question simple : peut-on tracer en quelques lignes une histoire de l’antiracisme et du racisme ? Il semble aujourd’hui extrêmement difficile de définir ce qu’est réellement la race, le racisme et l’antiracisme. Est-ce que cette histoire permettrait de mieux définir ces termes ?
Pierre de Meuse : Il y a deux interrogations dans votre question. J’y réponds donc successivement.
Sur l’histoire du racisme. Si la discrimination est aussi vieille que l’être humain, parce qu’elle est une attitude propre à tous les groupes naturels et leur permettant de survivre, le racisme posé comme une science est un pur produit de la modernité. Il est en effet la conséquence directe de la propension de l’esprit postcartésien à vouloir fonder le monde en raison. Les anciennes sociétés étaient hiérarchiques et connaissaient une multitude de déterminations et de barrières acceptées sans que quiconque les discutât, prenant en compte la puissance, la place dans le système des rangs, la richesse, la confiance en soi (la grande mine), l’ancienneté, l’éthique, le degré de dépendance aux autres. Et, bien entendu, le phénotype, mais la race biologique n’était qu’un marqueur parmi bien d’autres. Cependant lorsque l’économie de traite se met en place et que les cultures coloniales emploient des milliers d’esclaves désocialisés, les philosophes des Lumières comme Kant, Locke ou Voltaire considèrent leur infériorité comme une évidence et leur servitude comme la suite inévitable de cette place au bas de l’« échelle humaine ». C’est de là que procède l’anthropologie raciale qui, dans sa forme la plus affirmée, aboutit à faire de la race biologique le moteur de l’histoire. Pourtant, l’esclavage n’est pas l’application de ces théories : les traitants qui achètent les esclaves aux roitelets islamisés d’Afrique ne voient que la disponibilité de cette main-d’œuvre et les revenus que leur apporte le trafic du « bois d’ébène » et ne cherchent pas à justifier leur commerce. La traite négrière va être interdite dès le début du XIX° siècle, puis progressivement l’esclavage lui-même. C’est alors que vont prendre naissance les attitudes racistes, qui sont, selon l’expression du Pr Dupuy, un réflexe émanant des classes de Blancs pauvres face à l’égalité imposée ressentie comme une agression. Surtout que ces populations ne voyaient dans les masses négro-africaines que des concurrents, car elles n’avaient jamais possédé d’esclaves. Ces attitudes sont donc une réaction de défense des « petits Blancs », dans une société où l’argent devient la seule source de discrimination sociale. Ici, je voudrais signaler que, dès le XVIII° siècle, on constate la présence dans l’administration coloniale française, aux Antilles et aux Mascareignes d’une méfiance pour l’extension de l’esclavage, avec la présence d’une population servile devenue largement majoritaire ; une situation propice aux insurrections sanglantes qui ne manqueront pas d’arriver à Saint-Domingue et à la Guadeloupe, à partir de 1791.
J’en viens maintenant à la définition de la race, du racisme et de l’antiracisme, qui est l’essentiel de la question. Car il n’y en a pas ou plutôt il y en a beaucoup, qui sont toutes incompatibles les unes avec les autres. Race dérive de ratio, qui signifie catégorie, c’est pourquoi elle peut désigner les subdivisions animales au sein de la même espèce, un certain type d’homme (la race des entrepreneurs), ou une famille identifiable, par exemple une dynastie, une caractéristique culturelle (la race latine). Et bien entendu, la même variabilité se retrouve dans le « racisme », compliquée en plus par le degré et la nature de l’affect qu’on y imprime. Ainsi se trouvent taxées de racisme aussi bien l’hostilité que la simple reconnaissance d’une altérité ou même l’affirmation d’une simple identité collective dont on se sent dépositaire. Cette imprécision est extrêmement grave, et elle est à l’origine, nous le verrons, du caractère mortel du piège qui nous est tendu.
L’Action Française : Permettez une petite digression, quelle fut dans cette histoire la position de l’Action Française ? Comment assuma-t-elle la notion de race ?
Pierre de Meuse : Je crois que là, il faut formuler la chose de façon plus directe, car la réflexion personnelle de Maurras est essentielle et directive pour le mouvement. Maurras emploie sans cesse dans ses écrits le mot « race », ainsi que le mot « sang », et toujours de façon laudative ; mais il exprime aussi sa méfiance pour les théories sur les races humaines lorsqu’elles se présentent comme des sciences et qu’elles prétendent avoir inventé la pierre philosophale : le moteur de l’histoire. Toute sa vie, il suivra cette ligne de crête en justifiant sa position par deux arguments : celui de l’incertitude (les savants ne donnent pas d’éléments probants pour étayer leur hiérarchie des races) ; et aussi celui de la piété filiale : on ne peut pas suivre des gens qui mettent les Français à un niveau inférieur aux Scandinaves, aux Anglais, aux Allemands. Le premier argument est de l’ordre de la connaissance, le second de la volonté. La pensée de Maurras est toujours très structurée.
L’Action française : Selon vous, quel élément déterminant instaura l’antiracisme comme un dogme inattaquable dans nos sociétés ? Il semble bien, en effet, que si une seule chose paraît inconcevable dans l’esprit des peuples, c’est de toucher à cette vérité première : « je ne suis pas raciste, je ne reconnais pas l’existence des races ». Et, de fait, si l’extension des lois antiracistes peut gêner ou agacer nos concitoyens, ils ne remettent jamais en question le fondement de ces lois. Qu’est-ce qui fonde si solidement cette doctrine ? Allons plus loin : il semble que ce soit même l’antiracisme qui fonde le principe plus général de l’anti-discrimination et non l’inverse. En effet, la plupart de nos concitoyens, s’ils ne sont guère à l’aise avec le principe de non-discrimination, ne s’élèvent pas contre certaines de ses applications mais ce, tant qu’il ne s’agit pas de discriminations racistes !
Pierre de Meuse : Je réponds à vos deux questions successivement. L’antiracisme existe depuis fort longtemps, mais il a pris sa forme inquisitrice et dogmatique avec l’effondrement du III° Reich. Ce que je dis est un peu enfoncer une porte ouverte, car François Furet a développé ce thème avec plus de talent que moi. Sur le plan de la pensée normative on assiste alors à la polarisation quasi-religieuse entre les idées du Bien (celles des vainqueurs) et les idées du Mal (celles des vaincus). Or la doctrine hitlérienne est fondée sur un bricolage racialiste issu d’un digest des anthropologues anglais et allemands. Donc plus on s’éloigne du pôle du Mal, plus on va vers le Bien. Tel est le réflexe conditionné que la pensée de Gauche a favorisé, puis exploité. C’est absurde, mais cela fonctionne. Et l’antiracisme fut alors inventé comme une machine rhétorique au service des idées de la révolution. En s’appuyant sur le fait qu’aucune définition rigoureuse n’était donnée (et ne devait l’être) du racisme, les ennemis de la France et de l’héritage européen reprirent le schéma de l’antifascisme, qui avait fait ses preuves, lorsque la loi Pleven fut adoptée, en 1972.
Il avait pour but de mobiliser le Droit pénal au service d’une ingénierie sociale qui permettait de déclencher une accusation redoutable à laquelle aucune réponse ne pouvait être faite, parce que cette accusation ne connaissait aucune limite. C’est pourquoi ceux qui croient qu’il est possible de se disculper en prouvant que, non, croyez-nous, nous ne sommes pas racistes, sont conduits à des reniements sans fin.
Je rappellerai un souvenir déjà ancien. Après la publication d’une petite Lettre ouverte que j’avais commise il y a vingt ans, Pierre Pujo m’avait admonesté en me faisant remarquer que Maurras et Mistral, lorsqu’ils employaient le mot race, ne lui donnaient pas le même sens que celui que nous entendons aujourd’hui. Ce à quoi je lui avais répondu : « Tu as parfaitement raison, sauf que l’antiracisme criminalise tous les sens du mot, sans exception. »
Alors vous me demandez ce qui fonde cette « doctrine ». Eh bien c’est la terreur, tout simplement, et tout l’enchaînement de concessions qu’elle nous conduit à faire, sans aucun espoir de nous glisser hors de la troupe des vaincus. Tout soupçon d’hérésie sera férocement sanctionné, et à ce titre, l’antiracisme s’est approprié le dogmatisme et l’universalisme des grandes religions messianiques.
Vous constatez que le principe de non-discrimination est moins efficace que l’antiracisme et vous avez raison, mais c’est parce qu’ils n’ont pas la même origine : celui-là est issu du libéralisme anglo-saxon alors que la matrice de l’antiracisme, c’est tout simplement le terrorisme humaniste révolutionnaire et sa machine à écraser toute résistance.
L’Action Française : In fine, quel est le projet antiraciste ? Pourquoi s’impose-t-il et quelles sont les volontés de ceux qui le portent ?
Pierre de Meuse :
Le projet antiraciste, c’est l’indifférenciation. C’est-à-dire une société où toutes les différences humaines auront disparu, et où il sera même interdit de les voir. Personne n’aura plus le droit de nous demander de qui nous sommes les fils.
Les sociétés n’auront plus de mémoire spontanée et on ne pourra recourir à l’héritage culturel reçu des ancêtres parce que nous n’aurons plus d’ancêtres et que la filiation sera devenue une obscénité ; d’ailleurs une série de lois est venue depuis 1972 réduire le sens et la portée des patronymes. Toute diversité culturelle aura disparu. S’y rejoindront le rêve libéral d’humains mus par leur seul intérêt totalement standardisé et le rêve babouviste de l’égalité absolue des hommes. Ce projet est bien entendu une utopie, et il est irréalisable, ne fût-ce que par le fait que les Européens – et les Américains du nord – sont les seuls à l’appliquer, mais il a déjà réussi à accomplir de nombreuses destructions. L’antiracisme a bénéficié aussi de la culpabilisation sans limite de nos nations. De surcroît, ce projet, comme toute idéologie déductive, est imperméable à toute perception de la réalité : ses échecs ne sont jamais attribués à l’inexactitude de ses postulats, mais à la duplicité des méchants qui lui sont insuffisamment soumis. Ainsi, alors que les lois antiracistes existent depuis cinquante-trois ans et n’ont pas cessé d’aggraver leurs peines, les partisans du woke affirment que leur échec est la conséquence d’une culture sous-jacente conduisant les Blancs à discriminer les racisés de manière semi-consciente. Autrement dit, on n’a pas assez sanctionné !
L’Action Française : Votre deuxième partie traite de la réaction que nous pouvons avoir face à l’antiracisme. Ma première question est toute simple, les races existent elles et ont-elles un lien avec la culture d’un peuple ? Autrement dit, existe-t-il un lien entre nature et culture ?
Pierre de Meuse : Oui, les races existent, mais la perception en est culturelle. Les anthropologues et les biologistes au service de l’antiracisme passent leur temps à répéter que la notion de race humaine est fausse et discréditée. Ils énumèrent des marqueurs génétiques qui, disent-ils, sont communs à toute l’humanité comme le groupe sanguin, le trou occipital, la forme du crâne etc… Et constatent que ces marqueurs sont présents dans toutes les races. Par conséquent, assènent-ils, « les races n’existent pas. » Mais c’est une acception arbitraire de la race, qui cache en réalité une autre maxime : « les races ne doivent pas exister ». Car s’il existe des humains de race africaine ou asiatique qui ont les yeux clairs, par exemple, ils n’en sont pas moins extrêmement rares. Le résultat est que la race est perçue par celui qui en fait partie comme par celui qui appartient à une autre race et qui va lui attribuer un nom collectif. Ayant vécu douze années en Afrique, travaillant dans une entreprise en bonne entente avec les Noirs, je peux dire que j’étais identifié comme un toubab et qu’à aucun moment cette conscience ne nous a quittés, eux et moi.
D’autre part, vous me posez la question de savoir si l’héritage racial détermine la culture des hommes. Eh bien je vous répondrai que je n’en sais rien et que les sciences n’ont pas apporté de preuve acceptable sur ce point, ni d’ailleurs sur le contraire. Ce qui est sûr, c’est que, contrairement à ce que pensaient les biologistes d’il y a cinquante ans, les prédispositions des hommes à l’égard des maladies, la durée de la grossesse, la résistance aux températures extrêmes et bien d’autres choses sont différentes selon les races considérées. Il n’est donc pas déraisonnable de penser que le postulat béhavioriste selon lequel l’esprit humain n’est qu’une table rase ne soit pas exact. En tout état de cause, la prudence devrait être la règle. Et, justement, puisque vous me parlez de nature et culture,
ne serait-il pas temps de relativiser cette frontière entre nature et culture. Car enfin la culture étant une production de la société reste un prolongement de l’instinct et ne peut se fixer pour but d’éradiquer cette même société. C’est un peu le problème devant lequel nous sommes placés. Revenons à Aristote qui disait que la société est un fait de nature et nous y verrons plus clair.
L’Action Française : Ceci étant dit, pourquoi est-il nécessaire que cette question revienne avec toute sa force dans notre débat politique et que les hommes politiques osent s’y attaquer avec courage ? Est-ce une question vitale pour la France ? Est-ce par essence, la seule question irréversible qui nous menace ?
Pierre de Meuse : Ne nous le cachons pas, l’antiracisme est une maladie mortelle de nos sociétés, car elle s’attaque à l’existence même des groupes humains. Elle est d’ailleurs une variante des idées fausses qui nous contaminent depuis le XVI° siècle. En combattant l’antiracisme, nous ne faisons que continuer la même guerre que nous menons depuis cinq cents ans, contre le même ennemi qui se cache derrière des masques différents. Et aujourd’hui, c’est la réalité de la France qui est menacée de dissolution imminente. Dans vingt ans, dix peut-être, les français de souche seront minoritaires dans leur propre pays. Et alors l’héritage capétien sera évaporé car nous ne serons plus un peuple. Nous aurons subi le sort de centaines de nations défuntes : Sybaris, la Phrygie, la Lydie, l’empire Inca, et tant d’autres ; et il adviendra des Français ce qui advint aux Caraïbes et aux Arawaks, c’est-à-dire la submersion et l’oubli de soi. Il nous manque deux choses pour nous y opposer efficacement : la mobilisation de notre volonté, qui est une vertu, et la chance. Celle-ci finira bien par tourner en notre faveur. Encore faut-il la saisir !
L’Action Française : Selon vous, dans ce combat, quelle doit être la place d’un mouvement comme celui de l’Action française ? De quelles armes disposons-nous ?
Pierre de Meuse : Nous disposons de notre esprit critique et c’est par là qu’il faut commencer. Car le système actuel repose sur le mensonge. Depuis vingt ans, le mensonge a pris des proportions inouïes dans nos sociétés, et c’est logique, parce que la philosophie qui les sous-tend postule qu’il n’y a pas de vérité, dans les grandes questions comme dans les petites : il n’y a que des « narratifs ». Notre rôle est d’ameuter le peuple contre les menteurs. Et le jour où les explications fournies par les « narrateurs » patentés deviendront invraisemblables aux peuples, nous aurons gagné.
L’Action française : Merci infiniment pour vos réponses !
Pierre de Meuse, Le dogme de l’antiracisme. Origine, développement et conséquences, Poitiers, DMM, 2024, 278 pages.
L’article Le dogme de l’antiracisme – entretien avec Pierre de Meuse est apparu en premier sur L'Action Française.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi)