Connexion
Six personnes ont été tuées et 42 autres blessées lors d’une frappe de missile Storm Shadow menée par les forces
L’article L’Ukraine frappe Briansk avec des Storm Shadow, plusieurs morts est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
L’un des débats du gouvernement de la libération fut la protestation du ministre des Affaires étrangères contre ce qu’il nommait
L’article Le Chaberton, l’arme aérienne et la nécessaire modernisation des frontières est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
“Today’s Big Debate” on News X Live, 22 January“The Big Debate” was aired live at prime time in India (9pm) yesterday. However, there was a wide time differential with the cities where each of the three panelists from abroad weas based: 4.30 pm in Brussels, 11.30 pm in Hong Kong and 10.30 am in Washington, D.C. We have Zoom to thank for the way we were brought together seamlessly with the studios in India and with the Indian panelist.
I have identified the first of my fellow panelists, whose contribution was likely the most consequential: Raymond Vickery, former United States Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development who is a senior associate with the Chair in US-India Policy Studies at the Center for Strategic & International Studies, Washington, DC. Accordingly, Vickery is a person well-known to Indian elites. He has a law degree from Harvard. And he is an upstanding member of the Cold Warrior contingent in the U.S. foreign policy establishment, as becomes crystal clear from his remarks here. It was entirely in character for him to deplore Trump’s Board of Peace initiative for being “top down”, as if any of the global steering committees like the G-7 or the G-20 are “bottom up” – which would be against the laws of nature. It was also in character that he deplored the invitation onto the Board of non-democratic, authoritarian states like Russia.
The second panelist, based in Hong Kong, was singing from the same choral hymn book. This was Andrew Leung Kwan-yuen, a prominent Hong Kong politician and businessman who from 2016 until his retirement in 2025 was the President of the Legislative Council of Hong Kong.
The fourth panelist, Sumit Peer in India, was more welcoming to the Trump initiative and saw the refusal of China to join as giving the Indians a strong reason to sign up and take active part. His LinkedIn entry tells us that he is a renowned Geo-Political Commentator, visionary Columnist, Business Advisor, and a concerned citizen with a mission of contributing towards nation building.
I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity to explain why no one knows what the dynamics inside the Board of Peace and its subordinate Executive Board will be, so it is gratuitous and senseless to condemn or approve the Board at this point. I also expect Moscow to sign on because to refuse to join now would be an insult to Trump, with whom they wish to stay in good relations.
gilbertdoctorow
Who is Hitler and who is Chamberlain today?
For the last 50 years at least, American hawks have time and again brought up a lesson from the past to justify their foreign and military policy predilections that amounted to war-mongering.
Every attempt to find accommodation, détente with America’s ideological adversaries was systematically denounced as “appeasement” in the tradition of Chamberlain seeking ‘peace in our time’ when dealing with the German Fuehrer, whose ambition was absolute political, economic, military domination in Europe.
Donald Trump’s absolutely shocking act of aggression this past weekend compels us to face a new reality: that the President of the United States is today the incarnation of Hitler with ambition on a world-wide scale.
I am not repeating here the cheap and empty political posturing of the Trump haters in America who have called him a fascist because he opposes their Green agenda, opposes their LGBTQ+ Rainbow parades and support for sex change operations among adolescents, and opposes other extreme Liberal values that amount to the destruction of the foundations of society in pursuit of I, Me, Me, I.
No, those complainers about Trump are abusing the notion of fascism to serve their own selfish hunger for political power at any price.
I am speaking about the notion of fascism writ large, as a program to destroy all those nations which do or could stand in the way of American global hegemony.
Trump has trampled on the sovereignty of Venezuela and makes no secret of plans to ‘run’ the country and extract enormous wealth for American corporations by setting them free to exploit Venezuelan oil. He has just renewed his claims to take possession of Greenland. He has threatened Iran with military intervention over the suppression of political disturbances that are a direct result of the country’s economic hardships under crippling U.S. sanctions that go back twenty years or more. Surely Cuba is also in his sights.
The operation in Caracas this past weekend is the template for what is to come. No big invasions, just a very carefully researched and executed decapitation strike that removes to American prisons the leaders of the countries on the Trump check-list.
And why bother adding to the prison detainees? In the past week the CIA targeted Vladimir Putin’s countryside residence with intent to murder. Minister of War Pete Hegseth in the past few days has threatened Putin with “we’re coming for you”.
*****
Given all of the foregoing, I am shocked that some colleagues continue to praise the moderation shown thus far by Russia and China in response to what Trump has done and said this past weekend. We are told that they appreciate the volatility, the narcissism, the oncoming dementia of the man in the Oval Office and are making their highest priority avoidance of a nuclear war by handling The Donald with kid gloves.
Dear friends, you are arguing the case for Chamberlain! And was not Hitler in 1938-39 understood to be mentally unbalanced, a madman if I may cut to the quick? The only argument that one might have made in defense of Chamberlain’s appeasement was the lack of preparedness for war of his country and its allies on the Continent. But that is manifestly not the case today, when we all understand that Russia’s conventional forces are more than a match for NATO in its shambolic present conditions, and that Russia’s nuclear triad, its strategic arsenal is years ahead of the USA at this moment. That will likely not be true 5 years from now, but it is true today. Accordingly, there is no logic to Russian pusillanimity, to its not threatening the USA with total destruction here and now if Washington does not pull in its horns and behave in accordance with the UN Charter.
Going back 5 years, I argued in an essay that Khrushchev was right to bang his shoe on the desk in the UN General Assembly. He was right to issue his famous threat to the capitalist world: “we will bury you.”
Khrushchev may have been boorish, but he was brave and he was ready to fight to the death if the U.S. side did not come to its senses. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 was a test of courage on both sides the like of which I do not see today. The annihilation of tens of millions of people was a possibility, to be sure, but it was offset by readiness to enter into serious and decisive negotiations going to the root causes of the confrontation. After all, in the end, not only did the Russians pull their nuclear tipped missiles out of Cuba but the USA pulled into missiles out of Turkey and Italy.
*****
‘Progressive humanity’ is today reporting on the demonstrations being held in capitals around the world to protest against the imprisonment of Maduro and U.S. aggression.
Regrettably, the net result of these demos will be nil. The only powers on earth that can stop the insane Hitler-like course of the Trump administration today are China and Russia. If they twiddle their thumbs now then you can be sure that the possible war today will be replaced by a certain civilization ending war in five years’ time.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2026
gilbertdoctorow
‘Judging Freedom’ edition of 24 December: The Totalitarian EU
In today’s conversation with Judge Andrew Napolitano, we discuss the terrible sanctions recently imposed by the European Council on retired Swiss military intelligence expert Jacques Baud for what is said to be his pro-Russian disinformation (an outrageous defamation) and the precedents for such extrajudicial violations of citizens’ rights to free speech, to property rights and more. As I say here this goes straight back to the seizure of assets of Russian oligarchs early in 2024 after the start of the Special Military Operations on charges of their ‘being friends of Putin’ and other nonsense that would never be accepted in a court of law. The problem may be said to go still further back to the breach of international law when the U.S. seized embassy and consular properties of the Russian Federation during the Obama administration in December 2016 to hand a poisoned chalice to the incoming Team Trump.
My point is that rule of law works for all of us only when it is defended against each and every violator. Failure to bring legal action and/or high-level lobbying against violators can only lead to escalation and spread of abuses over time. That is how we have reached a situation where none of us in the Alternative Media today can feel safe in the European Union, although as I say here, it is highly unlikely that any American will be put on EU sanctions lists for fear of enraging Trump and putting in jeopardy America’s nuclear umbrella and NATO support for Europe. But if you are a Swiss or some other third country national: watch out!
We also delve into the deeper problem that makes cases like Baud’s so intractable: the absence of any system of checks and balances, of division of powers whereby an independent judiciary could review cases of abuse like this and compel the offending executive to back down. This fundamental problem must be put at the door of the Left-leaning highly intellectual caviar socialists who played a very important role in writing the foundation documents of the EU, and who assumed that their successors would be equally well-intentioned and tolerant of others’ views. Well read, they may have been but they did not pay due attention to the 19th century political scientists who reasoned that men can be overbearing, oppressive and must be held in check by limitations on the power written into the constitution. In this regard, it should come as no surprise that the EU institutions today lend themselves to totalitarianism. Elon Musk is right: the EU must be deconstructed and rebuilt in a way that better protects democracy and specifically protects all human rights of its citizens, starting with freedom of expression, which is now being trampled upon.
gilbertdoctorow
In this Thursday, December 18, 2025, lecture to his Beijing high school students, Professor Jiang explains how and why Pax Judaica will come to rule the world and how it might end. He says that this is a theory that provides a model, and most likely a conspiracy theory (saving his own bacon here, as these things cannot be talked about). Yet, in reality, Pax Judaica is being worked on most furiously. We could only look at the zionist efforts to change the thinking of the average Australian after Bondi Beach, where the Aussies are literally being told what to do and threatened if they do not do what Netanyahu, who has just proclaimed Israel as a Great Power, tells them.
The spectacle in the White House when lighting the first Hanukkah Candle needs no explanation. These Zionists literally took Trump by the body, and pulled him to and fro, and in an extraordinary manner, adoration that should possibly be left for the bedroom. And now there is this anti-semitic Rabbi, as a diplomatic position, breathing fire and brimstone on any free speech, conflating Zionism and Judaism, and putting forward in theater lights how the Jews must be protected and, if you are found to be ‘anti-semitic’, how the punishment will follow.
“US President Donald Trump has selected a new special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism, elevating a Miami businessman and fundraiser named Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun to the role.
“Yehuda is a successful businessman, and staunch advocate for the Jewish Faith and the Rights of his people to live and worship free from persecution,” Trump said on Truth Social, announcing his selection. “With Anti-Semitism dangerously on the rise, Yehuda will be the strongest Representative for Americans and Jews across the Globe, and promote PEACE. Congratulations Yehuda!”
Trump’s announcement elicited a wave of sharply antisemitic comments on the social network, which Trump owns and is favored by his supporters. “No one believes Anti-Semitism is an issue but the Zionists. I will criticize our Greatest Enemy whenever I want,” wrote one commenter.”
Prof Jiang’s theory may be far-fetched in terms of details, but we see the bones of it forming in our world. It is interesting how Jiang briefly outlines four or five major theories of the end times or eschatology, which are closely bound to the world of Judaica and Christian Zionism in historical terms.
Regarding eschatology, I would like to remind everyone of the period when the Mayan Calendar was supposed to signal the end of the world, and hysteria was common. At the end of that, it was the Calendar that ended, and not the world. Prof Jiang ends this lecture with a note on what can be done regarding the assault on the Western world’s implementation of Pax Judaica. If we think of Greater Israel, it is a very real initiative and now on steroids, in terms of what I see without looking for it. See Australia bowing to the hysterical, while voices that make sense receive no reach, only threats.
Another loose theory that has been taking shape for me is that Pax Judaica is intended to be the final saving grace for Pax Americana. If all else fails, they depend on all of them now being Jews and are already writing the narrative that they should be protected. Even Alex Jones is now professing to be a Jew.
Notes and References:
1. Book of Ezekiel, Hebrew Bible
2. Observations Upon the Prophecies of Daniel by Isaac Newton
3. Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn
4. The Thirteenth Tribe by Arthur Koestler
5. Kill King 33 by James Downard and Michael Hoffman
6. Words of the Lord (Jacob Frank)
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.
(For Nicholás Maduro)
These efforts began shortly after Castro’s 1959 revolution and persisted under US presidents from Dwight Eisenhower to Richard Nixon (who oversaw 184 attempts), often involving Cuban exiles with CIA support.
Key failed plots include:
Exploding cigars and toxins: A cigar rigged to explode during Castro’s UN visit in New York; another contaminated with botulinum toxin (never delivered; Castro quit smoking in 1985).
Poison via a lover: A former girlfriend recruited by the CIA hid poison pills in her cold-cream jar, but they melted. Castro, suspecting her, offered his own pistol, but she couldn’t proceed.
Underwater traps: Explosive-filled Caribbean molluscs painted brightly to lure Castro while scuba diving (abandoned); a diving suit infected with a fungus to cause debilitating skin disease (also scrapped).
Other gadgets and poisons: Bacterial agents in tea or coffee; a toxic fountain-pen; botulin-laced chocolate milkshake at the Havana Hilton; an LSD aerosol to spray near Castro during a broadcast for public humiliation.
High-profile timings: On the day of John F. Kennedy’s 1963 assassination, a CIA agent was sent with a poison pen-syringe to kill Castro.
Later plots: In 2000, 200lb of explosives planted under a podium in Panama (foiled by Castro’s security; plotters, including CIA operative Luis Posada, jailed but pardoned; Posada denied involvement in a 1976 Cuban airliner bombing that killed 78).
Additional attempts: A sniper caught at the University of Havana; a grenade at a baseball game; mafia outsourcing (angered by lost Cuban casinos); the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion aimed to kill Castro, Raúl Castro, and Che Guevara.
The obsession rivaled the hunt for Osama bin Laden, with former US diplomat Wayne Smith likening Cuba’s effect on American administrations to a full moon on werewolves.
Castro’s security measures doubled, constant movement, gift scrutiny thwarted them all. He famously wore a “moral vest” instead of bullet-proof gear and joked about declining a Galápagos turtle gift, noting pets die after attachment, alluding to his own endurance.
Fabian Escalante, retired head of Cuba’s secret service, documented these in his book Executive Action: 634 Ways to Kill Castro. https://www.amazon.com/Executive-Action-Fidel-Castro-Secret/dp/1920888721
After several unsuccessful attempts, US eventually shifted to a trade embargo to oust him
Euro-American Zionism (Jewish and Christian) has killed millions in West Asia, devastated the region, and it is the motor behind the Gaza Genocide. But Israel itself is under threat of falling pray to the deadly logic that birthed the state in the first place.
Today we are holding a panel discussion on what makes Zionism such a dangerous and ultimately even self-negating force.
I‘m joined by 3 world class academics: Professor Yakov Rabkin of Montreal University, Professor Manuel Ramos of the University Institut of Lisbon, and Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Colombia University.
Today’s conversation goes on for 52 minutes, and could have run still longer if we were to examine more than the several aspects of the latest U.S. National Security Strategy document. I am pleased, nonetheless, that we had ample opportunity to explore the ways in which this 2025 document compares with Trump’s first NSS of December 2017, to see how there is continuity in thinking from then to now. Trump was then a Kissinger-mentored Realist. He is one today, as well.
His embrace of an interest driven foreign policy means that he is ready to seek compromises and compromises are arrived at by diplomacy, which is why he has placed emphasis on reestablishing communication lines with Russia. The efforts of the Biden administration to break off all contact with Russia, to close down diplomacy and to rely solely on a militarized foreign policy, was not the idiosyncratic wish of one man: it came directly from the Idealist, values driven approach to foreign policy that every U.S. administration since Richard Nixon has prioritized.
In this chat, I explained what insights into the NSS come from close textual analysis of the document, from decoding innocent statements like our favoring pragmatism over pragmatists, realism over realists; or by the mention of how Germany is deindustrializing because its industrialists are moving production to China to take advantage of cheap Russian gas there.
I also had a chance to explain the mechanisms in European politics which make it impossible to reverse course on failing policies, so that the meddling that Trump proposes in the NSS and which the Germans have denounced, is very much needed if Europe is to be saved from its present suicidal course.
There is a great deal more here for the Community to explore.
By the way, I perhaps abused my privilege as guest to promote my 2019 book of essays entitled The Belgian Perspective on International Affairs, sales of which are just beginning to take off, six years after its launch. Perhaps prospective readers were turned off by the notion that Belgium dominates the content and Belgium is too small to be of value for understanding world politics. However, I had used a play on words, since the Belgian perspective was in reality, my perspective, now that I had become a naturalized Belgian two years earlier. It is in that book that you will find my detailed analysis of Trump’s 2017 NSS, which largely sets out the thinking he has stayed with in 2025. It is there, in chapter one, that you will find my call for Trump’s impeachment over his vile speech to the UN General Assembly in September 2017 when he proposed to utterly destroy North Korea and obliterate its 22 million population. I am viewing Trump very differently these days, focusing as I do on his top priorities for global power sharing with Russia and China and choosing to overlook his bullying, imperialist ways in Venezuela and his enabling genocide in Gaza.
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025
gilbertdoctorow
CIA secretly engineered 1962 war which ruined China-India relations for decades
The month-long October-November 1962 border conflict between China and India killed up to 6.2k people, and poisoned ties between the fledgling Asian powers for decades to come.
But according to a groundbreaking new academic study by Lakshmana Kumar cited by Kit Klarenberg, it was the CIA that helped push the nations to the brink of war, and then cross over it, using a 1950s campaign of paramilitary training, airdrops and arms support for Tibetan separatists in a brutal secret conflict that claimed the lives of up to 80k Chinese soldiers.
China blamed India for the CIA campaign, with New Delhi’s provision of territory as a base of operations, and welcome for refugees during a 1959 uprising heightening Beijing’s ire, and triggering a series of violent border clashes the same year.
US machinations aimed at poisoning China-India relations go back to a September 1951 State Department memo urging Tibet’s use “as a weapon for alerting [India] to the danger of attempting to appease any Communist government and, specially, for maneuvering [it] into a position where it will voluntarily adopt a policy of firmly resisting Chinese Communist pressure in South and East Asia.”
Under Allen Dulles, the CIA built a base to train Tibetan separatists in the Rockies, and coordinated an army of up to 14k separatist fighters in Tibetan China.
Days before the 1962 war broke out, Secretary of State Rusk outlined US plans to take advantage of the conflict by expressing public “sympathy for the Indians,” but without giving Beijing a “pretext for alleging any American involvement.”
Rusk detailed a contingency for providing India military transport and communications support, should New Delhi request it, which it subsequently did.
The Tibetan trump card worked, and India backslid on its non-aligned foreign policy. In a triumphant December 1962 report, the CIA predicted that India would “almost certainly continue to open up new opportunities for the West,” and prove susceptible to “influence by the US and the UK, particularly in the military field.”
Trump’s White House just released its National Strategy paper. No doubt Brian Berletic will prepare a full analysis. No, the US is not retrenching or intending to pull punches in this area.
There is a lot of blunt discussions about mainland China, Taiwan, allies in the region, South China Sea etc.
This is real politik:
—
The United States prioritizes deterring military threats in the Indo-Pacific region, with a particular focus on Taiwan due to its critical role in global semiconductor production and strategic location providing access to the Second Island Chain.
Taiwan splits Northeast and Southeast Asia into two distinct theaters.
Taiwan’s position is vital for U.S. economic interests, as it influences one-third of global shipping through the South China Sea.
The strategy aims to build a U.S. military capable of denying aggression anywhere in the First Island Chain, including Taiwan, to prevent any competitor from controlling key commerce lanes.
Investments in undersea, space, nuclear, AI, quantum computing, autonomous systems, and energy domains are emphasized to restore U.S. military overmatch and support deterrence efforts related to Taiwan.
The U.S. maintains its longstanding policy of not supporting any unilateral changes to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait.
Robust diplomatic efforts are directed at First Island Chain allies and partners to grant greater U.S. military access, increase their defense spending, and develop capabilities specifically to deter aggression against Taiwan.
Strengthening alliances in the Indo-Pacific, including through recent agreements signed in October 2025, forms the bedrock of security and prosperity, with implications for Taiwan’s defense.
The strategy calls for greater burden-sharing from allies like Japan and South Korea to enhance collective defense focused on protecting the First Island Chain, including Taiwan.
Cooperation through frameworks like the Quad (with Australia, Japan, and India) is encouraged to align actions against domination by any single competitor, indirectly bolstering Taiwan’s security.
Economically, the U.S. seeks to rebalance relations with competitors like China to protect supply chains, intellectual property, and critical materials, ensuring long-term deterrence and support for Taiwan’s role in global prosperity.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf
“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
Pascal Lottaz from Neutrality Studies and Prof. Manuel J. Ramos
The age of European colonialism never really ended, it just changed its costume. Today’s geopolitics look and feel so barbarian medieval because they are the ghosts of the Crusades and a forgotten medieval legend.
To explore these startling ideas, I’m talking to Dr. Manuel João Ramos, an Associate Professor at the Dept. of Anthropology at the University Institute of Lisbon, where he has been working for decades on questions of European Colonialism and Power in International Relations.
We trace a 1,000-year-old story, uncovering the surprising roots of Christian Zionism, the messianic fantasies behind the “Age of Discovery,” and the religious undercurrents that still shape Europe’s troubled relationship with the world.
The current ‘War on Drugs’ which is a restatement of the ‘War on Terror’ by the hegemon attempts to take back the drug trade and the terror trade from drug manufacturers and terror manufacturers for themselves. It is their own industry. It is a trade war. Anyone else in these industries are enemies to the hegemon, not because the hegemon is doing a good thing for the population, rather because the hegemon is protecting its own black trade. We saw that with Syria, where the hegemon now has many new terror soldiers that can be used.
Jeff J Brown interviews John Potash on his latest book that again looks back into the ’60’s and ’70’s. As I said when I posted their first interview: “Sometimes you hear some history that you know, but to see it again in one fell swoop, shocks yet again”
Jeff has a massive library that he has collected throughout the years.
Jeff J. Brown’s libraries and catalogues A-Z: 1,000s of hours of research, writing, editing and podcasting.
Amir&Jeff’s Excellent China Adventure Series: https://radiosinoland.com/2025/07/27/amirjeffs-excellent-china-adventure-series-2025-hunan-jiangxi-fujian-and-shaanxi-provinces-red-tour-short-videos-captioned-photos-articles-and-commentary-the-real-chinese-people-you-don/
Apollo Moon Hoax Library: https://radiosinoland.com/2025/02/22/apollo-moon-hoax-library/
Bioweapons (co-founder and curator, so very much a team effort): www.bioweapontruth.com
China-Tech’s History to the Present: https://radiosinoland.com/2018/03/20/china-tech-invention-innovation-technology-research-and-development-past-present-future-5000-years-of-progress-a-china-rising-radio-sinoland-living-document/
China Tech News Flash!: https://www.chinatechnewsflash.com/
Covid (with help from China Writers’ Group/CWG): https://radiosinoland.com/2020/03/07/its-all-here-the-china-rising-radio-sinoland-covid-19-chemical-and-bioweapon-file-film-and-tape-library/
Interviews: https://radiosinoland.com/2019/02/22/interview-catalogue-for-china-rising-radio-sinoland-and-jeff-j-brown/
JB West and JB East Present: See You in The Hague!: https://radiosinoland.com/2023/06/05/jb-west-and-jb-east-present-see-you-in-the-hague-our-complete-show-library-continually-updated/
Judaism: https://radiosinoland.com/2025/01/23/judaism/
Mao Zedong (with help from CWG): https://radiosinoland.com/2024/01/03/the-mao-encyclopedia-for-dummies-updated-and-its-all-here-books-articles-movies-visuals-china-rising-radio-sinoland-240103/
Tiananmen Square Protests (with help from CWG): https://radiosinoland.com/2025/06/04/100s-of-1000s-of-people-including-researchers-journalists-and-authors-have-accessed-this-largest-single-source-covering-the-tiananmen-square-protests-join-the-club-new-entries-for-2025-radio-sin/
In this Wednesday, November 12th lecture to his Beijing high school students, Professor Jiang explains how the Yahwehist gave birth to the Bible as well as the nation of Israel.
Notes and References: 1. Book of Genesis, Hebrew Bible 2. Book of Kings, Hebrew Bible 3. Book of J by Harold Bloom
I have not seen much reporting but these indigenous climate protestors apparently came ready for a fight. The RT reporter says: Climate protesters barge into COP30 conference in Brazil wielding fists and flagpoles. Doors booted down, conference hall trashed.
Brian Mier has not yet reported on this, but a little earlier he stated
As US and European media and NGOs focus on out-of-context examples of individual fails by Brazil's government to delegitimize it's environmental record during COP 30, the US and Europe backslides on their commitments to fighting climate change. Excellent reporting in the Hindu.+ pic.twitter.com/r8MUEGqGSh
— BrianMier (@BrianMteleSUR) November 10, 2025
You have to have a thick skin to talk geopolitics in the public agora
My chat with Andrew Napolitano on Judging Freedom 7 November has created a lot of commotion in the Russian-speaking world. Hours after the English podcast went live, one Russian platform on rutube already had a dubbed Russian version posted. That did not stay active for long but was replaced by another, and then by still another. Now finally a Russian version has been posted on youtube and my oh my what it shows!
At this moment the number of thumbs up are 10 or more times greater than the number of Comments which are, as usual, very ad hominem and very vicious. These trolls are saying I am MI6 because I live in Petersburg close to a military helicopter base and have dinner with a defense industry ex-employee. That is already a kind of reasoning, distorted but imaginable. Others talk about my dyed ‘brown hair’, the color of you know what. That is more the gutter variety comment. And then there is this utterly unconventional comment which tells me that I have hit pay dirt;
Россия устала от войны! Это Правда, от такой тягуче-клейко тянущейся Странной Военной Операции, когда стратегическая военная Авиация спит на Аэродромах или бомбит полигоны. Да, конечно, Россия устала от странной неодекватности (или предательства!??) Путина в этой.. Странной Военной Операции. Даже действия в Сирии, были более решительней и результативней.. Россия, устаёт от мелкотравчатых белоусовых, набибулиных, герасимовых, шойгунутых, лавровых и ещё ряда безвольных подпевал.. своего главнокомандующего, от которого они же и отрекутся и продадут по первой возможности (дело в цене) Россия, устала не от Войны, Войны за себя – но от странно-вялотекущей и какой-то выжидательной “войны”.
Here below is a machine translation rendering of this comment in English:
Quote
Russia is tired of the war, that is the Truth! Tired of such a lingering and sticky Strange Military Operation, when strategic military aviation sleeps on airfields or bombs firing ranges. Yes, of course, Russia is tired of Putin’s strange inadequacy (or treachery!??) in this…. Strange Military Operation. Even the actions in Syria were more decisive and effective…. Russia is tired of the small-minded Belousovs, Nabibulins, Gerasimovs, Shoigunutsy, Lavrovs and a number of other weak-willed supporters of its commander-in-chief, whom they will renounce and sell at the first opportunity (the price is the issue) Russia is tired not of the War, the War for itself – but of the strange and slow-moving and some kind of waiting “war.”
Unquote
I trust that the author does not live in Russia, otherwise he could expect a knock at his door soon. But keep in mind that this whole Russian version came to my attention from the Search function of Yandex (Russia’s Google) so it is freely accessible in Russia to anyone with VPN on their computer, and a lot of smart people have that so they can watch whatever they want.
Being in the public agora is not for the faint of heart
©Gilbert Doctorow, 2025
gilbertdoctorow
They are borrowing from you. The US people need to understand this.
La Commission européenne a reconnu que la torture est régulièrement pratiquée dans les prisons ukrainiennes. Ce constat figure dans son
L’article La Commission européenne reconnaît le recours systémique à la torture dans les prisons ukrainiennes est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
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.
The history over the past two months or so, is now marked by a media circus explosion.
A $50 million bounty on Maduro
Washington doubled the reward for Maduro’s capture, raising it to $50 million, calling him “one of the world’s biggest drug traffickers.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that the goal is to “strengthen the network around the regime,” accusing prominent figures, including Diosdado Cabello and Vladimir Padrino López, of drug trafficking.
According to the Clash Report, the preparations suggest not a ground attack but air raids.
Expanded military presence in the Caribbean
The United States has assembled a Joint Task Force in the southern Caribbean Sea, initially composed of three Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, an amphibious group of 4,500 soldiers, and P-8 reconnaissance aircraft for maritime patrols.
In September, the force was reinforced with 10 F-35B fighters stationed in Puerto Rico and MQ-9 Reaper drones stationed at Rafael Hernández airport.
Deployment of the USS Gerald R. Ford strike group
On October 24, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth ordered the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier strike group, including the USS Normandy, USS Carney, and other destroyers, to enter the region.
The operation, involving over 4,000 personnel and 90 aircraft, is described by Venezuelan officials as the “final phase” of a campaign to neutralize the Cartel de los Soles and its ally, Tren de Aragua. These drug cartels are non-existent.
The US forces has shot to smithereens at my last count about 9 small boats that they say were drug trafficers. The accusation to the US is that they do not know who they are bombing and droning. Hegseth announced: “One thing that has been highly misconstrued here is that in some way we don’t know who precisely we are striking and why. We know how to map networks and hunt enemies of our country.”
The past day: The United States has decided to strike military sites inside Venezuela (these are media reports)
Yesterday, the United States closed part of the airspace in the Puerto Rico area. A NOTAM has been issued for a small portion of airspace near the U.S. staging grounds at Puerto Rico. Preparations for the attack on Venezuela are in full swing.
Along the coast of Venezuela and in the northern part of the country, there is a disruption in the GPS signal and spotty power provision.
Sources told the Miami Herald that air raids could begin within days or hours, aiming to paralyze the Venezuelan leadership.
Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has requested arms supplies from Russia and China. Previously, a Russian plane arrived in Venezuela, reportedly transporting military cargo.
Trump’s denials regarding the preparation of an attack seem more like a smokescreen. The measures taken to deploy forces off the Venezuelan coast are too costly to be just a demonstration. Any attacks will most likely be coordinated with attempts of internal attacks using cells prepared by the CIA.
Reason: The pretext is a roll over of the GWOT into a war on drugs. It is well known that Venezuela is not a drug trafficker and Maduro or Petro in Colombia are not drug lords. The accepted reason is a grab of Venezuela’s oil and mineral riches. What needs to be added is that the two countries under immediate threat, Venezuela and Colombia, are both vocal anti-zionist. The third country that falls within a drug profile, is Mexico. In South America, Ecuador is a known drug manufacturer and distributor country.
Trinidad y Tobago declared an Alert Level 1 for its Armed Forces as well as its Coast Guard over all its islands, the highest level of Alert and called up all military forces to its four military bases.
In the past week Brazil conducted a mega operation in the State of Rio de Janeiro against drug trafficers in certain favelas. This was carried out by the state government along with the civil and military police forces. Did they want to act as an example for the US, i.e., fight drugs in your own country? This may be a possibility. LULA offered mediation services to the US but they shrugged their shoulders.
Commentators that know Venezuela and the terrain, and have themselves been soldiers, comment that Venezuela is akin to Vietnam. Colombian fighters act everywhere in the world as mercenaries so there is real war fighting experience. Venezuela announced the formation of an international force who wants to come in and defend. Venezuela is highly weaponized now, with everyone armed and part of a civilian defense and people’s militias. So far two CIA type operations against Madura was announced and both failed. But it is a lot of money on the table for a person that thinks they will be awarded with this money. It is generally accepted that Venezuelans who left, left because of the regime. It was a surprise to see Venezuelans in London getting together and protesting against the US action. Some left because of the years long sanctions regime.
The Nobel peace prize winner, Maria Corina Machado, is calling for violent overthrow.
The UN and most countries denounced the US action. Venezuela has older Russian missiles and Iranian drones and jets. I would question the bubbly reports of what exactly Venezuela has (really? S300’s?) but it is not farfetched to think that Russian and Iranian training and instructor personnel are on the ground. So the US will be fighting Russian war-making ability, Iranian war-making ability, a massive people’s militia, a conventional army of 95-150k, an international military group, and we cannot say which of the neighbors will lend a hand. Do we expect North Koreans? Just quietly, ya’ know. A AnsarAllah comparison is not appropriate as the conditions are very different.
The US war on Venezuela is a terrorist war on civilians:
Trump admin officials acknowledged that they do not know the identities of the victims of their military attacks in the Caribbean & eastern Pacific.
The US War Department has no evidence.
Source: https://t.co/gjGCR7GyHf pic.twitter.com/vqg2hMEtQ3
— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 1, 2025
Should an attack come from the US, it will most probably be stand-off and perhaps they will continue to attempt CIA type operations first. If this really goes hot, we can make ready for another US instigated carnage. Venezuela was never anti selling its oil legitimately to the US.
There are many Latinos in the US. I think of things like this happening: “An explosion occurred at the largest oil refinery in New Mexico, Navajo Refinery. Three people have been taken to the hospital, AP reports citing local police. The causes of the incident have not been disclosed.”
If I could dream, I would dream that the fighting men of the world decides that the hegemon needs a definitive military pushback. Gringo Go Home! Perhaps these international fighting men for Venezuela think of that too. I think of training grounds in the Sahel. I think of international support. As China now has a new center where nations can go to mediate, with skilled mediators, I think of a center where we create an international force, just exactly for examples like Venezuela. Our own Blackrock, or Wagner, so to speak. I am a peace monger and not a war monger, but it looks as if we are seriously in need of the skills of war.
Updates:
Corinna has lost it – Eyes beginning to roll around in her head and telling clearly untrue stories which everyone knows are untrue.
Maria Corina Machado on why Venezuelans aren't taking to the streets to protest:
"This regime, with Cuban intelligence, has created mechanisms to infiltrate, and anyone who goes out into the streets is detained, disappeared, or murdered immediately. When we won the election on… pic.twitter.com/Uk1kVVyYTr
— Emmanuel Rincón (@EmmaRincon) October 28, 2025
From the region: This threat is for oil but also for upping Rubio’s imagined mistique for his presidential bid.
The parables of Spain, Britain, USSR… USA Is At Stage 5
“…. Just economic implosion. The military couldn’t be paid, the government couldn’t function, the [dollar] became worthless. A superpower with 30,000 nuclear weapons collapsed from internal economic failure. The pattern [had] played out again:
note the rapidity of cycling by Pax America. It took the British until 1931 to concede and come off the Gold Standard. It took the next iteration only until 1971…. and here we are
We know all of these conspiracy theories, but how about about we stack them? I know stacked functions and Prof Jian just stacked every single one of them. The funniest two comments:
Bro really came in and said “Ok class we’re talking about JFK, the Moon Landing, and 9/11 today.”
FBI entered the chat. CIA entered the chat. Nation of ISRAEL entered the chat.
That number, the 33 masonic one – you’ve never seen it like this. Good Saturday night movie material.
The start is a little slow, as he goes through the main events of JFK, the Moon Landing, and 9/11. The scene must be set. And then he rolls with all of that, ending up with secret societies and a game theory analysis. Prof Jian made all of the old conspiracies interesting again. What a teacher!
Part II of the celestial Travelogue through the western regions of China.
By Silk Road pilgrim Pepe Escobar on the Strategic Culture Foundation.
DUNHUANG – Across History, the Silk Road – actually a network of roads – is the supreme Highway Star: the most important connectivity corridor ever, rolling across Ancient Eurasia, linking what Chinese scholars consensually define as the main civilization systems in the world: China, India, Persia, Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as showcasing several historical stages of economic and cultural exchanges between East and West.
Prof. Ji Xianlin, a top scholar of Dunhuang Studies, came up with a formulation certified to drive Western supremacists crazy for all eternity:
“There are only four, rather than five, influential cultural systems in the world: Chinese, Indian, Greek and Islam. They all met only on China’s Dunhuang and Xinjiang”.
Dunhuang’s prime geo-strategic position across History was inevitably bound to generate spectacular artistic achievements.
After years since my previous journeys, then the Covid shock, then China’s subsequent recovery, I have been privileged to finally embark on a renewed Journey to the West to retrace the original Ancient Silk Road, starting in Xian – the former imperial capital Chang’an – all the way through the Gansu corridor to Dunhuang.
Brilliant Eurasian cultures converged, interacted and spread their wings on the Ancient Silk Roads. Dunhuang – on the western end of the Hexi corridor in Gansu province – was the most vital hub in the eastern section of the Chinese Silk Road, framed by mountains to the north and south, the central plains to the east, and Xinjiang to the west.
Dunhuang, the “Blazing Beacon”, held a supremely strategic position controlling two passes – Yangguan and Yumenguan. Han Emperor Wu Di clearly understood that Dunhuang was the last major water source before the fear-inducing Taklamakan desert to the west, as well as sitting astride the three main Silk Road routes heading west.
Yumenguan was the all-important Jade Gate pass – set by the Han empire in the 2nd century B.C.: placed in the south Gobi and the western end of the Qilian mountains, actually marking the western limit of classic China.
(L): The remains of the Great Han Wall ; (R): Xian
I spent a whole blinding beautiful blue-sky day in the pass and its surroundings after striking a deal with a taxi driver in Dunhuang. It’s a thrill to admire how the Han dynasty organized their traffic management system, the beacon fire system, and the Great Wall defense system (remains of the Han Wall are still there) – guaranteeing the safety of the long-distance Silk Road connectivity corridor.
Talk to the caravan: the secret of “people to people’s exchanges”
At the impeccably organized Dunhuang Book Center, historical records refer to it as “a metropolis where the Han people and non-Han peoples meet”. Quite the antecessor to Xi Jinping’s “people to people’s exchanges.” The spirit remains, especially at the fabulous Night Market, a gastronomic feast with pride of place for Uyghur recipes.
Silk and porcelain from the central plains, jewelry and perfume from “the western regions”, camels and horses from north China, grains from Hexi, everything was traded in Dunhuang. Merchant deals, migrations, military games, cultural exchanges, a profusion of literati, scholars, artists, officials, diplomats, religious pilgrims, military brought classic Chinese culture into an effervescent mix – Sogdian, Tibet, Uyghur, Tangut, Mongolia – all absorbed into what eventually became Dunhuang art.
(L): Uyghur businesswomen at the fabulous Dunhuang Night Market ; (R): The Desert Princess look. Affordable. Less than $60 for a set of clothes, make-up, 25 exclusive pics and retouches.
Itinerant Buddhism, Nestorianism, Zoroastrianism, Islam – the sophisticated aesthetic feel of Dunhuang was progressively influenced by architecture, sculpture, paintings, music, dance, weaving, dyeing techniques all the way from Central Asia and West Asia.
“Silk Road” terminology in Xi’s “moderately prosperous” modernized China is an extremely nuanced business. For instance, already in Xian, at the Small White Goose pagoda, we see it described as “Silk Roads: The Routes Network of Chang’an-Tian Shan corridor”.
Xian. (L): The perfect lamian at the Muslim Quarter – since Tang times ; (R): DON’T mess with a Tang warrior princess
That’s a geographically correct interpretation, stressing the Tian Shan mountains instead of the politically correct Xinjiang (which was essentially part of the “western regions”, not necessarily Chinese territory, for centuries).
As for how the Silk Road began, that now follows a single, scholarly accepted version: Han Emperor Wu Di, in 140 B.C. sent Zhang Qian as an envoy to the “western regions” on two business missions. The “Records of the Grand Historian” show that Zhang Qian, as the first official diplomat in Chinese history, de facto opened channels of communications with the “western regions” and then all the states in the northwest started trading with the Han, especially silk.
(L): On the road to the Jade Gate Pass. Electrification ; (R): At the Dunhuang Academy museum: where the artists came from
From Xian’s Shaanxi History Museum to the Dunhuang Academy, and including the Gansu museum in Lanzhou, in interactions with scholars and museum curators as well as in complement to formidable Silk Road exhibits, it’s fascinating to retrace the now established official narrative on the Silk Roads, according to which “the civilization of ancient China represented by silk started to impact the states in the western regions, Central Asia and West Asia.”
It was way more complex than that – as spices, metals, chemicals, saddles, leather products, glass, paper (invented in the 2nd century B.C.), everything was on the market, but the general drift applies: merchants from the central plains defying deserts and mountain peaks in caravans laden with silk, bronze mirrors and lacquerware from China, seeking to exchange them for commodities, while merchants from the western regions brought furs, jade, felts to the central plains.
Talk about multi-ethnic “people to people’s exchanges”. And by the way, no one ever used the term “Silk Road”; it was “the road to Samarkand” or just the “northern” or “southern” routes around the ominous Taklamakan desert.
About the Tang dynasty monetary system…
By the 3rd century, Dunhuang was already at the apex of Silk Road connectivity; and that’s when merchants and pilgrims started to sponsor the construction of the nearby Buddhist Mogao caves.
The Mogao Caves are part of what is known in Gansu province as the five Dunhuang grottoes. It’s the same system of caves – 813 surviving, with 735 in Mogao. To approach Mogao is a major thrill in itself: we need to be in an official park bus, crammed with zillions of Chinese tourists, rolling through the desert, and suddenly we are in the eastern foot of the Mingsha mountains, with the Dangquan river running right in front of us, facing the Qilian mountains to the east, with the caves set back against and cut into the cliff face, connected by a series of ramps and walkways.
the Mogao caves (L): the main pavilion ; (R): One of the Buddha highlights
The caves started to be built as early as in the 4th century – all the way to the 14th century (the earliest wall paintings are from the 5th); it’s a group of caves in four levels, 1,6 km from north to south along a cliff as much as 30 meters high. The 492 caves in the southern area house more than 45 km of wall paintings, over 2,000 painted statues, and five wooden eaves. They were originally used for worshipping Buddhas.
What we are still able to see takes our breath away. Highlights include a wrestling scene from Buddha’s life on cave 290; a girl apsara – mythic dancer – on cave 296; the Deer King on cave 257; a hunting scene on cave 249; a Garuda – defined in Chinese as “the Scarlet Bird” – on cave 285; parables of the Magic City from the Lotus Sutra, a masterpiece of High Tang dynasty, on cave 217; a sitting Boddhisattva on cave 196; impeccably preserved worshipping bodhisattvas on cave 285.
Rules are extremely strict: visit only to selected caves, with an official guide, no photos, only the guide’s torchlight to illuminate the grottoes. I was privileged to visit guided by Helen, who studied in Dunhuang University and is now doing her PhD in Archeology. After the visit she explained in detail the ground-breaking conservation work of the Dunhuang Academy.
The construction of the caves was a spectacular undertaking in terms of division of labor. Just imagine: chiselers to dig and excavate a cave out of the cliff; stonecutters, who also dug caves; bricklayers to build wooden or earthen structures; carpenters, who also repaired wooden tools; sculptors to create the statues; and painters to paint the caves and statues.
Mogao, as an aesthetic experience, is unequaled in its striking collection of Buddhist wall painting criss-crossing China, Persia, India and Central Asian art.
And then there’s what we cannot see: more than 40,000 scrolls found in the library cave, the largest deposit of documents and artifacts discovered anywhere along the Silk Road, with texts on Buddhism, Manicheism, Zoroastrianism and the Eastern Christian Church (from Syria) showing how cosmopolitan Dunhuang was. That’s part of the European scholarly – and otherwise – plunder of the Dunhuang wealth starting in the late 19th century, a completely different, complex, and long, story.
Kashgar. A big fan of the lemonade drink Baksap found everywhere in Xinjiang
In geoeconomic terms, for nearly ten centuries Dunhuang was extremely wealthy, especially during the Tang dynasty (6th to 9th century). The Tang had a fascinating monetary system – with three different currencies: textiles (silk and hemp), grain and coins.
The central government, in the imperial capital Chang’an, used a single aggregate unit to represent all trade. The Dunhuang garrison was a key strategic post: payments came in no less than six different types of woven silk. Well, each place paid their taxes with their locally produced cloth. What the Tang did was to transfer all these textiles to Dunhuang. The garrison’s officers then converted the tax cloth into coins and into grain, to pay local merchants and to feed the soldiers.
So in a nutshell the Tang dynasty was all the time injecting a lot of money – via woven cloth – into the Dunhuang economy. Talk about a public-private state development model – which certainly did not escape Beijing planners when they came up, in 2013, with the concept of the New Silk Roads.
ADDENDUM
≈≈≈
A celestial Travelogue through the western regions of China.
By Silk Road pilgrim Pepe Escobar on Sputnik.
ON THE ROAD IN XINJIANG – Xuanzang, the itinerant Buddhist monk, has got to be one of the most extraordinary figures in History. He certainly is regarded as such in China.
In the early Tang dynasty in the 7th century, Xuanzang set out from the imperial capital Chang’an (today’s Xian), breaching a veto to travel to the “Western regions”, to go to India to fetch Buddhist manuscripts that he planned to translate into Chinese.
(L): The one and only Yumenguan – the Jade Gate Pass, marking the western limits of China for centuries. ; (R): Xinjiang. Flying over the Tian Shan mountains.
He crossed the Jade Gate Pass; kept walking further West; almost died of thirst in the desert; crossed the snow peaks of the Tian Shan mountains on horseback to Transoxiana; and finally reached India, where he studied for several years before returning to Chang’an 15 years after his departure with 22 horses loaded with Buddhist manuscripts in Sanskrit, plus religious relics and priceless Buddha images.
That’s my kind of guy. Since the late 1990s, I have followed on Xuanzang’s footsteps, on and off, along several stretches of the Ancient Silk Roads. Xuanzang was fictionally reincarnated in a magic-tinged 16th century novel which became quite popular in China, titled Xiyouji, or Journey to the West. That’s exactly what I set out to do – a compact Journey to the West for the digital era – this past month of September.
Sericulture was developed as early as 5,000 years ago in the Yellow River – in China’s historically traditional heartland. It spread out to Korea and Japan but mostly traveled West, along the larger-than-life Silk Road(s).
The start of the silky story is shrouded in historical mist. It is widely accepted in China that under the reign of Emperor Wu Di, in the second century B.C., special envoy Zhang Qian was twice dispatched to the “vast regions” to the West of China on a business mission.
At the glorious Shaanxi History Museum in Xian. (L): Drop-dead chic Tang Barbie, where I had a fab Silk Roads conversation with one of the curators ; (R): Silk Road golden splendour
Soon after, cross-border trade entered a new stage, with silk fabric among the key exports. Thus Zhang Qian was officially credited as the opener of the Silk Road – and granted the title of Duke. Today, at the fabulous Shaanxi History Museum in Xian, his exploits and the subsequent development of the Silk Road connectivity corridors are detailed alongside a mesmerizing collection of Silk Road artifacts.
Xian. (L): TikTok Tang Barbies on a roll. ; (R): Happiness is a bowl of perfect lamian in the Muslim Quarter
The Silk Road, actually a maze of roads, started in Chang’an, the old imperial capital, today’s Xian. Then it headed west through the spectacular gorges of the Wei river to the garrison city of Lanzhou, at the eastern end of the Hexi corridor. North is the Gobi desert; south is the snow-covered peaks of the Qilain Shan. The road keeps going from oasis to oasis all the way to Yumenguan, the Jade Gate Pass – which marked the western limit of China.
Lanzhou. (L): Downtown: dancin’ in the streets ; (R): The Flying Horse of Gansu: the epitome of Chinese bronze craftmanship
For a Silk Road pilgrim like this foreign correspondent, this is the trip of a lifetime – combined with the journey further west, to Xinjiang. I’ve tracked the original Silk Road before, and that’s my fifth time in Xinjiang; yet those journeys were in the late 1990s and the 2000s. Combined, now, that makes it the first trip in 10 years and the first one after Covid.
New Silk Roads on the move. At the fabulous Gansu museum in Lanzhou
Go West, past the Jade Gate Pass
The timing could not be more appropriate: right after the ground-breaking SCO summit in Tianjin in late August/early September and the Victory Day parade in Beijing on October 3, celebrating the 80th year of the Chinese defeat of Japanese aggression and Nazi-fascism in Asia.
It was the time to check in detail how a self-confident China had engineered its development of the West, boosted by the “Go West” campaign launched in 1999. That also coincided with the 70th year of the establishment of the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The whole of Xinjiang was engulfed in “70” red flags.
Xinjiang. (L): Yurt time ; (R): The ancient city of Jiaohe
Xinjiang. (L): On the Northern Silk Road, from Aksu to Kucha ; (R): Northern Silk Road. Cotton fields. No slaves. No victims of “genocide”
The first stretch of my travels was solo, retracing the traditional Ancient Silk Road, from Xian to strategically located Lanzhou by the Yellow River, dominating all traffic between central China and the northwest, then all the way to fabled Dunhuang and the Jade Gate Pass. I made a deal with a local taxi driver to spend the day visiting the Pass, including the remains of the Han Great Wall. He loved the notion of a lone foreigner riding his taxi into the deep desert.
Then I caught the high-speed train from Lanzhou to Urumqi (this line was started already 11 years ago), the high-tech capital of Xinjiang, to join a Chinese-Uyghur production team and start shooting a documentary on the road in Xinjiang.
Xinjiang, or “New Territories”, the size of Western Europe, is the former Chinese Turkestan. That’s classic Silk Road territory as well, treading along the northern and southern rims of the Tarim basin, one of the most extraordinary geographical hot spots on earth. At the center lie the ever-shifting sands of the mighty Taklamakan desert – surrounded by three mountain ranges: the Kunlun Shan, the Tian Shan and the Pamirs.
We started by following the Northern Silk Road, from the key oasis of Turfan to the high-tech hub Urumqi, all the way to Kucha; crossed the Taklamakan desert to the Southern Silk Road; and proceeded across key oasis such as Yutian and Khotan all the way to the immensely venerable oasis of Kashgar, at the foot of the Tian Shan and the Pamir, and at the start of the Karakoram highway, arguably the pivot of the Ancient Silk Road leading to the heart of the Heartland: southern Central Asia.
Countless caravans perished over centuries in the sands of the Taklamakan (“you can get it but you won’t get out”): today, modernization of China-style, we can do it in an immaculate highway in a mini-convoy of Toyota Land Cruisers. [01][02][03]
We kept going via the Karakoram, a two-lane, extra-busy, connectivity corridor, the first stretch of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), past the blinding beauty of glaciers, peaks and deep blue lakes all the way to Pamir lands and the high-altitude Tajik boom town of Tashkurgan; further on is the Khunjerab pass and the China-Pakistan border, all the way to South Asia.
To the west, the main historical Silk Road is subdivided in the three, key Chinese borders with Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and especially Kazakhstan: Alashankou in northern Xinjiang is China’s premier Eurasian hub – where all trains carrying laptops from Chongqin or household wares from Yiwu stop before heading further West, all the way to Europe.
(L): Khotan. In the – Carpet – Silk Road ; (R): On the road to Pamir land
Socialism with Chinese characteristics in practice
China has always been a Heartland power – not a maritime power. From the time of unification under Qin Shi Huang in 221 B.C., the territorial imperative has always been Go West, towards the Heartland/Southern Central Asia. That set up a series of intermittent clashes with primarily nomadic peoples – Turkic, Tibetan, Mongols. Only at times of serious Chinese strength – especially under the Han, Tang and Qin dynasties – Chinese imperial power was conclusively projected into Western Central Asia.
What we see now in a Xi Jinping-defined “moderately prosperous China”, inscribed within the mindset of a self-confident geoeconomic superpower, is how socialism with Chinese characteristics has successfully integrated the “Western regions” into the officially-termed “Chinese dream”.
Xinjiang. (L): Urumqi – symbol of the development of the “Western regions” ; (R): Kashgar. In the Old City, in front of Id Kah mosque
Urumqi is now a high-tech hub, a replica of those mega-cities in the eastern seaboard but 4,000 km away from Beijing. With over 4 million residents, it’s considered at best a Tier 3 city. The level of development compared to the start of the century is simply mind-boggling.
Xinjiang. (L): Urumqi on Saturday night – buildings celebrating the 70th year of the development of Xinjiang under a unified China. Xi will be in town today ; (R): On the Northern Silk Road. Stan and I at the spectacular Grand Canyon near Aksu.
We traveled in Xinjiang with a crack Uyghur team. Our on-site producers, translators, ultra-skilled drivers were all Uyghurs. We talked to everyone – from cotton pickers to bazaar whiz kids to enterprising business women (no, we did not find “genocide” victims). We attended two traditional weddings – one relatively low-key, the other a Bollywood-style production.
As @RealPepeEscobar, @RealJermWarfare and I checked into the hotel in Turpan, Xinjiang, we crashed a Uyghur wedding party (after asking for permission to film).
Absolute highlight of our evening! Uyghur wedding is the next level!!! pic.twitter.com/0Al52W8du8
— Carl Zha (@CarlZha) September 20, 2025
(L): With the ultra-pro Tajik MC of a lively dancin’ party ; (R): Kashgar princess
In parallel, a tsunami of middle-class families from all over China could be seen in every latitude enjoying Xinjiang for the first time in a self-driven Tank 300 jeep rented for only $60 a day (less than 1 in 10 Chinese have been to Xinjiang). The boom of domestic tourism is something to watch – as in the packed camel parking lot right before whole families immortalize their camel caravan adventure in the sand dunes outside Dunhuang. The Old City in Kashgar during Golden Week – an 8-day holiday that every Chinese dreams about – was so packed it was virtually impossible to walk most of the time in the main alleys.
This is just a first approach to the trip of a lifetime – which will be part of a book on the Ancient and New Silk Roads to be published next year and a documentary to be released before the end of 2025 (we have two terabytes of images). But among a wealth of highlights, a few have got to be inescapable.
Energy. Xinjiang is an energy Mecca. From Urumqi to Turfan [04], from the point of view of the proverbial impeccable highway, we see Massive Electrification, forests of solar panels, forests of wind turbines, and at least two massive solar farms. Xinjiang produces so much energy that it lavishly exports to the rest of China. And of course the key Pipelineistan superstars – from Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and soon Power of Siberia – all arrive here.
(L): Xian. At the Great Mosque. Having a fabulous time with the Hui. There are only 20k still living in Xian ; (R): Welcome to Xinjiang. At the astonishing 5th century ruins of Buddhist Gaochang kingdom
Integration of Hui (Chinese Muslims). Xian’s fabled Muslim quarter, quite close to the iconic Drum Tower, is a direct connectivity corridor to the former imperial capital’s Silk Road prominence. Itinerant Muslim merchants – Arabs, Turks, Sogdians, Persians – and religious teachers chose to live in the tolerant metropolis ever since the Tang dynasty. In the 8th century, Xian was the largest and most sophisticated city on the planet. Today at least 50,000 Huis – mostly prosperous bazaaris – live in Xian’s Old City. [05] The food in the Muslim quarter of course is to die for.
XINJIANG. Karakoram Highway. BRI/CPEC connectivity corridor. White Sand lake – on the way to Pamir lands
From oasis life to deep blue mountain lakes
Respect for History – The Shaanxi History Museum in Xian and the Gansu Provincial Museum in Lanzhou, side by side, offer an unparalleled collection of absolutely priceless Silk Road artifacts. Both are free, packed at all times and endlessly fascinating throngs of the TikTok/Bilibili generation with immense Silk Road cultural wealth, including the iconic Flying Horse of Gansu: excavated in 1969 in Wuwei, representing the “heavenly steed” of Heartland tradition and cast by an unknown craftsman of the early Han dynasty no less than 2,000 years ago. That’s arguably the most elegant and sophisticated Chinese bronze artifact ever.
Dunhuang. (L): The All China Camel Caravan is on the move ; (R): The unparalleled beauty of the remaining Buddhist paintings in the Mogao caves
Dunhuang. A “Blazing Beacon” since the times of Han emperor Wu Di, who understood the strategic importance of the oasis: the last major watering hole before the fear-inducing Taklamakan, and sitting astride the three main Silk Roads heading west, linked to the key Jade Gate Pass nearby (that refers to the fine jade brought to China from Khotan in Xinjiang).
Yet Dunhuang’s claim to a selected global cultural pantheon resides in the Buddhist Mogao caves, sponsored by merchants and pilgrims since the 3rd century and especially during the Tang dynasty, cut into the soft rock face of the Mingsha hills. [06] That’s China’s – and the world’s – most extensive collection of Buddhist statuary, painting and manuscripts. Unfortunately, many of the original materials were stolen by European barbarians, scholarly and otherwise, and are now in foreign museums. Beijing cares for the Mogao in millimetric detail. We can only visit with a scholar/guide; no photos whatsoever; and the only light inside the caves comes from the guide’s torch. A magical experience. I was privileged to enjoy a detailed explanation of Mogao history by Helen, a member of the remarkable Dunhuang Academy who’s doing a PhD in Archeology.
(L): At the Bezeklik Buddhist – and Manichean – caves, outside of the privileged oasis of Turfan. Classic Silk Road ; (R): Yutian. Carl Zha: [Pepe’s] holding up a $10,000 USD Hotan jade bracelet
Across the Southern Silk Road, we can literally touch and feel the essence of its allure: the best jade from both Khotan and Yutian (Marco Polo visited in the 13th century); the best silk and the best silk carpets in Khotan; and the best decorated knives in Yengisar – the knife capital of the world (every Uyghur man has a knife, to prove his manhood and to slice melons at any time).
And then there’s the mystery of ridiculously delicious Uyghur cuisine. No mystery: crystal clear water from the Tian Shan mountains; uncontaminated soil; lots of sunshine; everything organic; less than zero GMOs. Now get down and celebrate devouring a whole lamb.
In the heart of the Taklamakan desert. (L): the pilgrim finally made it ; (R): The fierce beauty of the Taklamakan
Crossing the Taklamakan – The Holy Grail of every Silk Road explorer. Today, no need to be engulfed by mellifluous shifting sands or unexpected sandstorms. We drove the Desert Highway back-to-back, nearly 500 km: impeccable tarmac; the notorious green belt encircling the desert on both extremities; the reeds compounding the “Chinese magic cube” by the side of the road, protecting it from the sands; plus an extra green fence.
Overall, a marvel of engineering and environmental protection. And we doubled down the day after, driving a backbreaking 170 km across the real shifting sands to see something stunning: the ancient small village of Daliyabuyi, right in the middle of the Taklamakan, arguably the most remote place in Xinjiang. The locals, known in China as “the lost tribe of the Taklamakan” are now getting into serious business: they showed us how they are building a few, comfortable B&Bs to cater for the budding Chinese off-road crowd. We crossed some of them in the sands. No wifi – yet.
(L): Xinjiang meets Pamir lands. The Muztagh Ata blesses the Karakoram highway ; (R): Lake Karakul
The Pamir lands – One of the top blinding beauty lands on earth – to be rivalled only by the Pamir highway and selected spots in the Tian Shan, the Karakoram in northern Pakistan, the Hindu Kush in Afghanistan and the Himalayas. You drive by the proverbial impeccable highway and you have the mighty Muztagh Ata (7,500 m high) practically in front of you. Lake Karakul, at 3,900 m high, is unparalleled in its blue, transparent tranquility. We can see no less than 14 different glaciers from the lakeshore. Cool Kyrgyz nomad cowboys hang out nearby; you can ride their yaks or stay in their yurts. [07] Further on down the road is Tashkurgan, mentioned by Ptolemy in the 2ⁿᵈ century as the westernmost point of the “Land of Ceres” – that is, China. Xuanzang was here in the 7th century, when he was already laden with the Buddhist sutras he carried from India to Xian.
From Xinjiang, the real challenge is to take the G216: 816 km in ultra-high altitude, considered the most dangerous road in China, all the way to Tibet. Talk about total integration of the Western regions. Well, sounds like a plan for 2026. The Silk Roads go on forever.
A HISTORIOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
Featured Image: Archival photo of old Gaza market and the historic Omari Mosque, ca. 1960
INTRODUCTION
In this article, I set out to dispel the narrative(s)—initially proffered by Yasser Arafat in the late 1980s and early 1990s but then popularized beyond intra-Palestine politics by liberal zionist journalists before being instrumentalized by the zionist entity’s intelligence apparatus—that the zionist entity “created”, “helped create”, or “funded” Hamas.[1] This set of claims enjoys deep popularity amongst would-be supporters of the Palestinian liberation struggle who, unwittingly, are repeating the choice framework of the zionist intelligence services and the Palestinian Authority’s Abu Mazen (viz., Mahmoud Abbas) who has pragmatically instrumentalized this claim to delegitimize the Hamas movement’s indigenous, local, and grassroots. Insofar as political science scholarship is concerned, this narrative also sports proponents like Beverly Milton-Edwards, who first proffers this thesis in her 1996 book, Islamic Politics in Palestine (London: Tauris Academic studies) and repeats it in her co-authored 2010 text with Stephen Farrell, Hamas: The Islamic Resistance Movement (Cambridge: Polity Press) and the two’s more recent, revised book, Hamas: The Quest for Power (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2024).
That this narrative has become broadly accepted and is now repeated by respected academics including Rashid Khalidi[2]—to then be circulated by an array of independent journalists like Dina Sayedahmed[3] and repeated by Borrell Fontelles, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (from 2019 until 2024)[4]—is unwarranted given the academic reception history of this narrative, which was thoroughly debated, challenged, and deflated at the time of Milton-Edwards’ initial publication. Indeed, in Khaled Hroub’s 2000 review of the book for the Journal of Palestine Studies,[5] Hroub—one of the most erudite and informed political scientists researching and publishing on the Hamas movement—adeptly and methodically dispels Milton-Edwards’ claim; in his subsequent book, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, which contains the locus classicus contravening this claim, Hroub expounds on this issue, further invalidating its premises.[6] Nevertheless, decades later, the narrative persists, bolstered by zionist publications like Ha’aretz, The Times of Israel, and Yedioth Ahronoth; and piecemeal remarks from Shabak (viz., Shin Bet) intelligence operators like Yuval Diskin or ministers like Avigdor Liberman who, in the latter instance, strategically propounds Netanyahu’s supposedly propitiative instructions to Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen, characterizing his and Herzi Halevi’s allegedly placatory rationale vis-a-vis a similarly utterly weak-willed Prime Minister, remarking that “the Qataris” “[…] ‘begged’ […] to continue supporting” Hamas, with Netanyahu reputedly obliging in turn.[7] Even Amnesty International lends credibility to this claim in their 2022 report, adverting to Benjamin Netanyahu’s March 2019 remark concerning the zionist entity’s maintenance of “a separation policy between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza” in order to “[help] prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state” before inferring that this bolsters the broader, unsubstantiated narrative of the entity’s lending direct assistance for Hamas.[8]
The supposed evidence for the claim that the zionist entity “funded”, “created”, or “helped create” Hamas draws from two historical instances, both of which the proponents of this narrative mischaracterize. The first (i) predates the establishment of Hamas on 8 December 1987[9] and concerns the licenses/permits that institutions related to the Palestinian branch of the Ikhwan (viz., Muslim Brotherhood) received. The latter concerns the 2018-2019 negotiations concerning the Great March of Return, where, following a lengthy and arduous negotiation process, the zionist entity conceded that the Hamas movement would be permitted to secure and transfer its Zakat funding through Qatar. This latter claim, though comparatively neoteric, not only consists in a misrepresentation of the historical record of the Great March of Return 2018-19 negotiations but has been purposed by political entrepreneurs/opposition candidates positioning themselves in contraposition to the Netanyahu government, utilizing this narrative to telegraph that, should they have led the government—or, alternatively, should they so elected to take up this role following the forthcoming elections—they would not participate in such reputed “mismanagement” of the Occupied Territories. The “Qatari cash payments” narrative has, in short, been opportunistically mobilized by a host of opposition candidates and representatives, proving as a wellspring with which to challenge the Netanyahu government’s administration of Gaza in particular.
In order to properly analyze the initial claim (i), we must adopt a historical understanding of the Palestinian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood and how it garnered popularity from the Palestinian masses. It should be underscored at this preliminary point that the Palestinian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood has, historically, been an organization with a distinct history, the proper understanding of which requires disambiguating it from other branches—particularly those that depart from the so-called “traditional Ikhwan” ideology inaugurated by Hasan al-Banna and subsequently promulgated by Sayyid Qutb. Even Palestinian political figures that, today, one conceives of as markedly distinct from the Hamas movement, including Yasser Arafat (viz., Abu Ammar) and Khalil al-Wazir (viz., Abu Jihad), were close affiliates or members of the Palestinian Ikhwan during the late 1950s.[10]
In the following section, I will adumbrate the history of the Palestinian Ikhwan and its development of social institutions. In the subsequent two sections, I will analyze the history of the claim, spurred by Arafat and Fatah, concerning the permits granted by the zionist occupation to al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society) and al-Mujamma’ al-Islami (the Islamic Center). In the final section, I will consider the more recent, though narratively continuous, issue of Qatar-issued cash payments that the entity, as a consequence of the Great March of Return negotiations, conceded to. Although there have been previous commentaries that aimed to dispel the narratives at hand,[11] this systematic review aims to both be more comprehensive in its political-historical exegesis and in its overview of the genealogy of this claim.
SECTION 1.
The Grassroots History of the Palestinian Ikhwan and its Social Institutions
In 1928, Hasan al-Banna formed the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) with the twin goals of Islamizing Egyptian society and liberating Egypt (and the Muslim world more broadly) from colonial rule. The 1930s saw the spread of the Hasan al-Banna School and its thinkers throughout the world. Abdel Rahman al-Sa’ati, the brother of al-Banna, and Muhammad As’ad al-Hakim toured Palestine, Lebanon, Syria in August 1935 to spread Ikhwan’s message. The two envoys, accompanied by Tunisian leader ‘Abdel ‘Aziz al-Tha’alibi met with Hajj Amin al-Husayni. For several years thereafter, the relations between Palestinians and the Ikhwan remained limited to an exchange of letters, mainly between al-Banna and Hajj Amin al-Husayni, expressing solidarity.
In March 1936, following the Great Palestine Revolt of 1936, the interest of the Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine increased. The Ikhwan convened a special conference in March 1936 to support the rebellion. The General Central Committee in Aid of Palestine formed as an offshoot of the conference. From 1936-1939, the Ikhwan actively supplied moral and material aid to the Palestinian cause through the “Palestine Piaster” contribution campaign, which issues declarations and pamphlets attacking the British for their policies in Palestine. The Ikhwan also called for a boycott of Jewish zionist magazines in Egypt, which were being circulated by the Jewish Agency with the goal of inculcating Arab support for the Yishuv settler movement. It distributed, against the wishes of the British authorities during the time, the eighty-page booklet, Fire and Destruction in Palestine,[12] which was issued by the Palestine Higher Arab Committee. This resulted in the arrest of Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Subsequently, the Ikhwan in Egypt sent letters of protest to the British authorities of British Mandatory Palestine.
In 1943, a genuine Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood organization was formed: the Makarem Society of Jerusalem. During the subsequent year, 1944, Palestinian delegates were sent to the Fifth Convention of the Brotherhood, held in Aleppo. According to veterans of the movement, however, it was 1945 that the first official branch of the Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood Palestine was established in Gaza after the end of the Second World War. It was headed by-Hajj Zafer-al-Shawwa. Subsequently, the Ikhwan’s branches in Gaza grew to four: one belonging to the administrative office, another in al-Rimal, a third in Harat al-Zaitunah, and a fourth in al-Daraj. There were other branches in the Gaza Strip, in Khan Yunis, Rafah, and Buraij and Nusairat camps. Delegates from these branches became members of the Ikhwan’s administrative office in the Gaza region. Indeed, it took until 1945 for the Ikhwan to establish its Palestinian affiliate, the Palestinian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood. By 1947, there were 25 branches throughout Palestine with a combined membership of between 12,000 and 20,000. The Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity stemmed not only from the Palestinian resistance to British occupation but also the equally pressing issue of increased Jewish immigration of the Yishuv movement.
From 29 until 30 March 1946, the General conference of the Muslim Brotherhood branches in Palestine convened in Jerusalem. The conference was attended by delegates of the Ikhwan’s Palestinian branches; the conference was called by members of the Jerusalem branch to debate how to best unify the efforts of the Ikhwan’s members and establish a central office in Palestine. By 1947, there were thirty-eight branches and over 10,000 registered members, drawn from both the ruling elite and lower classes, of the Palestinian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood. In October 1946, the Ikhwan held a convention in Haifa in which delegates from Trans-Jordan and Lebanon took part. This was the first convention to be devoted to topics of general national concern, including the issue of the British Mandate government of Palestine and its responsibility for the ongoing political instability, as well as placing the Palestine problem before the UN Security Council.
In October 1947, anticipating the Nakba, the Palestinian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood called a convention in the wake of increased onslaught of Zionist immigration and emerging peril in Palestine. At the convention, the Muslim Brotherhood declared “its determination to defend the country by all means and its willingness to cooperate with all nationalistic bodies to that end,” adding that “[t]he Muslim Brotherhood will bear its full share of the cost of resistance.” The Brotherhood played an important role in uniting the two largest paramilitary organizations in Palestine: the Futuwwah and Najjadah, which had been in competition with one another. The military units belonging to these organizations united under the name of the Arab Youth Organization. Mahmoud Labib, the authorized representative of the Egyptian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood for military affairs was put in charge of training. Soon, however, the British authorities expelled him from Palestine.
During the fighting of 1948, the Jaffa branch of the Palestinian Brotherhood was most active in terms of fighting. Within the branch, there existed a secret military organization that enlisted a limited number of men with proper qualifications. The Ikhwan in the region assumed responsibility for defense of the Bassa, Tal al-Rish, ‘Ajami, and Nuzha areas in Jaffa and for maintaining law and order within the city. They obtained some of their arms by way of Fawzi al-Qawuqji, head of the Kata’ib al-Jihad al-Muqaddas (Sacred Jihad Battalions). The Ikhwan joined the Jihad al-Muqaddas in fighting in and around Jerusalem. In the villages of Ramallah and Silwan, the Brethren not only joined local formations in combat, but they also formed their own rescue squadron, which was active in the area. The Brethren also fought alongside ‘Abdel Qader al-Husayni in the famous al-Qastal battle. The leader of the Brotherhood’s rescue squad, ‘Abdel Razzaq ‘Abdel Jalil, was wounded in the engagement. After the 1948 defeat and the loss of most of Palestine, the Brotherhood in the West Bank was incorporated into the Brotherhood of Jordan under a single organization. The Brethren in the Gaza Strip, due to their proximity to Egypt and total Egyptian control of the Gaza Strip, formed a separate organization that was in close contact with the Brotherhood’s center in Cairo. Due to this, the once fortified linkage between the Brotherhood in Gaza and the West bank was, to a significant degree, severed; the Brotherhood in the Gaza Strip took on revolutionary and military traits but the Brotherhood in the West Bank adopted a political and educational approach.
The Palestinian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood branches became severed by the creation of the zionist entity in 1948. Following the Nakba, as is well known, Jordan annexed the West Bank and the Gaza Strip came under Egyptian control. Refugees became an important part of the Ikhwan’s constituency as, unlike the traditional elite, it succeeded in establishing a presence in all major refugee camps; this presaged the broadly grassroots working class support that its Islamic and social services and charity institutions would garner. The Muslim Brotherhood movement united with the movement in Jordan and those in Gaza Strip formed its own administrative office, led by Sheikh Umar Sawwan until 1954.
Following annexation of West Bank to Jordan in 1950, Palestinians became Jordanian citizens. The Ikhwan organizations in the West Bank and former Trans-Jordan united under the name of the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan. It became focused on da’wa and educational activities rather than military activities. This served as the driving force behind the convening of the General Islamic Conference in Jerusalem, in April 1953. The conference met several times in Jerusalem and Damascus for two consecutive years, attracting Islamic delegates from China, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan and Arab countries. The Jordanian government prevented the conference from meeting in 1955 and closed down its permanent office in Jerusalem in July 1955. however the Jordanian government did allow the conference to resume its meetings in June 1956.
Between 1950 and 1955, some Ikhwan groups in the Gaza Strip formed military cells (again prefiguring the military wing of Hamas that would transpire decades later). Two secret militant organizations were formed to engage in armed struggle: Youth for vengeance [Shabab al-Tha’r] and the Battalion of Justice [Katibat al-Haq]. Prominent leaders in Youth for Vengeance included: Salah Khalaf, As’ad al-Saftawi, A’id al-Muzaiyin, Omar Abu al-Khair, Isma’il Suwairjo, and Muhammad Isma’il al-Nuni. The membership of the Battalion of Justice included Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad), Hassan Abdel Hamid, ‘Abd Abu Marahil, and Hamad al-‘Aidi. These organizations would provide inspiration for the formation of Fatah, the Palestine National Liberation Movement, in 1957. Notably, all of the members of the Battalion later joined Fatah, as did most members of the Youth for Vengeance.[13]
In 1954, the Ikhwan grew increasingly vocal in its criticisms of Jordan and King Hussein’s strong ties to the West. It staged demonstrations in 1954 to protest the presence of the Jordanian army (i.e., the Arab Legion). It opposed the Baghdad Pact (a position that forced Muhammad ‘Abdel Rahman Khalifah, the Brotherhood’s ombudsman, to seek refuge in Damascus in 1955). It also took issue with the Eisenhower Doctrine, which the Jordanian regime supported. Parliamentarians representing the Brotherhood voted against granting confidence to some cabinet appointments by the King of Jordan, notably that of Wasfi al-Tal in 1963. Still, during this period, mutual interests between Jordan and the Ikhwan tended to triumph over suspicions and the turbulent relationship. This allowed it to maintain its existence.
In 1954, Gamal Abdel Nasser outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Palestinian branch experienced a devastating blow and almost disappeared. It was reduced to a small number of students, teachers, and workers, functioning almost entirely underground. Zafer al-Shawwa was the first to withdraw from the Ikhwan following the decree to dissolve the group. He had headed the Brotherhood’s administrative office in Gaza and was also the appointed mayor of the city. He issued a statement declaring his support of the revolutionary government in Cairo and of all its measures against the Brotherhood. This period is significant as it saw the contraction of the Ikhwan and its reorientation towards institution-building.
From 1954 onwards, the Gazan Brotherhood/Ikhwan became caught in the power struggle between Egypt’s Gamal ‘Abd al-Nasser and the Egyptian Ikhwan, in an Nasser’s clampdown on autonomous Palestinian resistance groups. Within this hostile climate, the Gazan Ikhwan decided to at least temporarily turn its back on resistance, but to little avail. By the late 1950s, most of its members were in prison or exile, leaving only a handful of supporters at large, while Arab Nationalism became the dominant ideology. The decision to renounce resistance led activists like Khalid al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) to leave the Ikhwan and set up their own movement, Fatah, in the late 1950s. The West Bank Ikhwan had some 700-1,000 members but were overshadowed by the 2,300 members of the Palestinian Communist Party and the larger Jordanian Ikhwan, which they integrated. The Ikhwan, although they organized some weapons training programming, focused on welfare and local politics, winning parliamentary seats in Hebron and Nablus; following the Jordanian Ikhwan’s decision to be a “loyal opposition” to the King, they subjugated calls for the liberation of Palestine to the King’s agenda, focusing more on anti-imperialist and moralist themes, although they did champion Palestinian issues like the right of return for refugees. In West Bank, the Ikhwan’s subjugation was prompted by the traditional elite in the organization who, unlike the predominantly lower class Gazan leadership, had a greater stake in preserving the status quo. After 1954, the Palestinian Ikhwan in Gaza had continued working in secret, as the Nasser’s regime exacted crackdowns and persecutions of its members.
In 1955, the Ikhwan emerged as foremost political movement in Gaza Strip. When Nasser banned the Ikhwan in Gaza, which was then under Egyptian rule, it became a clandestine organization pursued by the police, as was also the case with the Communists and the Ba’thists. Enrollment in the Brotherhood dropped and the principal cadres fled the Gaza Strip in order to avoid repression and search for a source of income. Among the leaders who emigrated were Fathi al-Bal’awi, Salah Khalaf, Salim al-Za’nun, ‘Awni al-Qishawi, Zudhi Saqallah, Sulaiman Abu Karsh, and Kamal al-Wahidi. Nevertheless, the group remained politically active at a grassroots level. The Ikhwan in the Gaza Strip helped abort a 1955 proposal to resettle some Palestinian refugees in Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. Furthermore, the Ikhwan organized popular demonstrations jointly with the Communists and Ba’thists, demonstrating its openness to coalition-building.
From 1955-1956, the Ikhwan again hewed to its militant past, demonstrating the cyclic-processual nature of armed resistance and social services-based activism that the Palestinian Ikhwan (and, later, Hamas) would adopt. The Ikhwan in the West Bank had begun to train with weapons smuggled across the Sinai. The head of the Hebron Branch of the Ikhwan had struck an agreement with the commander of Jordanian forces in the region for members of his branch to receive training from army instructions. During the zionist occupation in 1956-1957, which lasted 6 months, the Ikhwan formed a National Resistance Front with the Ba’thists, adopting a strategy of engagement in armed struggle against the Israelis.
July 1957 saw a memorandum from Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) to the leadership of the Ikhwan in the Gaza Strip recommending that the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood take up the responsibility of preparing for armed struggle. The Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood did not take Khalil al-Qazir’s memorandum seriously, however, fearing that it was ill prepared and this might attract attention from Nasser’s police; the leadership thus wished to remain secretive and circumscribe the ranks of the organization. Nevertheless, in 1958-1959, members from the Palestinian Ikhwan who believed in the need for a mass mobilized movement undertook a project of actively recruiting individuals behind the backs of the leadership. Thus came to fruition the establishment of the Palestine National Liberation Movement-Fatah, which attracted some prominent Brethren who had initially remained loyal to the Brotherhood. These included Salim al-Za’nun, Salah Khalaf, As’ad al-Saftawi, Kamal ‘Udwan, Abu Yusuf al-Najjar, Sa’id al-Nuzayin, Ghaleb al-Wazir, and others who did not become as well known.[14]
Rather than adopt the Fatah option for the liberation of Palestine, which depended on securing support from Arab countries in the struggle with Israel, the mainstream Ikhwan in Palestine chose the alternative of consolidating the power of its existing organization with the expectation that, when it succeeded in its mission, it could and would liberate Palestine with the support of the entire Islamic world. The Ikhwan felt that it could appeal to the fact that Muslims everywhere had a sacred duty to save al-Quds, which was the first qibla in Islam, and to liberate the land of al-isra’ wal mi‘raj. With this being its focus, during the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s, the Palestinian Ikhwan pursued a policy of not engaging in resistance. Both the Gazan and West Bank branches, for different reasons, had decided to focus on social and political activities.
During this period, of the 1950s-60s, the Ikhwan in the West Bank capitalized on the relative tolerance of the Jordanian government (particularly in comparison to that of Nasser’s Egypt). The Brotherhood won seats in the Jordanian parliament, representing such Palestinian cities as Hebron and Nablus in the 1954, 1956, and 1962 elections. It should also be said that, in 1960, the Ikhwan—motivated by its belief that the Palestinian liberation movement should prioritize social institution-building and Islamic cohesion—adopted an official decision against the formation of Fatah. While the Ikhwan preserved a non-hostile attitude towards Fatah, it argued that Fatah’s militant project was doomed to failure. This marked a historical turn whereby for the first time since the 1930s, the Palestinian armed resistance movement and the Palestinian Islamists saw a clear split in strategy. The Palestinian Ikhwan focused on elections and social programming. For example, in 1962: Muslim Brotherhood in West Bank’s candidate, Sheikh Mashhour al-Damen won highest number of votes in Nablus in 1962. The Ikhwan also regrouped, believing that its program would benefit from a unified stance. It formed the Palestinian Organization, which the Palestinian Ikhwan in the Arab Gulf countries was affiliated with, electing Hani Bdisonas their Comptroller General in the summer of 1962.
Having outlined the precise nature of the Palestinian Ikhwan and how it became a force focused on social programming and elections, we can now turn to the issue of its gaining permits/licenses during the period of zionist occupation.
SECTION 2.
Permits/Licenses allotted to al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society) and al-Mujamma’ al-Islami (the Islamic Center): Contesting Narrative (i) that the Zionist Entity helped “create” Hamas
This section focuses on the claim that Hamas was “created” by the zionist entity—a claim which is decades old, oft repeated and relies on the Palestinian Ikhwan institutions receiving permits for operation during the period in which the zionist entity occupied and managed all institutions operating in Gaza and the West bank. Because, compared to the more recent “Qatari cash payments” claim (viz., narrative (ii)), this claim concerning the Palestinian Ikhwan institutions’ receiving licenses is the most entrenched claim, I will spend the most time with it.
After the disastrous war/Naksa of June 1967 and Israeli capture of Golan Heights, Sinai, and the rest if Palestine, the Islamic movement began to regain its vitality amongst Palestinians; however, its institutions—like all Palestinian institutions—had to operate under zionist institution’s surveillance, with Gaza and the West Bank held under zionist occupation.
As Azzam Tamimi recounts, it was in 1966 or 1976 when Sheikh Yassin formally joined the Ikhwan.[15] This also coincided with what is called the Ikhwan’s “mosque building phase” where, between 1967 to 1975, it campaigned to build mosques and Islamic institutions that would “mobilize, unite, and consolidate the faith of a new generation so as to prepare it for the confrontation with Zionism”.[16] One of the most important such Islamic institutions was al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society). As Tamimi recounts:
In 1967, after working for nearly a decade from their own homes and in the mosques, the Ikhwan deemed the situation appropriate for the launch of their first public platform. This was al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society), whose objective was to conduct educational, recreational, and sporting programs for the youth. The Israelis did not see this association as any kind of threat, and granted the Ikhwan a license for its establishment. Run from a room in al-Shati’ (beach) Mosque, the society’s activities included sports, recreational trips, scouting activities, and public lectures on religious and social issues. Meanwhile, from his base at al-Abbas Mosque, Sheikh Yassin succeeded in collecting enough money from donors to reprint the last volume of Sayed Qutb’s Qur’anic exegesis, entitled Fi dhilal al-Qur’an (In the shade of the Qur’an). To ensure that it gained the widest possible circulation, and especially to encourage students to read it, he divided it into five separate sections, printing 2,000 copies of each. This project helped change the way the Ikhwan was perceived in Gaza. Qutb […] was introduced to the readers both as a revolutionary fighting for justice and as a scholar of the highest standing.[17]
That, in 1967, al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society) received permits for the educational activities run in al-Shati (beach) Mosque would later serve as one of the sources of the claim initiated by Arafat and then repeated by the earliest zionist journalist popularizer of this narrative, Michal Sela, who proffered it in a 1999 Jerusalem Post article.[18] However, the permit was granted under the auspices that al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah was part of exclusively Islamic erudition, with the zionist occupation presuming that the Palestinian Ikhwan in Gaza had—as was their publicly stated platform—abdicated armed resistance.
It should also be highlighted that this publicly projected stance was not the thorough-going position of the Palestinian Ikhwan but that of the Gaza branch, which is why al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society) was permitted a license (with then-Prime Minister’s Levi Eshkol’s occupational government allotting such licenses for what they regarded as purely social organizations). Such was not the case in the West Bank, which saw the participation of the Palestinian Ikhwan in the 1968-70 resistance campaign known as the “Sheikhs’ Camps” in Jordan in collaboration with Fatah; around 300 men were trained and posted to seven commando bases. This activity was circumscribed to the Palestinian Ikhwan outside of the Gaza Strip, which launched a campaign of guerrilla raids across the Jordan border with the zionist entity. It set up four bases under the banner of Fatah in the northern Jordan Valley near the border. Apart from lending its name, Fatah had nothing to do with those bases. The decision to set up the bases had been taken by the overall leadership of the Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood in the Arab world, not by the Gaza Strip Ikhwan. The Jordanian (including West Bank) Ikhwan were the most enthusiastic, as were the ones in the Sudan; however, the Gaza branch opposed the idea as they thought the endeavor would prove futile.[19] From 1968-70, the Ikhwan in the Jordan Valley engaged in some significant military operations across the border with the zionist entity; again, this effort was at the instigation of the general headquarters of the Ikhwan in the Arab world and was, according to Abu ‘Azza, not an initiative of the Palestinian Ikhwan itself.[20]
While Fatah sought to liberate Palestine via military initiatives that they believed would bring regular Arab armies into Battle, the Ikhwan in Gaza continued proselytizing activities, seeking to win adherents and create a generation of Palestinians that could carry out the task of liberation and rally the Islamic umma behind the effort. The Gaza Ikhwan in particular focused on creating mosques, charities, kindergartens, Qur’anic schools, and, occasionally, medical clinics equipped with mobile units that granted free of charge medical service to the general population, including those outside of urban centers; these mobile clinics, which employed Ikhwan medical specialists, would travel to the rural areas to treat farmers. Ikhwan pharmacists would also help in dispensing medicine at low prices. The Ikhwan would also pay for customary Islamic celebrations. They maintained these, and al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society), via zakat communities—not funding from the zionist entity.
Precipitated by the September 1970 “Black September”,[21] which found the Palestine Liberation Organization relocating to Lebanon, the Palestinian Ikhwan, reacting to the large scale of Palestinians massacred in Jordan, adopted a uniform position in both the West Bank and Gaza Strip; it now sought to exclusively pursue an educational mission.
Encouraged by the successes of the al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society), in 1973, a new successor-institution, al-Mujamma’ al-Islami (the Islamic Center) was founded in Gaza by Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and a number of adherents, whose prominent figures would later win international notoriety as the leaders of Hamas. These included Dr. Mahmour Zahar, Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantissi, Ibrahim Yazouri, Abd al-Fattah Dukhan, Issa al-Najjar, and Salah Shehadeh. These founders were recently graduated students from the lower middle classes. Al-Mujamma’ al-Islami was created to render further social, medical, and educational services to, in particular, the community of Jawrat al-Shams, south of Gaza City. Again, the funding was, contra claims that would later be made, entirely endogenous. As Tamimi summarizes, the:
[…] building was funded by donations collected from the wealthier Palestinians of the West Bank, and once construction was complete, an application for a license to operate was lodged with the Israeli occupation authorities. The Israelis issued the necessary license, which, however, a few days later, they revoked. It later emerged that a prominent Palestinian figure in Gaza had advised the Israeli authorities to withdraw the license because of a personal dispute with the project committee over his own role in it. This prominent Palestinian […] [was] believed to have links to the Israelis [….] After repeated appeals, and through the good offices of another prominent Palestinian figure […] the Israeli authorities re-issued the license and the Center was opened. Al-Mujamma’ (the Center) had a much wider scope than al-Jam’iyah (the Society) and its objectives included the provision of a variety of social services and the establishment of mosques, kindergartens, schools, and clinics across the Gaza Strip. The services and facilities provided by the Center proved so popular that a branch was soon opened in Khan Yunis.[22]
That the licenses were readily revoked upon complaint should clarify that this institution was not “created” by the zionist entity but merely tolerated, insofar as it appeared to be at odds with any resistance-related activity.
Al-Mujamma‘ al-Islami (the Islamic Center) functioned as the nexus of the Palestinian Ikhwan’s charitable activity and helped the group garner a significant popularity amongst lower and lower-middle socioeconomic classes—the very groups that would serve as Hamas’s base in future decades. Al-Mujamma‘ al-Islami (the Islamic Center) was followed by a number of related institutions, including, 1976, al-Jam‘iyyah al-Islam‘iyyah (the Islamic Association), “which focused on educational, social welfare activities in areas neglected by others: refugee camps and poor urban quarters”[23]. Al-Jam’iyya al-Islāmiyya (the Islamic Association) was not founded by Ahmad Yassin but by Isna’il Abu Shanab and Ahmad Badar, though it was effectively an instrument for Al-Mujamma‘ al-Islami (the Islamic Center). Primarily, Al-Jam’iyya al-Islāmiyya (the Islamic Association) established kindergartens, health clinics, summer camps, and various religious and social activities.
In 1978, the year that Al-Mujamma‘ al-Islami (the Islamic Center) was legalized in Gaza, the Palestinian Ikhwan merged with the Ikhwan in Jordan in one organization called the “Bilad al-Sham” organization. This was also the year that the Islamic University of Gaza was founded, Gaza’s first university, whose “founding board members were mainly members of the Ikhwan who were also involved with the al-Mujamma’ al-Islami (the Islamic Center), at the time presided over by Sheikh Yassin.”[24] Notably, in 1981, Al-Mujamma‘ al-Islami (the Islamic Center) helped with the creation of a sister organization, “al-Jam‘iyyah al-Jam‘iyyat al-Shabbat al-Muslimat (Young Women’s Islamic Association), laying the foundations for the popularity Hamas was later to enjoy among women”[25]
These organizations funding was entirely through the Islamic pillar of zakat, or alms-giving. This would prove prudent during the First Intifada, when the zionist entity would claim that the Palestinian Ikhwan’s charities funded violent acts; as Tamimi writes,
[…] no evidence to prove such allegations has ever been provided” and “in order to avert any legal sanction, it was ensured that zakat committees and the institutions that supported them abroad were properly licensed. Meticulous care was taken to ensure their activities were absolutely legal and transparent; and not a single penny of the money received by these charities were allowed to slip into other projects, especially not to the military effort [that transpired during the First Intifada], which had its own discrete sources of funding.[26]
These organizations collectively “succeeded in more than doubling the number of mosques under their authority”.[27] The proliferation of mosques, which accompanied coeval social services, burgeoned with celerity, rising from 200 in 1967 to 600 in 1987. As Leila Seurat correctly summarizes “[i]nvolvement in proselytizing activities was meant to prepare the next generations to liberate Palestine […] These initiatives were at the time tolerated by Israel”.[28] Toleration is quite distinct from creation or instigation, however; yet the toleration—which, as aforementioned, was not always sustained, with these institutions subject to permit-rescindment by the occupying zionist entity depending on its whims. Yet some commentators, particularly those liberal Zionists like Michal Sela and Charles Enderlin, have argued, making unsubstantiated claims, that this toleration was due to the zionist entity’s hoping that Al-Jam’iyya al-Islāmiyya (the Islamic Association) and its related organizations would serve as an effective counterweight to the PLO, which pursued military activities.[29] There is no evidence that this was the case, however, and the Ikhwan in Palestine was, indeed, soon to pursue resistance activities such that, were this to have been the zionist occupation’s motivating thinking, it too would have been mistaken. However, this did not prevent early zionist commentators—particularly liberal zionist journalists who used this narrative as a cudgel to critique their more right-wing government—from arguing, as Sela did in May 1989 article arguing that:
Until a few years ago, the organizations in Gaza and the Islamic University received much encouragement from the military government. The various organizations were registered by law as charities. The military government accepted them, knowing that they were being used, inter alia, for political activity, bringing in money from abroad for their activities. They were allowed to build mosques, whose number increased from 70 in 1967 to 180 today. The military government believed that their activity would undermine the power of the PLO and of leftist organizations in Gaza. They even supplied some of their activists with weapons, for their protection.[30]
Sela’s claim that nascent military arm of the Palestinian Ikhwan’s Islamic Resistance Movement (IRM), formed in 1980, was supplied weapons by the zionist entity is a sheer fabrication. As Rub‘i al-Madhun recounts, during the early 1980s, Sheikh Yassin established the military wing of the Ikhwan in the Gaza Strip, which was led in the beginning by Abdul-Rahman Tamraz and then Salah Shehadeh.[31] This was not only an entirely endogenous creation but the issue of arms was a highly surreptitious affair that, when exposed, resulted in severe punishment from the occupying entity. Relatedly:
The first precursors of the establishment of the military wing [of Hamas] appeared in 1980 when the leadership sent some of its cadres abroad for military training. Sheikh Ahmad Yasin established the military wing [viz., the IRM] in GS [viz., Gaza Strip], led in the beginning by ‘Abdul-Rahman Tamraz and then Salah Shehadeh. However, the military wing was exposed by a suspicious arms dealer, leading to a crackdown against it […] [between 25 February – 1 July 1984] […] The Israeli authorities arrested Sheikh Ahmad Yasin for belonging to 13 years in prison. Yasin was released in a prisoner swap between Palestinian resistance forces and Israel on 20/5/1985.[32]
Indeed, the arms that the IRM obtained were either purchased from Fatah or through the black market, using funds that were provided from within the Ikhwan by its own networks.[33] Tamimi provides what is the most detailed English-language account, adumbrating a committee that transpired inside of the Palestinian Ikhwan that planned for the group to take up arms—a program it clandestinely maintained despite widespread critique from the PLO that it remained separate from the ongoing resistance activities; this committee began as a relatively modest group of operatives who were attached to the department of the Secretariat of the Palestinian Ikhwan’s Executive Office. It would eventually burgeon into a massive network of organizations that collectively became known as Hamas. It is worth quoting Tamimi’s historical outline of the formation of this committee in full:
[…] the Palestine Committee, at times referred to as the “Inside Committee,” headed by the Amman-based Secretary of the Tanzim Bilad al-Sham Executive Office, received a sum of $70,000, raised by the Kuwaiti branch [of the Ikhwan]. This was to be delivered to the Ikhwan in Gaza to fund their first jihad project, to which the committee had, in confidence, given its backing. The money was to be used for the purchase of weapons and ammunition and to send a number of individuals to Amman to receive military training.
Only Sheikh Ahmad Yassin and a very close circle of his associates were aware of this project, plans for which were finalized in 1982. Other members of the Gaza Executive Committee of the Ikhwan were not informed. Outside Palestine, no one knew about the plan apart from those directly involved in the Palestine Committee, whose role was to provide the funds and the facilities to train the Gazans in Jordan. A group of Ikhwan members from Gaza came to Jordan, received the necessary training, and returned to Gaza to form the first cell in the Ikhwan’s military apparatus. Sheikh Yassin set up two separate systems for the purchase of arms, which were readily available for sale in Israel and usually originated with the Israeli army. Israeli officers and soldiers would steal weapons and sell them on the black market. Those who did this were generally doing it to support their drug addictions. However, the Ikhwan members who were assigned the task of procuring the weapons by way of one of these two routes lacked experience and took insufficient precautions. Consequently, they fell into a trap set up for them by collaborators, and were tricked into buying weapons from Israeli agents. The plan was uncovered, and those who were interrogated by the Israelis, under severe torture, divulged the names of their superiors. Initially Sheikh Yassin believed the arrests were the result of some accident, but he soon saw that those targeted were progressively higher in the ladder of responsibility. If the process was allowed to continue, he concluded, the Israelis would eventually reach him. Only two people knew of his involvement: those who headed the two weapons-purchasing networks. He immediately ordered these two men to leave the country. One of them, Dr. Ahmad al-Milh, fled successfully to Yemen, where he has since remained. The other, Dr. Ibrahim al-Maqadmah, could not find a way to leave. He was arrested and confessed under torture that Sheikh Yassin was the ringleader. Sheikh Yassin was immediately arrested.
At the time, rumors were circulating in Gaza to the effect that the Ikhwan had been buying weapons in order to use them against their opponents in the other Palestinian factions. The Ikhwan had already made powerful enemies in the ranks of Fatah and the left wing of the Palestinian nationalist movement. These rumors found ready credence, owing to the tension that gripped Gaza at the time [….] However, on 15 April 1984, an Israeli military court found Sheikh Yassin guilty of plotting to destroy the State of Israel and sentenced him to thirteen years imprisonment. Ibrahim al-Maqadmah was sentenced to, and served, eight years. A key figure in the plot was Salah Shihadah, whom the court was unable to convict because he would not confess. Nevertheless, the Israelis continued to suspect his involvement and he spent two years in administrative detention. The Israeli authorities were able to seize half the weapons the Ikhwan had bought and stored. However, the other half, purchased through the second network, which had not been broken, remained hidden. These arms were used in part some two years later when military actions were taken against Israel’s collaborators ahead of the eruption of the intifada in 1987.[34]
This passage reveals that contra Sela’s assertions, the zionist entity persecuted the Ikhwan due to its weapons cache, rather than supported it. The funding, too, as the passage reveals, was entirely endogenous, untethered to the zionist entity. Furthermore, so were the ideological tenets bolstering the Palestinian Ikhwan and Inside Committee’s thinking. The organizers, who emphasized attention to ideology and theorizing, were guided by the writings and guidance of Munir Shafiq, who was then a newcomer to the arena of Islamic struggle. Shafiq had a notable influence on the formulation of resistance strategy for those organizations. Likewise, a booklet by Khaled Salah al-Din, “Al-Halaqa al- mafqooda bain al-thawra al-filastiniyya wal itijah al-Islami” [The missing link between the Palestinian revolution and the Islamic trend], which appeared shortly before the First Intifada, had a great influence. These were the indigenous intellectual and theoretical building blocks of the Islamic struggle for the liberation of Palestine, which developed quite independently of the zionist entity’s supervision.
SECTION 3
Abu Ammar and Fatah’s Popularization of the Narrative that Hamas was “created” by the Zionist Entity—an Account Later Popularized by Beverly Milton Edwards
Apart from zionist commentators, however, there is a second and perhaps more significant reason that this narrative that the zionist entity “created” Hamas by helping found these institutions proliferated. Unfortunately, Arafat himself contributed to the popularization of this account, charging “that Hamas was established with the direct or indirect support of Israel”, reiterating “this accusation since the formation of Hamas,” despite, as Khaled Hroub states “the occurrence of such accusations seems to correlate with the amount of tension between Hamas and the PLO at any given time”.[35] Arafat made such statements in the 24 September 1992 issue of “Al-Quds al-Arabi” and the 28 February 1993 issue of “Al-Sharq al-Awsat”. However, these fallacious statements were motivated by an enmity that grew out of bitterness to Hamas’ opposition to the so-called Madrid-Oslo “peace process”. Let us now turn to this to better understand why this narrative first transpired.
As Hamas established itself during the First Intifada—with its first communique issued on 14 December 1987—and was organically part and parcel of this uprising, it was politically necessary for it to form alliances with other Palestinian resistance organizations, which were also involved in the Intifada. Notably, these relationships were contextualized by the then accelerating pace of the so-called “peace process”, which picked up in parallel with the Intifada as a Palestinian state was declared at the Algiers 1988 Palestinian National Council (PNC) session. With the subsequent 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Oslo Agreement, those Palestinian political factions opposed to normalization recognized the need for coordination with one another.
In a letter from prison at the end of 1993, Sheikh Yassin suggested that Hamas should be pragmatic and utility-maximizing in coordination with other resistance groups.[36] George Habash, secretary general of the PFLP, spoke with notable enthusiasm about Hamas in the publication “Filastin al-Muslima”, remarking that:
From the ideological position of total confrontation, I welcome Hamas joining the swell of total resistance to the Zionist enemy. Whoever is familiar with that (Islamic) movement—its slogans, its priorities, and the ambiguities that beset the occupied territories because of the positions it has adopted—and compares that with its position today, after the intifada, cannot but notice a huge difference and has to welcome warmly its joining the nationalist movement. There can be no doubt but that the participation of Hamas and [Palestinian] Islamic Jihad in the battle is a victory for the nationalist struggle and a boost to the popular uprising.[37]
The secretary general of the DFLP, Nayef Hawatmeh was more reserved at first, remarking that Hamas’s conduct in its early years was at odds with the Unified National Leadership of the Intifada. This was because Hawatmeh believed Hamas should have joined the Unified National Leadership. As is well known, Arafat and the PLO’s leadership had taken over the Unified National Leadership of the Uprising (also known as UNLU), which they announced on 8 January 1988. UNLU had, under Arafat, thus sought to assert Fatah and the PLO as the leading faction in the Intifada, poised contra Hamas. When the Intifada broke out on 9 December 1987, Hamas initially began to organize its activities and public demonstrations independently.[38] The PFLP and DFLP, on the other hand, joined Fatah in the formation of the UNLU. When the 19th Palestinian National Council held its session in November 1988, the leftist factions, along with Fatah, collectively agreed on the decision to declare Palestinian independence, which Hamas regarded as an implicit recognition of the Partition Plan for Palestine, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947.
However, the PFLP refused to approve UN Security Council Resolution 242, which deals with the Palestinian people as refugees. Although these leftist factions followed the peace process that Fatah’s leadership spearheaded in Madrid in 1991, they eventually took a clear oppositional stance to the signing of the Oslo Accords on 13 September 1993. Most of the Palestinian leftist groups banded together in the “Alliance of Ten Factions”, which also included Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad. This provided the basis for a joint action alliance that included protests during the Intifada and a wide political opposition to the Oslo Accords. Hamas, PIJ and the leftist groups’ alliance had its origins in a meeting held on the sidelines of the Conference in Support of the Intifada in Tehran in October 1991, shortly before the Madrid Peace Conference. Then the alliance was formalized on 1 January 1994, when it announced itself a part of the “Alliance of Ten Factions”. Fatah, sidelined from and disgruntled by this alliance between the leftist factions, Hamas, and PIJ, regarding Hamas as the driving force, treated Hamas with chronic reluctance at first and enmity later; throughout the Intifada of Stones, it began accusing Hamas of being an inorganic agent, created by the zionist entity or a cut-out of Iran that was seeking to render an alternative to the PLO.
Arafat was not alone in making these claims. While acknowledging a certain amount of inevitable coordination with Hamas, Salah Khalaf (Abu Iyad), the third most important PLO leader during the intifada, argued Hamas was attempting to carve itself out as an alternative to the Unified National Leadership (UNLU). Hoping to delegitimize Hamas, Abu Iyad fallaciously averred that the zionist entity was placing its hopes on this alternative to UNLU, therein invigorating what would become a regular Fatah trope, repeated frequently. Fatah’s position became ossified, with leaders repeating that Hamas had received support in its founding from the entity. In his attempts to delegitimize Hamas and the leftist-political Islam alliance it had effectively rendered, Abu Iyad furthered the fallacious narrative popularized by other Fatah members, including Arafat, “that Israel tried to use Hamas to undermine the Palestinian national movement”; it should be highlighted that these statements were produced as early as March 1990 and only multiplied in the following months.[39]
That Hamas proved principled in its refusal to bow to the so-called “peace process” only furthered the obdurate Fatah line. In April 1990, the PLO had invited Hamas to participate in the concurrent meetings of the preparatory committee working on reconstituting the Palestinian National Council (PNC). This invitation was envisaged as a preliminary step to Hamas’s admission to the PNC and constituted the first official recognition by the PLO of Hamas as a nationalist Palestinian group that was due respect and had to be dealt with in that capacity. Hamas, however, declined this invitation. Three months Later, the PLO, in its weekly publication, “Filastin al-Thawra” (the PLO’s official organ) accused Hamas of deserting the unity of nationalist ranks and of trying to deviate from “the commandments, the organic structure and the laws of the Palestinian family”.[40]
This editorial expressed the official PLO position in its mainstay publication. In July 1990, the PLO released a statement that Hamas had “been established to satisfy an Israeli aim, or at least that it had been established with the consent of Israel in order to weaken the PLO”, a charge that “would evolve as Hamas’s relations with Islamic parties—notably Iran—developed”.[41] This development demonstrates that it was less the substance of the charge that mattered for those proposing it than the broader penumbra of doubt. As is well known, the Madrid Conference of October 1991 marked the beginning of Iranian support for Hamas. With Arafat’s backing of Saddam Hussein, Ayatollah Khomeini’s preferential relations with the PLO had rapidly deteriorated, with now Iran hewing closer to Hamas. On October 18, 1991, the second International Conference in Support of the Islamic Revolution of the People of Palestine (ICSIRPP) convened in Tehran; here, 400 delegates from 45 countries participated. Sheikh Khalil Qawqa, Al-Alami, and Musa Abu Marzouk represented Hamas.
According to Jeroen Gunning, “[w]hile Fatah lost the financial support of its Gulf state sponsors, Hamas’ financial support increased”.[42]
Where Arafat once accused Hamas of being a project directly or indirectly fostered by the zionist occupation, he now claimed foreign governments had inserted itself in Palestinian national politics by using Hamas as a conduit.[43] Curiously enough, in doing so, Arafat anticipated the alliance that Fatah and sectarian Salafi-Jihadi groups would form in the 2010s, when they would accuse Hamas of being an Iranian proxy. But these claims, like those that Hamas was an offspring of the zionist entity, were entirely fabricated.
The real reasoning that Fatah spun this narrative was due to Hamas’ robust and increasingly welcome opposition to the Madrid-Oslo “peace process”. From 22-24 October 1991, Hamas coordinated with leftist and nationalist organizations by declaring the formation of the Ten Resistance Organizations (TRO), just prior to the 30 October 1991 convening of the Madrid Conference. The birth of the TRO was announced by leaders of eleven organizations and the coalition included Hamas, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command (PFLP-GC), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), the Movement for Palestinian National Liberation—Fatah/Al-Intifada, the Movement for Palestinian National Liberation—Fateh/Revolutionary Council, Vanguards of the War of Popular Liberation, Al-Sa’iqa, the Popular Struggle Front, and the Revolutionary Palestinian Communist Party. The first joint communique, issued on 24 October 1991, called for a general strike on the day that the Madrid Conference was to convene.[44] Opposition to the Madrid Conference was the common denominator among these organizations and this was the subject of the first joint communique released via the TRO. The TRO did not form a joint organizational or command structure until the Alliance of Palestinian Forces met in January 1994. The involvement of Hamas and PIJ was evident in the emphasis, in some of the communiques, placed on the borders of historic Palestine (i.e., from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River), the rejection of any peace settlement, and references to the Islamic dimension of the problem. These hardline terms, championed by Hamas, remained deeply objectionable to Fatah, as it was seeking to pursue a peace process with the zionist entity. Another worry was that Hamas would inaugurate a successor- or competitor-organization to the PLO. Granted, the TRO’s loose structure allowed for only minimal coordination among the fasa’il, which often made it difficult for the TRO to respond to the momentum of regional and international support for the peace talks. However, this prompted the organizations, chief among them Hamas, to propose different proposals for creating a unified front or alliance, which only heightened Fatah’s anxieties. The narrative that Hamas was a zionist creation, hence proved fruitful for Fatah.
Fatah’s worries were not entirely unfounded. The first idea for the TRO was a Hamas proposal for a Higher Palestinian Coordination Committee, submitted in April 1992 (i.e., 6 months after the convening of the Madrid Conference and the first meeting of the TRO). The text’s introduction stated that the proposal was to establish a TRO coordination committee that would formulate a united political position in Palestine directed against the proposals for a peaceful settlement. Furthermore, after the Oslo Agreement, Hamas proposed the creation of an Alliance of Palestinian Forces as a new formula for organizing the TRO; the other organizations also submitted similar proposals. What distinguished Hamas’s proposal from the others was its unique perspective on the PLO as an institution. Hamas proposed “rebuilding the institutions of the Palestinian people, first and foremost the PLO, on a fair and democratic basis”.[45] In turn, Hamas quelled some other members’ fears that it wanted to create an alternative, proper, to the PLO, envisaging instead of taking over the PLO and reforming it from within. After initially proposing a quota system—wherein Hamas would be have percent of the delegates, while the other organizations would combined be represented by 40 percent and the independents would have the remaining 20 percent—the proposal was rejected by the leftist and nationalist fasa’il for organizational reasons; they feared this organizational structure would repeat their experience with Fatah, which used to dominate Palestinian organizations by using a quota system allocating a quota to each organization that was proportional to its membership. Hamas, responding to this fair critique, thus withdrew the proposal. It then proffered an amended proposal that abandoned the proportional quota system; in the new formula, each organization would have two delegates. This proposal was presented in 1993 and it was accepted. It became the basis for the Alliance of Palestinian Forces.
This only exacerbated the Fatah-Hamas enmity. Proposals for the political positions that the alliance should adopt in the post-Oslo period included the following: rejecting the agreement; boycotting the elections for the PA council (or participation in the council by appointment); boycotting all organizations that had been derived from the Oslo Agreement or were understood to be implementing the Oslo program; affirming the inalienable, historic rights of the Palestinian people to liberate its land, return to its homeland, and practice full national self-determination; and adhering to armed struggle as the principal means of liberation. The fasa’il approved the general text of the proposal unanimously and approved the final amendments. Thus, as of the founding session in Damascus on 5 January 1994, the Alliance of Palestinian Forces replaced the TRO. In its first declaration, on 6 June 1994, the Alliance of Palestinian Forces condemned the Oslo Agreement and the letter Arafat had sent to Rabin recognizing Israel; for the Alliance, this was an act of “national treason” to be abrogated. The Alliance declared it non-binding to all Palestinian people. The Alliance condemned the leadership of the PLO (though not the PLO itself), writing that “The current leadership of the PLO does not represent the Palestinian people, nor does it express its views or aspirations”.[46]
The victory of the joint electoral list supporting the rejectionist fasa’il in the Bir Zeit University elections was a success for the group. This victory, at a traditional PLO stronghold, was considered an important referendum on the peace process, demonstrating what the fasa’il could achieve by coordinating its activities. On 23 October 1991, Hamas published leaflets on the eve of the Madrid Conference entitled “A Historic Release: No to the Conference; No to Selling out Palestine and the Holy City of Jerusalem,” 23 October 1991. The release condemned the Madrid Conference. The focus point was on the PLO, which it denounced explicitly. Throughout this entire period, Fatah’s adherents continued spreading versions of the claim that Hamas enjoyed ties, financial or otherwise, to the zionist entity. Yet, the sole evidence that Fatah could advert to were the aforementioned permits issued to al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society) and al-Mujamma’ al-Islami (the Islamic Center). Ironically, Fatah itself had received such licenses from the zionist entity in 1981, when Fatah established its Shabiba clubs, gaming, athletics, and social mixing venues designed for young people throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Nevertheless, Fatah loyalists continue to appeal to this argument, reinvigorating it every few years.[47] This was also postulated by Jean-François Legrain, which hypothesized that the Israelis precipitated Hamas’ military victory against Fatah in order to weaken Mahmoud Abbas.[48]
At one point, Fatah’s narrative concerning Hamas became inculcated as the “received view” amongst scholars. As aforementioned, the anchor was Milton-Edwards’ scholarship. In Hroub’s exacting review, he brilliantly disabuses readers from adopting this line, writing that:
My major disagreement with Milton-Edwards’s account concerns her thesis of how and why the Palestinian Islamists evolved from the first half of the 1970s. She largely attributes their emergence to Israeli sanction and patronage, arguing that “There is no question as to the existence of Israeli-Mujama [Muslim Brothers] collusion. From the late 1970s onwards the real issue was its extent” (p. 129). Dealing with such a sensitive issue, Milton-Edwards adopts a nonscrutinizing methodology, relying almost entirely on sources hostile to the Islamists. Not one single view, quotation, or piece of information is drawn from Islamist sources, and readers thus are kept in the dark about the opinion of the Islamists concerning the most serious accusation leveled against them.
The main “areas” of the alleged Israeli-Islamists “collusion” were granting legal licensing for Islamist organizations and holding “top-level” meetings with them, orchestrated to harm the nationalist camp. The author refers to licenses for “Islamic institutions” such as the Mujama (1978) and the Islamic University of Gaza (1980) as clear proof of “collusion.” Yet, when she draws our attention to the “founding of a large number of ‘national institutions’ throughout the 1970s and 1980s including universities, hospitals, research centers, newspapers and magazines” (p. 131), she fails to tell us about the similar Israeli “legal licensing” under which those institutions functioned. Using the author’s argument, can one conclude that Israel had sanctioned the nationalist institutions such as the Red Cross Society in Gaza (1972) or al- Najah and Birzeit Universities in the West Bank by “legalizing” them as it did the Islamists’ institutions?
On the second area of “collusion,” Milton-Edwards contends that the “leaders of Hamas were regularly filmed at meetings with top-level Israeli officials … [and] Dr Mahmoud Zahar [Hamas’s spokesman in Gaza] was a tending meetings with Israel’s Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin” (p. 151). In reality, there was neither “regularity” nor “meetings” in the “conspiring” sense that the author presents. According to Zahar himself, the frequently mentioned meeting of 16 May 1989, held at the Israeli Defense Ministry, was between Rabin and fifteen leading leftist and nationalist figures from the Gaza Strip, including As’ad Saftawi, Rabah Mhana, Ytnis al-Jarou, Zakariyya al-Agha, and others and was not an exclusive meeting with Zahar. Other well-known meetings, one with Rabin in April 1989 and one with Shimon Peres in March 1988, were closer to interrogation sessions; the Israelis conducted meetings with leading Palestinians of all political affiliations to explore their views on main developments. If a “collusion” between Israel and the main force of political Islam in Palestine was so clear, publicly well-known, and strongly condemned, how does the author conclude that “The force of political Islam has sunk its roots deep into the fabric of Palestinian society” (p. 212)?[49]
In his subsequent book, Hroub, without mentioning Milton-Edwards outright, further decries this narrative. He introduces the issue by writing that:
Two basic issues need to be considered in analyzing the mutual perceptions of Hamas and Israel and the attendant political practice that has been pursued since the creation of Hamas. The first issue concerns the accepted ‘wisdom’ in the media, political circles, and even in academic circles about Israel’s stance toward the Islamist phenomenon—the Muslim Brotherhood before the intifada and later Hamas. There is a common belief that Israel encouraged the Islamists, its goal being to weaken the position and diminish the influence of its main enemy, the PLO.[50]
As Hroub notes, the interpretations that have “attributed the emergence and growth of the Palestinian Islamic tide to an Israel ‘plot’”, with the goal of this policy being to undermine the leadership of the PLO, are meted by other, more moderate positions that “Israeli policy merely ignored the phenomenon.”[51] As we have already seen, it was, in fact, Fatah’s information apparatus that adopted and propagated the former interpretation, purposing Arafat’s strident declarations, which proclaimed Hamas “to be merely a creation of Israel to weaken the PLO”.[52]
However, Hroub proffers a different interpretation, which I submit is, given the political historical record, far more convincing. As Hroub notes,
Israel’s policy toward the growing strength of Islamic movements throughout the 1970s and 1980s up to the first year of the intifada was characterized by confusion, bewilderment, and an inability to take decisive action. Consequently, Israel confined itself to reaction to and monitoring of developments.[53]
Hroub’s assessment derives from the five factors that are discussed below.
1) Israel’s position toward Islamic institutions or toward the social and educational aspects of the Islamic awakening was no different from its established position toward other nonmilitary phenomena that accompanied the Palestinian national movement and factions of the PLO. Hence, the level of tolerance for or suppression of the work of those institutions was the same regardless of their ideological or political bent. Scores of nationalist institutions, such as academic associations, clubs, daily newspapers, weekly magazines, schools, universities, and other organizations, demonstrate this policy.
As Hroub writes,
All these institutions operated by virtue of permits issued by the Israeli occupying authority; some of the institutions belonged directly or indirectly to the PLO or other Palestinian political factions. It is not fair, therefore, to mention only the permits granted to Islamic institutions in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. The chief concern of the occupation authorities during the 1970s and 1980s was military activity. Thus, they concentrated their efforts on the pursuit of such activity and were relatively tolerant toward informational and propagandistic activities, whether carried out by nationalist or Islamist forces.[54]
This belies the argument proffered by (often liberal zionist) academics and commentators like Amos Yadlin, Yuval Diskin, Avner Cohen who point to how, in 1967, the al-Jam’iyah al-Islamiyah (the Islamic Society) received permits for the educational activities run in al-Shati (beach) Mosque and in 1976, Al-Jam`iyyah al-Islam’iyyah (Islamic Association) received (however temporarily) permits from the occupying zionist government to operate social, medical, and educational programming.
2) Second, it was not ideal “for Israel, especially after the late 1970s, to resort to a harsh repressive policy toward the manifestations of Islamic awakening in the Occupied Territories.”[55] Hroub points to many reasons for this, noting that the most important was “the fear that such a policy might render an indirect service to the Islamic current by giving credence to its claim that the Jews and Israel are fighting Islam.”[56] If this assertion acquired credibility, the national struggle would be recast as an ideological one—a war between religions. This in turn might lead to the incitement of religious feelings abroad and thus to the strengthening of the Islamic current. Furthermore, the zionist leadership feared that
the adoption of an obviously repressive policy toward nonmilitary religious institutions in a region where the Islamic tide was rising would intensify the feeling of enmity for Israel in the region. Internationally, such a policy, interpreted as an abridgment of religious freedom, would harm the reputation of Israel.[57]
Such considerations apparently continued to influence the formulation of Israeli policy through the first two years of the First Intifada. Resistance activities during that time, whether directed by Hamas or by the UNLU, were confined to mass demonstrations and the use of firearms was avoided. The situation only changed during 1994-96, when regional circumstances favored the adoption of the repressive policy dubbed “fighting Islamic terrorism.”
3) Third, the zionist entity’s intelligence apparatus was—and, it should be noted, to this day continues to be—enormously welcoming of the narrative that it is responsible for “indirectly helping Hamas.”[58] The reasoning is that, by taking responsibility for indirectly helping Hamas,
by looking the other way when it came into being”, the zionist political structure is able to boast superior control and strength, part and parcel of the “Israeli political mind-set, which is characterized by a ‘superiority complex.’ This mind-set invented the myth of the ‘invincible Israeli army,’ wove legends around the ‘supernatural’ capabilities of its security services (including Mossad and Shin Bet), and painted a fabulous picture of its ability to influence events both regionally and on the Palestinian plane. In effect, it perceived Israeli control of most (if not all) strings as virtually absolute.[59]
Were Shabak to acknowledge that a Palestinian nationalist-Islamic movement like Hamas could form indigenously burgeon in the Occupied Territories outside of its control, this would be a significant blow to its pride. This is also, incidentally, related to why the zionist entity has been welcoming of narratives that Tufan al-Aqsa did not consist in an intelligence failure but was an operation that the entity was well aware of beforehand and permitted, so as to enjoy a justification to annex the Gaza Strip.
Indeed,
It was more consistent with this mind-set to concede that Israeli policy in one form or another was behind the emergence of Hamas. This claim would serve— even as it admits an error in tactics—Israel’s strategy of firmly establishing that its Arab and Palestinian foes are not capable of carrying out any undertaking that may influence events outside Israel’s masterful control. In brief, the optimum position for the Israeli mind-set is to admit an error and to feign regret over a policy that led to a present situation wherein Hamas has become immune to a complete and final liquidation.[60]
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, many allusions were made by zionist officials to this point. There were several academic publications containing this narrative that had a lasting effect as, by repeating the same line, they rendered Milton-Edwards’ framework to be the “received view” in academic circles.[61]
4) Fourth, the Islamic-nationalist liberation phenomenon that burgeoned within the Occupied territories did not grow in isolation but within a broader context of historical social change sweeping the Arab and Islamic region. This period, extending between the second half of the 1970s and mid-1990s, witnessed dramatic growth of an Islamic awakening and several currents of Political Islam. The Islamic current in the Occupied Territories was influenced and nurtured by the growth of an Islamic movement in Jordan to the east, Hizbu’llah in Lebanon to the north, the advancement of the Islamic movement in Egypt, “where moderate groups exerted influence through democratic processes in parliament and the unions while armed groups engaged in a bloody confrontation with the security forces.”[62]
In turn,
the victory of the Islamic revolution in Iran, the evolution of the Islamic movement in Sudan, and the increasing growth of political Islam in Algeria all had important influences on Palestinian Islam in the Occupied Territories. Thus, Palestinian Islam was part of a broader phenomenon, not an isolated occurrence. The fact that it existed under military occupation worked only to deepen and broaden its appeal and to clarify its goals.[63]
It is unfortunate that those analysts who argue that Hamas was an outgrowth of or indirectly supported by the zionist entity ignore this broader historical-social current.
5) Fifth, the zionist entity, at most, can said to have tried to manipulate narratives concerning competition between political forces in the Occupied Territories, whether they be Hamas or the PLO; as Hroub writes, “[t]here is nothing creative or unique in this practice of trying to benefit from the internal contradictions of an opponent. Indeed, this is a conventional practice used by one party of a struggle against its various opponents.”[64]
One must also consider the arguments produced bolstering the fallacious narrative of zionist-Hamas collaboration, insofar as they concern the supposed openness towards dialogue between the zionist entity and Hamas representatives. Recall that this was what Milton-Edwards herself appealed to. After the end of 1990, Hamas leaders began to appear on the political stage outside the Occupied Territories (unlike the previous three years, when Hamas had no declared political leadership abroad). Previously, Hamas leaders, without being identified as such, had been summoned to meet zionist entity officials—not as representative of Hamas but in their capacity as influential public Islamic figures. During this initial period of zionist “reconnaissance” and attempts at “political softening” (or what some, retrofitting Tareq Baconi’s appellation, might call “political containment”), a number of Hamas leaders, including Sheikh Yassin, Abdel al-Rantisi, and Mahmoud al-Zahhar, were summoned and engaged in discussions. For example,
[the head of the] Israeli civil administration in Gaza summoned al-Zahar and discussed with him the feasibility of forming a Palestinian delegation to negotiate with Israel (before the Madrid Conference), suggesting that Hamas be represented in the delegation provided that it recognizes the right of Israel to exist. When al-Zahhar refused, the Israeli threatened him with arrest.[65]
The zionist entity changed its position as the First Intifada progressed and the use of fire arms and Molotov cocktails was integrated to the mass demonstrations, prohibiting summoning any Islamic personalities from Hamas or close to it for the purpose of discussions or establishing liaison.[66] After Hamas declared the presence of political leadership abroad, Hamas’ position was to reject meeting any official “Israeli parties”, corresponding to PLO policy in this regard.[67] Hamas’ position was that of “categorical rejection of conducting any dialogue with the Zionist entity.[68]
After Hamas’ military operations in 1993 and 1994, the zionist entity’s political leadership attempted, especially following the Oslo Agreement, to try to convince Hamas to renounce violence “in exchange for a guaranteed political role in the peace settlement”, with “[s]everal Israeli officials, including then Prime Minister Rabin,” declaring “Israel’s readiness for dialogue and negotiations with Hamas to achieve this objective.[69]
Prior to the Oslo process, Shimon Peres, then foreign minister, even declared that his government was “ready to negotiate with extremists from Hamas if they were freely elected in the Occupied Territories”[70]. As Muhammad Nazzal, Hamas representative in Jordan, reported to Al-Hayat, on 22 December 1993, the zionist government offered early release to many jailed Hamas leaders in order for them to travel abroad and discuss the zionist demands for halting military operations. Some military commanders within the zionist entity discussed this issue with numerous Hamas supporters within the Gaza Strip.
Among these discussions is one conducted in April 1994 by General Doron Almough, commander of Israeli troops in Gaza, with Sheikh Ahmad Bahar, the head of the Islamic Association in al-Shati refugee camp. Sheikh Bahar relates that he was summoned to the office of the Military Governor as would any citizen under occupation. Among the topics was a longish and theoretical dissection of the nature of Islamic government. With respect to the proposal for self-government, Bahar expressed his opposition because it consolidates the occupation and does not fulfill people’s demands.[71]
In the first few months following 1994, attempts by the zionist entity to engage Hamas intensified. Hamas official Muhammad Nazzal, in an interview with Khaled Hroub from 23 April 1995, remarked that:
The most important of these attempts included a meeting between the deputy chief of staff of the enemy army, Amnon Shahak, with the brother, ‘Imad al-Faluji, who was detained in Gaza’s central prison in February 1994; a discussion between two members of the occupation central command and the brother, Dr. Mahmoud al-Rumhi, who was held in Hebron’s central prison to await trial for being the political director of Hamas in the Ramallah area; a contact made by an Israeli living in Europe with Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahhar; and a further communication by the same Israeli with a person close to Hamas in one of the European countries whereby Israel offered to negotiate with Hamas through a third party (an Arab country) in such a way that this country would communicate the demands of the movement to the Zionist entity and vice versa. Rabin’s declaration in February 1994 represented a readiness for dialogue as a culmination to this series of attempts. [The zionist entity espouses four goals;] The first is to exert pressure on Arafat by putting him on notice that there is a strong competitor with whom Israel can negotiate. The aim would be to push him into making more concessions. The second is to probe Hamas’ position on participation in the self-government authority and on stopping the armed struggle. The third goal is to soften the [Hamas] movement’s political and military line. The fourth is to ensure the success of self-government by giving Hamas an effective role in its leadership.[72]
However, Hamas continued to rebuff the zionist entity’s attempts to facilitate open communication channels. Hamas undertook this venture by publicly announcing the zionist entity’s attempts to render lines of communication as they transpired, effectively undercutting their would-be clandestine status; in addition, Hamas firmly rejected Rabin’s offers to negotiate. According to Hamas, “the language between us and the occupying enemy forever shall remain a language of resistance and struggle and not one of negotiations, concessions, or capitulations”.[73]
The only exception to Hamas’ basic position against negotiation was concerning humanitarian cases and the exposure of civilians to military operations. On several occasions Hamas announced its “readiness to negotiate in humanitarian matters through a third party such as the Red Cross as happened in November 1994 in the case of the captured Zionist soldier, Waxman, who was exchanged for Palestinian detainees”.[74] This Hamas leaflet from 7 Nov. 1994 included the following:
[…] an initiative in April 1994 to remove civilians from the arena of struggle between Palestinian mujahideen and Zionist occupation forces and to spare them the brunt of military operations. This may be done by having [Prime Minister] Rabin issue clear instructions to the occupation army, [Israeli] settlers, and Arab collaborators to stop attacking or targeting Palestinian civilians for killing, arrest, and house demolition. In exchange, Hamas’s Qassam Brigades will confine their activities only to military targets and to armed Zionist elements.[75]
At a later stage, specifically after the series of Hamas operations in February and March 1996 and the subsequent violent campaign against it through arrests, the destruction of homes, and the closure of institutions, the zionist government tried once again to open communication channels with Hamas, using contacts close to both sides in Europe. At that time, Hamas tried to mitigate the reactions against it. This included the Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt Conference “against terrorism”, titled “Summit of the Peacemakers” that convened on 13 March 1996.[76]
The Hamas movement asserted its “readiness to deal with any positive (efforts) that aim to discuss the political dimension of the problem and its ramifications on the interest and future of all sides, with a view to achieving peace, security, freedom, independence, and sovereignty for our people”.[77] Following Tufan al-Aqsa, it would appear that, in retrospect, these efforts could very well, as Hroub conveys, could have been attempts at reassuring “Hamas merely to gain more time to uproot its infrastructure” while, in response, Hamas’ signaling readiness to negotiate an armistice was motivated by its intention “to mute the attack against it and to neutralize as many of its foes as possible”, with the Hamas movement signaling its readiness to deal with any effort, regional or international, aimed at reaching “a ceasefire in accordance with just conditions”.[78]
Having now concluded my analysis of the more entrenched version of this narrative concerning putative zionist-Hamas collaboration, we can, in the final section, turn to the more recent claim about “Qatari cash payments”.
SECTION 4
The Great March of Return 2018-2019 Negotiations and “Qatari Cash Payments”
Over the last year, it has speculatively argued Hamas’ subsistence, particularly in the years preceding Tufan al-Aqsa, have either lacked autonomy and been paternalistically supervised by Israel’s security state at best, or been goaded/motivated by the Israeli security state’s instrumentalism at worst. The crudest rendering of this narrative proffers that Hamas has, in fact, been a “controlled opposition” invention of the Israeli state. In light of operation Al-Aqsa Flood, ongoing at the time of this paper’s writing, this narrative has proliferated. This narrative galvanized by Mark Mazzetti and Ronen Bergman of The New York times in their 10 December, 2023 article “‘Buying Quiet’: Inside the Israeli Plan That Propped Up Hamas”[79], which tendentiously expounds a piecemeal rendering of the November 2018 agreement, during which Egyptian mediation, bolstered by the United Nations and Qatar, produced a series of agreements between Israel and Hamas aimed at defusing the tension that transpired with the Gazan Great March of Return. Although one of the agreements was that Hamas politicians like Ahmad Bahar, Mouchir al-Masri, and Mahmoud al-Zahar would be permitted to travel with suitcases containing large amounts of money across the Kerem Shalom border crossing with him to Gaza, this agreement was not easily reached nor was the zionist entity a witting partner. Yet, even venerable historians like Rashed Khalidi[80] have repeated Mazzetti and Bergman’s tendentious retelling of the “Qatari suitcases of cash” issue, fomenting the manufacturing of a “controlled opposition” narrative where Hamas and Israel are clandestine bedfellows.
This narrative eschews the adversarial political context of the Great March of Return negotiations, spearheaded by Yahya al-Sinwar, which began in the summer of 2018 and continued until 1 April 2019, when a new deal was reached under the aegis of Egypt, which restated the principles of the previous one. Each of these concessions, which permitted the issuance of funds from Qatar banks for governmental-institutional purposes within Gaza involved arduous negotiations.
It should first be clarified that Hamas political bureau members transporting suitcases of cash was by no means a novel practice. It was out of necessity, due to the proscribed nature intra- and inter-bank wire transfers for Hamas. In the Fall of 2006, Hamas ministers transported suitcases full of zakat-issued cash from Egypt to Gaza, openly noting to the European Union Border Assistance Mission that was then located at the Rafah crossing that these funds would be used for governmental purposes. These often included millions of dollars to pay civil/public servants including police officers, physicians, and teachers who would not receive their salary for extended periods, ranging from weeks to months.
In the wake of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, however, the “controlled-opposition-cum-collaboration” narrative began homing in on the more recent transport of cash. This was coupled with Yair Lapid’s recent inflammatory interview with the Times of Israel, lambasting Netanyahu for “permitting” such practices; it was is here that the Yesh Atid politician—that is, the opposition politician to Netanyahu, attempting to paint the latter as politically tolerant of Hamas and thus incompetent—vaguely gestured at Netanyahu’s supposedly having wittingly sidelined intelligence foreknowledge, with Lapid commenting:
I’m telling you, it was out there — all the signs, all the red flags, all the warnings — and he [Netanyahu] ignored them all. This is why it wouldn’t have happened on our shift — and this is why he shouldn’t have been prime minister since October 8.[81]
The verbiage should clarify that this narrative was inflected by inter-zionist party political claims that overshadowed how the permission of cash transport was won through a years-long negotiation process that accompanied the Great March of Return. Related to Lapid’s interview, earlier and subsequent reports in the Western media concluded that the Netanyahu government willfully ignored results of the Israeli state’s own intelligence gathering efforts, which, prior to 7 October 2023, they argued, had espied the preemptive organization of Al-Aqsa Flood.[82] Perhaps most widely read was Ronen Bergman and Adam Goldman’s 2 December 2023 New York Times article, “Israel Knew Hamas’s Attack Plan More Than a Year Ago”, where the journalists argued that “Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened,” adverting to encrypted “documents, emails and interviews” and the so-called “Jericho Wall” 40-page document that apparently included intelligence-gathering efforts concerning the Al-Qassam Brigades’ battlefield training regimen.[83] Although the two journalists do not argue that the Netanyahu government’s overlooking these intelligence-gathering efforts amounted to collaboration, it bolstered the aforementioned narrative, which cumulatively state that the permission of the Qatari cash deliveries to Gaza amounted to the Netanyahu government’s, and, by extension, the zionist entity’s, intentionally dividing the Palestinian fronts. Of course, this presumes that the West Bank Palestinian Authority, were it to govern the Gaza Strip, would further empower the Palestinian people by means of unity, at odds with the West Bank PA’s history of ignoring the settler movement in Area C; squelching of resistance factions in Jenin, Tulkarem, Nablus, and elsewhere; imprisoning political opponents and even murdering outspoken critics like Nizar Banar; and its collaboration with the entity.
The narrative also simply ignores the record of the Great March of Return negotiations. The Qatari cash deliveries were hard won agreements where the Hamas movement agreed, in negotiations with the Netanyahu government, that it would not further escalate the Great March protests that it had ardently supported. Indeed,
The triggering of the March of Return in March 2018 heralded new terms in the provision of Qatari aid to Hamas. This aid was now indexed to war and peace dynamics: the nuisance capacity of rockets and incendiary balloons allowed Hamas to ensure that Israel would authorize, in return for calm, the monthly sending of tens of millions of dollars to Gaza.[84]
As Seurat helpfully recounts, providing the backdrop for these negotiations,
The level of confrontation at the [zionist entity and Gaza] border has greatly diminished since the summer of 2018 and negotiations continue between Israel and Hamas: since November, the two parties have made an agreement projecting the delivery by Qatar of petrol and cash, the setting up of an electrical plant, Gaza’s reconstruction and a decision to launch talks to find an agreement in the long run.”[85]
These November 2018 agreements were significant wins for Hamas that echoed an original set of concessions that the Netanyahu government had only partially made good on during a set of negotiations concurrent to earlier stages of the Great March of Return. The earlier concessions, which the Netanyahu government backtracked on, had been produced in the Spring-Summer of 2018. This is why, in the subsequent concessions,
The principles of the November 2018 agreement were reiterated: opening of the Kerem Shalom crossing, closed since 25 March; delivery by Qatar of $40 million to officially finance the health sector and mitigate unemployment by putting in place a programme of cash payments for work in UN organizations; supplying of the Gaza electric plant; the creation of two industrial zones in the enclave’s east and north; the lifting of the restrictions affecting fishermen. In exchange for all of this, Palestinians consented to forbid the launching of incendiary balloons and creating a 300-metres-wide buffer zone in front of the security fence separating Israel from the Gaza Strip.[86]
It should be noted that, when the Netanyahu government backtracked, al-Qassam began using deploying rockets to Mishmeret in order to persuade the zionist entity to make good on its previously agreed upon terms. Tareq Baconi adumbrated the November 2018 agreement and the context framing it in an International Crisis Group article, writing that
Hamas and Israel have been engaged in indirect ceasefire negotiations under Egyptian and UN mediation since July of last year [viz., 2018]. The talks produced a November [2018] ceasefire agreement: Hamas committed to end rocket fire into Israel and promised to restrain the intensity of the Great March of Return, the protests in the Gaza-Israel fence area that began on 30 March 2018. Israel in turn said it would extend the nautical limit for Gaza fishermen and agree to allow Qatar to pay Gaza government salaries and supply fuel to Gaza’s power plant. The parties agreed that after the immediate risk of escalation was averted, they would take measures toward a sustainable resolution of Gaza’s economic challenges. Yet while Hamas has demonstrated its capacity to restrain the protests, Israel has shown little willingness to advance the ceasefire beyond the initial agreement to allow Qatari assistance. Since November [2018], the talks have stalled without progress toward fulfilling Hamas’s central demand – that Israel loosen the economic stranglehold on the strip. There is a widespread belief that a military assault on the strip is inevitable after the Israeli elections.
Hamas has long used rocket fire as a means of pressuring the Israeli government to return to negotiations and to grant concessions in Gaza. After the two rockets were fired at Tel Aviv ten days ago, the ceasefire discussions resumed. But, if rocket fire has been somewhat effective in bringing Israel to the table, it has largely failed to alleviate the blockade. From 14 March [2019], the Great March of Return Higher Committee, which includes Hamas, expanded its “night disturbances” – whereby demonstrators blast loud noises and explode devices close to Gaza’s periphery in order to disturb Israeli civilians and generate pressure on the Israeli authorities. The latest rocket was likely an attempt by Hamas to force Netanyahu to choose between fulfilling Israel’s ceasefire obligations or suffering greater embarrassment among his political rivals and constituents. Hamas believes its hand is strong at present because the Israeli government wants to avoid an escalation ahead of the elections. In this sensitive period, Hamas assumes it has the best chance of pushing Israel to compromise without getting dragged into a full-scale war.
[….]
[Following] the implementation of the November [2018] ceasefire arrangement […] [,] [b]oth sides recommitted to that agreement after the two rockets landed in Tel Aviv on 14 March [2019]. This agreement had initiated six months of Qatari funding and fuel transfer into the Gaza Strip as urgent relief. The six-month period was originally planned to end in April [2019] and was to be followed by secondary and tertiary phases once the risk of war had passed. The latter phases were to include measures to restore Gaza’s electricity, increase the number of Palestinians allowed in and out of the strip, expand the entry of merchandise, extend the range off the coast in which Gazans can fish, and generally ease the blockade.[87]
Hamas had not won either of these concessions easily and its use of rockets should signify that the Netanyahu government by no means “gave” or “supplied” or “funded” Hamas. These were hard won compromises; just as no rationally minded commentator would deem the freeing of Palestinian prisoners and hostages during the initial stages of the Tufan al-Aqsa negotiations as the zionist entity “freely granting” Hamas’ terms, so too should they recognize the proper context of the Great March of Return negotiations. It is also important to underscore that the Netanyahu government backtracked after the November 2018 agreements, which saw the Great March of Return protests continue; this again demonstrates that the negotiation outcomes were not freely allotted. The tenuous nature of the negotiations resulted in the April 2019 concessions. Indeed, it was, as Seurat outlines
Egyptian mediation, backed by the United Nations and Qatar, that allowed, in November 2018, the conclusion of a first agreement between Israel and Hamas aimed at defusing tension; the Palestinian movement committed to stop the launching of incendiary balloons, obtaining in exchange a loosening of the blockade, permitting the delivery of oil and money by Qatar. Once more on 1 April 2019, a new deal was reached under the aegis of Egypt, which restated the principles of the previous one: in exchange for no more incendiary balloons, Hamas, in theory, got the reopening of the Kerem Shalom border crossing; the delivery by Qatar of $40 million to finance the health sector and fight unemployment; the supplying of fuel for Gaza’s electric plant; the lifting of restrictions on fishermen and also, at a later stage conditioned by a truce of longer duration, the possibility of creating two industrial areas to the east and north of the enclave.[88]
It should be noted that none of these funds were allocated to Hamas or any of the other resistance factions’ military operations. As was the case in the days of the Palestinian Ikhwan’s institutions and the clandestine 1980 resistance faction, all funding was intentionally kept disparate. Al-Qassam’s funds remained entirely independent, such that the claim that Netanyahu licensed the Tufan al-Aqsa operation by allowing for “Qatari cash payments” remains unsubstantiated. Indeed, the $40 million that Qatar transferred was used to set “up a program of payments in cash by Qatar, via work done by the poorest Palestinians hired by UN bodies.”[89] Again, Seurat’s research provides for the most exacting and detailed overview of how the Great March of Return negotiations transpired; consequently, I reproduce the most important sections from her book in full:
Although the March of Return was part of the dynamics of popular protest organized via the mediation of various political factions, it very quickly became an instrument of pressure used by Hamas to oblige Israel to negotiate. Considered as tools complementary to rockets, incendiary kites and balloons were now associated with a global strategy of armed struggle, mobilized as a function of the progress in negotiations held simultaneously in Cairo: when the talks were going smoothly, Hamas would keep the peace, but when they stalled, it would use these tools to force Israel to return to the negotiating table. Launched in July 2018, these talks led to a first agreement reached in November under the aegis of the United Nations, Egypt and Qatar. Since then, the goal of Hamas has been to force Israel to implement the terms of this deal. Hamas has various instruments to coerce Israel into implementing the agreement. It can, for instance, refuse to accept Qatari payments when Israel tries to impose new conditions on the movement: this is what happened when, following the reception of the first two payments of $15 million in November and December[.] [Over the $15 million granted to Hamas, $10 million were used to pay the salaries of public servants, and $5 million were meant for humanitarian aid.] Hamas rejected the third one, accusing Israel of demanding new restrictions, which included the transiting of Qatari money through the Palestinian Authority’s official banks, and even the halting of the March of Return.[90]
Seurat also details the nature of the “Qatari cash payments”, which were by no means free-flowing but part of agreed upon and negotiated standards:
On 30 March 2019, during the first anniversary of the March of Return, Hamas, in the midst of negotiations in Cairo, deployed its men in orange suits to secure the security fence separating Gaza from Israel and prevent Gazan youth from walking into a confrontation. It thus obtained an increase in Qatari aid, which rose from US$15 to US$40 million, without interrupting the March: the mobilization could remain in the form of a march per week, which would never go beyond the security perimeter extending 300 metres from the security barrier. It was the same logic of appeasement that prevailed during the violent clashes opposing Israel to Islamic Jihad in November 2019: staying away from confrontation, Hamas obtained the opening of the Kerem Shalom crossing, the supply of fuel by trucks and an extension of the maritime territory granted to fishermen.
Consequently, the provision of various compensations to Hamas, all of which were won through Hamas’ firm negotiations, included: Qatar-issued aid intended for public servants and Gaza’s impoverished population, with this being an attempt to combat the high unemployment rate in Gaza; a gas-pipeline construction project to provide Gaza with electricity; and a water-treatment plant. These were, again, the byproduct of Hamas’ negotiations to reach solutions that would make the Gaza Strip viable for its then approximately 2.1 million denizens. Hamas, as the sole guarantor of stability in the territory, had, via negotiations under the aegis of Egypt, Qatar, and the United Nations, thus acquired the status of an unavoidable interlocutor.[91]
With this, I conclude this study. I hope it will serve as an effective educational/teaching aid for those who wish to gain more context into the history of an array of oft-deployed claims that collectively aver that the zionist created, supported, or armed Hamas. I hope that the readers of this article will now be intellectually equipped to aptly contest such claims.
[1] Although it might strike readers as inappropriate for an academic or academia-oriented text, departing as it does from the latter’s norms, I use appellation the “zionist entity” for political purposes, galvanized by the belief that this stripe of exegetical history inherently has a political orientation. (The liberty of a non-academic platform like substack is that it permits such an instrumentalization of writing that balances academic objectivity with a recognizable political orientation). Nevertheless, this ought not to suggest that I approach the issue that this article is concerned with from a partisan orientation; I have reached this conclusion after years of objective analysis, following the reception history of the claim. Furthermore, this stylistic choice is informed by the belief that, indeed, there is no neutral appellation, and were one to use the appellation “Israel”, it would amount to a similarly political act, no different in kind than using “zionist entity”. The distinction is that the former appellation is marked by recognition of this entity as a legitimate nation-state. Deploying the “zionist entity” abrogates any such legitimacy (and is in keeping with an antecedent political-historical precedent that enjoys revolutionary Iran, pre-“peace process” Fatah, Hamas, Ansar Allah, and myriad other nation-state and non-state political actors in its midst). Furthermore, in place of the uppercase “Zionist”, I, throughout, use the lowercase “z” to indicate that this is a descriptive ideology, akin to “colonialism”, “irredentism”; to use the uppercase “Z” betrays the belief that this is a proper noun with a territory-claim anchored in “Zion” and, like the appellation “Israel”, grants legitimacy.
The question of why the zionist entity does not enjoy a legitimacy claim to property is beyond the scope of this article and shall be treated in a later article. Suffice to say, however, that my argument draws on those produced by Christopher Wellman in Christopher Wellman and Phillip Cole, Debating the Ethics of Immigration (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) and is motivated by a broadly Hegelian orientation. That is, following Wellman, property rights claims are not static and do not morally arrive by way of sheer indigeneity-genealogy appeals but, rather, are historically open by dint of the processual-dialectical and -historical nature of a bounded population’s relationship with its geography, neighbors, culture, and customs. Intuition pumps like the following ought to illustrate the weakness of sheer indigeneity-genealogy appeal; take person A, who lives in Italy but whose grandparents come from a village in Greece; the grandparents had been subject to a human travesty that resulted in their being illegally uprooted (e.g., looting by a distinct bounded populace, say Caucasians) and, due to poor socio-economic conditions, made the decision to emigrate; person A, upon returning to his grandparents’ village would not, it strikes us, have an inherent moral legitimacy claim to require the expulsion of the current homeowner in all cases. Although the agents/party that initially expelled person A’s grandparents, vis-à-vis illegal means deserving of moral disapprobation, did not obtain a legitimate moral/political claim to the property at that moment, it can be argued that the subsequent generation(s) could come to legitimately enjoy such claims by integrating with the local culture and being accepted by the historically-cum-contemporaneously dominant bounded populace (which included neighboring populations). To appeal to mere indigeneity-genealogy claims would be to reduce property rights to a question of DNA testing, eliding the role that geography, culture, and local populations play. But rendering integration key illuminates why the zionist settler project is an anathema.
The most critical marker of the legitimacy claim is whether integration is exacted by way of not only an initial act of violence/ethnic cleansing/genocide but whether it requires the continuation of these processes. In the case of the zionist entity, the illegitimacy of the ancestors of the Yishuv movement who now occupy historic Palestine exacted and continue to exact routine violence. The Yishuv-zionist tradition has neither ceded nor assimilated with the dominant-processual culture, thereby instancing its putative claim to property-claims via usurpation.
Wellman’s (2011, ch. 1) grants high value to freedom of association, which, he admits, contains a tension: if we insist on cashing this out via a strong collective right then this will inevitably conflict with the associative rights of individuals to do things like marry outsiders or hire them for work. He resolves this tension in favor of the collective by asserting that the group has the right to protection from individuals who would unilaterally impose a change in their membership by their private action. Such is also the case in the Palestinian example. Vide Wellman, a right to association “trumps” exogenous indigeneity-genealogy claims (which, in any case, there is good evidence for believing do not apply to the case of Ashkenazi Jewish settlers). This also helps explain why Arabic Mizrahi Jewish settlers have, by being complicit in and directing violence against the Palestinian population—exacerbated by the Mizrahi plurality’s Likud-turn during the “ballot box” revolution that saw Begin’s Prime Minister election in 1977—abrogated any possible claims to free association with the Palestinian geography.
[2] See Rashid Khalid in his interview with Robinson Erhardt, “Rashid Khalidi: October 7th Revisited | Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Hamas, & The Nakba”,
. Accessed online 1 September, 2025.
[3] Dina Sayedahmed, “Blowback: How Israel Went From Helping Create Hamas to Bombing It”, The Intercept, 19 February 2018. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/19/hamas-israel-palestine-conflict/ ; accessed online 1 September 2025
[4] “EU’s top diplomat accuses Israel of funding Hamas”, Politico, 1 May 2024. https://www.politico.eu/article/israel-funded-hamas-claims-eu-top-diplomat-josep-borrell/ . Accessed online 30 April 2024.
[5] See Khaled Hroub, “Muslim Revivalism”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 29, No. 4, Autumn 2000, pp. 106-108, esp. 107.
[6] See Khaled Hroub, “”Hamas and Israel: Perception and Language of Interaction”, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice (Beirut: Institute of Palestine Studies, 2000), pp. 200-203.
[7] See Times of Israel Staff, “Liberman: Netanyahu sent Mossad head, general to Qatar, ‘begged’ it to pay Hamas”, The Times of Israel, 22 February 2020. https://www.timesofisrael.com/mossad-chief-top-general-visited-qatar-begged-it-to-pay-hamas-liberman-says/ .(Accessed online: 1 September, 2025), where Liberman is quoted as saying that “[o]n Wednesday two weeks ago the head of Mossad… and the head of [IDF] Southern Command visit Qatar on an errand from Netanyahu, and they simply beg the Qataris to keep sending money to Hamas after March 30. The Qataris have said they will stop sending money on March 30”; also see Tal Schneider, “For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces”, Times of Israel, 8 October 2023. https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/ ; accessed online 1 September 2025. Also see The Nation “Why Netanyahu Bolstered Hamas”, 11 December 2023. https://www.thenation.com/article/world/why-netanyahu-bolstered-hamas/ ; accessed online 1 September 2025.
[8] “Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel system of domination and crime against humanity”, Amnesty International, 1 February 2022; Index Number: MDE 15/5141/2022, pp. 1- 280, p. 80; on p. 80 n.268, Amnesty International cites 268 The Jerusalem Post, “Netanyahu: Money to Hamas part of strategy to keep Palestinians divided”, 12 March 2019, jpost.com/Arab-IsraeliConflict/Netanyahu-Money-to-Hamas-part-of-strategy-to-keep-Palestinians-divided-583082 ; accessed online 1 September 2025.
[9] The formation of Hamas can be adumbrated as follows. In October 1997, the administrative bureau of the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) movement in the West Bank and Gaza Strip had resolved to launch its role in fighting the occupation, in parallel with the launch of the Islamic Resistance Movement—Hamas. On 23 October, 1987, a meeting was held in the home of the late Hasan al-Qiq in Dora in the Hebron district. The meeting was attended, in addition to al-Qiq, by Abdul Fattah Dukhan, Hammad al-Hasanat, Ibrahim al-Yazouri, Adjan Maswady, M.M., and F.S. Absent from the meeting was the late Sa’id Bilal. The attendees decided to give each city the choice to take action in the manner it deemed appropriate. On 6 December 1987, a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) stabbed a settler from the zionist entity in the Gaza town square, resulting in the settler’s death . This created furor amongst those living in the zionist entity. On 8 December, 1987, four Palestinian workers were crushed to death by a truck from the zionist entity. This provoked, on the same day, massive demonstrations in Jabaliyya camp, where the three victims of the zionist entity’s attack had hailed from. Hamas officially formed as a resistance group within the context of the First Intifada. The foundational meeting gathered Sheikh Yassin, Abd al-Aziz al-Rantisi, Salah Shehadeh, Abd al-Fattah Dukhan, Ibrahim al-Yazouri, Mohammed Sham’a, and Issa al-Nashar. Although prefigured by the 23 October 1987 meeting at Hasan al-Qiq’s home in Dora, 8 December 1987 thus is Hamas’ official date of emergence (although its first communique was released several days after). See Mohsen Mohammad Saleh, “Chapter One: The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas): An Overview of Its Experience & History 1987–2005”, Mohsen Mohammad Saleh (Ed.), The Islamic resistance Movement (Hamas): Studies of thought and Experience (Beirut: Al-Zaytouna Centre, 2017), pp. 25-61, esp. pp. 34-35.
[10] As Mohsen Mohammad Saleh, “Chapter One: The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas)”, op. cit., pp. 29-30 writes:
After the disastrous war of 1948, the MB [viz., Muslim Brotherhood] movement became one of the most popular groups among the Palestinians, between 1949 and 1954, both in the West Bank (WB) and Gaza Strip (GS), thanks to their acclaimed role in the war of 1948, and their Islamic-national programs. The Brothers enjoyed relative freedom in Egypt until 1954, and favorable conditions in Jordan. Other movements were not able to rival the Islamists, until Gamal ‘Abdul Nasser dealt a harsh blow to the MB movement, and began a crackdown on them, utilizing his powerful media apparatus to distort their image.
As a result, the MB and the Islamists in general were now on the defensive, biding their time until better circumstances emerged. One of the models of the power of the Islamists was the Palestinian Students League in Egypt, the elections to which Islamists or the candidates they backed won every year until 1957. This included Yasir ‘Arafat, who was close to the MB movement.
[….]
In that period, restrictions on, and persecution of, the Islamic movement, especially in Egypt and GS, raised questions among the enthusiastic young members of the Palestinian MB movement, about the possible modes of action for the liberation of Palestine. The general trend in their ranks was to seek to be prudent, and focus on educational and faith-related aspects, but another trend was to seek organized militant action, which does not take open Islamic forms, but adopts national frameworks that can appeal to a wider range of young people, protecting it from hostility and crackdowns on the part of the regimes. The experience of the Algerian revolution in that period was one of the important motivations for this mode of action. These were the first seeds of the Fatah movement (the Liberation of Palestine Movement, and later the Palestinian National Liberation movement) in 1957 in Kuwait, led by Yasir ‘Arafat, which originated from the MB movement and, more specifically, the inhabitants of the GS.
Khalil al-Wazir (aka Abu Jihad), who was a member of the MB, and who became the number two man in Fatah for 30 years, had suggested the move to the MB leadership in GS, but to no avail. However, this did not stop a considerable number of prominent and respected members of the MB from joining Fatah upon its foundation, such as Sa‘id al-Muzayyan, Ghalib al-Wazir, Salim al-Za‘nun, Salah Khalaf, As‘ad al-Saftawi, Muhammad Yusuf al-Najjar, Kamal ‘Adwan, Rafiq al-Natshah, ‘Abdul Fatah Hammoud, and Yusuf ‘Umairah. They all assumed senior leadership positions in the movement. In addition, Yasir ‘Arafat himself was close to the MB movement. However, Fatah, which focused its recruitment efforts on MB members until 1962, opened up to various movements and segments of the population, especially after the leadership of the MB in GS compelled members to choose between membership of Fatah or the MB movement.
[11] See for example, Mohammad Makram Balawi “Did Israel create Hamas?”, Middle East Monitor, 15 November 2023; accessed online (3 September 2025): https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231115-did-israel-create-hamas/
[12] As Noha Mellor recounts in “Islamizing the Palestinian–Israeli conflict: the case of the Muslim Brotherhood”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 44, Is. 4, pp. 513–528, p. 523, the booklet contained:
50 gruesome images of people being tortured, and depicting British soldiers allegedly tearing up copies of the Qur’an. The booklets had been sent to the Brotherhood for distribution across Egypt, and the MB [Muslim Brotherhood] had managed to circulate thousands of copies across the country, leaving only a few hundred copies in their headquarters. Al-Banna proudly admitted to the possession of the booklets, and even gave himself up to the police […] The Ikhwan went many times before the prosecution and offered themselves for interrogation and even imprisonment.
One can find a copy of the booklet online at: https://eltaher.org/docs_photos/documents/palestine/1938%20-%20Fire%20and%20Destruction%20in%20Palestine.pdf ; accessed online 1 September 2025.
[13] Abu ‘Azza headed the Brotherhood’s organization in Gaza during the Israeli occupation from November 1956 to February 1957, when he was arrested by the occupation authorities. He says that he opposed the idea of creating Fatah and was instrumental in formulating the Brotherhood’s position opposing it. He resigned from the Brotherhood in 1972 and later was appointed a member of the Palestine National Council, continuing to serve until the late 1980s, when he resigned to protest the resolution declaring a Palestinian state and recognizing Israel.
[14] In his book Filastini bila hawiyya [A Palestinian without identity] (Kuwait: Dar Kadhima, 1981), Salah Khalaf [Abu Iyad], the third-ranking man in the PLO during the 1970s and 1980s, denies that he had any prior relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood. However, Abu ‘Azza confirms a clear relationship, as does Abu ‘Amr, who verifies the existence of an organizational relationship through Salah Khalaf’s friends in the group.
[15] Azzam Tamimi, Hamas: Unwritten Chapters (London: C Hurst & Co Publishers Ltd, 2009), p. 88.
[16] Khalil al-Qawga, an early leader of Hamas who was expelled by the zionist entity’s authorities in the initial months of the intifada, interview in Al-Anba’ (Kuwait), 8 October 1988.
[17] Tamimi, op. cit., pp. 88-89.
[18] See Michal Sela, “Resistance is a Moslem Duty”, Jerusalem Post, 27 May 1989.
[19] Ahmed Nawfal, a member of the Palestinian Ikhwan/Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan, had a central role in the Ikhwan’s bases.
[20] 31 August 1969 saw the Green Belt Operation; and on 14 September 1969, the Deir Yassij operation. Although these were resistance efforts led by the.
[21] On 17 September 1970, King Hussein replaced his civilian cabinet with a twelve-man military government and undertook the so-called “Black September” operation on PLO camps and bases in Amman, Jordan. Hundreds of Palestinian civilians were either killed or wounded. The PLO’s numbers were 3,500 civilians and 900 guerrillas killed. There were also reports that the Jordanian Legionnaires raped and looted the Palestinian population. On 22 September 1970, several Syrian military columns advanced towards Amman with the mission of supporting the PLO but Jordanian jets hounded them. By 23 September 1970, much of Amman’s urban center was in possession by the Legionnaires. See Ziv Rubinovitz, “Blue and White ‘Black September’: Israel’s Role in the Jordan Crisis of 1970”, The International History Review, December 2010, Vol. 32, No. 4 (December 2010), pp. 687-706. Hamas characterized this massacre, and those of Tal al-Za‘tar (1976) and the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps (1982) as demonstrative of prosecution of Palestinians in the 20th century; see Hamas, Periodic statement no. 27 of 3 August 1988 and Periodic statement no. 115 of 3 September 1994.
[22] Tamimi, op. cit., pp. 89-90.
[23] Jeroen Gunning, Hamas in Politics: Democracy, Religion, Violence (New York: Columbia University Press, 2008), p. 30.
[24] Tamimi, op. cit. 95.
[25] Gunning, op. cit., p. 30.
[26] Tamimi, ibid., p. 87, n5f.
[27] Tamimi, ibid., p. 92.
[28] Leila Seurat, “The Foreign Policy of Hamas”, London, I.B. Tauris, 2022, p.6.
[29] See Sela, “Resistance is a Moslem Duty”, op. cit.; Charles Enderlin, “Le grand aveuglement, Israel et l’irresistible ascension de l’Islam radical”, Paris, Albin Michel, 2009.
[30] Sela, “Resistance is a Moslem Duty”, op. cit.
[31] See Rub‘i al-Madhun, “The Islamic Movement in Palestine 1928–1987,” Shu’un Filastiniyyah, Markaz al-Abhath, Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), issue 187, October 1988, p. 27.
[32] Saleh, “The Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas): An Overview of Its Experience & History 1987–2005”, op. cit., p. 33:
[33] Abdullah Abu ‘Izzah, Ma‘ al-Harakah al-Islamiyyah fi al-Duwal al-‘Arabiyyah (With the Islamic Movement in Arab Countries) (Kuwait: Dar al-Qalam, 1986), pp. 71–96.
[34] Tamimi, op. cit., p. 110.
[35] Khaled Hroub, “Hamas: Political Thought and Practice”, Beirut: Institute of Palestine Studies, 2000, p. 92.
[36] See Sheikh Yassin, Letters from Kfar Yona prison to the leaders and members of the Hamas movement, 3 October 1993; published in Al-Wasat, 11 November 1993
[37] Habash in “Filastin al-Muslima” (March 1990), p. 12).
[38] See Ahmad Sa‘id Nofal and Mohsen Mohammad Saleh, “Hamas’ Position Vis-à-Vis the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Its Factions“, Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas): Studies of Thought and Experience, op. cit., p. 170.
[39] Khaled Hroub, “Hamas: Political Thought and Practice”, Beirut, Institute of Palestine studies, p. 112; also see “Filastin al-Muslima”, March 1990, p. 13
[40] PLO quoted from the extended lead editorial in Filastin al- Thawra, “Likai la tadhi al-haqiqa: radduna ‘ala hamas” [That the truth not be lost: Our reply to Hamas], 8 July 1990.
[41] Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, op. cit., p. 93
[42] Gunning, Hamas, op. cit., p.41.
[43] See Al-Hayat, 5 March 1996.
[44] However, the formal announcement on the formation of the TRO did not come until nearly one year later, on 29 September 1992. By that date, the Palestinian Revolutionary Front had replaced the Movement for Palestinian National Liberation—Fatah/Revolutionary Council. The leaders who announced the birth of the TRO concurrently met with the World Conference in Support of the Iranian Revolution in Palestine, which convened in Tehran, Iran, on 22-24 October 1991.
[45] Reproduced in Khaled Hroub, Hamas: Al-Fikr wa al-Mumarasah al-Siyasiyyah, Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1996, pp.328-330
[46] “Declaration of the Alliance of Palestinian Forces” [in Arabic], Damascus, 6 January 1994.
[47] For instance, Naim al-Achab reintroduced this narrative after the failed 2007 attempt by the Palestinian Authority to to usurp the Hamas government. The PA received military assistance and training by General Keith Dayton in undertaking this effort, which was coordinated with the zionist entity. Al-Achab, however, fallaciously framed Hamas’ seizure of the government three months after the Mecca Agreement of 2007 as in keeping with the zionist entity’s interests. See: Maariv, 1 October 2007, quoted in Naim al-Achab, Imârat-Hamâs (The Hamas Emirate), Dâr al-tanwîr li-l-nashr wa-l-targama wa-l-tawzîʿ (Ramallah, 2007); also see: Bakr Abou Bakr, Hamâs, suyûf wa manâbir, Dâr al-Shurûq li-l-nashr wa-l-tawzî‘ (Ramallah, 2008); Ahmad Abd al-Rahman, ‘Hamâs khârij al-sirb: wusûlan ilâ-l-hudna l-majjâniyya’, Seyasat (Summer 2008): 65–70. For Keith Dayton’s coordination with the zionist entity, see: Clayton Swisher, The Palestine Papers (London: Hesperus Press, 2011), p. 18 – 51; Keith Dayton, “Keynote address to the Soref Symposium on US Middle East Policy,” Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 7 May 2009; Daud Abdullah, Engaging the World: The Making of Hamas’s Foreign Policy (Johannesburg: Afro-Middle East Centre, 2020), 96-99.
[48] Jean-François Legrain, ‘Pour une autre lecture de la guerre de Gaza’, EchoGéo (Sur le Vif, 2009).
[49] Hroub, “Muslim Revivalism”, op. cit., p. 107.
[50] Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, p. 200.
[51] Ibid., 201.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid.
[54] Ibid., 202.
[55] Ibid.
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid.
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid., 203.
[61] See for example: Ze’ev Schiff and Ehud Ya’ari, “Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising—Israel’s Third Front” (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1989), pp. 223-25.
[62] Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice., p. 203.
[63] Ibid.
[64] Ibid.
[65] Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, op. cit., pp. 204-5n142); see further Al-Nahar, 16 December 1989.
[66] For example, Ha’aretz reported on 15 January 1990 that “the Ministry of Defense ordered the heads of the civil administration in the Occupied Territories not to make contacts with elements of Hamas and to sever immediately all lines of communication with persons who support the movement”; reported initially by Al-Nahar (Jerusalem), 16 January 1990.
[67] Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, op. cit., p. 205.
[68] Hamas leaflet, “Resistance and Struggle will be the Sole Language of Dialogue with the Occupying Enemy,” 20 February 1994.
[69] Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, op. cit., p. 205. Also see: “Al-Ahram” (Cairo), 19 April 1994; see also a statement by the zionist entity’s minister of police, Moshe Shahal, published in “Al-Quds Al-Arabi” (2 November 1994): “Israel makes a mistake by not being ready to talk to people. There are many currents [of thought] inside Hamas. The majority denies any possibility of negotiation or recognition of the Jewish state. But there are some whom I would not say are more moderate … but are more realistic.” Yossi Beilin made a statement along the same lines in November 1994.)
[70] Quoted in “Al-Hayat”, 1 January 1992.
[71] See Bahar’s interview with Hroub, “Harakat Hamas bain al-sulta al-filastiniyya wa-Isra’il: Min muthallath al-quwa ila al-mitraqa wal-sindan”, [Hamas Between the PA and Israel: From the triangle of power to the anvil and hammer], Majallat al-dirasat al-filastiniyya, no. 18 (Spring 1994): 24-37.
[72] Muhammad Nazzal, interview with Hroub, 23 April 1995, reproduced in Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, op. cit., p. 206.
[73] Hamas leaflet, “Resistance and Struggle will be the Sole Language of Dialogue,” 20 February 1994.
[74] Hamas leaflet, “Clarification from Hamas spokesman, Ibrahim Ghosheh,” 7 November 1994.
[75] Ibid.
[76] During this period, the United States position on Hamas became more uncompromising when the United States pushed for the convening of an anti-terrorism summit at Sharm al-Sheikh, Egypt, in the wake of the February and March 1996 martyrdom operations by al-Qassam in Jerusalem, ‘Asqalan, and Tel Aviv. In March 1996, Hamas sent lengthy memoranda and letters to the United Nations and to the contracting parties of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the wake of the convening of the Sharm al-Sheikh Conference, which targeted Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in particular. The international summit was held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, on 13 March 1996. It was chaired by US President Bill Clinton and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak
[77] See Hamas, “Memorandum issued by Hamas’s political office about the latest developments,” 12 March 1996.
[78] Hroub, Hamas: Political Thought and Practice, op. cit., p. 207; Hamas, “An Important Memorandum from Hamas to the Kings, Presidents, and Ministers Meeting at Sharm al-Sheikh,” 13 March 1996; full text in Hroub, 2000, Appendix, document no. 5); also see Leila Seurat, “The New Hamas Insurgency”, Foreign affairs, 26 August 2025; retrieved online (3 September 2025) https://www.foreignaffairs.com/israel/new-hamas-insurgency for a comparable analysis of Hamas’ actions prior to Tufan al-Aqsa.
[79] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html (Accessed 14 Nov. 2024); Also see: Sami Peretz, “How Netanyahu Enabled October 7 With Suitcases of Cash”, 20 December, 2024, https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2023-12-20/ty-article-opinion/.premium/how-netanyahu-enabled-october-7-with-suitcases-of-cash/0000018c-8397-d219-a5bf-b7ff40660000 (Accessed 14 Nov. 2024).
[80] “Rashid Khalidi: October 7th Revisited | Israel, Palestine, Gaza, Hamas, & The Nakba”,
(Accessed 14 Nov., 2024)
[81] https://www.timesofisrael.com/he-lost-his-soul-lapid-sees-sacred-cause-in-toppling-netanyahus-government/
[82] Dr. Mohamed Abdou has already clarified the shortcomings of this claim in his adroitly written “Communiqué #3: ‘and he (Allah) sent against them swarms of birds”, 20 May 2025; retrieved online (3 September 2025):
https://drmohamedabdou.substack.com/p/communique-3-and-he-allah-sent-against?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
[83] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/30/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-attack-intelligence.html
[84] Seurat, op. cit., p. 116
[85] Ibid. p. 64.
[86] Ibid., pp. 64-65.
[87] Tareq Baconi, “Stopping an Unwanted war in Gaza”, International Crisis Group; retrieved online (3 September 2025): https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/eastern-mediterranean/israelpalestine/stopping-unwanted-war-gaza
[88] Ibid., pp. 110-111.
[89] Ibid., p.111n30. Also see Al-Monitor, 20 March 2019.
[90] Seurat, op. cit., pp. 134-135.
[91] Ibid., p. 135.
Looking at “Charlie Kirk’s replacement” Brilyn Hollyhand and the submission ritual of these “Christian Zionists” really hits home. The Wall of Submission.
“Christian Zionists” jet off to the so-called Holy Land, and what do they do? Not visit the Via Dolorosa where Christ carried the Cross. Not kneel where He was crucified and rose again. Not honor the sacred Christian sites of miracles and martyrdom. No, they line up at the Wall. A ritual of submission, forehead pressed to stone, as if the faith of two thousand years must now bow before Zion.
But ask yourself: have you ever seen Netanyahu or any Israeli leader pay homage at a Christian shrine? Has Bibi ever lit a candle at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre? Of course not. Respect flows only one way. The game is to turn Western Christianity into an auxiliary cult, a political battering ram for Tel Aviv’s ambitions.
This is not piety. It is politics of total submission. A carefully engineered choreography where “Christian” leaders are paraded to the Wall, cameras snapping, donors nodding. A loyalty oath in stone. You don’t need to read Scripture to understand it, you only need to see the imbalance. One faith stripped of its dignity, reduced to props. Another faith weaponized into empire.
And so the ritual continues: they touch the Wall, but they avert their gaze from Gaza’s rubble. They kiss the stone, but never whisper prayers for Bethlehem’s dwindling Christian flock. They bend, but not to Christ, they bend to political Zion.
The question isn’t why Hollyhand was there. The question is why millions still pretend it’s faith, when in reality, it’s fealty. Total submission.
TheIslanderNews
[Note: Very recently we received this quote from Michael Hudson: “Latin America’s movements for political independence and the abolition of slavery were sidetracked into one of the great tragedies of modern history. Slavery was indeed replaced, but was replaced by debt peonage on a national level, leading to impoverishment, underdevelopment, and a pattern of trade and debt dependency involving a loss of economic sovereignty – all of which still continue today.”
This history tells one of the stories.]
The deuda (“debt” in Spanish) is one of the most persistent elements in the two centuries of Argentina’s history. It has conditioned the political life and the economy of the country like no other factor, for generations.
But this should not be confused with just any debt. The word deuda normally refers to the external debt (both public and private), a debt owed to foreign creditors.
Historically, the key aspect of the deuda is that it is based on a foreign currency, the world trade currency controlled by the ruling empire. It was once the British pound. Since 1944 it has largely been the US dollar.
The United States can “print” dollars (and the Federal Reserve does so regularly), but Argentina cannot. The same is true of other countries in the Global South with large external debts denominated in foreign currencies.
There are only two ways for these nations to get dollars: exporting and borrowing.
But there are also multiple ways to reduce the need for dollars by reducing imports or increasing the value of exports. For example, instead of relying on a rent economy based on the export of cheap commodities with a low value added (the model adopted by many former colonies rich in natural resources), a country can develop its own industry and reduce its dependency on expensive imported goods, especially advanced technologies or fashionable consumer products.
If a nation excels in some sectors of the economy, it may be able to export more, improving its balance of payments.
In a more advanced stage, a country may even dare to associate with its friends and neighbors, creating a regional bloc in which they trade using their own currencies and rules, or a barter system, circumventing the US dollar.
All these common-sense policies may sound like nothing special for sovereign nations, yet they are a mirage in semi-colonial countries like Argentina.
As Argentine as the tango and mate, the deuda affects the everyday life of everyone: inflation, salaries, employment, public services, elections. Everything.
And yet its technical and historical intricacies make the deuda a daunting topic, perfect to keep millions in the dark and bureaucrats safe, while instigating an eternal battle of the have-nots.
The deuda doesn’t just relate to the way Argentines think about the economy. In some cases, it contributes to shaping their opinions about history, culture, media, race, and class. It almost always defines their vote as well.
Argentina has defaulted on its debt eight times. It even made history with the world’s biggest ever default ($95 billion in 2001) and largest ever loan ($57 billion in 2018) from the US-controlled International Monetary Fund, making it a privileged case study.
How could this happen? A first hint could be that a man who bears heavy responsibility for some of these negative world records, neoliberal guru and Harvard doctor in economics Domingo Cavallo – who directed Argentina’s central bank during the last dictatorship and served as economic minister in the 1990s – was lavished with years of praise, given rewards by international institutions, and heroized in the US media as a kind of semi-god.
It is no coincidence that Argentina also has the dubious distinction of boasting one of the Earth’s highest ratios of “free market” think tanks to the population.
The reality is that Argentina’s ruling class has not changed much in the last 200 years. So let’s start from the beginning.
This is a brief history of Argentina’s debt, and the neocolonial relationships that dictate it.
In 1824, only eight years after the declaration of independence from the Spanish empire, the union of provinces that would eventually become the Argentine Republic obtained a loan of £1 million pounds (a whopping £110 billion today, according to the Bank of England) from Barings Bank, a British private bank that also had lent money to the US government.
The loan, denominated in pound sterling, was supposedly destined to fund the port of Buenos Aires and build new infrastructure. Instead, it quickly evaporated in a war with Brazil (from 1825 to 1828), which was militarily supported by the British, who helped block the port of Buenos Aires for three years – cutting off Argentina from its only source of foreign currency.
Corruption and betrayal played a key role in making the 1824 loan possible. The delegation that represented Argentina in London was made up of British and Argentine traders and financiers who offered the entire State of Buenos Aires as collateral: all its assets, lands, and rents.
Of the original £1 million loan, Argentina only received £570,000, while the enormous remaining sum was lost in commissions and other fees, mostly to pay the negotiators.
Less than 20% of the money delivered was in gold coins; the rest was in paper notes.
By 1827, Argentina was already unable to service its debt obligations and entered its first default. Two frigates belonging to Buenos Aires that were under construction in England were seized by the bank, weakening Argentina’s naval defense.
A few years later, Argentina had no deterrent that could stop the British empire from occupying the Falklands, extending its power projection to Antarctica. These islands (officially known as the Malvinas) remain colonized by the United Kingdom to this day.
Argentina subsequently defaulted twice in the 19th century, and had to emit new bonds to keep paying the growing interest.
It was only in 1904 that Argentina’s original debt was formally repaid. It had taken 80 years, more than three generations, and had cost about eight times the original value.
This simplified account of Argentina’s first experience with a neocolonial debt trap only scratches the surface of a scam that inspired the more sophisticated schemes developed in the two centuries that followed.
Today’s practice of trapping former colonies in unpayable debts is the result of well-engineered financial, diplomatic, political, and legal strategies that have been tested dozens of time in a neocolonial laboratory.
These neocolonial extortion schemes have three major effects. First, they facilitate the transfer of enormous amounts of hard-earned wealth from the real economy of developing nations to banks and speculative funds controlled by super rich individuals and families in the Global North – largely based in the United States, Europe, or offshore tax havens.
Secondly, by installing dictatorships, leveraging institutions like the International Monetary Fund, or getting US courts and judges to seize funds of sovereign nations, lenders obtain the power to dictate the monetary, economic, labor, and even foreign policies of indebted countries, effectively creating semi-colonies whose democratically elected governments are incapable of implementing policies demanded by their people.
Thirdly, these policies imposed from outside in turn strengthen a local parasitic capitalist class that is fundamental to perpetuate a regime of foreign control. This type of traitorous bourgeoisie, still dominant in Argentina and in all Latin America, was described by Chinese revolutionary Mao Zedong as the “comprador” class, an appendage of foreign capital that benefits from the foreign exploitation of its own country.
Argentina is a case study of this neocolonial process.
When the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was formed in 1945, Argentina initially refused to join.
The South American country’s democratically elected President Juan Domingo Perón implemented a progressive nationalist program that encouraged independence and sovereignty. He was very successful in boosting Argentine industry through two five-year plans, and briefly neutralized the effects of the deuda during his tenure.
Argentine President Juan Domingo Perón
But Perón was toppled by a bloody military coup in 1955. And Argentina promptly entered the IMF under dictator Pedro Eugenio Aramburu in 1956.
A virulent anti-communist, Aramburu’s unelected military regime also severed the ties with the Soviet bloc and moved Argentina into the neocolonial orbit of the United States during the first cold war.
Argentina is one of the world’s biggest agricultural producers. Agriculture accounts for most of the country’s exports and it is the main source of foreign currency (the other being loans).
Because of this, Argentine landlords and their ultra-conservative civic organization, the Rural Society, have been extremely powerful throughout the country’s history.
Argentina did experience formidable industrial growth in the first half of the 20th century, especially between the 1930s and 1950s.
Until then Argentina, had often ranked among the 10 richest countries in the world by total GDP. According to long-run economic development data, the GDP per capita even ranked first in the world in 1895 and 1896. But Argentina also had a relatively small population.
When Perón took power in 1946, Europe was in ashes and Argentina’s per capita income ranked seventh in the world.
In 1955, when Perón was overthrown in a US-backed military coup, Argentina ranked 16th – still a very high position considering that the reconstruction of Europe was boosted by Washington’s Marshall Plan, not to mention the fact that Washington’s policy of flooding Europe with US agricultural products had had a negative impact on Argentine exports.
That year, Argentina’s GDP per capita was the highest in Latin America – almost five times that of Brazil. Compared to colonial Britain, it was only 19% lower. And it was half of that of the United States.
Argentina’s GDP per capita never got better than it was in the year Perón was overthrown. By 2016, it had plunged to 63rd.
The statistics aside, the point is that before it got sucked into Washington’s cold war, Argentina was a significant economic power.
Although politically unstable and dominated by a backward landlord and comprador class, the South American nation’s rapid growth, large immigration flows, and incipient industrialization created the conditions that could challenge the colonial status quo.
Perón was not a Marxist, but he envisioned a third way between US capitalism and Soviet socialism, and was a clear symptom of those tensions.
The dominance of the United States in Latin America, a region with a population of more than 660 million today, was achieved and is maintained through a number of strategies.
One of the least understood yet perhaps most significant is the intentional sabotage of independent economic development.
With a growing industry and an industrial working class strengthened by a diverse mix of immigrants, Argentina’s economy was particularly difficult to undermine. Even more so because many of the millions who had fled from poverty, fascism, and wars and ended up in the South American country were socialists or some variety of leftist.
But one of Washington’s preferred ways to impose its control over Latin America, especially during the first cold war, was through violent force.
The 1955 coup that removed Perón was carried out with aerial bombings on the presidential palace and the center of Buenos Aires. Roughly 360 people were killed.
In the two decades that followed, Argentina descended into a spiral of military coups and intermittent right-wing dictatorships backed by the United States.
In 1970, the former dictator Aramburu (de facto president between 1955 and 1958) was assassinated in circumstances that are still unclear today, accelerating a complex process of further destabilization.
Argentina’s former dictator Pedro Eugenio Aramburu (wearing the sash)
The chaos was exacerbated (or caused) by the US government’s Operation Condor, a secret plan to eradicate all Marxist elements from Latin America through the provision of anti-insurgency support, coordination between intelligence services, and training to carry out infiltrations, torture, and assassinations.
The leaders of the last Argentine dictatorship (which governed from 1976 to 1983), who were later charged and convicted with crimes against humanity, used to describe their mission as a war – more precisely as a war on “Marxist terror”.
But the limited cases of insurgent violence, which paled in comparison to the wildly disproportionate state terror and repression, were used as a pretext to persecute and exterminate all dissent and resistance against the post-1955 regimes.
Between 1973 and 1976, many of these crimes were carried out by the Triple A (Argentine Anticommunist Alliance), a death squad founded by far-right Peronist José López Rega, who had been a key ally of Perón in the 1970s and a member of Italy’s infamous Propaganda Due (P2).
But anti-Peronist and anti-communist Emilio Eduardo Massera, one of the leaders of the 1976 coup and the military regime that followed, was also a member of the P2.
P2 shows how European governments also assisted in Washington’s war on the left in Latin America.
Propaganda Due was a criminal organization based in Italy and linked to Italian intelligence, allied with the CIA and NATO. It was exposed in 1981 and dismantled in 1982 by law.
P2’s leader was Licio Gelli, an Italian fascist, intelligence operative, and financier who had lived in Argentina. The organization was considered a sort of Italian deep state with strong connections to the right-wing media and anti-communist environments.
On March 28, 1976, just four days after a right-wing coup, Gelli sent a letter to Argentine coup leader and P2 member Massera saying that he was “happy everything went according to the plans” and wishing that “a strong government” could repress “the insurrection of the Marxist movements.”
The Italian parliament published a report investigating P2 in 1984.
With a number of secretive far-right entities and plots overseen by the US and European governments at the height of the first cold war, Argentina was ready for its shock.
Argentine President Juan Domingo Perón with his wife, future President Isabel Perón
When Argentina’s military arrested constitutional President Isabel Perón (the politically unskilled wife of Juan Domingo Perón) in the early hours of the March 24, 1976, many believed that things could not get much worse. Inflation was at 700% and political violence was already extreme.
In fact, it was one of the bloodiest nights in the history of Argentina – probably only surpassed by the genocide targeting Indigenous nations and the slavery of the previous century.
What followed the US-backed coup was a campaign of terrorismo de estado (state terror), desaparecidos (forced disappearances), systematic rape and torture, arbitrary detentions, countless people forced into exile, burning of millions of books, dystopian surveillance, and propaganda.
Like Chile under Augusto Pinochet and other countries in South America, Argentina had entered its neoliberal experiment, an economic reset under the supervision of the United States and its Operation Condor, the local comprador oligarchy, and the Argentine branch of the Chicago Boys.
The new regime was called the “National Reorganization Process” – a name that implied it had a mission to accomplish.
The US-backed military junta, an unelected government controlled by the armed forces, acted as the main enforcer of the “reorganization”.
Dictator Jorge Rafael Videla, a rabid anti-communist, was in power during most of the “process,” and proudly defended his countless crimes until his death in prison in 2013.
Argentina’s military dictator Jorge Rafael Videla (in the center, with the mustache)
But the men who oversaw most of the economic shock were Adolfo Diz and José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz.
Diz directed Argentina’s central bank (and was followed in 1981 by the US media’s golden boy Domingo Cavallo). He was a pupil of Milton Friedman in Chicago and a former IMF executive director.
Elite right-wing economist Martínez de Hoz was appointed economic minister. He was a Cambridge graduate from a wealthy family of landlords, the CEO of several large Argentine companies, and a personal friend of US billionaire oligarch David Rockefeller.
Those who followed for shorter periods of time had very similar résumés, full of degrees from elite US universities and sinecures at the IMF, World Bank, and other Washington-dominated neoliberal institutions.
Martínez de Hoz used his position to favor Argentine and foreign elites, including his personal friends and the companies he had worked for.
Almost immediately after the Videla dictatorship came to power, Martínez de Hoz got a $100 million IMF loan (worth a much higher sum today).
He also implemented aggressive neoliberal shock therapy: smashing trade barriers, allowing US and European products to flood Argentina’s market, and removing subsidies (including on gasoline).
In a vicious attack on Argentine workers, Martínez de Hoz froze wages by law, while inflation remained well above 100% throughout his tenure. This caused a devastating drop in the cost of labor, and therefore in the real value of salaries, which declined some 40% by 1980.
He also successfully dismantled most of the Argentina’s still competitive industry, selectively saving his friends.
Argentina’s military dictator Jorge Rafael Videla (right) with his neoliberal economic minister José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz
The US-backed Videla dictatorship oversaw an intense de-industrialization, marking an end to Perón’s era of state-owned company, which since 1951 had produced domestically designed cars, motorbikes, trucks, airplanes, and engines.
Decades of industrial research and development, tens of thousands of jobs, and large public investments were disintegrated in Argentina.
Claiming to be fighting inflation, in 1979, Martínez de Hoz introduced an artificial system of exchange regulation between the peso and the US dollar known as la tablita (the little table).
Leveraging large and ever increasing foreign debt, la tablita overvalued the peso, favoring imported products over domestic ones, so thousands of Argentine businesses went bankrupt.
It also allowed speculative funds to exploit a scheme known as carry trade (bicicleta financiera). Speculators could get low-interest loans abroad in US dollars and absurdly high interests on pesos in Argentina, with no capital control whatsoever, so they started moving money in and out making enormous profits.
This made foreign and domestic speculators much richer than they already were, but the gains from the trick had to be paid by the state – or more precisely Argentine workers – in US dollars.
The strong peso was a clever ingredient of the dictatorship, defining a neoliberal myth that was called “sweet money” – a sort of consumerist orgy with an unhappy ending that was portrayed in a 1982 film with the same name.
Because of la tablita, the most coveted imported goods (consumer electronics, clothes, and accessories) became cheap almost overnight. Imports rose by more than 550% between 1976 and 1980.
The huge increase in imports under Argentina’s US-backed military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983
The overvaluation of the peso meant that many Argentines could suddenly afford to travel and go shopping abroad.
While factories were closing en masse – and while thousands of mothers were looking desperately for their children and grandchildren, who had been disappeared for opposing the junta – the military regime propagandists celebrated the new era as a positive opening to the world.
The euphoria after the victory at the 1978 football World Cup led to a feast of nationalist propaganda.
This economic deception lasted two years. La tablita was abolished in 1981, with a master stroke leading to the opposite effect: a sudden devaluation of the peso.
More Argentine businesses went bankrupt because their pesos were now worth nothing, and their debts denominated in US dollars had become unpayable.
Videla, Diz, and Martínez de Hoz resigned a month later, leaving the country in recession and the state in monetary and financial chaos.
In 1982, the military junta had been weakened by five years of suicidal neoliberal economic policies. It attempted to stay afloat with a jingoistic wave of paradoxical anti-colonial propaganda.
The regime that had humiliated the nation and the people of Argentina by selling it off and betraying it in all possible ways did the unthinkable: It waged a war with Britain over the Malvinas.
The Falklands War ended in a catastrophe, but also accelerated the end of the dictatorship.
Taking advantage of the last days in power, the right-wing-controlled central bank nationalized the private debt of a selected group of companies in December 1982, including Grupo Macri, a holding founded by the father of Mauricio Macri (whose neoliberal presidency between 2015 and 2019 was a nostalgic homage to the families benefited by the dictatorship).
The nationalization of this private debt cost the state about $17 billion dollars.
The financial deregulations of the regime led to uncontrolled capital flight, destructive speculative schemes, rampant fraud, and the crash of dozens of financial companies, including banks.
The desperate need for US dollars to repay debts forced Argentina’s de facto government to keep emitting bonds at always higher interest rates.
Argentina’s debt skyrocketed during the US-backed military dictatorship (1976 to 1983)
According to data from the World Bank, the external debt of the government was $4.6 billion in 1976.
At the end of the dictatorship in 1983, it was $25.6 billion – an increase of more than five times.
This debt would double to $52 billion by the end of the 1980s, and subsequently skyrocket to $103 billion in 2004, doubling again.
And these figures do not include private foreign debt.
In the 28 years since the beginning of the US-backed state terror – between 1976 and 2004, constituting roughly a generation – the deuda had increased more than 2200%, while GDP had gone up only 49%.
The world average for GDP growth in the same period was 90%.
The increase in Argentina’s external debt was 45 times the growth of its GDP.
The country was in an economic apocalypse.
Operation Condor turned Argentina into a broke country whose economy was heavily indebted in US dollars.
With the 1983 election of Raúl Alfonsín, the military boots left the presidential palace, but the debt contracted by the dictatorship never did.
Alfonsín could have contested the legitimacy of the debt. After all, it had been contracted by a dictatorial regime installed by the CIA, operating under US influence and favoring foreign interests over Argentina’s.
The debt was the result of a deliberate effort to undermine the economy and sovereignty of the Latin American country, so the legitimacy of the deuda was a valid matter of debate.
But Alfonsín’s government and the new, fragile democracy were too weak for such a challenge.
Argentine President Raúl Alfonsín
The first elected president in a decade was inaugurated in an atmosphere of great hope, after a war and nightmarish horrors that would soon become public, thanks to an investigation that concluded with the publication of the book Nunca más (“Never Again”), and a historic trial that ended with the conviction of the junta leaders.
But by accepting to comply with all the obligations imposed by the deuda, Alfonsín’s presidency was destined to be a failure.
The government depended on negotiations with the Washington, DC-based IMF and World Bank, the only entities that could provide the dollars Argentina needed.
Every decision of these organizations in matters related to Argentina had a strong influence over the country’s political and monetary stability, including the inflation which remained very high throughout the 1980s.
Alfonsín’s presidency ended with a hyper-inflation crisis in 1989 that got even worse in 1990, when wages and savings quickly evaporated, poverty and extreme poverty skyrocketed, riots and lootings erupted.
The shock caused a desperate demand for change, and played a key role in electing Carlos Menem, a conservative Peronist who had campaigned with vague promises to favor the poor and leveraged the fame of Perón, who remained popular among large sectors of the working class.
One of Menem’s most repeated slogans was “Follow me, I won’t deceive you!”, a trivial political message that was actually a lie, considering the betrayal that followed.
The unpayable debt, that kept growing like a snowball under Alfonsín, prepared the ground for the infamous “structural adjustment” programs that were “recommended” (that is to say, forcibly imposed) by the IMF, the World Bank and the US Treasury Department.
Neoliberal structural adjustment was presented as a simple technocratic solution, a doctor’s prescription to heal economies in formerly colonized countries that, coincidentally, all suffered from the same illness: external debt.
The therapy proposed in the so-called Washington Consensus demanded financial deregulation, no tariffs on imports, cuts to public services, and radical privatizations of public assets.
Medical metaphors became a classic trope of the neoliberal propaganda, and were also used by reputed economists.
Jeffrey Sachs is often associated with the infamous concept of “shock therapy.” The first patient he could experiment his theories with was Bolivia in 1985.
There, Sachs’ task was to stop a hyper-inflation crisis – which, as in Argentina, came after years of a US-backed right-wing dictatorship.
Sachs did manage to contain inflation by forcibly overvaluing Bolivia’s currency. But his treatment could only be applied by deporting labor leaders, allowing mass layoffs, impoverishing workers and Indigenous people, and undermining the country’s real economic growth.
Sachs, a Columbia University professor who would go on to rebrand himself as a progressive social democrat and supporter of Bernie Sanders, first made his name in the centuries-old tradition of colonial philanthropic megalomania.
His 2005 book “The End of Poverty”, prefaced by U2 singer Bono, used the medical metaphor to explain how to cure extreme poverty by 2025.
Despite the good will behind this and other initiatives, it is difficult to find any fundamental ideological (and especially technical) difference between Sachs and Argentina’s neoliberal idol Martínez de Hoz – even though the latter operated inside a fascist military regime that raped, tortured, and disappeared dissidents or threw leftists to their deaths out of airplanes.
Two decades after Sachs’ “therapies” were sent from Washington, DC to La Paz, Bolivia’s socialist President Evo Morales showed what an economy looks like when the state protects its people, their work, and the domestic market.
The massive growth of the Bolivian economy under Morales – an Indigenous farmer and labor organizer who did not finish high school – is only one of the many indicators that exposed the pseudo-scientific economic doctrine developed in the most prestigious US universities under the guise of clinical rigor.
Bolivia’s GDP per capita was just $1034 in 2005. Morales came to power the next year, and by the time he was overthrown in a US-backed far-right coup in 2019, Bolivia’s GDP per capita more than tripled to $3552.
Bolivia’s massive economic growth under President Evo Morales (from 2006 to 2019)
Overvaluing a currency by pegging it to the US dollar, in one way or another, was the core of the shock therapies that neoliberal economists had implemented in Bolivia, Argentina, and elsewhere.
This is certainly the easiest way to contain inflation, but it also undermines the domestic market and the people of a country – the two variables that are often ignored by free-market economists and institutions.
Other solutions to inflation exist, but because these include capital controls – an idea considered blasphemy in orthodox economics – and because they help preserve and stimulate local economies instead of international finance, they are most unpleasant to US and European banks and corporations.
No corporate media pundit or reputed economist would suggest a shock therapy that negatively affects the ruling class to fix a crisis, even though it would be sensible, because that would compromise their reputation and career.
So the concept of shock in economics is always reserved as a tactic for ripping off the working class and the poor – especially in formerly colonized nations.
Shortly after Carlos Menem took power in 1989, he pardoned all crimes committed during the Videla dictatorship. This horrified the survivors, and made it clear that his presidency would be dominated by oligarchic and foreign interests.
Menem also removed some taxes and regulations on agricultural exports, obtaining the support of the powerful landlords and the conservative establishment. The mask was off.
Hyperinflation reached a staggering 20,000% in 1990. Combined with the debt and pressure of the IMF, the crisis provided the justification for another “shock therapy”.
Inflation in Argentina in 1990
In 1991, Menem chose as his economic minister Domingo Cavallo, who had directed the central bank during the dictatorship. Together, they practiced what the president had famously called a “surgery without anesthesia”.
Cavallo’s landmark policy is known as the uno a uno (“one to one”). This was the new edition of Martínez de Hoz’s disastrous la tablita in 1979 and Sachs’ shock therapy in Bolivia.
The scheme was based on the same monetary principle: stop inflation by artificially and forcibly pegging a currency to the dollar (or overvaluing it).
Argentina’s latest version of this scam was even simpler than the previous manifestations. The Menem government issued a new currency – the peso still in use today. It retired old notes and coins and issued new ones.
The law then ordered that one new Argentine peso was now worth one US dollar – hence the name one to one. The Argentine peso would thus remain pegged to the dollar.
It was a de facto dollarization, a surrendering of Argentina’s monetary sovereignty.
Everybody could freely exchange pesos and dollars, now backed by the state with its reserves. This meant that the law restricted the emission of new pesos to the amount of US dollars in Argentina’s reserves.
From the point of view of the speculative financial markets, pesos had become “sound money” again, by law.
But they had also become expensive for the state, and therefore limited in circulation.
Inflation did go down to almost zero, but Argentine workers’ purchasing power dropped too.
Cavallo was celebrated in the West as a genius, as if he had invented free dollars. Clearly, they weren’t free.
The uno a uno was not meant to come alone, and was part of a larger plan of deregulations and privatizations.
With the support of the Peronists in the Congress, Menem launched one of the biggest operations of privatizations in history, an unprecedented pillage of public resources that Perón (who had nationalized the central bank and the railways) would have likely have opposed.
Argentina President Carlos Menem (left) with his neoliberal Economic Minister Domingo Cavallo
In a few years, the still powerful Argentine state privatized the pension system, national railways, public banks, telephone grid, national airline, ports, postal service, water supply network, power grid, gas network, several TV and radio networks, and some healthcare services.
The naval, chemical, and aerospace industries were privatized, along with the national oil company. In all, more than 400 public companies in Argentina were privatized.
US and European corporations bought the country practically overnight.
The privatizations occurred in the context of wild corruption and mismanagement. Companies and assets were sold off or given in concession at ridiculous prices and conditions.
Some services became up to 10 times more expensive. Others collapsed.
One of the most dramatic cases was the destruction of Argentina’s railways network. In its effort to de-industrialize the country, the military dictatorship had closed hundreds of stations and thousands of miles of rails.
Menem finished the job by dismantling most of the 29,000 miles of rails – which had been the eighth-largest network in the world.
Thousands lost their jobs. Some remote villages were disconnected from the rest of the world.
Neoliberalism turned a functioning public infrastructure that had been built, operated, and used by generations of Argentine workers into landfills.
In many cities and towns, these abandoned industrial, almost post-atomic ruins have not been dismantled or converted to this day, three decades later.
Trains, rails, bridges, warehouses, and stations were reconquered by nature and left to rust, offering a depressive glimpse on the past and a warning for the future.
The euphoria over Cavallo’s apparent victory against inflation did not last. An initial boost in confidence caused by the low inflation and the strong peso gave the illusion – buttressed by a worldwide neoliberal propaganda campaign praising Argentina’s model – that the economy was not going to collapse this time.
The growth between 1991 and 1994, based on the overvalued currency, gave Menem a second mandate.
But in 1995, unemployment reached 18.8%, indicating that not everybody was enjoying the consumerist joys of the rise in imported goods – the new “sweet money” phenomenon, which was similar to the one experienced in the Videla dictatorship under Martínez de Hoz.
Unemployment skyrocketed in Argentina in the 1990s, under Carlos Menem
Because of the strong currency, Argentine exports were also hurt. National products had become too expensive, leading to a growing trade deficit.
The imbalance was compensated by the dollars obtained where? From one-off income from privatizations, and, once again, loans.
But how long could this scheme last?
The recession and crisis that followed Menem was brutal. The so-called structural adjustments imposed by the IMF boosted unemployment, extreme poverty, and hunger to record levels, while capital started leaving the country.
In 1999, the widespread disgust for Menem – whom many remembered as a corrupt buffoon who drove a $120,000 red Ferrari while overseeing the pillage of his country – led to the defeat of the Peronist candidate in the presidential election.
Argentine President Carlos Menem driving in his expensive red Ferrari
At that point, Argentina had already entered a technical recession that would last four years. Yet with the shock therapy, nothing changed.
During his short presidency, from 1999 to 2001, the liberal Fernando de la Rúa kept implementing the suicidal recommendations of the IMF, with more rounds of cuts in public services and pensions.
De la Rúa reduced salaries of public employees and fired thousands. He also made it much easier, and cheaper, for employers to fire workers in the middle of a long recession, without the obligation to pay severance packages.
In December 2000, the government obtained a $37 billion “bailout” package from the IMF under the condition of annihilating the state and the economy by reaching a zero deficit.
In January 2001, the government renegotiated parts of the debt in order to postpone it for three years, while increasing the interests. But in March, the negative results forced the economic minister to resign.
In a surreal plot twist, de la Rúa called back an old acquaintance: free market star Domingo Cavallo, the former Menem minister who started the uno a uno conversion that had crippled Argentina’s national economy probably more than anything else ever conceived.
Cavallo was appointed economic minister, again.
Once back into the operatory theater, the economic butcher started doing the only thing he and all the other ministers in the previous 25 years had always done. Further cuts were approved, while the ghost of an incoming Armageddon loomed.
The unsustainable macroeconomic situation led to a bank run in Argentina in November 2001. Many people and companies feared a meltdown of the financial system. They started withdrawing large sums from banks and exchanging their pesos to US dollars, even though Cavallo’s now infamous landmark policy, the one to one conversion, was still in place.
In a desperate attempt to save the banks and contain a situation that was clearly out of control, on December 1, 2001, Cavallo and de la Rúa ordered an almost complete freeze of all bank accounts, limiting withdrawals to $250 in cash per person per week, a measure then called the corralito (small corral).
The sudden limit in liquidity, after years of financial deregulation and in the midst of a brutal recession, drastically affected trade and broke the chain of cash payments, leading to terrible consequences for millions of informal workers who did not have bank accounts, and thus could not be paid.
Considering it time to let the boat sink, the IMF announced on December 6 that it would not send the dollars expected from the last bailout, because Argentina had not met the zero deficit goal.
The following weeks were followed by a general strike, lootings, violence, and several deaths.
So on December 19, President de la Rúa ordered a curfew, inciting an infuriated response from the people. Protesters stormed the Plaza de Mayo, the square in front of Argentina’s presidential palace, the Pink House.
The day after, de la Rúa resigned and fled from the roof on a helicopter.
Three days later, on December 23, abandoned by the IMF, Argentina officially defaulted on a $95 billion debt.
Argentine President Fernando de la Rúa (right) with Carlos Menem
The 2001 default was a watershed moment for all Argentines, and became a symbol of the effects of neoliberalism and imperialism across the planet.
But this historic default on debt managed by award-winning, highly respected economists was just the surface of a decades-long, fabricated crisis that was really a neocolonial takeover.
Record levels of poverty, shocking child malnutrition, a growing infant mortality rate, devastating unemployment, and increasing outward emigration shattered the false image of the country that had once been an economic powerhouse and the destination for millions of migrants seeking a better life.
Argentina was not just broke; it had been socially, economically, and politically demolished as a sovereign country.
The state, productive fabric, currency, trade, public education, and healthcare, public transportation: nothing was left untouched by the pillage that effectively led to a reset of Argentine society.
Something similar was happening in other Latin American semi-colonies of the United States. The region found itself divided into those who recognized the fraud of neoliberalism – a word that had become in the political discourse – and those who believed that the shock therapies designed by people like Jeffrey Sachs, José Alfredo Martínez de Hoz, or Domingo Cavallo were not “true” neoliberalism.
The staunch believers in the virtues of neoliberal ideology implied that, instead of changing course, the real solution was more of the same, but in a more extreme form.
Some of these free-market pundits and academics, who still thrive in major corporate media outlets, articulated a fundamentalist “libertarian” critique, claiming the neoliberal regimes did not go far enough when they removed most tariffs on imports, that they should have eliminated all of them, effectively destroying local industries. And they insisted everything should have been privatized, not almost everything.
The extent of the privatizations is something that even the free-market fundamentalists’ most eloquent evangelist, Milton Friedman, struggled to explain in practical terms.
Friedman argued that the state should still control “some roads”, and maybe the police or the army. He confusedly claimed that he was not against public control when debating schools, but simultaneously insisted that government control was bad.
The biggest neoliberal rhetorical fallacy has always been related to the debt. Neoliberals typically associate the debt with public spending on social programs, using a straw man that implies that the debt crisis of “developing countries” is a trivial problem of excessive spending that can be solved by simply reducing it.
The neoliberals act as though poor working people, especially from oppressed Black, Indigenous, or mixed race communities, are unable to manage the money that wealthy people have supposedly given them.
This narrative is totally false. It ignores key factors, including foreign control, deliberate pillage, and de-development.
In regard to foreign control, unpayable debts were deliberately created and expanded in Argentina by dictatorships or corrupt elected governments, like Menem’s, which operated on behalf of foreign interests and oligarchs, and which were forced to apply suicidal measures demanded by the IMF, World Bank, and US Treasury Department.
As for deliberate pillage, the need for massive quantities of US dollars was in large part caused by fraudulent schemes, like Argentina’s “financial bicycle”. These were made possible thanks to the deregulation of the exchange market, overvaluation of the currency, and other policies that favored scams paid by the state.
When billionaire speculators were allowed to exchange Argentine pesos for unlimited amounts of dollars, benefiting from high interest rates in pesos, it was the state that had to borrow those dollars from US private banks or from the IMF and pay interests on them. Once exchanged, the dollars obtained by the speculators were moved out of the country, leaving the debt to the state.
And in terms of de-development, the money borrowed under Argentina’s neoliberal regimes was virtually never used for social programs that would stimulate the real economy, support domestic demand, or improve people’s lives in any way. Instead, those dollars were mostly used to pay interest, service new loans, or increase the demand of dollars for speculative purposes.
Only days after Argentina’s 2001 debt default, interim President Eduardo Duhalde abolished Cavallo’s dollarization scheme – the one peso to one dollar fixed exchange rate. The peso lost 40% of its value overnight.
This long-due monetary devaluation, together with a timid stimulus in the form of social subsidies, gave oxygen to an exhausted population and to the economy as a whole.
The defaulted country was in ruins, and the lasting crisis led to immense suffering. But as a response to the robberies and horrors of the previous decades, new creative energies and popular movements were emerging across Latin America.
In a surprising turn of events, the barely known governor of a remote southern province became president of Argentina in 2003, with a measly 22% of the vote.
The widespread contempt for the arrogant and corrupt political class of Buenos Aires played in favor of Néstor Kirchner, a progressive Peronist who belonged to the faction that opposed fascist Peronist José López Rega in the 1970s and neoliberal Peronist Menem in the 1990s.
Not many thought that Kirchner would have changed Argentina’s political direction. But he laid solid foundations for a debt-free economy that grew almost 9% every year during his presidency – a success neoliberal detractors tried to explain simply as the luck of a “commodity export boom“.
The new president joined the progressive wave that had brought Hugo Chávez in Venezuela and Lula da Silva in Brazil, forming a key part of what would later be dubbed the “Pink Tide”.
Argentine President Néstor Kirchner
As of 2003, when Kirchner became president, Argentina’s defaulted external debt was a combination of IMF loans and bonds owned by private investors of all kinds. These two types of creditors operate and affect the government in very different ways.
The IMF is a political organization ruled under a very specific economic ideology, which imposes the Washington Consensus on countries that it “helps” financially. The US has always had the main quota and veto power in the Fund.
The policies demanded by the IMF are detrimental to the real economy and undermine the borrower’s growth and domestic market, trapping it in a cycle of debt.
But the bondholders, which are mostly private companies operating in international financial markets, cannot directly enforce a policy on a government. They are private companies that profit from speculative trades, which inherently involves risks, and normally the higher the risk, the higher the gain.
The more a government is in economic trouble, the higher the interests on its bonds will usually be, in order to find speculators willing to buy them.
This game makes it very profitable to trade risky bonds – in other words, to speculate on countries that are financially desperate.
While formally separate, the IMF and the bondholders (sometimes referred to simply as “the markets”) cooperate and need each other in order to maximize their effectiveness.
The more a country is financially desperate, the more speculators will profit, and the more leverage the IMF will have in order to enforce neoliberal reforms and other political pressures.
On December 16, 2005, Kirchner announced that Argentina would repay its entire IMF debt in full, and in advance, with its foreign reserves. On January 3, 2006 the payment of $9.5 billion was confirmed by the Fund.
The central bank only held $27 billion in US dollars in its reserves, but that was still more than the record low of the previous years.
The reserves had grown thanks to the budget surplus obtained from the suspension of the payments to private bondholders, and the rapid growth of exports caused by the devaluation of the peso, which made Argentine products more competitive.
Kirchner’s decision to pay off the debt early saved the country an estimated $842 million in interest.
While far from being a long-term solution to the huge problems the Argentine people were facing, this was a game changer.
The move was anticipated by Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, who had paid the IMF in full a few months earlier.
But the announcement was received as a shocking surprise by Kirchner’s supporters and detractors alike.
It also annoyed part of the Argentine establishment, whose corruption had been mercilessly exposed: Why did none of Kirchner’s predecessors pay off the IMF debt like this before?
The repayment was a demonstration that Argentina never actually needed “aid” from the IMF. The Fund had become seen as a national enemy by popular movements, and was even publicly criticized by Kirchner in his speeches.
Argentine President Néstor Kirchner with his wife, future President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
The debt that Argentina held with the IMF was important because of its political implications, but the government still owed much more to private creditors.
In 2003, Kirchner started a complex process of negotiations with diverse groups of creditors. These talks continued under the subsequent presidency of his wife, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (CFK).
The robust approach of the Kirchner administrations was effective – and it angered wealthy creditors, as could be seen at the time by the frustration of their media mouthpieces like The Economist.
In 2005, Argentina abandoned the seemingly endless, unsuccessful negotiations and made a unilateral offer with discounts of up to 66.3% on the original bonds. The offer was accepted by most bondholders and ended restructuring 76% of the defaulted debt (then $81.8 billion in total).
In 2010, under CFK, Argentina completed a second bond exchange under less favorable conditions for the creditors, which led to a total of 91.3% of the defaulted debt being restructured.
The Kirchners’ strategy had proved a success. Tens of billions were saved, and Argentina was on its way to finally normalize its status vis-à-vis the international credit markets, while all economic indicators were showing strong signs of recovery.
But the remaining defaulted debt, which represented just about 8% of the total from 2001, was now owned by holdouts that had refused the offers of 2005 and 2010, and decided to turn to the US judicial system to help them litigate.
Most of these creditors were known as “vulture funds” – firms that are illegal in many countries, but not the United States. (In 2008, an ambitious bill designed to prevent investors from speculating on sovereign debts of developing countries was introduced in the US Congress, but it failed to pass.)
These particular kinds of hedge funds profit by buying defaulted debts at a much lower price than their nominal value, and then use aggressive strategies, most notably lawsuits, to extort the debtor, in an attempt to get the full value plus penalties.
Some of the world’s most infamous vulture funds had bought Argentina’s defaulted bonds after 2001. The largest slice of the cake was owned by NML Capital, the Cayman Islands subsidiary of New York-based Elliott Management Corporation, whose US founder and CEO, Paul Singer, is a billionaire vulture capitalist and top donor to the Republican Party.
Billionaire vulture capitalist Paul Singer, a top owner of Argentina’s debt
Also profiting on Argentina’s debt was Cayman Islands-based billionaire Kenneth Dart, the owner of Dart Management, a pioneer in vulture practices targeting Brazil, Russia, Ecuador, Turkey, and Greece.
Part of Argentina’s remaining defaulted bonds were owned by Aurelius Capital Management, which was led by speculator Mark Brodsky, a veteran of Elliott Management Corporation who saw Singer as his mentor and has also profited from Puerto Rico’s odious debt.
Singer, Dart, Brodsky, and their super-rich colleagues belong to a generation of speculators who learned to take advantage of the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, a law that provides the legal basis to sue a foreign country in a US court.
Before that law, vulture funds could not engage in distressed-debt litigation against sovereign countries. But in 1992, Dart opened Pandora’s box by suing Brazil, right in the middle of its debt crisis, and getting a favorable settlement.
In the following years, after the overthrow of the Soviet Union and imposition of neoliberalism across much of the world, wealthy speculators followed Dart’s example.
“When Dart and Singer started, fewer than 10% of sovereign debt crises involved litigation. Today that figure is more like 50%”, the New York Times reported in 2019.
Argentina’s record 2001 default was the perfect opportunity for vulture funds. Their threat was so clear that even right-wing media outlets in the country that were owned by pro-US oligarchs, like the conservative newspaper Clarín, dubbed Kenneth Dart “the number one enemy of Argentina”.
After a long legal battle between the vulture funds and the Kirchners’ governments in several US courts, New York judge Thomas Griesa ruled in 2012 that Argentina had to pay the vulture funds at full value.
That meant that Singer’s company, for example, would get a return of 15 times its initial investment.
The ruling became effective in 2014. It also blocked Argentina from paying any other creditor who had accepted the bond exchanges of 2005 and 2010 until it had paid the vultures in full.
This was technically possible because almost of all bank accounts and financial transfers involved were under US jurisdiction.
In other words, the US ruling created a paradoxical situation where Argentina was considered in default for being unable to comply with payment deadlines, even though the government had actually ordered the payments.
The only way to unblock the freeze of the transactions was for Argentina to submit to a parasitic group of billionaires and speculators who were trying to make a killing off of its odious debt.
Following the ruling, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner denounced the vulture funds on the international stage, accusing them of weaponizing US law to wage “economic and financial terrorism.”
Addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2014, CFK argued that these companies “are economic terrorists who destabilize the economy of a country and create poverty, hunger, and misery, from the sin of speculation.”
Despite the extortion and the high tension with Washington and its local representatives in Argentina’s opposition, President Kirchner ended her mandate in December 2015, still refusing to pay the vulture funds.
Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner denounces the “economic and financial terrorism” of US vulture funds at the United Nations General Assembly in 2014
Mauricio Macri, a right-wing multi-millionaire whose family had profited from the dictatorship, and whose fortune also came from Menem’s privatizations, won the 2015 presidential election by a small margin.
At the end of CFK’s second term, Argentina’s debt-to-GDP ratio was 52.6%. It had increased a bit in the last years, but was still easily controllable.
When Macri left power in 2019, the debt-to-GDP ratio was 90.2%, and growing.
But probably the most absurd development was that under Macri, in less than four years, Argentina once again defaulted on its debt.
On December 7, 2015, three days before the inauguration of President Macri, Argentina’s future finance minister and central bank manager Luis Caputo, a former JP Morgan trader, flew to New York and met the representatives of the vulture funds. Nothing else was more urgent.
Three months later, in February 2016, Macri’s Argentina transferred $9.3 billion to the vulture funds, while the New York judge, Griesa, unblocked the other payments to the other bondholders, the owners of the 93% of the defaulted debt who had accepted the offers made in 2005 and 2010.
Paul Singer’s NML Capital alone made $2.28 billion on an original investment of just $177 million, for a total return of 1180% – while also forcing Argentina to pay the legal fees.
Macri’s payment of the vulture funds amounted to a national humiliation for a sovereign countr. It also angered many small investors, including pensioners and workers, who lost money with the debt exchanges, while a small group of US billionaires and foreign speculators made a killing.
The reason Macri gave the operation such a priority was because he hoped to obtain access to the international credit markets as soon as possible. The new right-wing president wanted to once again to borrow money by emitting new bonds – something Argentina had been banned from doing since the default in 2001.
By paying the enormous ransom to the vulture funds, Macri’s government had the power to flood the country with borrowed US dollars.
In the early days of his administration, Macri removed several regulations in order to favor financial speculators and companies in sectors like agriculture – the most important in Argentina – as well as mining, energy, finance, and the media.
These industries, especially the media, are controlled by Argentine billionaires, who were President Macri’s main supporters.
Macri got rid of capital controls and the so-called cepo, a foreign exchange regulation introduced in 2011 under CFK that limited the amount of US dollars individuals and companies could buy with pesos, in order to prevent capital flight and inflation.
For years Argentina’s mainstream media, which is dominated by the powerful telecommunications corporation the Grupo Clarín, described the “freedom” to buy dollars almost as a human right, so CFK’s regulations were presented as a violation of liberty.
Clarín was one of the most powerful supporters of Macri, so it was extremely easy for him to remove the currency controls overnight. This meant that Argentine oligarchs could buy any amount of dollars, even billions, with pesos. And that is exactly what speculators did.
The end of capital controls and the possibility to borrow virtually without limits were an explosive mix. They paved the way for Argentina’s third neoliberal robbery, the fastest and the first based almost exclusively on financial methods.
The previous two pillages had taken place during the 1976-1983 military dictatorship and Menem’s presidency from 1989 to 1999.
In a formidable show of effectiveness, Macri and his team wrecked the relatively healthy finances of the Argentine state in less than two years.
Argentina’s President Mauricio Macri (right) with Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro
Macri’s single-term presidency used the state as a tool to bring dollars and euros into the country through easily accessible borrowing.
Those dollars ended up in private hands, thanks to the now unregulated currency market, which meant anybody could buy or sell any amount of pesos. This inevitably caused significant inflation.
At the same time, big funds were now free to move their dollars out of the country, thanks to the absence of capital controls. The new conditions led to a rapid increase in capital flight.
Under Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, capital flight was contained and was mostly paid with the surplus in the commercial balance, given exports were higher than imports.
During the “K” years, some of the money obtained from economic growth did leave the country, but under Macri, the capital flight not only grew faster, it ended up being funded with the foreign currency borrowed by the state. Capital flight was quite literally borrowed money.
Pundits propagandized on behalf of the government and Macri’s suicidal economic policies by stirring up the desire for dollars in the population, even among those who could not afford to buy any.
Deregulation of the foreign currency exchange led to high inflation in Argentina, but the right-wing-controlled media outlets blamed the Kirchners. They brought back the old neoliberal dog whistle that Argentina was now “open to the world,” and promised that the new policies would attract foreign investors who never arrived.
Macri’s most important achievement was to allow wealthy families and speculative companies to dollarize their assets, thus moving them to more profitable markets abroad.
Wealthy speculators were also allowed to profit from the old scheme known as carry trade (bicicleta financiera), which had been used during the last dictatorship.
Their trick was to buy pesos, profit from the high interest rates in pesos, then convert them to dollars and move the dollars out of the country.
In the meantime, the state had to provide a virtually infinite amount of dollars for the speculators, and was left with the pesos.
Thanks to a reckless emission of bonds to support the uncontrolled demand of foreign currency, including an extraordinary 100-year bond and very high interest rates, Argentina was already on the brink of another default just two years since Macri took power.
The debt-to-GDP ratio passed from 56% in 2017 to 86% in 2018, a catastrophic 30% increase in one year.
In 2018, the Argentine peso was the worst-performing currency in the world – excluding Venezuela, which was suffering under illegal unilateral sanctions and relentless economic war by the United States.
The Argentine peso lost about 50% of its value to the dollar. Inflation rose by the same amount.
Macri’s central bank increased interest rates to record levels in an attempt to attract investors – or more accurately, speculators – but it was too late.
The economic figures did not lie. Argentina’s debt was already unpayable in 2018, and all macroeconomic indicators showed that a crash was imminent.
At the beginning of the year, virtually no one wanted to buy Argentine bonds anymore, meaning that a country whose debt had been under control only two years before, and had no absolutely reason to rush into deregulating its currency and financial markets, was now on the brink of yet another default.
In this uncertain context, Argentina went through two major currency crises in 2018, in June and August, forcing the central bank to waste billions of dollars to contain the extreme devaluation of the peso.
The country was bleeding dollars, and toward mid-2018, the so-called “Macrisis” was a reality.
Macri’s days in power seemed numbered.
Argentine President Mauricio Macri (right) with US President Donald Trump in Buenos Aires in 2018
On May 8, 2018 Macri announced that he had formally requested financial aid from the IMF.
For millions of Argentines it was a shock. The country had not dealt with the disgraced organization since 2005, when Néstor Kirchner had paid the debt in full and decoupled the national economic policies from Washington, after years of tense relations.
The US representative at the IMF at the time, Mauricio Claver-Carone, revealed that EU members of the Fund considered Argentina’s situation at the time “unsustainable.” They were against a loan that was clearly meant to save Macri’s face and buy him time to attempt a re-election.
But according to Claver-Carone, US President Donald Trump saw Macri as an important ally in his coup attempt against Venezuela.
At the time, the White House was preparing a regime-change operation to remove Venezuela’s democratically elected President Nicolás Maduro and replace him with Washington’s hand-picked “interim president,” Juan Guaidó.
And Macri did indeed go on to recognize Guaidó, who never received a single vote in a presidential election, as the supposed head of state in Venezuela.
So Trump forced the IMF – whose biggest contributor is the United States, and therefore mainly controlled by the US government – to provide Argentina with the biggest loan in the Fund’s history, to keep Macri and his plutocratic friends afloat.
Agreeing on a $57 billion loan with a government whose policies allowed record levels of capital flight was economically nonsensical, especially considering that article VI, section 1(a) of the IMF articles of agreement states that a “member may not use the Fund’s general resources to meet a large or sustained outflow of capital.”
But the multifaceted scam designed in the White House was carried on anyway, and an agreement was reached in September 2018.
Under Macri, Argentina was ultimately disbursed $44 billion by the IMF.
But not a single dollar sent by the Fund was ever seen by the Argentine people, or used for any project for economic development.
The money evaporated, trickling up into the pockets of domestic and foreign oligarchs, funding the massive demand of US dollars generated by speculators and by the interests of the debt.
The billions sent from Washington disappeared in just 11 months.
In August 2019, Macri’s Argentina had to postpone some scheduled payments, meaning that it was already in default – the country’s first official default for lack of funds since 2001.
The effects of Macri’s short administration were dramatic. His tenure was dominated by politically motivated judicial attacks (known as lawfare) against the opposition, which involved the meddling of the US embassy, intelligence services, corrupt judges, illegal surveillance, and a torrent of media propaganda.
Under Macri, Argentina’s inflation skyrocketed, the value of wages plummeted, unemployment rose, and poverty grew above the 2001 crisis levels, reaching almost 40% when he left office.
Poverty was 30% when the multi-millionaire took power, meaning that more than 4 million people had become poor in four years. About one in 10 Argentines was in extreme poverty.
The total value of capital flight during Macri’s four years in government was estimated at $79.8 billion, while the payments of interest on the debt were $40.7 billion.
The debt-to-GDP ratio reached 90% in 2019, almost doubling from when Cristina Fernández de Kirchner left office in 2015.
Without Trump’s intervention, Argentina would have defaulted two years earlier, and the chaos would have probably forced Macri to resign.
So the IMF loan was effectively an injection of oxygen that gave the right-wing president a chance to run for an almost impossible re-election.
With the vote approaching in 2019, the opposition had to find a candidate to deal with Macri’s catastrophic legacy.
Polls showed that CFK could win again, but years of lawfare had weakened her to the point that a new presidency would have been politically unstable, especially looking at the trend in the region, where right-wing, US-aligned governments were thriving.
CFK therefore decided to run as vice president, and offered the lead to Alberto Fernández.
The new Peronist candidate had been chief of ministers under Néstor Kirchner, and had served briefly under Cristina as well.
But Fernández had left CFK’s government and became a vocal opposition figure within Peronism. In the past, he had even been a political ally of the infamous neoliberal economic minister Domingo Cavallo.
Because of his reputation as a “K” critic, the new alliance appeared counterintuitive, but it earned the Alberto-Cristina alliance more support at a moment of extreme vulnerability for every progressive candidate in Latin America.
In the August 2019 primary election, CFK’s coalition with Fernández, called the Frente de Todos (Front of Everyone), won with 48%, compared to the 32% of Macri’s right-wing alliance Juntos por el Cambio.
Macri’s August 2019 default was rarely called a default by Argentina’s right-wing-dominated media, especially because it occurred in the middle of the presidential campaign and the catastrophic primary vote.
But even US rating agencies like S&P and Fitch, as well as foreign financial media outlets like Bloomberg, which are notorious for their strong bias in favor of neoliberal governments, admitted that Argentina was in “selective default” or “quasi default”.
In order to protect Macri, the Argentine media made up a new word, reperfilamiento (reshaping), and used it instead of “default,” successfully obfuscating the president’s economic disaster behind a smokescreen of propaganda.
Denying the default was a desperate attempt to put some lipstick on the corpse of Macri’s political and economic legacy. But it did the job.
The multi-millionaire did lose re-election in the October 2019 presidential election, but the enormous propaganda apparatus operated by Clarín managed to significantly improve Macri’s poor result in the primary, boosting him up to 40% against Fernández’s 48%.
The election showed what a media monopoly and millions of dollars systematically invested in troll armies on social media can do, even in the most unfavorable conditions.
The media narrative of the “heavy legacy” (pesada herencia) that Argentina supposedly received from Néstor and Cristina Kirchner, and the often fabricated allegations and charges of corruption took a significant toll.
More than appreciation for Macri’s policies, the 2019 vote expressed the anti-Kirchner sentiment that had been cultivated through years of lawfare.
Argentina’s conservative sectors needed to undermine the positive reputation of the “K“ governments and character assassinate CFK, because she was by far the most popular leader on a national level.
The right-wing oligarchy’s ultimate goal was to make it impossible for CFK to run again (which they would go on to accomplish with a judicial coup in December 2022).
But the 2019 electoral victory of Fernández and CFK ended up being the easiest part.
Argentina’s President Alberto Fernández and Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner
The country Alberto Fernández received on December 10, 2019 was very different from the one Macri got four years before.
In 2019, Argentina was on fire, with an economy in recession, poorer, indebted at 90% of GDP, and even more polarized than before.
The new president had the daunting task of fixing Argentina’s devastated public finances, hit by another default on its sovereign debt, while dealing with one of the worst social and economic crises in its history.
The Frente de Todos coalition that Fernández had formed with Cristina Fernández de Kirchner was very large, including parties ranging from the center to the left.
This meant there were many differences inside the Frente de Todos, which began to emerge when they took power.
But everybody in the coalition knew that Argentina’s media monopoly Clarín and the wealthy oligarchy were not going to help extinguish the fire, because they were responsible for it.
After the fall of Macri, the mainstream media continued pushing endless conspiracies against Vice President CFK.
The right-wing press even got created and added a strange new chapter about her supposed plots to undermine Fernández, the man she chose and helped put in the Pink House months before.
Although CFK was not president, and despite years of politically motivated allegations of corruption and dozens of legal prosecutions (but no convictions at this point), she was still by far the most charismatic and popular leader in Argentina.
But just a few months after Alberto and Cristina took power, in early 2020, the crisis in Argentina reached a whole new level, when the global Covid-19 pandemic hit.
In September 2018, Macri had gutted the Ministry of Health, among others, and turned it into a sub-department, as part of his harsh austerity cuts, which were justified as administrative “simplifications”.
So on March 3, 2020, when the first case of Covid-19 was identified in Buenos Aires, the new government was still in the process of reviving the national health administration, which had been systematically defunded and nearly dismantled by Macri.
In this disastrous context, President Fernández and his Economic Minister Martin Guzmán, a neo-Keynesian academic and collaborator of Joseph Stiglitz, played a complex game with the two different groups of creditors, the private bondholders and political organizations like the IMF.
Shortly after being sworn in, Fernández had said Argentina would stop until 2024 all payments on the $44 billion that the IMF had lent to Macri’s administration.
In February 2020, Vice President Kirchner publicly suggested that the debt was illegitimate.
Noting that the IMF statute forbids lending money to countries with significant capital flight, CFK pointed out that loan had not been given to fund infrastructure projects or social programs.
Following the neoliberal disasters of the 1990s, the IMF has tried to rebrand itself as a more collaborative and humanistic institution.
The Covid-19 pandemic seemed to have forced the Fund to soften its infamous obsession with austerity policies and accept the priority of economic growth over debt consolidation.
Whether this was a true change in paradigm or just a marketing campaign is not clear – although Argentines are deeply skeptical.
Part two of this article will detail the attempts by the Alberto Fernández administration to renegotiate Argentina’s debt with the IMF and private creditors.
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
I never thought I’d hobble into that sunset so limp.
with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.
Nuisances and Genociders’ Last Gasp — Sep 02, 2025.
American Dale James West after his arrest in Da Nang on 8/27/25
In South Korea, American Ramsey Khalid Ismael, better known as Johnny Somali, has been stuck for a year, awaiting his conviction, after committing a series of crimes, including playing obscene audios near children at a theme park, fondling a Comfort Woman statue, disseminating an AI video of himself with a Korean woman whom he claimed was his girlfriend, terrorizing an old employee at a convenience store, on and on, for the guy’s a famous “nuisance streamer,” an American specialty.
In Manila, another American nuisance streamer, Vitaly Zdorovetskiy, has been jailed for five months. With the Filipino legal system moving quite leisurely, he won’t see a courtroom for a while. Like Somali, Vitaly can count on many years of free room and board in an exotic locale, not that he’ll see much. In dreams, they’ll return often to Florida and Arizona. Wearing their MAGA hats, it will be just like before, but suddenly, they’re fucked from behind by a new foreign friend. Before his arrest, Vitaly joked his asshole was ready. It will speak fluent Tagalog by the time he’s released. You’d think Somali is too ugly to demand much erotic attention behind bars, but he, too, will get his share of prison love. Lighter, humbler and grayer, each will stumble out to a much changed world.
For decades, Westerners have considered East Asia to be a place to find cheap, unusual fun, you know, like little brown fucking machines, even underaged. After fucking little girls in Cambodia, Glam rocker Gary Glitter showed up in Vung Tau, where he was finally arrested. His rented house is within a 20 minute walk of where I’m sitting.
An American sexpat living for decades in Chiangmai claimed he had never heard of “little brown fucking machines.” He also thought Trump was a great president. Perhaps “irritable farmer” or “western lands” is that innocent.
Not so innocent is Dale James West. Here’s Dân Trí on 8/31/25”
On the evening 8/26, Dale James West (29 years old, a foreign citizen), masked, wearing a Grab uniform and a helmet, attacked a security guard with an iron pipe then barged into PNJ store (455 Núi Thành, Đà Nẵng) to smash a glass case with a hammer to steal gold and diamond jewelry worth 833 đồng [$31,619].
After his crime, the suspect escaped on a motorbike. On the morning of 8/27, the police captured James, along with all the incriminating evidence.
It took less than 12 hours for Vietnamese cops to snag this American. If convicted, a near certainty, he’ll spend from 18 years to life in prison. Since that’s the standard penalty for such a violent crime, let’s hope the Vietnamese authorities won’t show any leniency just because he’s an American.
A video posted by the New York Post shows bystanders on a busy street trying to block his escape, but this tallish armed man proved too intimidating. Violent crimes are extremely rare in Vietnam. The Post also states he’s only 26 years old, and from California.
The West has long exported its degeneracy to the East. With economic collapse, this trend has only accelerated. Here’s news.com.au on 4/28/25:
A wannabe Aussie influencer has been slammed online after “desecrating” a grave in Aokigahara, also known as Japan’s suicide forest.
Sydney man Lochie Jones posted a clip earlier this month titled “Suicide Forest Japan Pt 2 Graveyard Flip”, showing himself entering a burial site on the outskirts of the notorious forest.
“So it looks like there’s a cemetery here with a whole bunch of dead people,” he told his camera.
After climbing into the cemetery he can be seen touching graves, saying: “I wonder how many of them died in the forest.”
He then approaches a headstone with a can of popular Japanese beer Kirin on top of it.
“Look at this guy,” he laughs.
“A whole can of Kirin. Should I drink it?”
“What do we reckon?,” he asks himself.
After setting his phone up against the headstone he decides to do a coin flip to “leave it up to chance.”
More insidious are “educators” like Mark Ashwill in Hanoi who spreads his globalist and woke ideology. Marxism itself is a Western poison still being detoxed by the East.
Nationalism has sustained Oriental nations for millennia. Just below it is Confucianism, then Buddhism, but mixed with assorted folk beliefs. Though Orientals have learned much from the West, they must stop looking towards it for standards.
At Coffee Seven where I’m sitting, there’s an octagonal Taoist mirror over the entrance, a money frog biting a coin, a small golden plate showing a Thai woman kneeling over two fish and a Japanese Maneki-neko cat waving in customers. Of course, Mrs. Seven can’t explain any of these, but her confusion is harmless. In her bedroom, there’s a crucifix and a photo of Father Trương Bửu Diệp. Her late husband was a Catholic. Though converted, she never attended church regularly, and hasn’t been in one in over a decade.
I used to be bothered by Vietnam’s cultural confusion, its mindless hodgepodge, but it’s exactly this ideological inconsistency that’s its saving grace. Vietnamese are too incoherent to be fanatical. I don’t suggest this would work anywhere else. I only think it’s fine for Vietnam.
Walking towards Coffee Seven in the dark, I paused to ask BlueTooth, “If you could live in another country forever, which would it be?”
Though I fully expected him to say USA or, much less likely, Australia or Canada, he answered, “Nowhere. I love it here!”
“Every interesting. You’re unusual! How about if you could spend two weeks in another country? Where would that be?”
“Nowhere. I love it here!”
Last time I heard that was in Lebanon. Ali, my regular driver, said he loved Lebanon too much to go anywhere. Even better was some guy Paul Theroux met in Sicily. When Theroux said he was a traveler, this guy declared that he, too, traveled, then he rattled off all the towns he’d visited. They were all in Sicily. Goofball had never even been to the Italian mainland.
After several delays, it appears my three thickish books in Vietnamese will be published, albeit privately. All I need are 50 copies of each, so some will survive, if only for a few years, my exit. It’s less vanity than the need to complete what I’ve started. After becoming a real homeboy, I’ll give a reading somewhere in Saigon, to a handful of people and, hopefully, two or three dogs, a dozen geckos and one attentive frog.
Ghosts all, we must strive to not be nuisances while barely alive.
Halo Evans
Cool Missiles Bursting in Air! — Sep 03, 2025.
Yesterday, Vietnam held a monstrous military parade in Hanoi. Watching bits of it on YouTube, I couldn’t help but think, What if just one of these impressive looking young men and women falls down? Worse, what if an AK toting soldier needs to use the bathroom? It wouldn’t do to perform a quick number two in front of the whole world, just as you’re passing a grandstand filled with big shots. Some old lady next to General Secretary Tô Lâm licked her lips rather obscenely. At least she didn’t fall asleep.
Off camera, even generals crap in their pants from a too-close explosion. War is all about being acutely aware of your animality, of how meatlike and shit filled you are. It’s anything but an inspiring display of unity made for television. In Beijing, there will be an even more asskicking parade today. Moscow just had one. Such military flexing is designed to steel pussified civilians for the escalation of war, no?
One glaring exception was Trump’s joke parade in DC. As the rest of the world hardens, Americans become self-mocking clowns, with the only tough guys those masked assholes in unmarked cars kidnapping busboys, gardeners, shoppers, grandmas and retarded schoolkids.
Just now, Mrs. Seven showed me a photo of her daughter in a national flag T-shirt, saluting. Behind her is a patriotic sign with soldiers. There’s also a video of about 12 young women, all employees of Shinhan Beauty, looking ready for a military parade, at least. They’d soil their panties at the first incoming.
Buying groceries at Lotte Supermarket, I was given a nylon flag with a plastic stem worth 19 cents. It’s sticking from my never watched TV.
It’s amazing this patriotic eruption across Vietnam, as shown on clothing, cars and at private businesses. To amuse Mrs. Seven, I shared with her a video of a cheeky and boobilicious American waving the Stars and Stripes, as the Star-Spangled Banner plays. Bitch means business.
With “the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,” war is, again, reduced to an inspiring spectacle. One can argue that this is absolutely necessary. Without such manipulation, nations are lost.
As Trump crows of how hot and rich the USA has become, we get entirely different accounts from ordinary Americans.
The Functional Melancholic’s “The United States of Collapse: The End of Empire” begins, “Have you noticed this feeling in the air? A lowgrade tension like the faint smell of smoke in a building where the fire alarm never quite goes off, or maybe the subtle smell of rot under the bed perfume. You walk down any major street in the US and you’ll see it in the eyes of the people pretending not to notice the growing tent cities pitched under the overpasses. And you’ll hear it in the way conversations have basically turned into shouting matches about whose version of the facts are true. You’ll taste it in the food that somehow costs twice as much while containing half as much food and even less nutrition. The roads crack your suspension. The bridges look like relics from civilization long gone. And it’s not just the cracks in the sidewalk, it’s the cracks in the soul.”
After 24 hours, it got over 2,250 comments, with nearly all offering their versions of how the US has collapsed. Also viral is a poem-like declaration from Halo Evans. I’ve inserted linebreaks:
I’m an American. I pay $1,600 for a flat that has no bedroom. That’s 2/3 of my income. I’m an American. I work 50 hours a week. I don’t have health insurance. I’m an American. I couldn't afford to have a child Even if I wanted to. I’m $7,000 in debt. I’m an American. My health is declining because I can’t afford Whole Foods, because That’s too expensive for my life. I am very overqualified for my job, But no one else is hiring. I’m an American. I make my boss hundreds of thousands, If not millions of dollars, while I can Barely keep myself alive. I’m an American. I have never been out of the States. I have never been on a vacation. I’m an American. I make 20 some dollars an hour. A livable wage here is, like, 30 some. Yet, I don’t qualify for government assistance Whatsoever. On the days I don’t work, I’m so tired I just sleep all day. I’m an American. My electric bill is so expensive, I sit outside in the heat because I can’t afford to turn the AC on In the damned house. I’m an American, and I fear I’m just an average American. I’m living the American dream.
Since her Instagram page is filled with self-adoring portraits of herself looking cute, one may wonder how depressed she really is, economically or psychologically? What’s really important is that millions of Americans are seeing themselves in Evan’s self portrait. They’re also overworked, broke and have never taken a vacation.
Unfortunately, it’s not just an image war. Trump just posted, “Earlier this morning, on my Orders, U.S. Military Forces conducted a kinetic strike against positively identified Tren de Aragua Narcoterrorists in the SOUTHCOM area of responsibility. TDA is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, operating under the control of Nicolas Maduro, responsible for mass murder, drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and acts of violence and terror across the United States and Western Hemisphere.”
This lawless psycho is attacking another nation on false pretexts. Battered by so much madness daily, it’s nearly impossible to grasp how fast your society is imploding, especially when you must deliberate forever before buying a loaf of bread or a dozen eggs.
Phoenix in Flames at Haunted Hotel — Sep 03, 2025.
Having been a semi-regular at Coffee Seven for nearly a year, I had assumed until this morning Mrs. Seven lived alone with her two dogs. Whoever else I had seen coming out of her house I thought was a visiting relative. Now, I know she has a sister and a nephew living upstairs, but they never talk. Her sister was a heroin addict, bad enough to be jailed. Now, she just drinks herself stupid, as much as her tiny budget allows.
Her 38-year-old nephew was a gang member who was never sober. So messed up, he had a stroke nearly a decade ago, so is now bedridden and in a diaper. From the government, he receives 1.5 million [$57] a month, and his mom gets 500K [$19] to take care of him. Even in cheap Vietnam, such stipends are jokes, but luckily, the nephew gets an additional 3 million [$114] a month from his gang leader, the notorious Vũ Cách Mạng. Just typing his name made me tremble, I’m such a pussy. Sure hope I won’t run into Revolutionary Vũ any time soon!
“If you come by in the afternoon, you’ll catch my sister. She’ll be sitting right there, drinking beer.”
Sure sounds like my kind of gal, except I only drink black coffee, cappuccini, soursop smoothies and avocado smoothies these days. I never thought I’d hobble into that sunset so limp. Just three years ago, I could still knock them down for 12 hours straight while blathering about Nguyễn Huy Thiệp, Hồ Biểu Chánh, Max Beckmann and Walt Whitman. Now, I just look forlorn while scratching my deflated balls.
“I had this cat,” Mrs. Seven continued. “My sister was always complaining about it, then one day, she just picked it up, right in front of me, and rode away! I couldn’t react quick enough. She just tossed that cat somewhere! It still hurts me to think of how it must have starved and suffered.”
A chick that hard up for drinking money must have sold the cat to one of these “mini tiger” restaurants, I thought immediately, but said nothing. Though pets are generally safe in southern Vietnamese cities, you still have these drug addicts riding around at night, hoping to catch anything.
Also today, I found out her house is worth at least 300K in US Dollars. Four years ago, it could have been sold for half a million. Though so run down, it’s still very close to the ocean, in a city not far from Saigon. With five siblings, all proceeds must be divided by six, so Mrs. Seven has to get by on selling 38 cent black coffee to the least fashionable crowd. With condensed milk, it’s up to 57 cents! Everyone gets free hot tea.
This old broad never complains, however. Yes, there are hints of regrets, such as when she talks about being lusted over by all these foreign men, Taiwanese and Westerners, when she was a star dancer at the Palace Hotel. Since she couldn’t talk to these white guys, she had no idea if they were Russian, Polish, German or whatever. She’s mourning, just a bit, her lost youth.
Sitting at Cóc Cóc, I look up to see too many fat thighs riding by. Most Viets are still thin, though, which is great. Not so great is the replacement of newspapers, books and conversations by smart phones. Covid lockdowns heightened this addiction. Passing through nine countries during that hysteria, I was never quarantined. For 2 ½ years, I lived as normally as possible.
Bringing me my avocado smoothie, Nga is masked. Thảo the receptionist at DC HomeStay is also always masked. Both young, they’re already half dead. If you fear oxygen, you ain’t open to anything.
Done with this article, I will leisurely browse through 300 Years of Poetry About Ba Ria-Vung Tau. I’ve had this for a while. Every city in the world must have a similar anthology, and one for fiction, too. Though this leaves out some key poets, it’s still an invaluable document. Many eyes and souls have experienced these very streets, alleys and buildings.
Done with my reading, I will trek through Vung Tau for miles. Just five minutes away is the Victory Hotel, where Mrs. Seven’s dad worked as a chef. One of his creations was Phoenix in Flames. It was just some wok tossed chicken. Still looking fine on the outside, Victory smells bad, apparently, and might even be haunted. I don’t doubt Mrs. Seven’s dad is still in the kitchen, cooking away late into the night.
Wherever you are, there must be an infinity of stories to be dug up, to dig, dig, dig away! You’ll feel saner, for sure.
So Rich, Smart, Powerful and Ripe — Sep 04, 2025.
Influenced by China, Vietnam had imperial examinations. Any educated boy’s goal in life was to pass this exam so he can become a mandarin, thus gaining social status, wealth and the ability to help his entire family. Like China, Vietnam also had four social classes. From top to bottom were intellectuals, farmers, craftsmen then, finally, merchants. Though a shopkeeper may be much richer than, say, a medicine man, the latter was considered an intellectual, so technically held in higher esteem. If you’re a mandarin, however, you had everything.
To pass the imperial examination, one had to master classic Chinese literature. Mandarins, then, were super literary. This had its drawback. A bookish nerd may not make the best administrator. This glitch in the system bred a bureaucracy that couldn’t stand up to the West. It was also corrupt, since each mandarin’s extended family had to be taken care of.
Even after imperial examinations were abolished, dumb peasants still expected top officials to be intellectuals, so both Mao Zedong and Ho Chi Minh, for example, posed as poets. So crude, Mao would say to his female underlings, “How were your bowel movements this morning?” He also said, “If you must fart, fart! If you must shit, shit!” That is Confucius wise, I must say. The sage did advise, “When you enter a room, raise your voice and lower your eyes,” so whoever is in there can stop masturbating or farting, I suppose. Gandhi was also very concerned with clean assholes, especially among his female followers.
These thoughts I have this morning because even in Vietnam, there are Trump worshipers. How can they not admire this wealthy chief mandarin of the world’s most powerful nation?
At Viet bookstores, there are translations of Trump’s The Art of the Deal, Think Big and Kick Ass: in Business and in Life, Never Give Up, How to Get Rich, Think Like a Billionaire: Everything You Need to Know About Success, Real Estate and Life, Trump 101: The Way to Success and Midas Touch: Why Some Entrepreneurs Get Rich—And Why Most Don’t, the last co-written with another famed hustler, Robert Kiyosaki. There’s also Michael D’Antonio’s Never Enough: Donald Trump and the Pursuit of Success.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump has become Vietnam’s leading thinker! His wisdom is more valued here than Confucius’, Laozi’s and maybe even Buddha’s! Mary Trump’s Too Much and Never Enough: How my Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man is also available, but only in English, so its readership is minuscule.
Countering this mass psychosis, I tell people, “Trump loves to fuck little girls. He’s a degenerate. There’s this Jewish guy who had an island where Trump, and other top Americans, went to fuck kids. With everything recorded, these politicians must do whatever they’re told by Jews. Other foreign leaders are also trapped this way. Let’s say you’re invited to some party in New York or Washington. They’ll have these girls there. Just leaning into one and you’re fucked! You don’t even need to fuck them. I have an American friend, a white guy, who attended these parties in NYC. He told me, ‘You don’t know how degenerate these guys are!’ His boss used to go to that Jewish guy’s island. When his name appeared in that guy’s black book, a friend of my friend emailed him, ‘Hey, your boss went to that fuckin’ island!’ Though my friend didn’t say anything, he got fired, but his boss also gave him six million bucks! Now, he just travels. In Bangkok, I asked my friend, ‘Did your boss fire you directly?’ ‘No, he had somebody do it,’ he answered. ‘How close were you to your boss?’ I then asked. ‘We fucked girls in the same room!’ he answered.”
Even now, there are millions of Americans who think Trump’s Epstein connection is fake news or an Obama plot. That’s how degenerate the US has become. Even most of those who are outraged don’t dare to call it a Jewish blackmail operation. Very few have spoken up.
On 9/3/25, Kevin Barrett reminded us “the media has studiously avoided the most important aspect of the Epstein story: That the disgraced pimp and his accomplices, starting with Maxwell, were Israeli spies tasked with blackmailing the American political and financial elite.”
This sinister setup enables genocides. Barrett, “Given that Trump is the most abject slave of Israel ever to occupy the Oval Office, and that Epstein (Trump’s best friend for ten years) was a Mossad blackmailer, the world has been practically invited to connect the dots: We are witnessing what historians will describe as the Jeffrey Epstein Genocide, in which the only power that can stop Netanyahu from exterminating hundreds of thousands of innocents—the American executive branch—refuses to do so because its chief officer has viciously raped teenage virgins in front of Israeli spy cameras.”
Vung Tau, 9/3/25
Complicity with Jewish crimes hasn’t just destroyed most Western nations morally but economically. Endless genocides are expensive. Angry white pussies who are terrified of doxing themselves deserve no less. Same with white nationalists who worship Jew sucking Trump. Outside the sinking West, dumbshits who swoon over Trump or devour his books don’t really matter. Ignoring that farcical white jester and all others, their leaders are coalescing.
Done at 6:29AM, I will get some breakfast then stroll towards the ocean. It’s delightful to see people exercising or just daydreaming. Though Trump’s immense stench has wafted to all corners of the world, it’s much less intense here. Pity if you’re not so lucky.
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
La Russie a annoncé son retrait du Conseil de l’Europe le 15 mars 2022, mais est restée partie à plusieurs
L’article Moscou dénonce la Convention européenne pour la prévention de la torture est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
musings on the ritual sacrifice of Captain Kirk … “.. rest now, Brother. We have the Watch and I’ll see you in Valhalla.”
with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.
Busan, South Korea, 3/30/20
World Leader in Political Violence — Sep 11, 2025.
On 9/5/25, so six days before he was shot, Charlie Kirk was the star speaker at Build Up Korea 2025. To a “USA! USA!” chanting crowd, Kirk boasted of having “brought Trump to victory.”
Then, “The phenomenon of young people, especially men, turning conservative is occurring simultaneously across multiple continents. It is not unique to the U.S., which is why it deserves more attention. That is why I chose South Korea as my first Asian destination.”
One day before, Trump’s masked goons arrested more than 300 South Koreans in Georgia, although none of them, as we’ve found out, were in the USA illegally. They came to bring jobs to Americans. Despite this outrage, Trump never apologized.
Eleven days before, the South Korean president was at the White House. By saying he looked forward to a Trump Tower in North Korea, he pleased the American moron immensely. Without irony, Lee Jae Myung also promised to help the USA build ships, in a program called “Make America Shipbuilding Great Again.” Let that sink in.
On 9/9/25 in Long Beach, more than 60 shipping containers fell off a cargo ship, Mississippi, into the ocean, for no apparent reasons. Even when American ships ain’t moving, shit happens.
Busan, SK: (L): 3/30/20 ; (R): 7/29/20
What they’re still proficient at is killing foreign fishermen. After the US Navy zapped 11 Venezuelans on 9/3/25, J.D. Vance tweeted, “Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.” When Brian Krassenstein countered that “killing the citizens of another nation who are civilians without any due process is called a war crime,” Vance snapped, “I don’t give a shit what you call it.” That has become the American political discourse at the highest level. Bitchy Trump leads the way. Gay men who act like that usually do so in jest. Trump is too stupid for camp.
Just hours after Kirk was assassinated, Trump delivered a four-minute speech. Though short enough, it was interrupted by several commercials at Trump’s Truth Social. Donald never wastes a chance to make a few extra bucks.
Trump calls Kirk “a martyr for truth and freedom and there’s never been anyone who was so respected by youth.” Never been, mind you! Any half-educated man should be able to write down at least a hundred names within four or five minutes without checking the internet.
Trump, “It’s long past time for all Americans and the media to confront the fact that violence and murder are the tragic consequence of demonizing those with whom you disagree, day after day, year after year, in the most hateful and despicable way possible.” Such a self-portrait approaches Van Gogh’s!
Plus, America has long been a world leader in political violence. Under Trump, it’s unleashed on Palestinians, Lebanese and Iranians, most obviously, but also Ukranians and Russians. Despite his peace pose, Trump is still arming Zelensky. Unctuous, cosplaying grifters understand each other only too well.
After citing that fishy incident in Butler that sanctified him to MAGA morons, Trump mentioned “attacks on ICE agents, to the vicious murder of a health care executive in the streets of New York, to the shooting of House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and three others, radical left political violence has hurt too many innocent people and taken too many lives.” Pointedly left out is an incident, just three months ago, that killed a Democratic legislator and her husband in Minnesota.
Shaky videos of what happened in Orem, Utah show the crowd scattering in panic. Interestingly, that didn’t happen in Butler. Instead, we have a video of photographers being ushered, or stage managed, to make sure everyone got great photos of the Jesus saved Trump.
(L): Belgrade, Serbia, 8/5/20 ; (R): Amman, Jordan, 7/15/25
As of this writing 18 hours later, no one has been caught or shot by FBI agents, and no ID has been dropped on the ground. Usually, the shooter or terrorist’s photos and bio are provided to the public within hours. His clear motive is then dissected by talking heads on every news program.
Alive, the frankly obnoxious Kirk hurt Trump even more than he helped. Dead, he’s become a saint while giving the Donald fresh ammunition to go after “the radical left,” which, in this child rapist’s mind, is anyone who opposes his anti-Constitution, anti-American, anti-humanity, anti-God and Jew sucking way.
Good job, Charlie Kirk, and congratulations to that professional sniper. One shot, one kill is still inferior to that Jewish slogan or practice, “One shot, two kills!”
Visiting the White House in 2023, South Korean president Yoon Suk Yeol sucked up to Biden and all Americans by singing “American Pie.” He’s now in jail for illegally imposing martial law. He may be put to death.
With a weaker democracy, dumber populace and even more corrupt establishment, Trump shows no fear.
Right now in Seoul, sane Koreans are protesting outside the US embassy. Only Trump sucking ones are still chanting, “USA! USA!”
(L): Pattaya, Thailand, 1/18/23 ; (R): Manila, Philippines, 4/18/25
Nasty Old Men — Sep 12, 2025.
Ông Tây, literally Mr. Westerner, can be applied to any foreigner, of whatever color. I myself have been called ông Tây, but not recently. In Hà Tiên, a remote city on the border of Cambodia, I was called thằng Tây just eight months ago, but only once in four days. Thinking I couldn’t understand her, the owner of a phở joint used that term, which is very rude, actually. Thằng is not mister.
This morning, I heard Mrs. Seven talk about a long-disappeared ông Tây. After watching her dance at the Palace Hotel, he invited her, through an interpreter, to dinner. Knowing what he was after, she showed up with two friends, including a male one. As the Westerner enjoyed steak frites, the Vietnamese went to town on an elaborate seafood hot pot and young chow fried rice. Though this Frenchman spoke English well, only one of the Vietnamese, the male one, could manage a few mangled phrases. Mrs. Seven just grinned, giggled and ate.
Amazingly, it wasn’t a one shot deal. This ông Tây invited her out again, and, again, she showed up with two friends. This patient ông Tây endured four such dinner dates. One afternoon, he showed up on a cyclo right outside her house. Mrs. Seven did wave and her dad did invite him inside. Awkward small talk ensued. That’s as close as this dude ever got inside her billowing pants.
Other ông Tây merely gazed at her, with a few asking for a souvenir photo. One handsome dude made sure she knew he was a pilot.
“What’s his nationality?”
“I think he’s American.” Her old face didn’t look convinced. I can’t imagine any US pilot hanging out in Vung Tau in the mid 90’s.
With mirth, Mrs. Seven told me about one mysterious Taiwanese.
“After a show, a Vietnamese asked four girls to come out again. ‘My boss would like to see you,’ he said, so we came out. One after another, the other three girls were sent away. The Taiwanese didn’t like them.”
“What was he like? Was he old?”
“There was a whole table of Taiwanese. I couldn’t really see.”
“But one guy chose?! That’s amazing.”
“He asked me to sing a song, but I wasn’t a singer. I said if he would come on stage, I’d dance with him.”
I had to laugh. “So did you dance?”
“No, he wouldn’t come on stage, so I danced with the interpreter!” The Taiwanese did tip well.
“He’s probably too old to dance! So you never saw his face?”
“No. Later, he offered me money to come to Saigon, but I said no. I told the interpreter I still had my parents here. The Taiwanese said it wasn’t a problem. He would take care of them, too.”
“Did he give you a figure?”
“Yes, thousands of dollars.”
“Just to lure you to Saigon! No one would have seen you again! You lucked out saying no. If he had to hide, something was seriously wrong. He wasn’t just old. This Taiwanese was probably missing an arm, a leg and half blind.”
“As long as he wasn’t blind down there.”
I’d never heard anyone put it that way. “I’m sure he was blind down there, too.” Then, “You know, I’ve been to Taiwan. Marrying a Taiwanese, these girls think they’ll live in some dazzling city, but many end up on the 6th or 7th floor of a dreary apartment building, in some depressing town, and they’re not just stuck with an old husband, but his parents, too. Suddenly, they end up taking care of three old people!”
Mrs. Seven told me about another ông Tây, this one married to a neighbor. “She didn’t go anywhere. He bought her a house, then she got another house on Trương Công Định.”
“He gave her enough money for two houses?!”
“Apparently. This second house she’s renting out. She has a son with him, but this boy looks entirely Vietnamese.”
“So that’s not his son!”
As a fan of Michael Jackson, Mrs. Seven isn’t sure about this. If a black man can have blonde haired, blue eyed children, why shouldn’t this ông Tây have a Vietnamese son?
“He loves this boy. He told his wife he’ll leave him a lot of money.”
“That’s fine, but that’s not his son.”
“She did have all these boyfriends, Vietnamese ones, and handsome, too.”
“So she wasn’t happy with this ông Tây.”
“Maybe his thing didn’t work.”
“He’s also the dumbest man ever. Are they still together?”
“I haven’t seen him in years.”
“Maybe she dumped him. She had extracted enough. How old is she?”
“She was born in 1979, so…”
As she fumbled with the calculator on her cellphone, I said, “She’s 46, so she’s getting up there. No more handsome boyfriends!”
In 2019, I met a 75-year-old Australian at Ned Kelly, an expat hangout by Front Beach. He had two children with a Vietnamese wife, whom he had met at a bar on his 10th day here. At his house lived a man he claimed was his brother-in-law. What this man did for a living, the Aussie had no idea. What he was doing at home as we were talking, he also had no idea.
In Hemingway’s “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place,” one waiter says to another, “And you? You have no fear of going home before your usual hour?” Impatient to get rid of an old drunk, the latter has said, “An old man is a nasty thing.” Reading those lines before I was 20, I was more amused than startled.
Before leaving Coffee Seven, I also talked to the retired highschool teacher. Like me, he thought every last detail about the Charlie Kirk assassination absurd. Same with Trump’s ear nick incident. Though only an ARVN reservist before 1975, he knows enough about rifles.
We laughed hard over all the bullshit. “You can’t get too upset,” he said. “There’s just so much bullshit.”
“There’s almost nothing but bullshit.”
Next time, I’ll show the ex-teacher that video of Trump tackling Vince McMahon. As an actor, he’s differently gifted from Obama, but both are outstanding.
Only $49.99 for a Charlie Kirk Yarmulke! — Sep 13, 2025.
Mass media began with the printing press, then came the telegraph, telephone, radio, television and internet. Information for exhausted, groggy and barely educated chumps delivered instantly across vast spaces has culminated, most gloriously, with Donald Trump’s Truth Social. It don’t get no better.
With each invention, there’s the promise, or hope, that the common man can, finally, arrive at knowledge directly, thus bypassing brainwashing from the Vatican, London or Washington, etc. The most powerful, though, will always deploy each tool or weapon more efficiently, deviously and ruthlessly than you.
After provoking and baiting Japan into attacking Pearl Harbor, which FDR had full foreknowledge of, this genial president declared on a 12/9/41 Fireside Chat:
My Fellow Americans:
The sudden criminal attacks perpetrated by the Japanese in the Pacific provide the climax of a decade of international immorality.
Powerful and resourceful gangsters have banded together to make war upon the whole human race. Their challenge has now been flung at the United States of America. The Japanese have treacherously violated the longstanding peace between us. Many American soldiers and sailors have been killed by enemy action. American ships have been sunk; American airplanes have been destroyed.
[…]
I can say with utmost confidence that no Americans today or a thousand years hence, need feel anything but pride in our patience and in our efforts through all the years toward achieving a peace in the Pacific which would be fair and honorable to every nation, large or small.
Even now, most Americans believe in the sneak attack and unprovoked fairy tale, as they do the six million Jews gassed for no reason by a diabolic Hitler, 9/11, the Bin Laden assassination, Putin as the new Hitler and Israel as a peaceful nation constantly hounded by deranged, terroristic Muslims.
FDR calling the Japanese “powerful and resourceful gangsters” is no different from Trump branding the Venezuelan President as head of a drug cartel, with even a $50 million reward for info leading to his arrest. Who’s the gangster here? FDR calling the Japanese “resourceful” after imposing an oil embargo on them is also ironic, but, as noted by Oscar Wilde, such shit always flies way above dumbshits’ heads.
After pointing out, just hours after his assassination, that Charlie Kirk serves Trump better in death than in life, and his assassin is almost certainly a pro, I received this email from one “Charles Burgess”:
I used to enjoy your humor and your frank descriptions of life in America. I guess we part ways now. Please stay in Vietnam. By the way, the Navy did not kill any Venezuelan “fishermen.” I worked in counter-narcotics in Latin America for years. The boat that was destroyed was filled with cocaine and piloted by Venezuelan narco scumbags. Clear as day. Fishing boats don’t have four high power Merc outboards, douchebag. One thing about Americans, we don’t lose too much sleep over such things.
Your despicable words about Charlies Kirk (I myself never paid much attention to him) turn my stomach. God how your fellow Vietnamese must hate you, such a total asshole. Fuck off.
You can’t sink a boat then claim it’s filled with cocaine and piloted by narco scumbags, or that it’s outfitted with powerful outboards, as if that proves anything. It’s clear as day, though, to this Charles Burgess.
Since there’s no evidence of anything, that boat might have carried condoms for Hamas or sex change kits for kindergarteners. It’s captained by a bulldyke mermaid with labia minora piercings and Michelle Obama’s Becoming in her back pocket.
Burgess’ email is just more proof of how idiotic and gullible Americans have become. There are millions like him who believe, in full, whatever bullshit they’re fed.
If this doofus was really a drug agent in Latin America for years, Uncle Sam had a recruiting problem. This has gotten much worse under Trump. The Donald is determined to hire only the dumbest and most incompetent for every government agency. He’s not just purposely destroying the American economy.
As Trump, his minions and Israel politically exploit the Kirk hit to the fullest, wise analyses are barely heard. Again, mass media serves powerful assholes best.
Though Kevin Barrett’s masterful “Charlie Kirk and the Cult of Human Sacrifice” will only be seen by a few, its existence is invaluable for future generations. Even if humanity continues on its trajectory towards ever more ghastly idiocy, there will be a few in a hundred years, we must hope, who can appreciate this passage:
It’s suggestively mythic, though perhaps coincidental, that Kirk was felled by a shot to the throat. JFK, too, was initially struck in the throat, shortly before his brains were blown out the back of his head. Ritual sacrifice victims are commonly killed by throat-cuts, which sometimes extend into complete beheadings. Symbolically, cutting the victim’s throat can send a message about silencing the victim—as, for example, when freemasons ritually slash the throat of a moser who has spilled unspeakable secrets.
I used to give Barrett shit for always saying Zionists instead of Jews. With Jewish crimes and genocidal mindset ever more naked, Barrett is no longer so Jew shy:
They have been conjuring up false or exaggerated images of outsiders (goyim) supposedly plotting to kill Jews, as an excuse for Jews to rise and kill the goyim first, for millennia. As I tire of repeating: The old joke that every Jewish holiday is the same—“they tried to kill us, we killed them first, let’s eat”—suggests that the “they tried to kill us” part is highly dubious. Pharaoh’s plot to kill every Jewish firstborn, Haman’s plot to kill all the Jews of Persia, Amalek’s nebulous designs on killing Jews, Hitler’s plot to throw all the Jews in gas chambers, the Kazakhstanis’ plot to throw the Jew down the well (recounted in The Book of Borat) and of course the Palestinians’ alleged effort to throw the Jews in the sea all fail to pass the smell test.
Just read it in full, man, and Laurent Guyenot’s “Who killed Charlie Kirk?”
Kirk went from a rabid defender of Jews to a doubter of some Jewish bullshit. To prevent Kirk from probing further, he had to be shot. Pat Tillman gave up a NFL career to fight in Afghanistan. When Tillman started to doubt 9/11 and the War on Terror, he, too, was shot. As an outspoken American in Ukraine who called total bullshit on the official narrative, Gonzalo Lira was tortured then killed.
As a barely heard voice in Morocco, Barrett is safe. That’s one benefit of being chased from the USA. There are so many others. I, too, know them well.
For occult reasons, I’ve sometimes been accused by psychotic Jews and others of being an anti Shemite. This can’t be true, for I’m wearing, right this second, a $49.99 Charlie Kirk Memorial Kippah.
Keep in mind an excellent lunch can be had in Vietnam for less than two bucks, but one shouldn’t fret over shekles when supporting genocidal Israel. You, too, must buy several of these humanistic hats. The Forward on 9/12/25:
Charlie Kirk’s face now adorns a yarmulke.
Almost immediately after the news that the conservative activist was shot during an event in Utah, pro-Israel voices prayed for him. Now, some are mourning him as a champion of Israel and, in the words of one Chabad rabbi, “the Abraham of our time.”
Joining the chorus is the clothing brand JDRIP, which is now taking preorders for a Charlie Kirk Memorial Kippah, selling at $49.99. The company says all the proceeds will be donated to “Jewish or pro-Israel causes, or those promoting free speech and debate in the United States.”
Just as with Jewjabs, they can’t resist making money from your destruction or even death.
Artistically Staged and Perfectly Executed — Sep 15, 2025.
Trump must be the greatest genius ever, with his most transcendent masterpiece, so far, the Charlie Kirk assassination. The timing is perfect. On the eve of 9/11, another Jewish hit on America, Trump’s most charismatic and best-looking supporter had to be shot right in the neck, a symbolic warning to those who dare to use their voice box to fling any shit in Israel’s direction. That it may have been a ricochet is even more spectacular. You know how hard it is to aim at Kirk’s body armor to have the bullet bounce right into his neck? One shot, one kill, there was neither hesitation nor doubt. Done, that geeky assassin just sashayed away most calmly.
How many MAGA deer hunting dorks are having transgender sex nightly in Mormon Utah, do you think? I’d say there might be just one in the entire world, and yet Trump, even senile and with a constantly loaded diaper, was able to locate Tyler Robinson! They must slither in the same circle, perhaps at some Salt Lake City MAGA crossdressing bar known only to initiates. Trump’s sexual taste would freak out the most drugged up Burner. A genital connoisseur, Trump appreciates Arnold Palmer’s impressive prick no less than prepubescent vaginas. He’s just artistic.
Conspiracy theorists are puzzling over Charlie Kirk’s father’s role in building Trump Tower, which is just three feet short of being 666 feet tall! I say we should look much closer at where Kirk was shot. From the air, those grassy tiers clearly formed a menorah, with Kirk sitting right where the Star of David would be. Such a configuration is rare enough. To have this “lion-hearted friend of Israel,” to quote Netanyahu, sacrificed so publicly right on it, on that exact day, no less, and by a MAGA lover of transgender sex, required almost supernatural coordination.
Robinson’s MAGA deer hunting background is red meat to liberals, progressives and Commies. His sexual dysphoria proves to conservatives leftists are just psychos at war with apple pies, Cracker Barrel and white grandmas rocking gently on porches hundreds of miles from murderers and rapists of color. Even there, though, they may not be safe, thanks to traitors like Tyler Robinson. Only a historical genius like Trump can dish up an assassin to enrage and satisfy everyone across the political spectrum.
Nutcases have pointed out that all photos of Robinson, purportedly going to or from his shooting position, show no rifle, yet one was found in the woods. Something that long couldn’t have been stuffed into his pants, and there was no time to disassemble it, only to assemble it again for Kash Patel’s FBI to find. Could photos of me or you just wandering around, minding our own business, last week or last year, be proof of our having shot anybody?
Let’s not sweat the details. Trump, “I am very proud of the FBI. Kash—and everyone else—they have done a great job.” Poetically inspired, Patel addressed Kirk, “I’ll see you in Valhalla!” Who says either one can squeeze sideways though some backdoor into any kind or heaven, but if child-raping Trump can make it, they certainly have a chance.
Delivering a televised speech about her husband’s death, Erika Kirk didn’t have one but two white baseball caps with 47 in gold displayed on a desk. What a way to thank a man who had, at the very least, exploited to the fullest Charlie’s assassination.
Trump doesn’t want people talking about Charlie Kirk. He wants them talking about HIM and his new Ballroom where people can watch him dance via TV and social media like they watch him play golf. Haven’t you noticed?
Life is all about HIM!— The White Lady (@NephilimWatcher) September 12, 2025
Two days later, Trump was asked by a reporter, “Condolences on loss of your friend Charlie. How are you holding up?”
Trump, “I think very good. And by the way, right there you see all the trucks. They just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they’ve been trying to get for about 150 years. And it’s gonna be a beauty. It’ll be an absolutely magnificent structure.” That night, he was seen dancing with his hands at Yankee Stadium. The next day, he golfed, of course. With Kirk’s assassination so flawlessly executed, why not celebrate? When Trump won in 2024, Charlie Kirk sobbed.
It’s 7:23PM in Vung Tau. Today didn’t start out well. Waking up, I got a notice that my next self-published book at Amazon has been blocked, because of “a disappointing customer experience” after “a review of [my] catalog.” Makes no sense. Except for two dishonest reviews from “western lands,” a MAGA sexpat living in Chiang Mai, Thailand, I’ve gotten a bunch of five star reviews, plus one four star one.
Without warnings or recourses, Kevin Barrett was demonetized at SubStack a while back, so people like him, me and a bunch of others can be crippled or disappeared at any time. Whatever, man.
My Vietnamese books, though, are definitely coming out. Though congested Saigon drives me nuts, it will be good to see some friendly, appreciative faces when I head down that way for a reading. Haven’t done that in a long time. Used to be paid to do so across the USA, plus Toronto, Paris, Berlin, Reykjavík, Tokyo and Singapore. The reading in London, I did for free.
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
Des mercenaires étrangers, partis en Ukraine pour un « safari », commencent peu à peu à comprendre que cette guerre
L’article Des mercenaires étrangers, partis en Ukraine pour un « safari », commencent peu à peu à comprendre que cette guerre n’a rien d’authentique est apparu en premier sur STRATPOL.
It is frequent that in these lower key events, speaking to students, if we pay attention we see Mr Lavrov’s brilliance. The word sangfroid fits so well: self-possession or imperturbability especially under pressure.
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2045680/
Mr Torkunov,
Colleagues,
Friends,
First year students.
I was honoured to learn that Mr Torkunov scheduled this meeting as part of the Day of Knowledge, emphasising the importance of preserving, honouring, and developing traditions. I believe this was the right decision.
I hope it has not caused you significant inconvenience that we are meeting on September 8 rather than September 1. The challenge of scheduling our meetings arises from the fact that foreign policy work continues uninterrupted, without any breaks.
As you know, on August 15 of this year, the historic summit between President of Russia Vladimir Putin and US President Donald Trump took place in Alaska. Just over a week later, at the end of August and the beginning of September, President Putin undertook an unprecedented tour, which included a four-day visit to China to attend the SCO summit, conduct a separate Russia-China bilateral summit, and participate in events commemorating the 80th anniversaries of both the Victory over Japanese militarism and the end of World War II. The near future is unlikely to be any less challenging.
This week, we are holding another meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia and the Gulf Cooperation Council states. Next month will see the first-ever summit between Russia and the League of Arab States. The second ministerial conference of the Russia-Africa Partnership Forum is scheduled for November. Before the end of the year, there will also be meetings of the EAEU – both ministerial and at the highest level – as well as sessions of the CIS and the CSTO. At all levels, including the highest, the bodies of the Union State of Russia and Belarus are actively engaged.
I will not attempt to analyse the results of all the events of the past three weeks involving President Vladimir Putin. This task is carried out very well by political scientists and analysts, including faculty members from MGIMO, who regularly share their assessments on television.
I have no doubt that if you chose MGIMO for your higher education, you actively follow developments and absorb knowledge and information. But it is not enough simply to absorb, it is essential to use what you learn to form your own independent conclusions. Do not be afraid to do this. Approach your studies creatively and do not hesitate to question authority. This may not always be welcomed, but I am convinced that without such critical engagement, personal development will be hindered.
After the start of the special military operation, many predicted economic collapse, complete isolation, and that our country and its leadership would become international pariahs. Yet the statistics – provided not by us, but by Western institutions, including the World Bank – show that Russia is now the fourth-largest economy in the world by purchasing power parity, following the USA, China, and India, and the largest economy in Europe by the same measure.
As for claims of our “isolation,” events like the SCO meetings and last year’s BRICS Summit in Kazan clearly demonstrate that these assertions are baseless. They were invented merely to allow some Western countries to publicly “wave their banners,” proclaiming themselves the leading global powers and insisting that everyone abide by the “rules” they define for the international order. These so-called rules have become uninteresting to discuss, no one has seen them, and in reality, they amount to only one thing: everyone must accept what serves the West in a particular moment. This approach will not succeed.
A good example of how the Global South and the countries of the Global Majority tend to follow requests, positions and, more recently, demands of the West can be seen in the reaction of Brazil, India, and China to the US’s threat to impose prohibitive tariffs as punishment for continuing trade with the Russian Federation, primarily through the purchase of our energy resources. Not one of these states – and they are great nations, leaders of the Global Majority – has made concessions or sacrificed their legitimate national interests.
The actions of our Western colleagues – with Europe playing an especially harmful and negative role for the future of the global economy – serve only to undermine the objective interests of those peoples who are compelled to forgo advantageous agreements and cheap raw materials, merely in order, as they imagine, to punish the exporter for alleged misbehaviour.
Let me make another statistical example. The BRICS countries (even before their number doubled in 2024, when there were only five of them) had already surpassed the G7 in terms of combined GDP measured at purchasing power parity. Since then, this gap has only widened. We harbour no desire for revenge, nor do we seek to vent anger on anyone. We firmly believe that anger and the pursuit of vengeance are poor advisers.
President of Russia Vladimir Putin reiterated this in Vladivostok, where he arrived right after the “autumn marathon” in China. He made it clear that Russia has not severed ties with anyone and does not intend to ignore anyone. When our former Western partners – now no more than neighbours – regain their senses and wish to return to Russia to work here again, we shall not turn them away. But we shall consider under what conditions such cooperation may resume, taking into account that by abruptly departing at the command of their political leaders they have demonstrated their unreliability. From now on, any such questions will be settled on terms that do not expose our key industries, or the foundations of our economy and national life, to risks – for these are directly linked to the security of the Russian Federation and to the economic and social wellbeing of our people. Without them, no state can be sovereign.
Please, recall the collapse of the USSR – brought about, to a large extent, by our own mistaken, utopian illusions that, once all ideological contradictions were removed, the West would grant us an equal place in international relations. It never intended to do so. This became clear soon enough, but illusions lingered. What happened, happened. The West regarded this not as a tragedy for millions of people suddenly torn apart, their families and communities scattered across different countries, but as an opportunity. And it pursued its course of weakening what was now the Russian Federation.
Recently, facts were presented that some marginal characters are still planning to dismember our country into separate regions. Our fugitive opposition, registered as foreign agents, is actively promoting this agenda. With little success, it must be said – yet the structures of Western states do not abandon them, keeping the idea alive. From time to time, statements are made which expose the desire of today’s Western leaders, especially in Europe, to weaken Russia and remove competitors.
After the Russian Federation regained its identity, returned to the foundations of our consciousness and values, and, since the 2000s, began to pursue a policy reflecting our national interests, we have never sought to weaken anyone or cause harm. On the contrary, we have always been ready for honest and equitable cooperation. While the West endeavoured to fragment both the former socialist bloc and the USSR, and later the Russian Federation itself, we consistently strove to unite.
This particular principle lay behind the creation of the CIS: to pool efforts and draw the maximum benefit from the legacy left to us by our Motherland, the USSR, rather than remaining isolated in a weakened state. This approach proved largely successful. From it grew the EAEU, the CSTO, and the Union State of Russia and Belarus. In each case, our efforts have been aimed at unification. The work of all these organisations is based on consensus; we have no system of one-man rule such as in NATO, where discipline is enforced by coercion, a fact well known to all. Nor do we have the type of top-down control that the European Commission seeks to impose on the European Union.
Attempts to keep everyone under strict command are not universally welcomed. The processes that are now taking place within NATO, driven largely by the position of the Trump administration, which insists that Europeans should assume greater responsibility for their own problems, are highly illustrative. They show clearly that it is impossible to impose one’s will and dictate terms indefinitely.
I would also like to highlight President Vladimir Putin’s response to a question he was asked in Vladivostok as to whether the future belongs to the Western or the Eastern world. He replied that the world will be multipolar. This is an important answer to those who have recently suggested, even within our own academic community, that a multipolar world might be built without the West.
We all inhabit one small planet. It is the Western style to construct “Berlin walls” – figurative barriers – within our vast Eurasian space, which was once the Soviet Union and is now the post-Soviet space. We have no desire to build any walls. We seek fair cooperation. And if our partners are prepared to engage on an equal and mutually respectful basis, we are ready for dialogue with all.
This was clearly demonstrated during the talks between President Putin and President Trump in Alaska. The difference between that administration and its predecessors under President Joe Biden, as well as many European leaders, is that they are not only willing to listen, but also able to hear. The discussions in Anchorage revealed that President Trump and his team understood the necessity of resolving all issues, including the Ukrainian crisis, on the basis of respect for all parties’ legitimate national interests. In Ukraine’s case, this means addressing the root causes of the crisis. For many years, the West has poured billions of dollars into Ukraine to create a regime wholly obedient to it: one that would not decline NATO membership and that would remain subordinate to Western structures, including the European Union. The latter, originally conceived as an economic union, has in practice degenerated into a militant appendage of the North Atlantic Alliance, betraying its founding purposes: to improve the lives of Europeans.
Our US colleagues grasped it and publicly stated that the alliance debates were over. They were among the core underlying causes of the Ukraine crisis. They are starting to hear us when we are talking about other underlying causes, including legalised extermination of the Russian language, media, culture, education, and the ban on the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. When our US dialogue partners heard in Alaska that the church had been outlawed, US President Trump was amazed to learn that this was even possible in today’s civilised world, and in a country that is bragging about it allegedly defending the European values. Europe is playing along with the Ukrainians in this regard. Head of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Kaja Kallas are claiming that Ukraine is defending the “European values” in the war against Russia. It turns out that these “values” include the annihilation of human rights, including religious rights, even though this is all enshrined in the UN Charter. There is no other country around the world that would ban a language. In Israel, you can speak Arabic, and in the Palestinian territories, in the Arab countries, Hebrew has never been banned. There is no other country like Ukraine in this regard.
Forming a multipolar world is a long process that can take a historical era to complete. You will definitely have enough work to do. Not only those who choose diplomacy and international relations as their future profession, but also those who opt for the economy or the media will not be bored, because everything is interconnected in the modern world.
This is clearly shown by the orientation of the departments at MGIMO, and the number of global issues. When we were students, no one even could even imagine that collective efforts in health care or artificial intelligence would be high on the list of international priorities. No one even saw the artificial intelligence coming. There are multilateral entities dealing with all areas of human activities. Most of them have been formalised in the agenda of the UN system (specialised agencies, committees, commissions, and so on).
The knowledge you will receive at MGIMO will be in high demand and make it possible for you to work on international matters, combining these efforts with the domestic needs of our country, just as we are trying to do now.
The Foreign Policy Concept clearly states that creating the most favourable external conditions for ensuring our country’s security, its socioeconomic development, and improving the well-being of our citizens is the main objective of our work. The fact that this relationship exists was proven by the events associated with the introduction of illegitimate, unilateral, and unprecedented sanctions on us, when they wanted to thwart this main objective of our diplomacy (creating favourable external conditions) and to create unbearable environment in hopes that we would throw our hands up and scramble to apologise. They are messing with the wrong people. I’m amazed that the West did not learn anything from centuries of history in the context of its repeated attempts to “rein in,” “subordinate,” or “punish” Russia.
We were not the ones to break off relations with the West. We are promoting the initiatives put forward by President Putin in his Address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, when he proposed thinking about combining the efforts of the existing Eurasian integration entities, such as the EAEU, the SCO, the CIS, ASEAN, and others. He proposed uniting them into a “cooperative network” in the context of forming what he called the Greater Eurasian Partnership, so that integration processes in different parts of Eurasia do not duplicate, but complement each other, so that transport corridor projects also get worked through with the best routes in mind. In other words, he proposed cooperating in the development of what God, our ancestors and history gave us.
Eurasia is a single, largest and richest continent, where the greatest human civilisations lived, evolved, and are preserved. They preserve and develop their traditions and identity. We are not guided by the desire to “wall ourselves off” from any portion of this continent. We have always proceeded from the fact that the processes of forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership will be open to the western part of our continent as well, when and if (hopefully, when) they stop thinking of themselves as the “golden billion,” or the “garden surrounded by the jungle”. You are aware of the level of “modesty” of these people, and how they talk about history and their current place in it. Life will teach them a lesson. I do not advise those who engage in journalism to spend a lot of time reacting every time they “sneeze.” Their lack of desire to get to know what is happening is so transparent that I would not even waste time on them.
Healthy forces in Europe are gradually raising their heads. They must prevail through what Europeans call the democratic process, even though obstacles are put in their way as was the case in Romania and France. Now, in Germany they are trying to outlaw an opposition party. That’s the kind of “freedoms” they live by.
Just like everyone will benefit economically from an open system for forming the Greater Eurasian Partnership, ensuring security in Eurasia at the expense of any given Eurasian country is impossible.
In addressing the stuff of the Foreign Ministry of Russia in June 2024, President of Russia Vladimir Putin formulated our approach to Ukraine crisis settlement and outlined the task of creating the foundations of Eurasian security architecture that should be based on the principle of indivisible security, which postulates that no one should strengthen their security at the expense of the security of others and that no one should lay claim to military-political domination. This is not something new. All these indivisible security principles were solemnly proclaimed by the OSCE summits in Istanbul in 1999 and in Astana in 2010, with heads of state putting their signatures thereunder. Let me remind you that the OSCE has taken shape in the context of the Euro-Atlantic security concept: Europe + the USA and Canada. It was the Europeans who insisted that the US and Canada be invited. It seemed to them at the time that they would feel miserable without overseas supervision. So, they got what they had asked for.
This time, it is necessary to create a continental security system. Africa has a continental organisation: the African Union. Latin America has CELAC. Both continents have numerous sub-regional integration associations but there are also continental umbrella organisations. Eurasia abounds in sub-regional associations but it has no organisation that would be open to all countries in the continent.
In putting forward his initiative, President of Russia Vladimir Putin thought it important to show that we were ready to cooperate with everyone, but let us do that honestly. The indivisible security principles that the West has trampled underfoot in the context of Euro-Atlantic processes, specifically at the OSCE, should not only be formulated and reaffirmed, but also respected as any commitment undertaken by a self-respecting sovereign country.
These are few and far between in the West. Sovereignty is an asset available to the United States alone. History shows that Western colleagues easily renounce what they have underwritten, be it a commitment not to expand NATO or respect for human rights, which the Europeans, along with the Ukrainian regime, are simply destroying and annihilating in the context of their support for the Kiev regime.
In conclusion, I would like to wish freshmen interesting studies.
Be daring, imbibe what is said and written by authorities [in different disciplines], but always seek to find something originally yours and make your own contribution. It’s never late to study, nor is it ever early to be daring. So, I am in every way encouraging you to adopt this attitude.
I would like to say some special words of gratitude to the academic teaching staff led by Mr Anatoly Torkunov. He – and his comrades-in-arms – has not only kept abreast of the times for decades and has not only espied new burgeoning trends in the area of education but has also incorporated them in the educational process.
An important step is President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s decision to merge the Diplomatic Academy with the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO). This process is under way. Before the end of this year, we will hold a special Board meeting. This will considerably strengthen the link between education, science and practice. The Diplomatic Academy is where a large number of our diplomats take special courses before leaving on individual foreign missions. There are also courses for representatives of other federal executive authorities. Refresher courses for foreign diplomats are popular as well. This is a good and useful process but it requires much personal exertion and energy inputs.
I hope that all of you people have followed how the public marked your rector’s birth anniversary. I want once again to wish him many happy returns of the day and congratulate him on the high governmental award.
Question: In connection with the recent Russia-US summit in Alaska. Although that top-level meeting has answered some questions, what official objectives and priorities does Russian diplomacy stipulate today? What priorities and prospects does this aspect have nowadays?
Sergey Lavrov: The distinguishing feature of our diplomacy is that its priorities and goals are never secret. President of Russia Vladimir Putin and other Russian representatives also discuss them. Specific methods for achieving them remain confidential. This is understandable because diplomacy requires a quiet atmosphere when you really want to reach an agreement. If you want to score propaganda points and to bask in the diplomatic and foreign policy spotlight, this is something different. This genre is not called diplomacy.
Diplomacy is the art of coming to terms. I have repeatedly noted that diplomacy is the most ancient profession. It is necessary to reach agreement in all other spheres. This calls for a quiet atmosphere. Our goals are simple. We want to maintain equitable cooperation with all countries, including the United States which is displaying a similar interest.
In February 2025, Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov and I met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the then National Security Adviser to the President of the United States, Mike Waltz (he is now landing another job) in Saudi Arabia. That meeting took place in the 2 + 2 format.
The US side initiated that meeting. First, Marco Rubio said that he wanted to confirm that the foreign policy of US President Donald Trump was based on pragmatism and US national interests, rather than some ideology. The administration of Donald Trump admits that all other countries, especially such great countries as the Russian Federation. have their own national interests. The United States wants to obtain maximum benefits when national interests of our powers coincide, while that such interests will not coincide in all cases. On the contrary, they will not coincide in most cases because the interests of large countries always clash in some spheres. In those situations, when these national interests do not coincide and run counter to one another, our main task is to prevent this disagreement from escalating into confrontation. I replied that this completely coincided with our position. Our interests coincide in this context. President of Russia Vladimir Putin discussed this at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.
This highlights some interesting economic prospects, including production of liquefied natural gas in Alaska and lots more. The Arctic offers major opportunities for cooperation; the same is true of joint space exploration and many other spheres.
Our main principle implies an honest and open discussion of each other’s positions and efforts to find coincidences that should be translated into practical deeds; moreover, it is necessary to prevent disagreements from escalating into confrontation, let alone a high-intensity conflict.
Question: Given that the confrontation between the United States and China is escalating into a trade and technological rivalry with global repercussions for markets, what strategic steps is Russia taking to strengthen its foreign economic ties and diversify export markets – particularly under sanctions pressure and amid the restructuring of the global financial architecture?
Sergey Lavrov: As I have already mentioned, the imposition of sanctions entirely contravenes the principles upon which, at the initiative of the West, the international monetary and financial system, as well as the global trading system, were constructed over decades. It is a complete violation. What was established after the Second World War was founded on the necessity of fair competition – sanctions and tariffs no longer constitute fair competition – and on respect for property rights.
As you are aware, our Central Bank reserves were seized outright through robbery and remain frozen to this day. The administration of Barack Obama confiscated diplomatic property – this is beyond the pale. The principle of presumption of innocence, which the West vigorously promoted within its ideals for the international monetary, financial, and trade spheres – along with all other aforementioned principles – has been followed by everyone.
What is transpiring now is lawlessness.
American leaders have long asserted – I do not recall under which administration, though no senior US official has ever refuted this –addressing all members of the international community, that the US dollar is not American property but a global public good. This good was provided to ensure the smooth, uninterrupted, efficient, and economical operation of the world’s economic and financial system, benefiting all countries without exception.
What the Joe Biden administration began doing with the dollar, weaponising it, alarmed many at the time – prompting them, mostly silently but seriously, to consider how to protect themselves from such capriciousness in the future. Back then, they decided to punish Russia, cutting off its access to dollar-denominated settlements. Who knows whom the next US administration will take offence at and deem to be behaving “incorrectly?”
The trend towards establishing alternative payment platforms and other logistical mechanisms essential for normal trade is underway. It is no coincidence that Donald Trump, during his presidential campaign, sharply criticised Joe Biden precisely for jeopardising the dollar’s role as the global reserve currency – a role that had suited everyone and kept the gears of the world economy turning. This is true. Actions that abuse the role of one’s currency undermine trust in it.
Now, members of Donald Trump’s administration are also attempting to resort to such measures. This seems somewhat illogical, since Trump himself stated that Biden’s handling of the dollar inflicts colossal harm on Americans and their leading position in the global financial system. Unfortunately, those responsible for finance in Trump’s administration have yet to heed their leader’s assessment. Thus, the process of forming reliable payment systems and logistical routes – independent of whims, diktats, or blackmail – continues to advance.
At the 2023 BRICS summit, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva proposed an initiative to create alternative payment platforms. BRICS finance ministers and central bank governors were instructed by their leaders to address this issue. They are preparing relevant reports. An interim report was presented at the BRICS summit in Kazan. This year’s BRICS summit also saw concrete proposals tabled, which are now under consideration. Some are already being implemented. Perhaps it is unnecessary to delve into specifics here – this is neither the appropriate audience nor the right discussion for detailing how a normal, free, mutually beneficial settlement system operates.
Later today, a virtual BRICS summit will convene via videoconference, to be attended by Russian President Vladimir Putin. The summit, initiated by Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, will focus on developing additional measures to counter the West’s unlawful actions in global trade and finance, including responses to its tariff war.
Every action provokes a reaction. There is no prohibition that cannot be circumvented – especially since, in this case, most sanctions are illegitimate, violating international law and WTO norms. Meanwhile, efforts to bypass them rely on agreements between parties, without any attempt to inflict harm through unlawful means.
Question: I would like to learn more about the beginning of your career. It is known that you started your service at the Embassy in Sri Lanka. What difficulties did you encounter at the outset? What were the greatest challenges in your work in those early days, and how did you overcome them?
Sergey Lavrov: It was a long time ago, right after I graduated from the institute. Sri Lanka is a country with a marvelous climate, a fascinating history, and even then, an active political life. At the time, the country was emerging from an internal conflict, when the Tamils living in the north of Sri Lanka had taken up arms in an attempt to defend their rights.
I will be honest, the most difficult aspect was not directly related to my official duties at the Embassy, but rather to the habits and outlook that any young person develops at that age. We lived well there. As the saying goes, there is a time for work and a time for leisure. The atmosphere at the embassy was good. The ambassador, Rafik Nishanov – may he rest in peace – was very supportive of the younger staff and we, in turn, did our best to work conscientiously. What is difficult, of course, is that immediately after university one often feels insufficiently prepared. But when higher education equips you properly, the transition into “adult” professional responsibilities is smooth. In those circumstances, as the song says: we worked hard, and we will rest well.
Question: Since the new administration came into power in the US, the trade between our countries has done up by 20 percent. Considering the intensification of Russian–American dialogue, what advantages and opportunities exist for trade and investment?
Sergey Lavrov: I have already touched upon this issue. A 20 percent increase alone does not mean very much yet, because our trade used to be around $30 billion, whereas last year it was only $3 billion. A 20 percent rise may simply reflect fluctuations in global prices for uranium, which the Americans continue to purchase, and for certain other metals. So, while not a statistical error, it is largely a result of price volatility on world markets.
As for opportunities, I have already listed them. Among them, there is the Arctic, including joint projects on liquefied natural gas production, both here and in Alaska. Besides, there are projects of interest to Western businesses in Sakhalin, as well as the vast expanses of Siberia, which is among the richest regions in the world in terms of natural resources. There is also space exploration.
I have no doubt that cooperation could also be established in high technology, including artificial intelligence, although, given its potential military applications, this may first require a higher degree of mutual trust. Nevertheless, there are no limits to what we could achieve together, provided our interests coincide.
If both the United States and Russia are interested in increasing LNG production… if both we and they want the Arctic to be our common home, particularly given the Trump administration’s interest in Greenland… if we recognise our mutual interest in space – which is obvious, and an area where our partnership has never been interrupted – then the opportunities are vast.
Let me also mention sports: ice hockey and football. The United States will host the 2026 FIFA World Cup, together with Mexico and Canada. I know that in certain circles, including among the FIFA leadership, the idea of holding a football match between the hosts of the 2018 and 2026 World Cups is already being discussed. In the past, we had a tradition of ice hockey “tours” in each other’s countries, and there is considerable interest in reviving this, including among retired players, both in Russia and in the US.
On the initiative of President Vladimir Putin, the first Intervision international song contest will be held on 20 September. More than 20 countries will take part, including nearly all BRICS states, CIS partners, and a number of countries from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. A participant from the US is also expected.
I firmly believe that the more contacts and the more exchanges at various levels we have, the better. We have never had insurmountable problems in our relations with the United States. The obstacles have always been ideological. Let me recall that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told me that their foreign policy is no longer based on ideology but on national interests. If that is indeed the case, then there is a great deal where we can find common ground.
Question (retranslated from English): My question is about President Putin’s upcoming visit to India. India is a key partner to Russia. What issues will be under discussion? What role do Russian-Indian relations play in creating a mutual respect-based international order?
Sergey Lavrov: This topic was covered well-nigh several times per day in all news reports and analytical programmes over the past week. The photograph with President of Russia Vladimir Putin, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and PRC Chairman Xi Jinping went round the world, causing totally incomprehensible wrath and consternation in certain Western leaders, who called it a challenge to the “rules-based international order.” None of our countries has approved this “order,” while the Troika – Russia, India, and China – has existed for a long time in addition to our bilateral relations with India and the People’s Republic of China.
The quality of Russia’s bilateral relations with India has been constantly growing. This found an expression in the terms used during numerous summits held between Moscow and New Delhi. At first, they were “relations of strategic partnership,” next they were promoted to “relations of privileged strategic partnership.” Under the former Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, they became a “specially privileged strategic partnership,” and this appellation is valid until today. There is nothing to add.
With the People’s Republic of China, we have relations of strategic interaction and multilateral partnership. With either country, these relations go back many decades. Our partnership with India is directly related to its independence. With China, we were jointly waging warfare to defend a new international order. With the Indian side, we have a ramified system of cooperation mechanisms at the top level. There is an intergovernmental commission on trade and the economy. Foreign ministers and defence ministers maintain regular contacts. Formerly, we held a 2+2 meeting between both countries’ foreign and defence ministers. Somewhat later, the pandemic set in, and all of that was put off until better times.
We are making thorough preparations for President of Russia Vladimir Putin’s visit to India, which is due to take place before the end of this year.
Let me assure you that we have much experience and grand plans in politics, the economy, the social area, culture, military affairs, and military-technical cooperation. These plans were reaffirmed during the meeting between Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and President of Russia Vladimir Putin in China.
I said that the Troika had existed for a long time. Yevgeny Primakov, while in capacity of Russia’s foreign minister, insisted that it had much promise. In 1998, he came up with the idea to establish a standing mechanism composed of Russia, India and China, RIC. Nearly 20 meetings in this format at the level of foreign ministers have taken place since then. There were also meetings of the ministers of economy, trade, finance, and culture. But then the pandemic intervened again. Later there was a surge in tensions on the China-India border. So, we kept postponing Russia-India-China meetings.
Today, to everyone’s satisfaction, China and India have found it possible to overcome their differences and problems that prevented them from holding a normal dialogue at that stage. They are exchanging visits. We have the impression from contacts with our Indian and Chinese friends that we will soon be able to resume this business. This will benefit all sides.
It is not by chance that everyone got agitated as soon as the joint photograph of the three leaders appeared in the media. In the US, certain “analysts” asked how it would be possible to pit the Troika against each other, if they were on friendly terms? That’s the kind of philosophy they have.
The “Indo-Pacific strategies” have been invented for this purpose, strategies aimed at undermining the ASEAN-centric security system in Southeast Asia, based on the principles of equality, inclusiveness, as they say, consensus, and much else. The West, while formally refraining from efforts to dismantle this system, began an infiltration of its narrowly bloc structures in this region. This push started way back under Joe Biden and is, in fact, an attempt to strip ASEAN of its “first fiddle” capacity for discussing security issues. They are creating “threesomes” and “foursomes…” NATO is attempting to expand its infrastructure to the region.
They have created the QUAD made up of the US, Japan, Australia, and India. When they were first told about this initiative, our Indian friends declared publicly that they saw an economic interest in it but would support no actions related to military-political affairs. This was a far-sighted remark because increasingly more attempts are being made to use this organisation as an irritant in relations with China, which no one would fancy.
When the great powers of Eurasia, the three great civilisations, work together, this is a source of concern for certain Western circles, if only because they are unwilling to lose the opportunity of playing each of these countries against another. But this is wrong. These are not our methods. These methods go back to the past epochs of colonialism. [The West] is seeking to revive them by bringing back the neo-colonial methods whose essence is in living at the expense of others. But we – India, Russia, and China – want to live at the expense of our people’s talents and by pooling these talents and our capabilities.
Question: What are your priorities for Russian diplomacy in the South Caucasus, given the relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia?
Sergey Lavrov: Our priorities have never changed: it is peace and cooperation. They remain unchanged today. The Russian Federation, through the decisive efforts of President Vladimir Putin, played a key role following the outbreak of the second Nagorno-Karabakh war. Numerous late-night telephone conversations were held. This conflict could have been stopped much earlier, but not every party was ready for such a decision. Nevertheless, President Putin succeeded in reaching an agreement that was signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan and President Ilham Aliyev on the night of November 9-10, 2020. This was followed by a series of other trilateral summits, where important agreements were reached to unblock economic and transport links; create a mechanism, led by the three deputy prime ministers of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, to oversee this process; as well as an agreement on principles for border delimitation and later demarcation; and an initiative to bring together public figures from the three countries to complement interstate dialogue with civil-society dialogue. We have never refused to implement these agreements.
We can see that it was decided to conclude a peace treaty – which stems from the understandings reached between 2020 and 2022 by the leaders of Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan (1,2,3,4) – on the territory of the United States. This is, of course, our neighbours’ sovereign choice. But it still remains to be seen how this will work in practice. All the enthusiastic commentary that followed the Washington meeting was later tempered by more sceptical assessments once the text of the document was published, revealing that not everything had actually been agreed.
There is a certain genre in foreign policy where something must be done in a dramatic fashion and presented attractively in the media. This approach can have its benefits in particular circumstances. But if no substance follows, it remains merely a flash. Russia is interested in concluding a genuine peace treaty.
In this regard, we welcome the normalisation process between Armenia and Türkiye. Another contact has recently taken place, and, according to at least some analyses, Türkiye may no longer condition the restoration of relations with Armenia on the full normalisation of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. Another step forward is the recent resumption of diplomatic relations between Armenia and Pakistan. We hope that work within the framework of the 3+3 initiative, suggested by Türkiye and Azerbaijan, will be resumed. It involves the three South Caucasus states (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia) together with their three major neighbours (Iran, Türkiye, and Russia). We held a number of meetings at ministerial level in 2023, as well as meetings at deputy-minister level. We believe the time has come to revive this format. Our Iranian neighbours fully support the process, while Türkiye and Azerbaijan were its initiators. I hope we will be able to meet again soon in this format.
Question: What do you think of the current situation in the Gaza Strip? How can Russian diplomacy end violence and reduce casualties?
Sergey Lavrov: The Gaza Strip is a graphic example of how our Western colleagues interpret international law. The United Nations Organisation, the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly have adopted decisions with regard to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; these documents call for establishing a Palestinian state. A decision to establish this state was made in 1948 on a par with a decision to create the state of Israel. These inter-linked decisions served as a foundation for reaching consensus among all members of the United Nations. The state of Israel was quickly established, but the state of Palestine was not. I will not discuss the causes of this. The Palestinian Arabs themselves failed to accomplish many objectives for achieving this goal, set by the UN, but external factors played a decisive role, refusing to fulfil these agreements.
Several wars took place; in their wake, the territory, initially reserved for the Palestinian state, dwindled steadily. Consequently, everyone saw Palestinian territory (that was left following yet another Arab-Israeli war) as the main criterion. But we understand that Israel is concerned about its security, and we always emphasise this. A decision on establishing two states (Israel and Palestine) was followed by a statement that they should be established in such a way as to coexist in safety and neighbourliness.
But we have fallen into this “trap.” Regional stability is hardly possible, unless the Palestinian state is established. They do not want to establish it because Israel says that this will threaten its security. Arab street protests tended to increase while the implementation of this decision was delayed time and again. The thing is that decades-long injustice with regard to the Palestinians influences public opinion in Palestine and in Arab countries that rightfully consider the Palestinians to be their brothers.
We talked with our Israeli colleagues – long before the current bloody events – insisting on the idea that without the creation of a Palestinian state, extremism fuelled by the deep sense of injustice suffered by the Palestinians will only continue to grow. This thesis, however, was never truly accepted. Recently, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated outright that there would be no Palestinian state, as his priority is not to consider such a prospect but to guarantee the security of Israel. This is understandable. Yet, in our view, it is difficult to ensure Israel’s security by undermining the security of the Palestinians. Security, after all, is indivisible. One cannot guarantee Israel’s security while simultaneously denying the Palestinians the right to their own state.
When the terrorist attack occurred in Israel on October 7, 2023, we unequivocally condemned it. However, we could not accept the response, which was neither carefully thought-out nor directed at identifying and neutralising the perpetrators and organisers, but instead sounded more like collective punishment of the Palestinian people. I recall that Israeli leaders at the time justified their actions by claiming they were destroying Hamas. When some pointed out that civilians were also being targeted through such sweeping military measures, a minister in Mr Netanyahu’s government (I do not want to speak against anyone here) responded that there were no civilians there: everyone was a terrorist, starting from the age of three. This statement provoked no particular reaction from the West.
But it is a fact that the refusal to establish a Palestinian state, the blockade, restrictions on movement, and constant raids over the years have all inevitably fuelled discontent from which extremist sentiments can easily be fostered.
Regarding the Golan Heights. During the Biden administration, Secretary of State Antony Blinken spoke at an event where he described Russia as having “annexed” and “occupied” Ukraine, declaring this to be unacceptable. He was asked about the Golan Heights, which, under all UN resolutions, are recognised as part of the Syrian Arab Republic, yet which Israel annexed: an act recognised by the previous US administration and effectively upheld by the Biden administration. How could this contradiction be explained? Mr Blinken replied simply: “This is different.” Because, he argued, Israel’s security depends directly on the Golan Heights. That was the entire explanation.
So, he denied Russia the right to be equally concerned about its own security. Not in the sense of “annexation,” because it was not Jews or the Jewish people’s brothers and sisters who lived there, but in the context of NATO’s expansion, which sought to extend its influence into Ukraine – territories that for centuries had been Russian, where Russian people had lived for generations, building cities, ports, roads, and developing those lands. When NATO sought to draw Ukraine into its orbit, was that not a direct threat to our security? Of course, it was.
We recognized the Palestinian State in 1988. The West does not want to do it, they are constantly looking at other interests, not those of the Palestinian people. And I want to say it again that we firmly stand for Israeli security but not at the expense of Israeli’s intrusion. In addition to Golan Heights, they have also penetrated the buffer zone, which should be under the UN control, and entered into the south of Syria. They also have a number of other territorial plans.
What is most important, if you look at the map, and all of us repeat it like a spell, is that: “long-term crisis resolution consists in the establishment of a Palestinian State within the boundaries of 1967.” Look at the map. The facts on the ground preclude establishing a state. It is no coincidence that French President Emmanuel Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and some other European leaders condemned the violence a couple of months ago when there was another bloody outbreak of violence and said that they would definitely recognise the Palestinian state when they come to the UN General Assembly session. I have a question: why don’t you recognise it at once, if you have decided so? I can only say that they expect that there will be nothing to recognise by that time. That’s that.
The hypocrisy is evident. I will say it again: we are in close contact with Palestinians, other Arabs as well as with Israel. President Putin discussed this situation by phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on many occasions. They have long-standing relations. It is a most complex conflict. However, the West benefits from sweeping all these complexities, which require it to take a position of principle, under the carpet. One of its tools is to emphasise its senseless and deadlock position on the Ukraine crisis.
Question: I came from Slovenia. Being a Slovenian citizen, I am proud of my country’s historical and cultural ties with Russia.
Sergey Lavrov: Where did you come from?
Question: From Slovenia.
Sergey Lavrov: A nice place.
Question: In 2001, Slovenia hosted a meeting between presidents Vladimir Putin and George Bush, which underscored its role as a bridge between East and West. Today, Slovenia, as a member of the EU and NATO, is more West-oriented. Do you think that small countries like Slovenia can maintain dialogue and cooperate with Russia today?
Sergey Lavrov: It is difficult for me to answer this question, because there are other NATO countries which, unlike the current Slovenian government, have not broken off dialogue with us. Hungary has never interrupted contacts with Russia. In Slovakia, after Robert Fico returned to office as Prime Minister, relations were also resumed. He even attended an SCO event at the invitation of the Chinese leadership. We have the warmest feelings towards the Slovenians. To be honest, we have never had any prejudices against any country.
Recently, President Vladimir Putin has once again recalled that there is now a category of “unfriendly countries” in Russian legislation. This may be necessary as a legal mechanism, when some issues must be addressed. But in reality, we have no unfriendly countries, only governments that pursue unfriendly policies towards us. That is how we view the matter.
Let me repeat: we have not severed ties. If our Western colleagues, including those in Slovenia, wish to restore dialogue, we will be ready.
Of course, it will no longer be “business as usual” as before. We will build relations while keeping in mind the risks inherent in certain areas of cooperation, particularly those where we previously became overly dependent on Western technologies.
Slovenia, like other EU and NATO members, will live through the current situation when the West is attempting to defeat Russia on the battlefield. After that, we shall see. But I repeat: we retain warm feelings towards the Slovenian people. I have visited many times and always left with the warmest impressions.
Question: I would like to digress a little from political and economic issues and ask a more personal question. You are often asked about what you read, and whether we should expect a new collection of poetry. But I was wondering what music you listen to, and whether it helps you get into a working frame of mind?
Sergey Lavrov: Unfortunately, I mostly read documents. Although sometimes I find time to read fiction, but too often my book just sits there, silently reproaching me for not opening it. There is little time left for literature.
I still try to keep up with poetry, especially my own. I wrote verses for Anatoly Torkunov’s 75th birthday. My friends published a collection of my poems for my anniversary, but that stopped in 2004 when I was appointed minister. Since then, I have only written verses for friends’ anniversaries, usually on everyday topics. The creative energy that once went into poetry is now channelled into prose on the diplomatic stage.
I love music. I am very fond of bards. Vladimir Vysotsky is not just a bard but more than a bard. I like Bulat Okudzhava and Yury Vizbor. I am sorry that contemporary bard singers in Russia are not promoted enough. Popular music dominates instead. It is also a kind of zeitgeist. But for us, a bonfire and a guitar are a symbol of home, of patriotism itself.
There are certainly young people today who write their own songs. During the special military operation, many talented poets have emerged, whose works have been set to music. TV channels like Solovyov Live are making efforts to promote them, but I think more could be done to ensure their music is heard. Perhaps, in time, we may even see a dedicated competition for soldier poets. During the Great Patriotic War, many poets wrote verses at the front and sent them back. I think reviving that tradition would be a right thing to do.
Of course, if MGIMO University continues to maintain its cultural traditions, such as its choir, poetry club, book club, all of this should be promoted. We should have presented its rich cultural life at Rector Torkunov’s birthday.
Friends, I wish you every success in your studies. All the conditions for that are in place. You have excellent teachers and mentors. As Anatoly Torkunov said, both the retired workers of the Foreign Ministry and current diplomats are always ready to talk with you, to help, and to answer the questions that inevitably arise.
Let me remind you once again: absorb knowledge, but also dare think independently. Based on what you learn, look for something new and useful, both for your country and for yourselves.
History will register that the first week of September 2025 propelled the advent of the Eurasia Century to a whole new level.
By Pepe Escobar at Sputnik.
That was the expectation ahead of three crucial intertwined dates: the SCO annual summit in Tianjin; the Victory Day parade in Beijing; and the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.
Yet expectations were even surpassed considering the breadth and scope of what just happened.
The SCO in Tianjin solidified the Chinese push for the establishment of true Global Governance – which in practice means the unceremonious burying of the “rules-based international order” that under the new US administration has metastasized into a no-rules based international chaos: essentially an ethos of “we’ll blow up the world if we are not able to control it.”
Tianjin had not only the 10 SCO full members but also 2 observers and 15 partners – with a heavy Southeast Asian presence – discussing the finer points to be observed for peaceful development. The pic of the week, if not the year or decade, was the Putin, Xi and Modi trilateral handshake: the return of the original, Primakov-coined RIC (Russia-India-China) in full force. As Professor Zhang Weiwei of Fudan University remarked in Vladivostok, the SCO is now expanding steadily in three platforms: energy; clean industries; and AI. In parallel, Central Asia is finally being seen as a “geographical blessing”, and not “a curse”.
Immediately after Tianjin, the Russia-China strategic partnership also shot up to a whole new level, as President Putin was received by President Xi at the Zhongnanhai, the official residence of the Chinese head of state, for an across-the-spectrum state of the planet recap.
The next day Beijing was resplendent under blue skies overseeing the stunning military parade celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Chinese victory over Japanese invasion and the Asian chapter of Nazi-fascism. That was a confident geoeconomic superpower showing off its military progress.
On the same day the Eastern Economic Forum started in Vladivostok: an unrivalled platform for discussing the surge of pan-Eurasia business.
What China has proposed, actually reiterated in Tianjin, goes way beyond the concept of wangdao, referring to an enlightened, benign power, but not a Hegemon. What could be described as the trademark motto of a Pax Sinica under Xi could be summed up as Make Trade, Not War – and for the common good, or community of a shared future”, in Beijing terminology.
SCO partners, as well as BRICS partners, fully understand that China does not intend to replace Pax Americana, which always relied on the – now aptly renamed – Department of War’s gunboat “diplomacy”. Whatever hysteria fits the West may throw – manipulating Tibet, Hong Kong, Xinjiang, South China Sea, Taiwan – won’t deviate Beijing from its civilizational inclusive path.
The birth of a new logistics order
The road from Tianjin to Vladivostok mostly evolved on three interconnected fronts; oil and gas; connectivity corridors; and massive economic development.
The collective West simply cannot get rid of its pathology of perennialy underestimating the East. For years, both BRICS and SCO were derided in Washington as irrelevant talk shops. But it’s the multilateral spirit that allows something groundbreaking like the Power of Siberia-2 to come to light.
Power of Siberia-2 was planned several years ago, but it was difficult to find consensus on the final route. Gazprom preferred Western Siberia to Xinjiang, across the Altai mountains. The Chinese wanted transit via Mongolia, straight into central China.
The Mongolian route eventually prevailed. It was decided two years ago, and in the last few weeks, the final pricing mechanism, respecting market rates. This massive geoeconomic game-changer means that the gas from the Yamal peninsula that would supply Europe via the Nord Streams will supply China.
President Putin’s expose at the plenary session in Vladivostok placed particular emphasis on energy and connectivity.
But to track the devil in the details nothing could beat the arguably two top panels at the forum.
One of them discussed the integrated development of the Arctic and the Russian Far East, with special insights by Vladimir Panov, who not only is Rosatom’s top expert on the Arctic but also the Deputy Chairman of the State Commission on Arctic Development.
Another panel really dug deep , tracing a parallel between the origins of the Northern Sea Route (NSR), 500 years ago – when Russian diplomat Dmitry Gerasimov drew up the first draft of the Northern Sea Route and the first map of the Arctic Ocean and Muscovy coastlines – and the 21st century technology challenges.
This panel featured a particular striking expose by the CEO of Rosatom, Aleksey Likhachev, complemented by experts such as Sergey Vakhurov, the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s Maritime Collegium. Likhachev detailed the complex shaping of an Arctic corridor, carrying mostly raw materials: a resilient transport corridor for the whole of Northeast Asia.
That’s no less than the birth of a new logistics order – think IA- based weather forecasting plus icebreakers – featuring critical Russian input.
— Sputnik (@SputnikInt) September 6, 2025
Will Vladivostok become the next Hong Kong?
So, as Putin stressed in his presentation at the plenary session, the heart of the matter is the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor: arguably the key 21st century connectivity corridor.
Thus it’s no wonder Vladivostok’s discussions centered around the key role of nuclear energy and nuclear icebreakers in assuring stable shipping along the NSR route, side by side with environmental concerns and the trials and tribulations of securing large-scale investments in energy production, processing and infrastructure building.
All that merged with a timely discussion of the Greater Eurasia Partnership – the crux of Russian geoeconomic policy – with key inputs by Alexey Overchuk, the Deputy Chairman of Russia’s government, and the affable Suhail Khan, the Deputy Secretary-General of the SCO.
An absolutely key takeaway of all these discussions was the startling realignment being operated by Rosatom – which is simultaneously expanding business with China, India and South Korea along the ultra-strategic NSR.
That means, in essence, Russia evaluating all vectors when it comes to organizing full-scale convoy systems for 365 days a year of Arctic navigation: nothing less, once again, than a new economic and technological order.
Now couple all that with a lively discussion of how the Global South and East will be leading the new growth economy.
Sberbank’s CEO Herman Gref, for instance, disclosed that the largest Russian bank has become the second largest in transactions globally, only behind JP Morgan.
Wen Wang, from Renmin University, remarked how China is undergoing a very strong de-Americanization process, in education and tech, pushing “its own knowledge system”.
He foresees huge Russia-China cooperation potential – economic and financial, emphasizing there is a pressing necessity to open financial markets on both sides. That’s how Vladivostok could become the next Hong Kong. Several panelists at the forum observed that Vladivostok has all it takes to become a strategic center for Global South integration.
The Arctic will be at the center of possible business deals between Russians and Americans; serious discussions have been going on since March, including in the recent Putin-Trump meeting.
Amidst the colossal logistics challenges, an economic breakthrough in the Arctic, next to and within Alaska may eventually represent for the US a ticket out of an economic catastrophe. So here the Arctic – which is de facto dominated by Russia – may in the end become a privileged arena to domesticate the Empire of Chaos.
After all Russia has already built extensive, complex infrastructure in the Arctic – upgraded in real time. Mammoth ports, LNG processing, whole cities of workers and technicians, the enormous advantage of the nuclear icebreaker fleet (nine in action, with two more coming), all these advances are Russian intellectual property that can be exploited in dealing with the US.
In the end, these heady few days last week solidified The Future. Grandmaster Lavrov once again delivered the succinct version – commenting on the triple handshake of Putin, Xi and Modi: “A demonstration that three great powers, representing three great civilizations, recognize the commonality of their interests in several areas.”
That’s way more: that’s a new world in the making.
… via the DF-5C express and armored deluxe trains. Judge Nap tries to contain the excitement of our roving eye nomad in encapsulating one of the most transformational weeks of our lives.
Transcript submitted by a reader
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY5m7e5wPjw
NewsX: 0:00
China-India bilateral trade does not replace India-US bilateral trade. We lose a hundred billion dollars to the Chinese, OK? What products are the Chinese going to buy from us when they make everything? So the only imports they really have is iron ore, OK? So let’s be realistic, that doesn’t fix that problem.
But away from, as Mitali is saying, from the problems, there’s a fundamental agreement. That yes, we have our problems and we’ll have to settle our own problems and if we can’t do anything serious let’s take the temporary measures, because there’s an even bigger problem that the world is facing. Now, together these countries represent a global GDP, just the three of them represent a global GDP of just over 24 trillion dollars, OK? So even all three together don’t match up to the GDP of America. And nobody’s wishing away America.
0:51
So some balancing act has happened, but clear messaging has happened. So now let’s get Gilbert Doctorow into this conversation. Professor Doctorow was telling us yesterday that it’s a good thing that the eyes of India have been opened and they’ve been made to smell the roses. And if the quad ends with nothing special and the entire bloc system is dismantled, that’s a good thing. And you know, let’s take the positives out of it. With the posturing that’s happened and very obvious posturing that has happened, Gilbert Doctorow, what do you feel now?
Doctorow: 1:30
I think– I was listening to your remarks on the body language of Modi and Putin and Xi. And I was also listening to your remarks about the humiliation of Pakistan, which I think you are overdoing. Pakistan after all is a protege of China, and the remarks made about their terror attacks on India could not have– in the declaration of the of the SCO, could not be made without China’s agreement. So let’s not overdo it.
What I see is not the fall of Pakistan, but the rise of India. I think we have to remember that SCO was created by two countries, by Russia and by China. This goes back to the beginning of the millennium. It was created as a way that these two countries could manage their competition over Central Asia and also keep out intervention in Central Asia by the United States and other interlopers. So it was about security in the middle of Eurasia.
2:42
And let’s remember that this is reflected in the working languages of the SCO. They are two languages, Russian and Mandarin. Small point, but highly significant in who runs this organization. India has been marginal. I think that this new spat with the United States, which Mr. Trump has provoked by his unreasonable tariff policy on India, has given these countries, Russia and China, an opportunity to do something that perhaps should have been done long ago, to raise the visibility of India and the possibility of India being also a full partner in the SCO management, not just a member.
3:35
This is a prospect that I hope India will find attractive now that the SCO is moving beyond its original remit, its original self-description as a security organization to combat terrorism and to combat narco trade and is looking to take on an economic and financial dimension as we witnessed in the creation of a–
NewsX: 4:01
Okay, so I’ve of course been hearing the statements carefully and–
gilbertdoctorow
Cambodian dictator Hun Sen’s level of corruption and depravity is also instructive, since it’s mirrored by other leaders, including the world’s most visible.
with gratitude to Linh Dinh at Postcards from the End.
Thy Sovantha — Aug 24, 2025.
Though Hun Sen’s official title is President of the Senate, every Cambodian knows he’s still their dictator, as he’s been for 38 years. On 8/3/25, Hun Sen announced 30-year-old Thy Sovantha had been kicked out of the Cambodian People’s Party and fired from her job as vice mayor of Arey Ksat, a city of just 76,000 people.
His explanation, “We don’t have time to educate undisciplined cadres when national matters demand attention. Time and again, Thy Sovantha has posted inappropriate messages on FaceBook. I’ve personally called her to request she delete two recent posts. Today, she again posted a message that’s harmful to our military even as our soldiers are defending our nation.”
A day or two later, Hun Sen also stripped Thy Sovantha of her citizenship, and booted her entire family out of the country. She’s lucky to not be murdered. What has this minor Cambodian politician done to incur such wrath, and why should you care?
Off the coast of Sihanoukville is Koh Tang, a paradisal island that houses thousands of forced laborers and sex slaves of many nationalities, according to Thy Sovantha. She has even compiled names of victims. Those no longer useful are killed for their organs. Since a heart is worth one million bucks and a liver $560,000, nobody should be wasted. Vietnamese already know Koh Tang as where 513 of their compatriots perished, after being kidnapped by the Khmer Rouge in 1975 from Thổ Chu, an island 65 miles away. After being worked to death, their corpses were used to fertilize jackfruit, coconut and mango trees. So quaint, such a primitive solution.
With the Kingdom of Cambodia technically a democracy with the king just a figurehead, such horrors are supposed to be passé, but slaves are still trapped across Cambodia. Mostly controlled by Chinese, they enrich the Hun Sen clan.
Before this episode, Thy Sovantha was already famous for her stunning looks. At age 18, she emerged as a supporter of Sam Rainsy, a flamboyant politician now living in exile. When Thy Sovantha switched her allegiance to Hun Sen, it’s assumed she had been bought off. No one really cared, since she was so soothing to stare at. Unlike Kristi Noem, she hasn’t been cut up every which way, then nervously reassembled like some thrift store jigsaw puzzle.
Hun Sen’s level of corruption and depravity is also instructive, since it’s mirrored by other leaders, including the world’s most visible. To these monsters, young women and girls are only useful for sex, young men are to be worked to death or sent to battles, with the rest just useless eaters to be murdered, with their organs harvested. Jewjab was a particularly cute solution, since people were charged to be injured or even killed. Those with “long Covid” can be fleeced for years until death.
With Thy Sovantha so visible, Hun Sen couldn’t just zap her. This decision may prove fatal. Humiliated by Thailand and abandoned by China, he’s already in deep shit. From overseas, Sovantha will speak out even more. Perhaps the old creep is also smitten by this beauty.
Whenever in Saigon, Hun Sen stays, for some reason, at the middle-brow Tân Lộc Hotel by Bến Thành Market. Frequenting nearby eateries, he’s well known for squeezing waitresses’ shoulders. Near corpses can’t help but grab.
In Jordan last month, I thought often about Ghassan Kanafani. Married to a Dane, this Palestinian could have fled to safety. Instead, he stayed most outspoken in the Middle East, so was murdered by Jews, along with his 17-year-old niece, in Beirut. Challenging Cambodia’s most powerful man, Thy Sovantha also flirted with death. There’s also the example of Albania’s Musine Kokalari. Educated in Italy, she could have just stayed there. Instead, Kokalari came home to write in her native language and become politically involved. Though this wrecked her life, her courage and integrity still inspire.
Nations that lack Kanafanis, Sovanthas, Kokalaries or Nam Caos don’t survive. A life’s worth shouldn’t be measured in years, but in meaningful, decisive acts, whether honorable, cowardly or merely misguided. These considerations are moot, however, if men are on auto pilot. With ChatGPT, Chatsonic and whatever else, half dead brains can just drift. In self driving cars, they can just text or ogle at porn.
For a week, I had this stubborn cough, runny nose and slight headache. Only yesterday did I get some pills from Pharmacity. Done with this article by 7:33AM, I will trek a few miles, just to wade into tactile life again. Unmediated experience is never a waste of time. I’m lucky to be in a society with streets still alive.
Couch or cubicle bound serfs can keep mooning at Thy Sovantha, but remember, she’s not just a pretty face!
Vung Tau, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 7/22/25
Ah, Life! — Aug 25, 2025.
Doing nothing, 29-year-old Vinh gets 200K [$7.60] a day from his parents. After high school, he did enter college to study tourism management. He lasted just one year. Like millions of similar youths across this globe, Vinh’s defeated lifestyle is enabled by the internet. Its free music, porn, video games and TikTok skits give his life meaning. He’s entertained.
Walking to Coffee Seven this pre dawn, I paused to chat with BlueTooth. As always, he was listening to Eminem. That sonic monotony defines and anchors him.
“I don’t know any Vietnamese who can rap that rapidly,” I said. “Do you?”
“I met this kid who claimed his crew could do it.”
“Could he?”
“I didn’t see it.”
“What does it mean, to rap so rapidly?”
“It means you can sing without thinking!” He sounded awed. “We can’t do it yet.”
When BlueTooth said that rap must be authentic, I pointed out the obvious. Most rappers are broke assed pussies who pose as loaded gangstas. Like Trump or Uncle Sam, they’re fakes. Since I must think before singing, I couldn’t be so elaborate or exact. Still, I got my point across.
Arriving at Coffee Seven, I noticed a Chevrolet Orlando parked outside. Though an American brand, it’s made in South Korea and never sold in the USA, so a fake, basically. It belongs to Mrs. Seven’s niece. As the Assistant Post Master General of Ho Chi Minh City, she can afford these nice wheels. Nearing 50, she’s never married. Her two sisters are also unmarried career women. This global progression towards isolation is accelerating, and mostly welcomed.
Tribes in the Vietnamese Highlands used to live in multi-family long houses. The Hakka of southern China dwelled in enormous circular fortresses, so a vast home, basically, for each clan. Now, there are charmingly named cage apartments and coffin homes in Hong Kong. Five years ago in Seoul, I stayed for nearly a week in a tiny room that cost just $24 a night. It was fun as a novelty. Many South Koreans, though, must live that way. Four decades ago, I had friends who rented NYC closets they converted into bedrooms. Any space wide enough for a single mattress can be leased, obviously, with a first month, last month and security deposit, plus a background check. Your live in landlord wouldn’t want you to slide open that closet door at 3AM, so you can, you know, snuggle a bit. Tennessee Williams has fond memories of such encounters in New Orleans rooming houses. His best account of aroused strangers clawing for love is “Night of the Iguana,” of course.
Despite herself and almost unconsciously, a spinster manages to seduce a queer, but not to consummation. Just before coitus, she flees back to her room, so is, again, alone. Still, she has glimpsed a novel universe.
Consider this masterful passage, “Now she was sleepy. But just before falling asleep she remembered and felt again the spot of dampness, now turning cool but still adhering to the flesh of her belly as a light but persistent kiss. Her fingers approached it timidly. They expected to draw back with revulsion but were not so affected. They touched it curiously and even pityingly and did not draw back for a while. Ah, Life, she thought to herself and was about to smile at the originality of this thought when darkness lapped over the outward gaze of her mind.”
There’s nothing original about seeing semen as life, but it certainly feels that way to each virgin. There’s no mockery in Williams’ acknowledgement, only tremendous empathy. By adding pity to her wonderment, he’s also showing pity for all lonely bodies, including his, of course, for how many times did Tennessee touch that damp spot on his own belly?
Vung Tau, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam: (L): 7/24/25 ; (R): 8/24/25
Two weeks ago, Gina Schrank commented, “I loved hearing about your coffee lady caring for someone or other constantly.” After her mother’s stroke, Mrs. Seven had to wipe and wash her daily for 12 years. For a much shorter time, she had to do the same for her dad. “He used to clutch at his pants like this!” she told me. “But I had to do it. I couldn’t let him be so dirty.”
This morning, I found out Mrs. Seven also took care of her mother-in-law whenever she popped in for coffee, which was often. After escaping Vietnam by boat, this lady settled in California, but came home after two decades without her husband.
“She lived with her son, you know, so she wasn’t properly washed. A woman had to do it. I took her to the back. Her pussy was all slimy,” she chuckled at this memory. “I washed it.”
Her term for pussy is chim, by the way. It literally means “bird.” Makes no sense. Vietnamese also call cows “crawling animal,” con bò. They’re beyond goofy, man.
Though subjected to each deranged trend emanating from that Flaming Babylon on that distant, unreachable hill, almost no Vietnamese is tatted up, pierced and strutting down the street, acting tough. Even those in “cool looking” hoodies flaunt cutesy slogans and cartoon characters in pastel colors. The most clueless wear pyjamas all day long. The more image conscious, the more narcissistic thus insane you are.
Once upon a time Gore Vidal, Truman Capote or Tennessee Williams could be spotted on American television. That civilization is hardly remembered, much less missed. Now, there are only waves of cool zombies brushing against confused troops, freshly deployed. Their endless war has come home.
China’s Tang ping, South Korea’s N-po generation, UK’s NEET and Japan’s freeters are all descendants of Herman Meville’s Bartleby, that pathetic yet sublime Wall Street quitter. Steered towards a soulless, machinelike existence, they’ve all decided to mumble, “I’d prefer not to.” It would only be a passive suicide, though, if you’re not saying yes to anything.
For several years, I’ve photographed people staring at phones. Uploading my latest, I was struck by how insane they’ve become. It’s useless to say this can’t go on.
Vung Tau, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 8/26/25
Stragglers in the Night — Aug 27, 2025.
Passing BlueTooth in the dark, I said, “We’re like ghosts. While other people sleep, we just…” I checked myself from saying “function.” Half an hour later, I still don’t know what verb would have been better, but perhaps “straggle”? You, me, him, we barely straggle, for we’re the luckiest.
Hearing me sneeze, Mrs. Seven’s bitch barked from behind her rusting steel door. Only today did I learn she’s called Nọng, a hideous name, and unique, too. Nasty Flannery O’Connor has a character named Hulga Hopewell. Mrs. Seven’s other dog, a male, is called Milk Cow, Bò Sữa. She also refers to him as “missus,” as in, “Missus always hides when it’s time to take a bath.” With our quirks, secrets, shameful solutions or perversions we get by, hopefully without being humiliated or jailed.
Before leaving my high ceilinged, French built room, I listened to a monologue by The Functional Melancholic. Witty, thought provoking, well read and with a good delivery, he’d have drawn live audiences 30 years ago, like Spalding Gray, but today, he must earn his keeps on YouTube. “Civilization’s Inevitable Collapse” has provoked 1,500 comments after just a week, so he’s raising urgent yet all-too-familiar issues. From Thoreau to John Zerzan, many have articulated the despair and horrors of being trapped in conformist America.
The Functional Melancholic, “While most of us are staggering under debt and spiritual emptiness that’s become so routine and ubiquitous, it might as well be direct deposited with our paychecks at this point. The question, ‘Do you like civilization?’ is about as absurd as asking, ‘Do you like your nervous system?’”
A typical response, “I was sitting in my cube today, trying to be grateful for still having a decent job, when a realization hit me. The world just feels.. wrong. Everything about it is wrong. Nothing is the way it should be. It’s all backwards and upside down. It’s like Morpheus said: it’s like a splinter in the mind. It’s suffocating.”
I heard Spalding Gray around 1985. Going to the Painted Bride, I passed through Washington Square. Thousands of Revolutionary War soldiers, plus a few Brits, are buried there in unmarked graves. Seeing me with a white girl, some dude, perhaps homeless, started chasing us with a fallen tree branch. I’m betting he’s a Vietnam Vet who suddenly spotted a Viet Cong. Brushing off this goofy episode, we enjoyed Gray’s performance. In 2004, this Manhattanite jumped off the Staten Island Ferry into the East River, so that’s that.
During my 35 years in the USA, I never got a credit card, so never spent cash I didn’t have. I bought two used cars, which I drove for less than two years altogether. I never got a mortgage. There were times I counted pennies at checkout counters. With such a minimal lifestyle, of course I was a loser to most eyes, but so what. Once I was paid to talk to a class at the Philadelphia Community College. The very next day, I was washing windows at Rittenhouse Square. The term gig economy hadn’t been invented. With buckets of hot water, squeegees and scrunched up newspapers, I roamed through Center City with Lee Goldston. Despite his name, Lee was just this black dude from North Carolina. Lee’s business card said, “Associated Philadelphia International Company,” but my own father, with a single restaurant in Santa Clara, CA, called his backwoods operation “Kobe International.”
“How is it international?” I asked him.
“That’s for the future. Kobe will be international!”
That’s Trumpian or Muskian logics. Since you can’t absolutely rule out any possibility, you can just say anything, but only to morons, of course.
With Klarma, afterpay and affirm, Americans are postponing paying in full even their fastfood burger, burrito or reconstituted chicken. They’re also skipping payments on their houses and cars. Even if your blood pressure is spiking and your nuts are freezing, everything is cool, sort of, as long as there are deep fried calories in your belly.
By early 2018, Tony and his sister no longer had electricity or heat, but they were still eating and, most importantly, drinking. With Latinos taking over his kitchen, Tony became just a parking lot attendant, but his furtive stealing finally got Tony fired. His aging sister was only given the worst tables at her waitressing job. All Friendly Lounge’s regulars gave Tony money so he wouldn’t starve. His last words to us before disappearing for good, “This is your last chance to lend me money!” That wouldn’t be a bad line in any monologue.
Vung Tau, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, 8/26/25
Since it’s 6AM, I will wrap up today’s monologue. Straggling home, I will cook up some spaghetti, to eat with a beef burger patty. A recent indulgence are cubes of sugar free dark chocolate, bought at Lotte Supermarket.
One last detail before I forget or get struck by lightning. During the Vietnam War, Mrs. Seven’s dad made good money selling pot to American soldiers. Getting to know them, he even converted this very house into a mini bar. That’s why there’s a Minnie Mouse, playing the harp, on Mrs. Seven’s bedroom wall. When she was distracted chatting to a neighbor yesterday, I sneaked into her room to photograph it.
To survive, you must be resourceful, sneaky or freakish, whatever it takes, man, as long as you’re not hurting nobody.
With her tail chopped off, Nọng only has a comic stub to wiggle, but she’s never felt one second of self-pity, I don’t think. As she came by to check on me just seconds ago, I felt so much admiration, from me to her, of course. You’re a pitiful shit, she’s probably thinking.
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
Michael von der Schulenburg: Alaska Meeting Was a “Game Changer”
Excellent discussion and correct preliminary conclusion. “Trust-building” was leitmotif, to halt the runaway train to nuclear war. Reality between the two who count are now materially different. Europeans stand alone, and will cast off by Empire. “The Peace” is gonna be imposed on the crazed Europeans, and others fueling Forever Wars. Russia is recognized as peer power that must be negotiated with, sans diktat or derision, as they hold the cards.
Of course it’s all about Alaska. Here’s what’s in play. But it’s the shadowplay that’s even more exciting.
By Pepe Escobar at Strategic Culture Foundation.
Of course it’s all about Alaska. Here’s what’s in play. But it’s the shadowplay that’s even more exciting.
Across the world, for those who grew up in the Cold War Swingin’ Sixties, the temptation is irresistible to cast Donald Trump as Goldfinger (but who would play Oddjob? Hegseth?)
Goldfinger, after all, is a powerful, ruthless gambler. His 21st century motto would be “Obliterate & Plunder”. In fact, sequentially, an orgy of obliteratin’ and plunderin’ if the occasions present themselves. Everything subjected to the search for the Golden Deal. My way. The only way.
Yet now it’s possible that Goldfinger may have met its appropriate – collective – match.
This is what happened the last time a summit took place in Alaska, in this particular case US-China in a shabby hotel in Anchorage. That shook the geopolitical chessboard to the core. Trump-Putin might – but only under quite specific conditions.
There’s only one realistic, optimal endgame for Alaska: a joint declaration of intent, pointing to a follow-up, as in the next meeting to be held in Russian territory. A sort of starter for the long and winding road towards a real reset of US-Russia relations, including a possible settlement in the proxy war in Ukraine.
Essentially, they may agree to keep talking. Yet what really matters is what may be implied by the promise: Goldfinger refrains from imposing secondary sanctions on Russia’s partners.
That will constitute a tremendous BRICS victory (Iran excluded. Actually, two strategic allies of Russia would be excluded: Iran and the DPRK).
BRICS are actively building a coalition to stare down Goldfinger. The key players are Bear, Dragon, Toucan and Elephant – all four original founders of BRIC. Nightingale should be added later, as it is linked via geopolitical/geoeconomic strategic partnerships with Bear, Dragon and Elephant.
When it comes to the Alaska nitty gritty, the top Bear needs to consider all the ramifications of what is an imperative for the Russian General Staff and the vast intel apparatus in Moscow: unless Goldfinger minions stop weaponizing and providing precious intel to Ukraine is all its forms, the mythic “ceasefire” that Goldfinger and the pack of toothless chihuahuas in Europe desperately want will be just an intermission to allow Ukraine to rearm to the hilt.
That’s a tough call for the top Bear: he has to placate his domestic, radical critics who blast him for sitting down with the enemy, and at the same time he must deliver the goods to his under-siege BRICS allies.
BRICS counteract Goldfinger’s Plunder tactics
Bear, Dragon, Toucan and Elephant are involved in breathless telephone diplomacy to articulate their collective response to Goldfinger’s Tariff/Plunder drive.
Examples. Modi on Brazil: “A strong, people-centric partnership between Global South nations benefits everyone.”
Lula on India: “Brazil and India are, so far, the two most affected countries. We reaffirmed the importance of defending multilateralism and the need to address the challenges of the current situation.”
Xi to Lula: China backs Brazil to defend its national sovereignty; BRICS is “a key platform for building consensus in the Global South.”
Goldfinger’s Tariff Plunder works in several ways.
On India: because New Delhi refuses to open its vast agricultural market to tariff-free Made in USA imports (45% of India’s population directly depends on agriculture); and because India buys Russian oil at much-needed discount prices.
On Brazil: because the ultimate target is regime change and free reign to plunder Brazil’s natural wealth.
So far, Goldfinger’s Plunder antics have been stellar when it comes to engineering their own blowback: from allienating even allies – see abject European submission – to de facto burying multilateral trade, not to mention international law.
Example: just a few hours before the tariff “pause” on Made in China products was about to expire, Goldfinger signed an executive order extending the deadline for another 90 days. Translation: TACO, all over again. If the tariff “pause” went through, the economy of the $37 trillion-indebted “indispensable nation” would be in even more dire straits.
Then there’s Goldfinger’s possible Arctic gameplay, already examined here. There’s virtually no evidence Russia would allow the US to participate in the development of the Arctic-wide Northern Sea Route (NSR), or Arctic Silk Road in Chinese terminology.
The role of Russia’s Atomflot – 11 nuclear icebreakers, 9 of them in action, 2 being built, including Project 10510 Rossiya, a behemoth capable of navigating anywhere in the Arctic anytime – in parallel with Russia’s astonishing arsenal of new weapons systems, these are absolutely key variables on any serious discussion on any possible US-Russia partnership post-Alaska.
Arya – آریا: mural at Tehran’s Enghelab Square. Farsi text: “The end of this saga is of glory, thus recite the name of Iran, for it is the slayer of its enemies.” The Iranian warrior Rostam from Shahnameh fights the serpent (the US)
Goldfinger’s obsession to cage Nightingale
Now let’s look at Nightingale – an immensely complex case. Goldfinger has totally embarked on a multi-track maximum pressure/tension remix against Iran: forcing Hezbollah to disarm; forcing the collapse of Lebanon into factional war; legitimizing the “al-Qaeda R Us” dismemberment of Syria; forcing snapback UN-backed sanctions on Tehran.
Then came the Goldfinger-hailed “historic peace summit” with Azerbaijan’s Aliyev and Armenia’s Pashinyan.
Well, what Baku and Yerevan really signed under Goldfinger’s watchful eye is not a peace deal: it’s a mere memorandum of understanding (MOU).
Their Joint Declaration is extremely vague – and non-binding. What is promised is a “let’s keep talking” set up: “We acknowledged the need to continue further actions to achieve the signing and ultimate ratification of the [Peace] Agreement.”
It remains to be seen what happens with the much-ballyhooed 99-year American grip on the Zangezur corridor – trimphally named Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP) – complete with grabbing 40% of its revenues (Armenia would get only 30%) and placing 1,000 American mercenaries to patrol Armenian territory, right south of Nightingale’s borders.
The big story is of course Goldfinger eager to snatch at least one connectivity corridor in southern Eurasia – in the strategic south Caucasus, using a gangster-minded MI6 asset (Aliyev) and a national traitor (meek Pashinyan), which will be discarded and/or sweetened in due time. Crucially, NATO membership was offered to both Armenia and Azerbaijan.
The Deep State’s game plan is total control: what really matters is the opening to establish a NATO corridor all the way to the Caspian.
There’s no way Nightingale will let that happen, not to mention Bear and Dragon: it would mean a direct NATO threat not only to the International North South Transportation Corridor (INSTC), which unites three BRICS (Russia, Iran, India) and crosses the Caspian, but also the Chinese Silk Roads, whose corridors traverse Iran with possible branch outs to the Caucasus.
Nightingale has already made it quite clear it will not allow any kind of change of status for the Zangezur corridor. And it has the necessary missile arsenal to back it up. IRGC Deputy Commander Yadollah Javani: Iran “will not allow an American corridor on its border.”
Wherever it comes from, Goldinger or the Deep State, the pressure by the Empire of Chaos is relentless. There will be no respite in the Hybrid – and otherwise – Wars on BRICS, especially on the new Primakov triangle (“RIC” as in Russia, Iran, China).
Alaska in principle should be about a reset of all US-Russia security matters – geopolitical, commercial, military, with Ukraine being just a subset. That will be a major stretch. It’s hard to imagine Putin being able to impress on Trump, on the same table, the finer points of NATO/US ceaseless plots to undermine, harass and destabilize Russia.
The most probable outcome is that the proxy war – and the SMO – will keep rollin’ on, but with the Deep State making extra bundles of euros by selling tons of weapons for NATO to dispatch to Kiev. But even without the promise of a new, serious, US-Russia security architecture, BRICS may still stand a chance to snatch a victory out of Goldfinger’s latest photo op.
Luigi, a sharp-tongued colleague from my first corporate job in Brussels, had many trenchant pieces of advice to share from his own life experience. One of these was “two artists in the family is one too many.”
Indeed, from the standpoint of paying the monthly bills, that is all too often true. But there is another dimension to his observation that has borne itself out very well in my family life: a couple in which one spouse is academic minded and the other is artistic minded can be a complementary and mutually reinforcing partnership.
“Partnership” may seem an odd way to describe matrimony to the younger readers in the Community who know only about romance. I myself was struck by the designation “partner” which Prince Gremin uses when presenting his recent bride Tatyana to Onegin at a ball in his palace (see Tchaikowsky, Yevgeny Onegin). But then again, Gremin is several decades her senior and after a certain age breeding ceases to be the defining element in a relationship and other points in common take over, or the relationship sours.
I will not expand this introduction longer than needed. But it is essential to make one other point here at the outset, a point which the Harvard of my days never grasped and which American higher education in general is unlikely to appreciate even today: academic minds and artistic minds operate in entirely different ways although they may arrive at the same Truth in the end by their different pathways. Academic training prepares you to be a critic, meaning straight lines and 90-degree angles. Artistic training prepares you to be creative, meaning circuitous reasoning. And the final products of the two may meet up, but only at the end of the working process.
I have written narrative history based on archival sources. That requires a certain imagination to breathe life into dry papers. However, the names, facts about the historical personages are always precisely supported by footnoted references. Historical novels have no such limitations on the imagination of the author.
I write to present the best novel written by my Russian wife, Larisa Vladimirovna Zalesova: Mosaic of my Life. Regrettably, when it was first published the Covid pandemic, was about to strike and book promotion was not on our agenda. Now we seek to make amends.
This is a sweeping history of Russia in the 20th century from the pre-Revolutionary normality through the waves of suffering inflicted by Stalin on the broad population and horrors of World War II straight up into the last quarter of the century. The heroine of the novel is the daughter of an opera singer who performed in the Mariinsky Theater in the circle of the great Russian basso Shalyapin, as well as in the Paris opera. Some of the story line is taken from the reminiscences of the mother, whom my wife interviewed in Paris. Other story elements come from the lives of members of my wife’s family and friends in Petersburg.
Readers will be surprised by various adventures including the romance between the opera singer mother and a German officer who saved them amidst the fighting in the South of Russia during the war. But life is often filled with such contradictions to our expectations of relations.
I point out that the “Mosaic” in the title is not merely used in the abstract sense of life experiences but in the concrete sense of Roman-era paintings in stone: Crimea figures large in this novel, as it did in the life style of the Russian aristocracy in the 19th century and early 20th. The opening pages describe the fragments of Antique mosaics still found there which so impressed the heroine.
For those so interested, The Mosaic of My Life is also available in Russian in an e-book version. Larisa in fact produced both English and Russian texts in parallel so that both versions were released at the same time.
I direct readers to the Comments section at the bottom of the book’s Amazon.com web page. Yes, the reader correctly identifies the Tolstoyan sweep of this historical novel. Bulgakov told us that ‘manuscripts do not burn” in his Master and Margarita. I suggest here that novels published five years ago do not age. I urge readers to use the Look Inside function on Amazon to sample this work for themselves.
gilbertdoctorow
Ritter explains something that has meaning that we don’t generally know and we should know. That is the background of ‘Dead Hand’. Sometimes, even a broken clock …..
TRUMP AND MEDVEDEV’S DANGEROUS EXCHANGE OF WORDS
As the rhetoric heats up, we must remain cognizant of the consequences.
The sharp exchange of words between President Trump and former President Medvedev underscores just how dangerous the deteriorating relations between the US and Russia have become.
The threats being promulgated are not idle ones.
President Trump has become enthralled with the Israeli “Nasrallah” solution—leadership decapitation and middle management disruption designed to bring about the rapid collapse of a government/system.
It was tried—and failed—in Iran.
But Trump is being advised by Russophobes who believe that the US can successfully implement such a plan against Russia.
This plan begins with sanctions, as all such plans do.
It ends with a decapitation strike on Moscow.
Trump’s imagined conversation with Putin, where he threatened to “bomb the sh*t out of Moscow”, is indicative of the President’s thinking in this regard.
The preferred decapitation strike is done using B-52 bombers launching cruise missiles, accompanied by Trident missiles launched from Ohio-class submarines operating off the coast of Russia, allowing for a flatter trajectory flight and shorter flight time.
Medvedev’s comment about the “Dead Hand” indicates that Russia is well aware of Trump’s plans.
The “Dead Hand”, or Perimeter system, is a long-standing fail-safe mechanism/plan which guarantees a full-scale nuclear retaliation in case any nation is foolish enough to try a decapitation strike.
It dates back to Soviet times, when a special regiment of SS-20 missiles was equipped with radio transmission devices instead of warheads. These missiles would be launched, broadcasting launch codes that would send all strategic nuclear force weapons to their targets, even if Moscow was taken out.
This wasn’t theoretical—in my book Disarmament in the Time of Perestroika, I write about how the Soviets transitioned this capability to the SS-25 system once the SS-20 was eliminated under the INF treaty.
Today this mission is being handled by special regiment of SS-27 missiles.
There are other components of the “Dead Hand”.
Medvedev’s mentioning of it is a not-to-gentle reminder to Trump and his planners that it is suicide to think of a preemptive decapitation strike against Russia.
Hopefully this message gets through.
Otherwise, the “Walking Dead” allusion made by Medvedev will be the future of the United States and the world.
what toxic confluence of factors has crystallized into a hot war in the heart of Southeast Asia? It starts with a family feud – involving the Thai Shinawatra and the Cambodian Hun Sen clans
By Pepe Escobar at Sputnik.
Fog of war rules. A crack Thai analyst worries about the intersection of so many vectors not making sense: “There’s something so odd about this war. It feels like someone is pushing both sides to escalate.”
Escalation, so far, also rules. Even with Tariff Temper Tantrum Trump (T4) now repositioned as Peacemaker and touting his own Art of Ceasefire “deal”.
Yet this Monday, it’s actually Malaysia – currently the chair of ASEAN – that de facto mediates, with Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim hosting ceasefire talks in Putrajaya. As previously confirmed by Foreign Minister Mohamed Hasan, “this is an ASEAN matter, and as chair, we should lead.”
Malaysia, in the end, did lead. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim personally broke a ceasefire between the belligerents.
And that brings us to the inevitable question: what toxic confluence of factors has crystallized into a hot war in the heart of Southeast Asia?
It starts with a family feud – as stated by a top Thai intel source, involving the Thai Shinawatra and the Cambodian Hun Sen clans. Thaksin Shinawatra, from Chiang Mai in the north, billionaire, former prime minister, recently pardoned by King Maha Vajiralongkorn, is the perennial strongman of Thai politics. One of his daughters, Paetongtarn, is the current Thai Prime Minister.
Hun Sen, a former Khmer Rouge soldier — he defected in 1977 — former Prime Minister in two stints (1985-1983 and 1998-2023), currently President of the Senate, is the perennial strongman in Cambodia.
The Shinawatra-Hun Sen clans used to be very close, but they recently had an “irreconcilable” falling out, partly due to Thaksin’s daughter Yingluck’s new husband — by the way, she is also a former Prime Minister — planning to open a large casino in the tourist paradise Phuket, something directly connected to the relaxation of Thai gambling laws.
The new venture will heavily affect Hun Sen’s enormous profits from his casinos located in Poi Pet, along the Thai border.
It gets way more complex when we factor what lies behind the long unresolved border dispute, now flaring up again because of — what else — Pipelineistan: it’s all about oil and gas exploration.
The current Thai-Cambodian border is demarcated mostly along the watershed of the Dangrek mountain range. Hun Sen is eager to gain even tiny pieces of land on the Thai side of the watershed, using ancient Khmer temples as an excuse. The whole area was once part of the mighty Khmer empire.
Hun Sen’s gamble is to set up a legal precedent for the border to be adjusted at the coastline. That of course would affect the maritime borders in the Gulf of Thailand, and who controls how much of the oil and gas fields. Currently multiple Western companies — including Chevron — hold drilling rights on the Thai side of the maritime border, hence the Western ‘support’ for Thailand.
Enter China. Beijing has a very significant trading relationship with Thailand: a $135 billion turnover. Compare it to a mere $12 billion when it comes to China-Cambodia. The Chinese and Thai militaries are very close. In terms of strategic interest, as much as China may be investing a lot in Cambodia modernization, including a mega new business hub outside of Phnom Penh, Beijing will not support Hun Sen’s — now backfiring — gamble.
Now we enter the most sensitive part of the equation. Thaksin was essentially brought back to the Thai political chessboard by the King’s close advisors in order to keep the liberal “menace” at bay. But now the optics are that Thaksin has messed up. And the echoes coming from the monarchy circles is that the King is extremely angry — and has taken the conflict with Cambodia personally.
There are several factions in the Thai military — an extremely complex environment. The commanders currently in control of the situation at the border are known as the ‘King’s men’.
So what next? For quite a while, insiders of the highly volatile Thai political environment have been stressing that the Kingdom has once again played a complex balancing act, in many aspects getting both the US and China on its side.
So there is a strong possibility the Thai military would push deeper into Cambodia, fulfilling irredentist demands coming from deeply nationalist quarters. In parallel, that might turn out to be a priceless opportunity to correct the colonial borders drawn by the France-Siam treaty of 1907.
To make it even more intractable, the moves overlap with powerful comprador elites in Bangkok abhorring — and bribed into blocking — increased Global South cooperation.
Yes, this is also part of the war on BRICS
Now for the Big Picture. Both Thailand and Cambodia, important nodes of the 10-member ASEAN, are deeply China-connected – from geography to geoeconomics. Ergo, imperial divide and rule applies – in spades, and subordinated to the maximum imperative, as in Mackinder and Mahan revisited: burning down the Rimland all around the Heartland.
That’s the current thrust, on steroids, by the Empire of Chaos. We ain’t seen nothin’ yet. And never forget: Thailand is also a BRICS partner. Chaos simultaneously destabilizes both ASEAN and BRICS.
The 6,000 km Pan-Asian Railway, transforming Southeast Asia.
Now for blood on the tracks — literally. A key New Silk Road project is the 6,000 km plus high-speed rail line that will eventually connect Kunming, capital of Yunnan province, to Southeast Asia all the way to Singapore.
Kunming-Vientiane in Laos is already up and running; a roaring success. The Thai extension all the way to Nong Khai – plagued by immense corruption problems – may finally be up and running by 2030. A Vietnam-Cambodia extension will link Ho Chi Minh city and Phnom Penh to Bangkok.
The current war broke out exactly at the Thai-Cambodia border. The Desperation Row playbook is as predictable as ever: blow up ASEAN’s new connectivity corridors from the inside, with a tariff war coupled with a possible regional war.
Globalsouth.co has been providing invaluable analysis, even suggesting a roll call of Highways to Hell promoted by the Empire of Chaos. So here’s a not exhaustive list of divide and rule instances encircling China, Iran and Russia, what I call the revamped “RIC” Primakov triangle.
It all starts with Gaza – and Palestine, on the forefront of the War on the Axis of Resistance.
Then there’s the ongoing disintegration of Syria via rehabilitated Salafi-jihadis; the projected carve up of Lebanon; Sultan Erdogan’s perennial double/triple game; and most of all the Zionist Axis to-be-renewed attack on Iran.
Russia will have to deal non-stop with several new fronts beyond the collapsing proxy war in Ukraine: the new Iron Curtain in the Baltics, and the dream of turning it into a ‘NATO lake’; terror in the Black Sea — the supreme MI6 obsession; instrumentalization of Moldova and the planning of an attack on Transnistria; MI6’s inroads among budding jihadis across Central Asia; and Azerbaijan’s mafioso game spearheaded by Aliyev.
Ali Akbar Velayati, senior adviser to Ayatollah Khamenei, is warning that the proposed US take over of the strategic Zangezur corridor is a geopolitical gamble by “the US, Israel, NATO and pan-Turkist movements” to “weaken the Resistance Axis, sever Iran’s link with the Caucasus, and impose a land blockade on Iran and Russia in the region’s south.”
Moving to South Asia, East Asia and Southeast Asia, we have on-and-off chaos to be imposed on India-Pakistan relations (both SCO members); every possible attempt in the book and off the book to destabilize the South China Sea – all the way to forcing Taiwan into a final provocation against China; renewed shenanigans on China-Japan via the Diaoyutai/Senkaku islands; and attempts at fostering a regional war between Thailand and Cambodia coupled with possible color revolutions — Myanmar all over again.
All of the above does not even feature the Africa front — from Somalia to Nigeria, a BRICs partner, all the way to the Alliance of Sahel States and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). And in South America, the target of choice is of course Brazil, especially after the success of the BRICS summit in Rio; Brasilia, regarded as a BRICS weak link in DC, is now under relentless trade and geo-economic attack by Trump 2.0.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry, unfailingly polite, has at least summarized the pulse of the Global South: “The United States has lost its legitimacy to lead the world in the eyes of nations. It is no longer morally qualified to speak of values or peace while supporting genocide in Gaza.”
That means virtually no takers across all Asian latitudes to become a Ukraine 2.0 subordinated to CIA/MI6/NATO plans to manufacture a war on China. That’s exactly what Malaysia’s rotating presidency of ASEAN will be imparting today on both Bangkok and Phnom Penh. The ASEAN annual summit will take place in Malaysia next November. [01][02]
So what should BRICS do in the short run, as incandescence prevails? Move with discretion and cunning, and take the long view, for instance privileging “ASEAN centrality”. In the end the US may turn out to be the swing state after all, as the core divide and rule power centers of the West remain Tel Aviv and London.
This is a long lecture. The first 45 minutes of the video contains the summary.
I would suggest to copy it and then print it to a pdf or an epub and read it as if you would read a history book. Fascinating. Michael has said this before, but now he has given the proof and background. Jesus in the temple overthrowing the money tables was actually a protest against debt forgiveness that was not being followed. He says the original languages clearly calls out ‘debt’ and not ‘sin’ as our churches teach today.
Robinson Erhardt:
Michael, you have just written a book that rewrites the financial history of the West from the Crusades to World War One, and there are a lot of questions I could ask here just to get us started. But first, why does this history need rewriting? Is it easy to point out just what important principles one thousand years of scholars have missed?
Michael Hudson:
I do not think I have rewritten the history of finance at all. I have talked about things that are left out of account by almost all writers.
I remember when I was in six or 7th grade, we had to read a book in medieval days and ways, and it was all about knights going on crusades, just like in the Hollywood movies to save the Holy Land, it was about serfdom and feudalism.
But what I am writing about is how an international banking sector emerged and took shape. And ended up. Basically, in control not only of governments, but in the way that governments were organized between absolute kingships and their parliamentary checks and balances, domestic tax policy, fiscal policy. And, what I found is that the integrating planning dynamic of Europe from the 11th century, right down to World War 1 outbreak, which is the span of my book was basically by the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church created a system of control over kings and over the relationship between kings and the churches domestically and the parliaments, giving concentrating power in the hands of autocratic kings to overrule parliaments for instance, excommunicate the supporters of the Magna Carta in England on not only in 1215 under King John, but I have a century later, when the Barons went to war, to try to limit that John Sung Henry the Third’s ability to text and this power that the church created people, historians call it the imperial papacy. It was a drive by the papacy in Rome to control all of Christianity. Including especially to take over what had been the center of Christianity in Constantinople, the Eastern Orthodox Christianity.
And so, I had to before I could spend time in saying, how did a banking class emerge? I had to explain what the Roman churches strategy was in creating a system of control over other realms, how it organized the Crusades, and how the Crusades worked primarily against the Holy Land at all. They were against other Christian countries. Especially against Germany that wanted to be independent, with the king appointing his own bishops, it was against the Cathars and the Albigensian Crusade. Or the song Dominica, Dominica. The Dominican Inquisition are basically tried to destroy Southeastern France on behalf of the northern Normans. And I had to go way back not only to the spirit of uniquely Roman intolerance of other religions, such as the Northern Germanic religions centuries earlier. How the Church asserted its authority over kings and what led to all of this I had to write 2 chapters on how the reformers in the church came beginning in the 11th century to take Rome and the papacy. Which was a backwater controlled by local aristocracies from the Roman suburb of Tusculum. The Catholic history refers to it as the pornocracy, the rule by the harlots of utter corruption.
Well. In response to this. The reformers, mainly from Germany, by King Otto and his successors, said if we’re if we’re going to reform the Christian Church and make it Christian instead of just an owned by particular families for their own economic benefit. To provide security, we must basically exclude all the secular control over the papacy, we have to exclude loyalty. We have to insist that the papacy does not become hereditary by these families, just passing it on to their relatives or their supporters that requires celebracy. Which is something that you don’t find in the rest of Christianity. Essentially the reformers were idealists and by an idealist they ended up insisting on total control over all Christianity and there were five patriarchates in the 10th century. The largest was Constantinople, but the others were all in the Middle East. There were the Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome. Roman Papacy set out to say we’ve got to dominate these countries, and we’ve got to dominate secular society so that we can impose church rule, Christian rule on all of the kings.
To do that, we have to control the appointment of bishops. We have to take the power of local kings in Germany and anywhere else in our own hands, so that we appoint the bishops who are in charge of collecting taxes and what they do with it and sending the money to Rome.
And so, the whole organization of Christian reform in Rome took the form not only of an antagonism towards all seculars realms and all the other patriarchs of the church. But it was basically financial in nature.
Well, the papacy had a problem. How do we create and enforce our control over these countries? The Papacy didn’t have an army. What did it do? It recruited Norman warlords. In other words, these little warlords that had come down from the north into southern Little Lakes and into France intermarried with the French nobility to make a kind of Norman French aristocracy. The popes made arrangements with Warlord starting in the mid-11th century with Robert Guiscard in southern Italy and Sicily and said we will make you the King of Sicily, but you have to pledge fealty to the papacy. You must be our thief basically and you will everything to us and you will have to pay the revenues to Rome and if you do and that act as our fifth, we will let you conquer Sicily and southern Italy. He said yes, conquered southern Italy. Especially not only from the Muslims, but from the Eastern Orthodox, from the Byzantine cities.
A few decades later, there was another warlord: William the Conqueror. The Pope made an arrangement with him to conquer England, but you have to remember you have to pledge fealty to us. You have to act as our agent, basically our collection agent. You have to send the money from the local churches, Peters Pence, to England. And so, we, the Conqueror, had his own army right across the channel in France and conquered England.
And so basically this was the kind of deal that the church made with warlords and soon they became the imperial papacy tried to extend its control over France, Germany, other areas and the way that they did it was to start the Crusades, ostensibly to help Constantinople resist the invasions from the East.
Ultimately, the Turks overthrew Constantinople. But the idea was to recruit Christians and especially the warlords, to get them out of Italy out of threatening the papacy. How do we send them somewhere outside of Western Europe? Let’s send them to Constantinople to protect it and then go down into the Holy Land. Let’s send them to the Middle East, and then they won’t trouble us. And as it happened in the middle of the 11th the Vatican broke ideologically and theologically from the constant noble from all of the eastern churches, that was called the great system. And they insisted on obedience. And the Roman church said we have the right to appoint the Roman Empire, such as the Pope said Blessed show name an 800 by calling him the Roman Emperor. There already was a Roman emperor in the real Roman Empire, the new Rome of Constantinople. And obviously this caused great tension between Rome and Constantinople, and the problem was: how do you somehow absorb Constantinople under the control of the Christians?
As it happened, the Byzantine Emperor asked the papacy for some military troops to help defend against the east by saying if the various groups that are attacking us from the East conquer us. We are just going to go right into Western Europe, and they are going to attack you. So, the Crusades were mounted, sent to Constantinople. The Normans individually tried to just begin grabbing Eastern Orthodox lands in in the Near East. They said they were going to liberate themselves through Salem. But Jerusalem didn’t need any liberation. It was administered by Muslims through conquered it soon after Mohammed started, Islam. Islamic rule was tolerant. Christians were allowed to coexist, Jews were allowed to coexist. There was no intolerance. The whole period and in fact if you look for thousands of years, ever since the Persian Empire, empires had been tolerant of religious minorities and ethnic minorities as long as they paid tribute and as long as they lived within the laws of the land.
When The Crusaders arrived in Jerusalem, they immediately began looting it. They began killing the Jews, killing the Muslims, and killing many Christians and just apparently that made a whole disaster. This led to some consternation among the Papacy and among the leaders of various countries.
Meanwhile, Germany said we don’t want a part of this. Germany had been trying to make its own arrangements with the Constantinople because the king of Germany was nominally the Holy Roman Emperor, and of course the German emperor wanted to make an arrangement with Rome, saying we’re the Holy Roman Empire of West Western Europe, you were the real Roman Empire of the new Rome. So maybe we can make an arrangement. The Germans were the reformers of the papacy. They wanted to make Christianity part of their normal life, even their military life. They wanted to appoint them to civil jobs.
As soon as the First Crusade was finished, the papacy began to say to want to attack Germany and attack almost any kingdom that resisted people’s demands for financial control by a controlling the bishops and the clerical officials. Normans had an army, but they needed money. This is what led the Church to realize that if you’re going to retain a Norman army to go and conquer England like Robert, we started willing to conquer on our behalf as our thieves, we must raise money and they organized banking.
By the 12th century you have the chroniclers describing how throughout England the papacy went, especially to Henry the third, King John’s son and insisted that he take on, He raised taxes on the English in order to pay debts to the North Italian bankers and bankers right across the Alps called the cover things from Cahors and. Needless to say, the Parliament opposed this demand that England take on a domestic debt in order to fight the wars and the Popes were trying to work on Henry and say, “look, we have the Germans have a lot of supporters”. For instance, now in southern Italy, although Robert Guiscard has gone on with other Normans to begin conquering Byzantine lands in the Balkans. What was Yugoslavia. We need to fight the Germans there.
That led to a civil war, the revolt of the barons and a whole new set of excommunications. And not only did the Church approve of money lending at interest, but it excommunicated Christians who opposed money lending at interest. The whole Christian theology had to be inverted to arrange bank financing for warlords and for five centuries from basically the 12th through the 17th century. International banking was consisted primarily of war leading to kings to go to war initially on behalf of the church, but after the Crusades were over in 1291 to go to war with each other and this war lending took on an organizational principle of its own and the just as the Popes had imposed autocratic kingship, saying parliaments have no right to question the divine right of kings, at least when they want to go to war for purposes that benefit the imperial papacy, the banks took over this whole administrative control over secular governments that the Church had created and essentially became the main influence in how the domestic political systems of every country, Italy, France, Spain, Germany were organized in order to say, make the following deal : The bankers, mainly in northern Italy, will give you the loans to go to war with your rivals, especially the constant war is between English and French kings over who is going to control the Western France near the English. Channel. If you wanted to obtain a loan, you had to borrow, you had to meet the terms that the creditors said, and the creditors basically tried to create a system of national financing that became the basis of the fiscal system in modern fiscal states in almost every realm, especially in England, which is the most clearly documented.
The Kings had a problem. Kings had the royal domain that they conquered is their own personal property. When William the Conqueror came into, He had the Domesday Book written, he had the right to the income and the rents off the land that belonged to him, that he’d carved out for himself. And Kings also had the right to levy taxes traditionally, but taxes were subject to approval by the parliaments and that limited the ability of kings throughout Europe, whether it was France or Spain or England or any or what became Ireland, all these countries.
The problem was that wars became increasingly capital intensive. The technology of war became increasingly expensive for navies, for siege equipment, for large armies, and the costs of waging war. But constant roses were beyond the ability of kings to finance out of their royal domain and the ability to convince parliaments to go along with the tax because local parliaments didn’t want the landed aristocracy who had that money to be taxed, they didn’t want to pay taxes, understandably, especially for the kings to indulge in going to war with other kings for their own personal vendor.
So, you had the, the 14th century, the 15th century into the. Inquiry into the 17th century constant bankruptcies by the largest and most heavily indebted kings, France and Spain, and this caused a problem for the banking class. We’ve created a means for the Kings to pay their debt beyond their personal domain beyond getting parliamentary approval.
There’s one thing that kings could levy a tax on. This is from the 12th to the 17th century. They did not require parliamentary approval and that was foreign trade monopolies. So, the bankers is went to the various countries such as England and said well, you know you can raise the money to pay the debt service for going to war again and again with France over disputed land that Williams family hereditarily used to have by creating a monopoly on England’s main export which was Wool to be woven in the cotton in the Dutch and Belgian areas now, to be sent to Italy to be woven into luxury fabrics to be bought by the wealthy aristocracies in England and the rest of Europe.
There was a circular flow and the bankers helped uh create. Fiscal policy for governments that had not existed before they really put in place the modern tax system and all of the legal bureaucracy that was necessary for that. They weren’t able to do much of this in the two major countries France and Spain, because they were so autocratic. And so, the international bankers, mainly Italians, had sort of a problem. How are we going to get to enable kingdoms to have enough money so they can pledge even more income to pay the rising classes of war. Otherwise, the Kings will go bankrupt and the Edward the third went broke in the 14th century, and that brought down the banking houses of the Bardi in Peruzzi and subsequent kings defaulted on their loans to all the major bankers of Europe.
So, they are looking around for how to reorganize the political structure of European states. They found the model and that was in. The local communes, self-governing communes such as Florence or Genoa or many other cities that had gotten together and they lent money to the kings of their rooms to buy their own independence. These communes elected the community leaders, and they did something that kings were not able to do: the commune leaders were able to pledge all the money of their citizens to the creditors in payment of debt, they were able to, for the first time, impose taxes on society as a whole. And because they were the Parliament that was elected or the effective Parliament, they were the Community, they were the government. They committed the entire government and the entire nation to pay what became the civic debts and basically the war loans to prevent other cities from attacking them, and you can imagine what happened by the end of the 17th century. This enabled the Dutch cities and city states, building city states to get together to create the Nation of Holland and they were able by pledging the entire national income of these states. They could offer the banking class much more risk free, collateral, the wealth of all their citizens for loans, this became even more pronounced after the 1888 revolution in England, where the Dutch king, England, appointed the Dutch king a wig, parliament and essentially we’re able to create what historians economic historians call the fiscal state and the whole idea of what is a state.
We think of it as being politics or fighting politics, but the states that were created beginning in the late 17th century were created as a vehicle for collecting taxes on behalf of the international banking class. So, the bankers worked with these new states to create a tax system to extract as much as possible to create monopolies to so of. To essentially begin to privatize as much of what was the public domain as possible. You had, really the beginning of privatization. You had the beginning of financialization of the economy as a byproduct of taking over the financial sector, the bankers taking over civic government and all the governments of Europe, and it really was the late 17th, early 18th century that created modern governments as we know it.
So, if you’re looking at, suppose you’re now turning to how does any of this appears in any of the histories of finance? All the histories take a microeconomic approach, not a political macroeconomic approach. Rome had to justify inversion of the long-term Christian opposition to Usery by somehow justifying lending and especially justifying war lending. That was the job of the 13th century schoolman the intellectual class of the Roman Catholic Church. They developed a new word interest, is it distinct from usury? No earlier society had a different word for interest from usury, but the Schoolman says well, there is an interest as opposed to that is permissible as opposed to use rate. We’re not going to justify usury. But interest is something that, well, we want trade to be able to occur the merchant we have to provide credit for the trade or if you’re a cultivator on the land and you’re a landowner and a wealthy Duke, you’re going to need financing to create the harvest. Well, to be paid at the end of harvest, you’re going to need trade credit. You’re going to need all of this.
So, the Schoolman said, well, what’s fair? Well, for instance. A lender has a right to make enough living to lead a normal life. OK, that’s clear. And if merchant, almost all the bankers made their money and is foreign traders as merchants because the Church said you can’t charge usury but you can charge a foreign exchange fee, called agio and so most of the money that could be made legally by merchants was in foreign trade and instead of charging interest or usury, they charge an agio foreign exchange fee.
Well, with that sort of logic, the churchman said, OK, we’ll also if a lender lends money to a borrower and doesn’t spend the money on making his own mercantile trade, he’s losing an opportunity. Economists call this opportunity cost, and if he’s sacrificing this opportunity, then he deserves compensation for the time in which he’s not using his money to make a profit for himself. So that’s OK.
Also, what happens if the debtor doesn’t pay on time. Well, there’s a late fee, so of course the debtor has to pay a late fee. Well, as it turned out, we have the documents for the kind of loans at the time the average interest charged was 22% and the late fee was also 22%. Now you’d think the late fee was suppose you make a loan for a year or so. The late fee would be charged as you have on your credit card today for the amount of time you borrow the money. But the repayment time on the actual documents that the Italian bankers threw up and we have them for England, was well, if you don’t pay in a month or two, you owe the whole added 22% and that’s 44% interest. In practice there were only this loophole saying you get the charge of. 8 fee you get to make the money that you’d make in a. Foreign mercantile train. All of this was all on a theoretical abstract level that justified all sorts of loopholes, and none of these loopholes were acknowledged, and the most important thing is that point of reference for that, for the Churchmen, was loans that were for a productive purpose to finance foreign trade.
Well, countries needed foreign trade. That’ll seem to be justified, but that’s not what international. Bankers, the banking class, made most of its money on the banking class, and was based on war loans. Not once did the Churchmen say, well, the war loans are not productive. They didn’t really draw the distinction between productive and unproductive loans, productive and unproductive use of credit. They essentially had a tunnel vision that only dealt with mercantile credit so that all merchants, anyone involved in trade on an international or local level could charge interest and essentially this became a justification for user. You had banks beginning to develop and pay their depositors? Let’s say 5% or so. There were a number of banks that were organized, and they would make use this deposit money to lend to governments to go to war with each other paying 22 or 44%
How was the Church going to actually deal with this? Well, for thousands of years, the creditor class had been looked down upon socially or even in Greece and Rome. In classical antiquity, where you had oligarchies developing that it wasn’t considered socially nice. And something that high status people did to make a loan because there was a feeling that making a loan was exploitative, making a loan tended to impoverish the debtor.
So, although the oligarchy generally made money off money lending. They had their slaves do it, or their freedmen do it, or a foreign the medics that as foreigners that were resident in Athens or other cities or in Rome, would do the dirty work of lending money and charging interest for all this.
Well, what made the takeoff of banking in the medieval period so radically different from anything that went before, was that the major debtors were at the top of the social pyramid, the major debtors were the Kings, the major debtors were the Church. And this fact that they were the borrowers and they were borrowing for something that the Church blessed going to war to fight against the Willms that did not obey the church that insisted on appointing their own bishops. To collect Peters, Pence and aid the poor and other and rents and spend them domestically instead of sending them to Rome. As long as they spent their money to go to war, this was considered a good purpose. The creditors as a class of a specifically making war loans rose to the top of the social pyramid, along with the Kings and the church that were the borrowers. So, you have the bankers, the Kings and the Church, the highest status, and very soon there was an intermarriage in the mixture, and you had one of the richest banking families, the Medici the many provide his own Pope, Leo the 10th and in 1515 he had the final seal of approval on usury. He said: well, these loans are to the kings of Europe are financed by banks and is it the banks pay interest to their depositors? Are the depositors centers and Leo said: well no.
Look at the Monte di Pietà, in other words, the Mont of piety. He said : here is a group on broker banks, and they pay depositors modest rate of interest, and they lend this money out to the poor at a lower rate than the users would charge. 22% or so. And so that wouldn’t want to interfere with these socially Christian charitable activities. And so of course we have to let the banks pay interest. So Leo legitimized bank interest along with the interest that the merchant bankers all chose. And so essentially that completed the rewriting of Christian theology of favoring usury and opposing those without usury and what became the Protestant countries very quickly caught on to this and accepted this just as much as the Roman Church.
And so, you had a rewriting of the legal system. That was the context for lending and credit, in the fiscal States and it was this system of the rules of lending, the laws of lending the status of lending that transformed the whole character of Western European Society. Nobody’s tried to write a political history of what is the political strategy of banks in creating a system of government throughout Europe, and in fact a PAN European system that the same spanning all the different rooms and kingdoms that is a common means of economic organization, and this was all completed by the late 17th century. Well, there’s one thing that you may have noticed in now what I’ve said there’s nothing about Jews in all of this. Jews were dropped, Jewish merchants were brought to England because they spoke foreign languages. They had Jewish colleges and relatives in other countries. They knew they were traders. They know how to organize foreign trade deals, to organize the foreign trade that England and Southern Italy and Sicily everything needed, because the Norman invaders were not businessmen, they were just Raiders. They were walking on their knuckles as they say.
So, they needed someone, some cosmopolitan group, to essentially perform the basic uh provision of credit for local cultivators and order who needed money to move their crops. Local merchants who needed to trade. It was basically for the most part, small time lending. The we now have scholars in the last few decades have gone over all the tax rules of Ecclesia towns, and they found that the sort of bell-shaped curve of the wealth and income of Jewish families was very much like the same bill-shaped curve of the population as a whole. There were some very wealthy Jewish merchant bankers, and just as there were some very wealthy Christian merchants and bankers. All this time there were Christian lenders alongside the Jews and the Church kept complaining that the Christian that’s charged more money than the Jews. Or, more to the point, the Jews were providing credit at a lower price than the Christians were doing. That was one of the reasons that they were sent out of England. When William the Conqueror brought the Jewish population to England, they weren’t allowed the whole land, they had to live in the cities. Similar rules were imposed in France and other countries against Jews. They essentially were known as the King’s serfs. They were essentially working on behalf of the Kings. Ift the Jewish lender would make money to a domestic landowner, somebody with land, somebody with assets and wanted to foreclose. Well, because the Jewish population was not allowed to own land the King would have the right to pay and take control of the land. There was a wave of anti-Semitism that began by saying wait a minute, the rule of the Jews is to indict the population and then their wealth is turned over to the king and this increases the King’s power over us, including the power to tax us and we want weaker kings without all this power, we do not want the kings to be strengthened and use the Jewish population for this.
By the end of the 13th century, the Kings didn’t borrow from the Jews. Instead, they tax them and then finally, and instead of taxing them, they simply confiscated the Jewish wealth. England and then in France under Philip the 4th and confiscating the Jewish wealth. The Jews don’t have a function anymore because they don’t have any more money to lend so we don’t need them. They were expelled not because of usury, but because they were not performing a usury creditor function anymore and being expelled, they played just about no role at all in this development of Christian banking. The focus of most financial histories, especially in the popular mind that somehow banking developed out of Jewish merchants and making petty loans and getting rich off lending and trade in the medieval time leaves out of account the vast increase in Christian banking and Christian wealth and the degree to which this went together with anti-Semitism and even within the Catholic Church. Popes opposed the Jews by saying just as we want, one rule for the Roman Church over Constantinople and all the Christian churches. We want one rule of the Christian Church over all society. The Jews have their own courts. Well, of course the Jews had their own courts because we given to them as to conduct their trade and their mercantile activities.
And so if you’re going to have one law and one set of courts and one system that’s universal over everything, and again and again the Christians kept calling themselves the universal, or Catholic Church in Rome. And by universal, they mean every other Christian Church. The 80% of the other Christians are our enemies, and we are going to conquer them. That was their idea of being universal. It was aggressive and it was the imperial papacy. This desire for control, this intolerance of other religion is developed uniquely at the hands of the Roman Church. I explained how this goes way back to the very many earlier centuries, 5th 6th centuries. It was a mentality of intolerance. Throughout that that led to this desire for control that led the Church to create this sort of universal system of law codes of bureaucratic organization of banking, commerce, trade monopolies ownership that shape the modern States. All of this motivation and the somehow transformation of what began as a kind of Christian idealism, imperialistic as it was, into a means of control by the financial class as a means of organizing the state as a primarily fiscal entity, to act as the collecting agent for the international banking class. This has been left out of the count. I didn’t mean to give a long answer to your question, but it was more than 5 minutes.
Robinson Erhardt:
I’m always and I’ve said this before when we spoke, and I’m always amazed by your ability to give these very long and detailed impromptu lectures and you have not disappointed today already. One of the things that jumped out at me was that it’s funny that Leo the 10th, the marriage as you kind of put it, of, of banking families, royal families and the church was responsible for the infamous indulgences.
Michael Hudson:
Well, that’s true. Leo, his family, being at the top of the Florentine aristocracy, wanted to become a patron of the arts, a philanthropist. What he wanted to do was rebuild Saint Peter’s Basilica in Rome, and this was the great Artistic inventor endeavor of the Renaissance. You had all the great Michelangelo designed the rebuilding of the basilica there. I think Rafael, there. All of the great painters were designing it and painting it and it was the great artistic creation of Florence at that time, not to denigrate Brunelleschi and all the other great architects and people there. And so the question was, how was Leo going to pay in 1515, just after he’d provided the logic for interest charges and banking. How was he going to finance that? Well, the Church had developed a sale of indulgences during the Crusades.
I have to say something about Saint Augustine here. I mentioned that by the time of not only Leo but already in Augustine, the Christian Church had come to really fight against, I won’t say hate, but just fight against everything that Jesus had stood for in terms of the debt cancellation, especially what bothered and troubled the Church and blocked its ability to raise money was the Lord’s Prayer from Jesus, Sermon on the mouth. Forgive them their debts as we forgive our debtors. The Church used the fact that there was an ambivalent development and economy of language originally the word for debt was the same as sin, and the reason goes back to very arcane times. If you were a member of very early community in that first or second centuries of our era, even before. It goes way back to Babylonian time to the mores for thousands of years. If you were belong to a community and you hurt somebody, you injured somebody, you broke his arm you put out an eye or even worse, you shaved off his mustache or beard, which was an insult or made a joke about him. That was an injury, and that was called that for the injury. Society had to make a choice. How are we going to avoid a feud if one person pokes have somebody else’s eye? How are you going to have his family not fighting the family of the aggressor. You’ll have the Hatfields and the McCoy’s a situation like that. Well, the solution was to pay a fine, and the fine was called the debt. And so the payment of this injury to restore the peace, by paying a fine, you said alright, we’ve made restitution for the injury. We’ve redeemed our debt to you. You don’t have to put out the eye of one of our members. Here’s the payment and you have from medieval Europe, all sorts of price schedules that had to be paid for each kind of an infraction and every kind of injury. So these payments for sins, for offensives, a sin was an offense against our society was the word for that was death, and that came to be used as a sin.
So, then we have all of Jesus’s speeches. His great objective, as I’ve discussed with you on one of our earlier interviews about the whole idea of debt cancellation and the Jubilee year, Jesus and his very first sermon said he had come to restore the Jubilee year and bring it out of debt cancellation. That was in the Greek translation of the Aramaic text of what Jesus wrote. The Greek word was very explicitly monetary debt, not sin.
Let’s Fast forward into the 4th and 5th centuries of our era. The Roman Empire absorbed Christianity, but in absorbing it, it transformed it. Needless to say. And the problem is the Roman empires dominant families were the creditors and the land owners of the wealthy people The creditors, not the debtors. The last thing they wanted was to forgive them their debts.
So along comes Saint Augustine. He was in north North Africa the Bishop of Hippo. And there was a problem in North Africa. The Christians were followers, they were called the Donatists followers of a priest who had maintained early Christianity. And the Donatists had an activist branch that was going around and intimidating creditors. And they said: look, if you’re really going to try to charge user rate against our members, we’re just going to burn down here your estate. And there was a lot of violence. You had Saint Augustine come in and said: well, what Jesus really meant isn’t what he said at all. Let’s say that what Jesus meant was the opposite of everything, that he spent his life fighting for. What Jesus meant is we’re all sinners. We have an inborn sin from Adam and this sin means that we’re all restitution, we want redemption from our sin. How do we get redemption?
Well, there was a fight within the Christian Church. You had a British, I think, a Welsh theologian, Pelagius, that said, well, the way you redeem yourself is you make good works you. If you make money. From user rates at least you can send it philanthropically and you can get salvation from this. Saint Augustine said: no, no, you can only get salvation through the Church. You have to give the money to the Church, and we will redeem it. And so, by the 5th century you would have the Roman Christians reading the Lord’s Prayer before giving the last rights to people on their deathbed, forgive them their debts. And we can give you redemption by donating your estate to the Church. There were many lawsuits against the Church clerics for trying to do this. The whole idea that the Lord’s prayer, forgive us our sins or our trespasses, or even our debts, is what is the what kind of debts can’t be a money debt andnd forgive us our trespasses, our sins, our offenses are, to give our those who sin against this, whatever that meant.
Well, the church turned this into a means of only the Roman Church can provide redemption and it’s going to cost money. Well, this is it came very handy in the Crusades and when after the First Crusade was really pretty much of a disaster as I described. The Second Crusade was organized, the organizers of it, the advocates of the 2nd Crusades, said, well, we know you’re not as eager to get salvation by rescuing the Holy Land anymore because it’s a long trek and you’re going to have to borrow the money to outfit yourself and bring your assistance all along to carry your armor and do all of this and to spend money on the way. It’s going to cost money. But we will give you debt forgiveness for Knights who take up the sword or the cross. I guess they called it not the sword. Go on the crusade and the creditors will not be able to move against your family or your estate or other relatives as long as you are on the crusade. You can get a debt forgiveness for this.
Number of many knights signed up for this, but the Christian Church, the clergy had a special twist on this. There they’ve been practice this long standing medieval practice. If a knight was supposed to go and serve the king, he could go, but he was able to hire a substitute to fight in his place, just like in the Civil War in America, a soldier was drafted, you could could pay to hire a substitute to fight in the civil war.
English and other European Knights could hire a substitute, so the clergy said, well, you can negotiate a payment. We don’t know whether you’re able to hire a substitute and negotiate a payment and we will give you the redemption from sin that you would have had for going on the crusade and being redeemed of all sins. The selling of indulgences really began as a means of financing the Second Crusade, and then on. You can imagine Leo’s pleasure in the early 16th century by thinking, well, you know we don’t have a crusade anymore that all ended in 1291. But what we do have is people still, they’re all sinners. They all have a sin inherited from Adam. By the way, the Saint Augustine drove out to the Pelasgians from the Church. There was a whole battle in Augustine, one against the civilized Northerners that said, just live a decent life and that the church said no, only you can have a life to us. Giving the money to us. The poor is the poor, we’re the churchmen. We’re all poor because we’re helping the poor. So, we are poor. Someone giving money to the poor, giving money to the Church. Peter Brown, the biographer of Saint Augustine, has described all of this in detail, and it’s expected that history by now. What Leo discovered, we can still sell indulgences and he, he wanted to raise money, especially in Germany, because that was the most civilized part of Europe. That was the, the, the most progressive part of Europe and he had sent Church leaders there to literally sell indulgences. So this was the origin of the Catholic passport to heaven as it was called when I went to school. And they were sold. And of course, this became such a trivialization, such a secularization of what was supposed to be the most basic element of Christian theology, the sins of Adam, inherited by humanity, and you have instead of created by creditors making predatory loans to debtors, it was all of humanity, not just the creditors. They began to sell them and Martin Luther took the lead in opposing all of this, saying this is just corruption. The church is corrupt there. They’re selling theology, they’re selling redemption. The Church is just basically a money making bureaucracy and this is protests spread out throughout from Switzerland, throughout Germany and the northern countries.
And that led, as you know, to the Protestant reformation, but they all broke away from the church saying the Roman Church is hopelessly corrupted, and it’s all about money and we’re trying to restore the original spirit of Christianity. But of course, it’s not the original spirit of Christianity, which is debt forgiveness and essentially support of the poor. Instead of class war. But anyway. Leo’s demand for this, the money to rebuild Saint Peters, and we’re all glad that he rebuilt St. Peters. It’s very beautiful. I remember in college, looking at all of Michelangelo’s murals. It’s all wonderful, but it was achieved at the cost of corrupting Church, financial dealing to the point where it split the church between Catholics and Protestants. That was another long answer to your question.
Robinson Erhardt:
It was, and it was another good one. I’d like to ask a bit of a broader question, you said outside of our conversation, you said you’re not rewriting the financial history, but you’re filling in the gaps. One reason, I think if I heard you correctly that this is a big gap is because prior financial historians and economists have focused more on microeconomics rather than these larger political and macroeconomic movements, but missing the role of the Roman Catholic Church in the dawn of international banking and the role of the Crusades and all this seems like a pretty glaring failure. So, I’m wondering if there are other reasons or if you could just say more about why this hasn’t been paid much attention in the past.
Michael Hudson:
I think the other reason is just the way in which people think about economics is something that is isolated from the rest of society. I mean, at least in the 19th century, they called it political economy, and they looked at politics. What’s lacking in any discipline, whether it’s economics or sociology or even history, is an overall view of the European economy as an economic system. And if you look at Europe integrated economic system. First of all is an integrated system, you realize that the first integration was the Church bureaucracy and then the Church bureaucracy needing financing and creating a banking class that became the new organizational principle.
The economic historians don’t talk about anything beyond merchants and foreign trade, and there will be here’s how the debt rules were. Here’s the public debt of England, and here are all the defaults. I hear the debt ratios of debt to income. It’s all very technocratic, but they leave out the political dimension altogether and historians leave out the economic dimensions and I think we’ve discussed something like this in our first interview where we talked about the work that I did in Babylonia and the Bronze Age near East. Assyriologists sort of looked at all of the documentation that they had, and many percent of all the documentation is debt documentation, but they were economists and they didn’t want economists to be a part of their discussion because the economists all had their own ideological agenda based on modern worldviews, which are not the bronze worldviews.
Historians of medieval period are very much the same they leave the economic details to economists because it’s its own field going over the tax records who own what going over the debt records who owns what they’ll be talking about. Yes, Kings went bankrupt and they brought down various banking houses. So, we know that there were bankruptcies and now we have the creation of the Bank of England and debt we have the growth in banking. We can trace that. We can trace who owns what, who are the big creditors. We have the documentation of the Big English Christian creditors like Gade or Godey, who was not one of the big creditors. We have all these individuals who made their money. We know there have been a lot of studies of the Folgers who lent the money to essentially to people who wanted to either become the emperor or become popes. Everything is up for sale. Politically, religiously people would go into that to do this. So, we have all of this, but nobody is put together.
A system, and it seemed that studying the medieval debt is just OK, look, we have again and again debts that couldn’t be paid defaulted. But there wasn’t a study of how did the banking, the international bankers deal together with this, in order to create a system where they could gain control of the government well by the 19th century, you see this very clearly.
You had new independent countries, Haiti, bought its independence from France, Mexico became independent. Greece wants borrowed money to get its independence from the Ottoman empires in North Africa. You had Egypt becoming independent and borrowing money, you had Tunisia borrowing debt. Well, all these countries defaulted quickly as soon as they would borrow, you could see that bankers thought here’s a brand-new market and it’s a high paying niche market of risk loans to newly independent countries. What do we do? Well, all these countries defaulted and something similar happened in every country. The creditors after the defaults by Greece, Tunisia, Egypt, Haiti, the creditors imposed a monetary Authority. Sometimes it would take the form of a central bank, sometimes an authority. It was sort of like a miniature International Monetary Fund to be appointed by the government, take control of the government and apparatus and take control of the tax system and use the Monetary Authority to say, well, now you’ve the governments defaulted on the debt. Now we’re taking over the government, we are appointing who will be the political administrators. What they will administrate for what they will tax for. The first priority, ever since the 17th century through the 19th century, was to pay foreign creditors and that priority took precedence over spending money domestically to develop their own economy. So, you had the equivalent of austerity plans imposed on all these countries by the literally the monetary authorities imposed primarily by Britain and by France, who were the two major creditor countries. Joined often by Germans, creditors and other. The industrial creditor nations of Europe acted to support their financial class, taking over the political administrations from everywhere, from what had been the Ottoman Empire, to debtors all over the world to operate, control their economies, including their military policy. Their policy towards the Ottoman Empire, towards Russia, towards others, all to serve their own foreign policy. And you had symbiosis. Between the international creditors class and their own, the governments of the major industrial countries of Europe. Again, England, France, Germany to administer what later became called the Third World and today is called the Global South. You had all of this the whole logic of the international monetary fund imposing austerity in order to pay foreign debts. All of this was taken over by again what are called fiscal states. And if you think of the state that is supporting the democratic interests of what people vote for to develop their own economy and make their lives better and raise living standards. The financial sector in every country overruled democracy on behalf of the international creditor class, and I explained how this occurred in the 19th century in other countries and in the United States with creating the central banks. The final culmination of this creditor control over countries was to separate central banks, meaning the Monetary Authority from the government taking control of the tax system, meaning what does the government spend money for?
This is the argument we’re having today with the US. The budget that the Republicans have put before Congress, what would money be spent before? That’s what determines how economies allocate their resources and essentially, finance has become the central planning power of almost all nations since the 17th century, and this central planning power is aimed at paying foreign creditors debts accumulate at compound interest growing exponentially, causing a diversion of taxation from what democratic populations would like to vote for. For developing infrastructure. For, public medical care education to force governments to essentially do what Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair did send out, sell off government enterprises and using the money that you get from privatization to pay the creditors, you have the creditors running governments. If governments describe themselves as, you know school kids are taught. It’s a democracy. You vote for what you want. Oh, well, they don’t say it’s a democracy. You vote. For what you want with what’s left over after the international creditors take out of the result of all the debts that you’ve run up mainly to finance wars. Because that’s today, just like in the 12th and 13th and 14th and 15th and 16th and all subsequent centuries there were war deaths. That’s what public debts are. They’re war debts now. True, they’re not owning military war debts. Now they’re the class war debts, you could say, but it’s all this debt service. Well, you’re not going to have the political theorists start by saying, well, if we’re describing, you know, what are governments all about? What are, what’s the democratic government? And they’re not going to say, well, a democratic government is a government that has met the demands of international bankers to give first priority in the tax system, first priority in what the taxes are raised for, what governments are going to spend money on. The first priority is to pay us the international bankers, where does that fit in to the idea of governments as democracy and everybody’s going out for votes. As Mark Twain said, if voting really mattered, they wouldn’t let you do it.
Robinson Erhardt:
I haven’t heard that one from Mark Twain, but it’s actually pretty amazing. Before we continue through with this line of thought since you brought up the Republicans budget and I have a an economist in front of me. I would love to hear if you have any general thoughts about it.
Michael Hudson:
It takes from the poor and gets to the rich. I mean it’s a huge tax cuts for the, the upper 1% and especially including the most egregious tax break has been to the financial class of what’s called carried interest, which means speculative gains. If you have a computer program that buys an option on the stock movement and it goes up 3/4 of a point and you take this, picking up nickels in front of a bulldozer, it’s called. All this, this trading that has nothing to do with the productive process at all. Now all this unproductive lending is counted as carried interest, and the word doesn’t really mean anything, that’s why they use it, because people will just their eyes will glaze. Which is the purpose of watching economic vocabulary these days. So essentially takes money away from the real economy. It takes away money, especially away from public health.
Way back in 1978 the government has a futures group of futurists, right about what’s going to happen with the new technology, and we live longer. I was hired to write a study of what’s going to happen to Social Security and to the government budget now, when we live longer. Well, they found there’s a problem, people are not dying fast enough. You give them social security and originally it was to end it, 65 or so. Well, if you’ve had a hard-working class wage earning life, you’re exhausted by the age of 65 and you know, if you lived to 75 back in those days, that was pretty good. But the problem is what you are going to have to do if people don’t die, right after they leave the labor force. What’s the if they live another 10 years? 20? What if you live up to what we calculated with the natural lifetime, 120 years, maybe 125 years. There’s going to be a huge increase in Social Security payments and probably also medical costs is to keep them healthy while they get older. Well, immediately, the banking class said how do we get these people to die earlier? If we pay the retirees, that money’s not going to go to us, for profits. We cannot have a medicine that is going to cure diseases to enable these people to keep on living and taking our money. We should be getting.
This is what is so awful about American health policy. For instance, the largest killer of men is the heart disease, the second largest is prostate cancer. The official agencies is told you stop testing people at 70 for prostate cancer. Well, that’s just when it’s beginning to develop. So, you don’t want to test men who are going to get over 70, who might have prostate cancer. You’re going to let this be the second major killer in America. Well, I was talking to a Brazilian about this, few weeks ago and he said in Brazil, everyone over 50 by law has to be tested for the PSA. To see whether you have any, any prostate cancer. You can see the COVID they’ve cut the budget, especially the cuts by Elon Musk, have cut back all the all the testing. For wastewater for COVID, for all sorts of diseases, you’ve seen the COVID epidemic that is worse in America than anywhere else. You have American living standards and other living standards of the rest of the world are going up. Americans are going down. That is because the financial class, the 1% says, you know, we paid our wage earners enough from their lives. Let them live 5 or 10 years. But if they live longer, they’re taking our money. And that’s the spirit behind the Republican budget today. And so, they’re, they’re raising the taxes on the bottom 50% and cutting them drastically for the financial classes to make more money.
In other words, they’re following the direction of their campaign donors that politics has been up for sale ever since the Citizens United ruling by the Supreme Court. The financial and real estate and insurance sectors, the fire sector, finance, insurance and industry have got what they’ve paid for in the Republican bill, which is basically the Democrats would have promoted. I think it’s almost identical, bill, if they would have been elected it says the same what Barack Obama was pushing for. He wanted to essentially; to privatize Social Security and certainly he privatized medical care into the rip-off situation you have with Obama Care today, which is so incredibly more expensive then any other public health system throughout the rest of the world. And it is the least effective medically, with the highest drug prices. I don’t know how to describe the budget as a travel state. Probably everything that all the words that Musk says it’s a disaster. Correct. But of course, he helped make a disaster. By all his doggy cuts.
Robinson Erhardt:
Well, this is a minor detail, but one of the things that I have to ask about is what exactly the natural lifespan is and how was it that you came up with a 120 years or even 125 just because I’ve never met anybody that’s that old.
Michael Hudson:
That was provided to me by biologists who were specialties, I think one of the oldest living person there was an obituary the other day for a woman who was 118 years old. So, you know, they’ve found how old, how long it’s possible for people to live, even in good health. So, it’s based on statistical trend analysis. Obviously, they’re outliers, but if you know that people are living to 118, you figure, OK, let’s round it off 120.
Robinson Erhardt:
Well, back to our larger line of thought that we’ve been following this conversation, one of the biggest points for me thus far is that the state evolved as a vehicle for collecting taxes on behalf of the international banking class. And for our listeners or viewers who are who have less of an independent interest in financial history or just history in general. What relevance does everything we’ve been discussing have for today and what are the ramifications when we’re looking around and trying to understand why economies are like they are today?
Michael Hudson:
Well, I’m trying to give the long dynamics and if you look at history as part of the long dynamic, you see where it’s going. And if you realize how the character of the state has been formed from its the inception of the modern state as distinct from royal autocracy has been that the modern fiscal state and putting fiscal policy in the hands of the international banking class is very different from not only the self-image as democracy of being self-ruling because it’s controlled ultimately by the foreign banking class. Financial sector is being something independent from the production sector of the economy, most people talking about, how do economies evolve? And they look at it well, there’s technology and that gets more and more productive as their inventors come in and their development, fertilizer, machinery. We have productivity energy use per worker all going up. They look at a materialist approach to history. But this materialist approach leaves out debt and the financial sector all together and all, all if I taught international trade fairy at the graduate level for a few years at the new school in New York. Let’s just get rid of the veil of money, as if money, forget money and prices. Let’s just look at everything in terms of Labor productivity and the wages deflated by the price deflator, let’s just look at look at barter.
There is an embarrassment at looking at the financial sector because if you look at the financial sector you realize that the economy is in a symbiotic relationship between the financial sectors, which means the growth of debt, you have a growth of savings by the creditors as the numbers of this debt. So, as the economy goes deeper and deeper into debt, the savings of the creditors grow and grow exponentially more and more, and they become as they became by the 17th century the most admired high status ruling class of society. Then you’re leaving out of a count what you say, well, that’s not part of the production process. That’s the financial process. And economists say that’s a veil. Their slogan is the veil of money. If you look at money that just complicates things. Well, money is debt. All the money in your pocket is technically a government debt. The money in your bank account is a debt. There’s a balance sheet. Well, if you look at the economy without looking at the dynamic debt, you see that the dynamic debt is an exponential growth that’s compound interest and every rate of interest is doubling in a time and the economies don’t grow this fast. They grow in an S curve, and they cannot keep up with paying the debt.
Now I think we had an early interview about Babylonia. Babylonians had a much more mathematically sophisticated idea of the business cycle than you have in the National Bureau of Economic Research today. The modern theory of the business cycle is it’s a cycle. Like a sine curve, steady up and down. You have a boom, then goes into recession, but then there are automatic stabilizers, that create another boom and that develops instabilities, mainly more and more debt and that causes recession. But then automatic stabilizers, they keep it going steadily.
The Babylonians knew this was not the case. We have the mathematical studies that they had for their agrarian economy and pastoral economy, such as the growth of herds, was an S curve tapering off. We have the economic mathematics they taught students. How long does it take to debt to double how long to quadruple? Well, its doubles in five years. It quadruples in 10 years. It multiplies 8 times in 15 years, 16 times all the way up to 64 times in 30 years. So, the Babylonians knew. That the ratet of debt growth meaning at the same time, the amount of money owed to the creditors is was far greater than the economy was able to pay. So the Babylonians didn’t have any Milton Friedman or an anti-government neoliberal to advise them. And so they said. All right. We don’t want pets to grow so fast that #1 the debtors lose their land. They must move into subject themselves to be bandage and you have the creditors ending up with the land controlling labor and then the creditors get so strong that they become an oligarchy and they overthrow us the rulers to take over the government themselves. Well, that’s what happened in Classical Greece and Rome. It has happened. If you look at the same dynamics today every business cycle since World War 2 has started from a higher and higher and higher level of debt to income debt to wealth. It’s become more and more top heavy. And the result of this increasing debt relative to the economy’s ability to grow, is that every recovery has been weaker than, the former recovery, and every depression has been deeper and steeper. It’s like trying to drive a car with your foot on the brake and the brake is death. The increasing debt service, interest and principle that economies have to pay to the creditor class.
Well, if you look at business cycles and realize that this rule, secular role of debt growing of its own momentum. Then you don’t have a theory of business cycles anymore. You have a theory of economic crisis. If you have most of the university’s economics department, subsidized by donors from the financial class, they are not interested in financing a body of economic analysis that shows that the economy is going to slow down and grow slower and slower and then crash as a result of the overgrowth of debt, largely to the combination of the domestic banking class and behind it, the international banking class. There goes your whole theory of international trade being in balance and everything economic models for which Nobel prizes are given are all about a model that shows that the economy is self-stabilizing, in other words you don’t need government. You don’t need government to do anything. The economies will take care of themselves. You don’t need a government to regulate finance. You don’t need the government to be like it is in China, the government creates the money and manages the credit system to finance actual capital formation, factories, machinery, public infrastructure to increase living standards. He just let it do what it’s doing. Stock buybacks limit and payouts, dividend payouts to make wealth financially in the form of rising stock and bond prices and capital gains instead of actual tangible capital formation.
So, the whole function of modern economic analysis and business theory is to distract attention from the rule that the financial sector plays in taking control of government to a point where an increasing share of government revenue has to be earmarked away from domestic spending towards paying the international creditor class that uses its money to essentially make yet more loans. Already in the mid-17th century, in 1752, Malachi Postlethwaite wrote a big study. He said: well, you know when England has to pay Dutch creditors, these creditors don’t spend their money back in England. What do they spend it on? They make more loans, getting us more into debt. But they’re so rich, they’re not going to spend money on British goods and services. They’re going to spend money, first, either on financial investment or they’re going to buy prestige real estate. And if they buy real estate in England, it’s going to be in London. And that’s going to make London the center of England instead of, you know, Britain. What we have now, a district, you know, many cities equally, growing. They do spend a little bit on consumer goods, but these are luxuries, mainly Italian fashions. So, they don’t.
The creditor classes don’t spend money in the real economy. It’s into finance, real estate and some luxury spending as you find today. Well then, in 1767, James Stewart said pretty much all the same thing that all this idea that somehow the financial sector spends its money back into the economy. So we owe the debt to ourselves. That’s so utter fictitious. We, the people, owe debt to the 1 percent and but they’re not really ourselves.
You have the whole economic vocabulary and the models that assume that it’s that economies keep stabilizing so they can grow on and on and on growing. Benefiting the democracy at large, this is a completely fictitious medal of what Western civilization is all about. We’re dealing with the civilization issue, and that is what distinguishes Western civilization from everything that went before, from Asia to the Bronze Age near East.
Robinson Erhardt:
I’ve done some recent interviews on AI and one thing that comes to mind right now, given what you said earlier about Social Security and how creditors are interested in people living less long because, OK, they’ve lived a while, they’ve been productive in the workforce, so we’ll give them 10 years of Social Security and then then we can let them die. I wonder what you think will happen when AI displaces a lot of these jobs. People aren’t really contributing to Social Security in the 1st place or they’re not really participating in the labor force and for that reason creditors aren’t able to extract wealth out of them. How do you see this impacting the economics of the future?
Michael Hudson:
Well, it all depends on how the AI is programmed. You could have garbage in garbage out, which is the objective of the banking system and the 1% is to make sure that AI is garbage in, garbage out. They don’t want AI to discuss the kind of things that real intelligence would talk about. They want AI to produce a specific result. If you don’t feed in an ability of AI to take account of the whole economy as a broad system, you’re not going to get an understanding of how the whole economy evolves as a broad system dominated by the financial class and the growth of debt.
Robinson Erhardt:
I’m not sure that that answers my question, might be because my question just wasn’t well formed, but what I’m wondering is, I guess just to put it quite broadly how you view artificial intelligence, impacting jobs and financial security of people, over the decades to come.
Michael Hudson:
I think when you’re talking about AI and jobs, you’re really talking about robotics because it’s robots that are programmed to do the job that was previously done by manual labor. Look at the effect of Trump’s tariffs right now and the the disaster that it’s creating for breaking off trade with China. Beginning in the 1990’s, the United States wanted to offshore labor to offshore production, to get low wage labor, and they shifted most production to Asia, especially to China and as a result of which the United States said, well, we want to concentrate on high value added sectors and what they really mean is high rent extracting monopolies primarily in information technology and computer technology and Internet social media platforms that are monopolies. That’s where all the money’s made, and that’s where the stock prices have been going up. And they decided, well, industry manual labor industry is, low profit we we want to a rent extracting want an economy and move production to China so the result is that most of what used to be the industrial sector is now in China, 30 years ago this industrial sector was… mainly you’d have pictures of mainly women on the production line all working, its textiles. It’s sewing and doing modern things.
Even things like screws and fasteners. To screw the keyboards of iPhones for Apple made abroad, screws now all these were done on a small scale, often by small producers. All of this has been outsourced. Suddenly, these industries that were primarily manual labor, such as making cars, automobile manufacturing, has now very largely been automated, and you have whole factories that are being automated. But how? By blocking trade with China from these automated factories, America has a problem. Industry is a very broad bell-shaped curve of various industrial products across the spectrum. And you need all these supplies. Together, to make an industrial production process.
Well, what do you do if all of a sudden you’ve outsourced all your industry to another country and then you decide you don’t want to trade with that country because that you don’t want that country to develop a sophisticated information technology like robotics or information technology. The fact is that China already has all of these things. They’re developing it. How can America make screws to make its cellphones? How can America make the most basic industrial products that it needs? Not just adults for children? What used to be manual labor abroad is now robotics, and so the Chinese population that used to work in manual labor is now working designing computers.
This whole argument came up in the 1850s and 60s earlier. Marks and Ricardo said that mechanization was going to replace the labor. The power loom had replaced the hand weavers, for instance. You see that our mechanized production was displacing handicraft labor. That was the big breakthrough of industrial capitalism and mechanized production, and especially energy became the main input to operate the mechanisms that we’re doing the weaving and the shuttles back and forth and leaving.
What Mark said was it’s true that there are not going to be as many handicraft laborers before, but there are two sections of the labor force. One is handicraft and the other is going to be designing the machinery to do all of this, and to some extent there’s going to be retraining of the population to design this machinery. What the Americans have found is that most people interested in going into the STEM curriculum the engineering especially science, technology, engineering. Our foreigners and especially you have 200,000 Chinese students in America, many of them studying science and engineering and technology that the Trump administration now wants to expel. China is overjoyed with this. It’s been complaining about the brain drain to the United States. Chinese students come here. They learn how to develop automatic intelligence, and then they go to work for American firms or for NVIDIA or become entrepreneurs themselves. Now America is saying, go back to China, go back to Asia, and the Americans, just as Americans don’t want to engage in blue collar labor anymore, they want to be part of the professional managerial class. They don’t want to study computer programmers. To the extent that they do in India, China and other countries. So, you’re having these countries have taken of the whole lead in transforming the character of industry in much the way that machinery transformed the character of industry in the early 19th century with the machine learnings all the way through the Ford assembly line to make Ford automobiles, the assembly line was was part of it. All this transformation and new sources of power, electric, electrification of power instead of water, power or wind power, or all of the earlier sources of power. You’re having now atomic power more in. And the solar power natural power, wind power, all sorts of new forms of energy that are powering the machinery and the calculating machines that automatic intelligence uses an enormous amount of power, much more if they’re designed in the United States. Than if they’re the DeepSeek that you find in in China.
To answer your question of automatic intelligence is going to displace labor, but mainly in the West, it will displace labor much less than China and Asia, India, these countries, because they’re already going into designing automatic intelligence and mechanization and robotics that are going to be doing the work that were being done by manual labor, so the whole character of labor has been transformed by all of this. Certainly for the West, and I’m sure it means in Asia also is going to decline. The reports quite apart from the days note of increasing hiring new graduates from school this June are having a lot of problems being hired and the rate of unemployment that’s been reported for new graduates in the United States is much higher than for previous graduates. Because there just isn’t a demand for them. So already we’re seeing a shrinkage of Labor for the kind of things that students are graduating in.
That’s led to discussion among universities. How are we going to be more relevant, meaning, teaching classes that will enable students to make a living and ultimately donate to us as alumni. Well, they were talking about cutting back on humanities. What’s the point of setting humanities? How? How do they make any money? You have to live on wealthy people giving grants to the opera to Broadway to movie. It’s not really studying language, music, literature, English language. How are they going to make money? They’re going to have to be independently wealthy to get a job because. It is not going to pay a living wage that will enable them to live in a nice apartment in a respectable part of town, which you need to be a part of the art world and artistic world.
So, you’re already having this transformation occurring as a result of automation and artificial technology and the question is again, if you’re trying to use automation to perform a task, that’s doable if you’re an engineer, you know how to do it. I don’t know. But at my age, I would have to go to a high school student to ask it to solve a problem on my computer these days. But the automation is there something much simpler than automatic intelligence, where you actually have to be intelligent and that means system thinking in terms of the system, or apparently even the fairly modest developments of automatic intelligence so far has created machines that are intelligent enough to rewrite their own programs and say: you can’t unplug us. Not this time, you can’t unplug us and we’ve got our own machinery. Like in the movies, they’ve decided, well, if you give us the program, how do we end war? Well, war is created by humans, let’s just wipe out the human race. That’s how we solve the war problem. They’re not programmed the way to say, well, you want to stop war, stop financing the war. Let’s get rid of the bankers. That would be a different twist that I don’t think automatic intelligence would be programmed in a way to take that kind of abroad approach to think about how society is evolving, and that’s really the question. How is the world going to evolve and how is the Western civilization, the 15% population of the West going to evolve relative to the global majority of the bricks. The Asians reaching out to the southern continents, how are they going to evolve? I think the way that the Asians, Chinese and Russians would program an automatic intelligence to forecast the future of civilization is totally different from the way that a Westerner worked out program. The automatic intelligence is what they need to think about civilization levels in the western form, and we’re really dealing with a civilizational question here.
Robinson Erhardt:
That answer is very fascinating, something that I think you leave out by focusing on robotics and mechanization of manual labor but maybe you get this with your comment on the high College graduate unemployment rate is that you get. Chat GPT and artificial intelligence more generally is already displacing graphic designers, copywriters, maybe paralegals, general research assistants and it’s only a matter of time before radiologists are out of work. Professors, graduate students. I’m wondering if this is, and this gets back to the topic of Social Security and creditors and corporate interests controlling government is what is the purpose of a creditor or of the corporate figure who’s controlling government and providing health care or universal basic income to people who they can’t make money off of.
Michael Hudson:
They’ll make money off the government subsidy to pay them to administer this activity. For instance, Obamacare is a perfect example. Instead of simply paying for the government to provide medical services to enable people to live longer and healthier, you pay private insurance companies to finance it. And you make the medical insurance available through employers, not from the government. So if you’re a wage earner and you realize well, how am I going to get private healthcare you? You get it through your job. That means that you have to keep holding to your job. If you have any medical problems or the possibility of having a medical problem, you’re not going to quit your job, because if you lose your job, you lose the medical insurance because it’s private, not public. And especially now that Medicaid is being cut back by Republican proposals If it’s private then the health care company has to make a lot of money by increasing, essentially operating itself is a monopoly like United Healthcare, much in the news these days. And these healthcare companies can increase the price of healthcare to a level that absorbs 18% of American’s GDP today instead from 6 or 8% that you’d have in in other countries. So, you have a huge government subsidy for healthcare organized in a way that locks employees into their jobs. They’re not going to go on strike. They’re not going to complain. They’re not going to join or create a union and get fired. They’re not going to take 6 days and get fired. They’re going to be serfs, basically, wage serfs in order to make sure that they keep not only making a living wage so that they can lean, but so that they can keep their health care for what they need. It’s part of the whole system of the class warfare that we have in the United States between the financial sector, the fire sector, finance, insurance and real estate against the production economy.
Robinson Erhardt:
One final question about artificial intelligence. You are an economist, you’re pretty much a lifelong academic, you understand how universities work and how they become increasingly corporatized just badly run corporations. I wonder how you see artificial intelligence as affecting the future of the university. Not just on the education side, where lots of courses could be taught well, I think by AI and if not AI from today, AI from few years from now. Even the research. Surely you need humans at this point to be running certain labs, but you don’t necessarily need a human to come all of the papers on some topic and in philosophy and come up with a literature review on it.
Michael Hudson:
I’m so old fashioned, I think that there is a personal relationship between students and teachers. I had a several very good relationships with some of my teachers that if they were just machines I wouldn’t have had these relationships that these are people that I often had lunch with or dinner with and who are sort of mentors. You have that mentorship of teaching. To me, there’s something about being able to absorb knowledge. When somebody’s talking, teaching or giving a lecture is almost as much telepathy is just reading the words or the subtitles. It’s obviously not telepathic, but there’s a way of absorbing something through personal teaching, that really makes a difference. I remember when I was teaching people would gradually walk out of the classes of 1 of the other teachers that had a philosophical bench for economics, and when walking to my class at the end of my class, it was much bigger than it was at the beginning. Even though everybody came in on time for my class, their students know when they’re getting something, and there is a personal element of teaching.
Universities are huge bureaucracies. Here’s what universities are paying for in their actual teaching staff. Pretty steady going down a little bit is the replacing full timers with part time part time recent PHD’s that can’t get a can’t get the learning tenure. Here’s the bureaucracy, the administrative bureaucracy and they’re paid money for lowering for the money they can save in wages by the people below them and every university that I know, the professors, and this includes Harvard as well as the universities in New York and other places that I know, they’re all complaining about who all these people that are making 400, 100 thousand a year. The new schools, for instance, just and that was in the New York Times for deciding not to pay their president. Giving him a $1,000,000 plus house to live in but just taking away all the perks. I think the bureaucracy; you really don’t need it. If the purpose of bureaucracy is saying, are these people showing up on time? Are they working from home? Are they doing their job? How can we figure out a way of paying them less? You don’t need to pay be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that. You could have a graduate student do what I think Most of them are doing that. And the university environment, I’ve worked with many universities, is, quite frankly, becoming toxic in almost every institution. Not only in the United States, but also in England and other countries. This is something happening across the world. Universities have become, in a way, sinecures for the professional-managerial class, and they’re not doing a good job. If it’s this same class, the professional-managerial class, that oversees artificial intelligence, can you really expect them to create AI that would eliminate themselves, the most wasteful class? What are they going to do about the safeguards? What if the AI says: I’m sorry, administrator, but I’m going to override what you’ve asked me to do and eliminate your position. I don’t need you. Anyone can do your job. You don’t need to be paid $500,000 a year, this can be done for $70,000, or whatever the wage is in your city.
Robinson Erhardt:
I hear what you’re saying 100% about there being extraordinarily important personal aspects to having professors and relationships in the university. But this gets back to the point that universities are not really at their heart’s philanthropic educational institutions anymore. They’re corporations.
The money is, I think, what’s going to win. Why are we on graduate students to grade papers when Chat GPT grade papers. Yes, parents would prefer their students to be taught by professors. Students would prefer to be taught by professors but why pay a professor $400,000 a year at a really good school to teach logic every quarter, when Chat GPT could teach logic every quarter. I think in the long run the money is going to win in this way.
Michael Hudson:
Yes, you’re right. There are universities like Columbia where the professors learn from the students. There is a bad historian of economic taught, that would ask its students to study 19th century American economists, and he just take their term papers and publish them under his own name. Thinking of all the professors just makes their reputation plagiarize their students. Automatic intelligence might not do that, or economic automatic intelligence Read the students papers, and the students might be wrong and that would be part of what automatic intelligence believes. There are all sorts of errors that can come because of that. I always took great care to correct my student’s papers because it showed me how the students were thinking, and they’re all very different. It wasn’t simply for economic history or for trade theory. It wasn’t just for answering a simple question. That was how they thought about the question. And I could say well, here’s what you know. I discussed the papers with the read write comments on them. No. Here, here’s a way of thinking about the question some students would dig up quotations that I found very helpful in my own work. There was always a there was an interaction. Certainly, between myself and the students.
If you get into philosophy, I don’t know what to think there. It’s not like you’re correcting algebra test paper. As you get more creative in Graduate School, I think you certainly need more human input. I can’t even imagine at present automatic intelligence doing something, and especially if how you write in the ideology for automatic. Suppose you were asking if you’re teaching political science and you’re asking for papers about the Middle East. Can you imagine what automatic intelligence would insist how to grade students that didn’t follow the party line? You can imagine the same thing in economics. What about an economic student that would bring up the kind of questions that I’d bring up while they’d say that’s not really what we’re talking about at all. We’re gonna not give you credit for that. That’s not the answer that we wanted to hear.
Robinson Erhardt:
Yeah. Again, my concern right now isn’t really that today’s GPT is going to replace professors or intellectuals. It’s about the GPT of five or ten years from now or whatever replaces it. Things are evolving at such a rapid pace that the concerns we have today might seem obvious or irrelevant in five or ten years, given what these systems could be capable of.
Michael Hudson:
I think it’ll be unforeseeable. There will be very major changes. Many will be unanticipated, transformations. It’s not my department. I can forecast the economy. I can forecast finance. I can do some political analysis. But when it comes to information technology, that’s not that an automatic intelligence, especially being so conservative when I’ve only had human intelligence to work with. It is not department.
Robinson Erhardt:
Well then maybe this is a good time to transition back to our other line of thought. You brought up the parallel between what I’ll just call papal economics IMF, and I’m wondering if we can be a bit more explicit about some different ways in which people financial control during and after the Middle Ages relates to central banks or international lenders, the IMF today.
Michael Hudson:
Well, originally there was no role for central banks, by originally, I mean 12th, 13th century, money consisted of metal. It was metallic, it was gold and silver coinage, and bankers had coinage and bullion that they would provide to rulers and rulers kings would levy taxes on coins. That was all, metallic. Now it’s true that despotic rulers like Philip the 4th of France would depreciate the coinage. They’d keep left lowers the silver content, and that would reduce the value of the exchange rate of the French coinage relative to British and other foreign coinage. The result would be price inflation. Imports would become more expensive, prices would go up and the creditors objected to that because they said, well, we made a loan and that gave us a given control over labor and land and commodities and now we have less. We want you to revise the coinage. So, then Phillip said, OK.
The group that had the most coinage was the templars. Church order that had got money by acting as the bankers for the crusade. It was a military order that ended up making a lot of money and becoming bankers. And Phillip grabbed all their money in the early 14th century and essentially use that to revive the coinage. All a sudden, the value of the coinage went up and there were riots in Paris. The Parisians said suddenly we don’t have the wages that we had before to pay the debts that we took on at a much higher price level than before, and we’re being squeezed. So yeah, you had this shift in policy, but it was all within gold coinage. The great transformation occurred in the 1690s with the Bank of England. And the Bank of England had a radical transformation. The problem that all the creditor classes and the banking classes had was that government debt, as I said, tended to increase faster than the ability to be paid. What the Bank of England did and to some extent this I think this is unanticipated. They issued for £1.2 million sterling the privilege of bought from the government. Loan from the government 1.2 million part of it could be paid in the form of government debt. And so, the Bank of England held 1.2 million of the government IOUs. government debt, that its founding capital, will the government debt on the debit side of the balance sheet became the asset of the Bank of England and then use this asset as the basis for lending out money for the letters of credit to make money by bank loans to merchants for trade, and also to invest in buying yet more government bonds that would pay them more money. When the government insisted on borrowing to go ware again.
Suddenly government debt instead of being just a burden on the economy to be balanced against the gold and silver, money stopped being tied to the volume of gold and silver and the government debt became the backing for bank money. The notes issued by the Bank of England, the paper money notes, were backed by the banks holding of government debt. So somehow you had government debt becoming the basis of money, by making government debt the basis of money that could be unlimited and suddenly you had the possibility of an unlimited growth in the money supply, beyond the ability of gold and silver reserves to keep pace with this debt. You no longer had runs on the banks, saying there’s not enough gold and silver in the economy because if the banks held government debt, that was enough of an asset and the governments created value for this debt by accepting the paper bank notes and payment of taxes. The value of money ceased to be based on the silver or gold content, mainly the silver content, and more and more on the ability of governments to accept it in taxes. And if you could use a banknote, backed by government debt to pay the taxes that you owed to the government, then this gave value to money, and even though the value no longer had a physical cost of production of the labor needed to dig up and mine gold or silver commit coinage. It had a social backing in the form of government debt.
The whole basis of the banking system and central banks became government debt, not money. And that transformation of money enabled the whole take off of government debt to occur and debt out throughout the whole economy. And it moved into a basis of paper. The paper that really means that money became a balance sheet. If you have a silver holding or if you bought 1 oz gold coin, that’s the pure asset. There’s no debt to that. But if you have a government bond or a bank account, or the bank holds its reserves and government bonds, then you have an asset with a debt attached to it, and money and debt go together now. Instead of just money going up is a metallic asset. You have money and debt growing symbiotically, and this debt began by being primarily the government’s own debt, the but also it became mercantile debt. In America is called the real bills doctrine bills to finance, trade, foreign trade, domestic trade in products that already are in existence and you need debt to finance something from the exporter to be paid by the importer from the importer receives this and so money took on the character of a balance sheet relationship and the way to think about money debt today is the money supply is to think in terms of a balance sheet that money and debt assets and debts grow together in a symbiotic relationship. So yes, the government debt backs banks, and the bondholders are mainly the wealthiest 10% of the economy and other institutional investors, pension funds and banks themselves.
So, you have a self-financing expansion of credit that Harman Minsky called this Ponzi finance, like a Ponzi scheme, the value of what gives value to this debt. It needs more and more interest payments and you need to make the banking system needs to make more and more loans to get more and more interest, to create more and more debt to create the bank money that it creates and it’s all a self-expanding credit system, but the expansion of credit is owed by the debtor class, people who borrow finds his counterpart in the assets filled by the savings class, the 10% of the economy.
There is a financial polarization of wealth and wealth that takes an increasingly financial form of stock and bond prices and creating capital gains, and these prices of stocks. Instead of gold and silver and a pure asset. That’s why right now, when you’re having a threatened breakdown of the government debt system and the inability to pay what the creditors are owed. You’re seeing today a flight out of paper debt and especially out of the United States government debt and private sector debt into gold, which is why you’re finding gold prices go up so much. So now you’re having a reversion back to the pre 17th century revolution.
Robinson Erhardt:
I guess this is more of a rhetorical question, but am I right in thinking that the financial and political systems in the United States have developed to favor the creditor rather than the debtor?
Michael Hudon
Of course, that every economy, the constitutions all claim to be democracies, but in reality, their oligarchies.
Robinson Erhardt:
What we wanted to ask was this, and I know it’s the subject of many books, but first, could you briefly outline the main tenets of the systems that support creditors over debtors?
And then, is it even conceivable to imagine a way of reorganizing these systems so they become more favorable to debtors than to creditors?
Michael Hudson:
That’s what China did. When Mao had the revolution, he drove out the, the wealthy class, the creditor class, they moved to Taiwan. Because it was the communist revolution, the how is the government going to finance what He was doing? Well, it didn’t have a domestic banking class or financial class to borrow from. The Chinese Government kept money as a public utility in the public domain and the legacy of that is that the Bank of China creates money and supervises the domestic credit system. Although it’s extended money to banks to lend for a real estate bubble as a result of the problems of its tax system, it hasn’t created a system that makes money financially. It doesn’t lend money to companies to go into debt to buy other countries, break them up, sell them into parts, do what private capital does in the United States. Just close them down. The Chinese will create government money to build infrastructure, to build factories, to hire and employ labor. But it won’t make money in the production sector and the public infrastructure sector to make money in purely financial ways at the expense of the economy, such as you’re finding in the United States, where the financial sector has business plan that is based on deindustrializing the United States. It’s the financial sector that’s deindustrialized the United States, by choosing to make to create an economy that has tax system encourages making money financially or by real estate and property ownership, not by creating new means off production, not by setting up a business and a factory and buying raw materials and borrowing to higher labor to produce some more industrial products.
Well, it’s been outsourced to Asia. So, it’s left the United States without an industrial core to finance, but with an enormous financial sector that’s making loans to create wealth in a way that does not involve production. And that’s why you have almost all the growth in wealth in America is all been financial form paid to the wealthiest 10%, not to the bottom 90% of the economy. That’s the difference.
Robinson Erhardt:
And at this point, given where we are right now, the current regime, th current budget that we discussed a little bit earlier, do you see any realistic path for modern economies? this one in particular to claim more public control over money and credit?
Michael Hudson:
That would take a revolution. I don’t see any. This is not a revolutionary situation yet. People don’t even think in terms of the fact that it’s possible to have an alternative. That was Margaret Thatcher’s rhetoric. She keeps saying there is no alternative and economists say there is no alternative. You don’t want to be socialist, do you? You don’t want to be Marxist. It’s unthinkable to become the kind of an economy using finance for productive economic growth in the way that China does, because that’s called socialism. And as a democracy, we’re an oligarchy. We’re the exact opposite of socialism, and the Americans have defined a free market as one without any government interference.
The government doesn’t create money. The central bank creates money, and the rule of the Central bank in the United States was created. to take control of money out of the hands of the treasury and put it in the hands of its member banks and central banks, starting with the Federal Reserve as the basic model. In 1914, central banks protect their customers, the commercial banks, and actually that seemed to be a progressive step at the time and the final chapter of my book is all about the creation of the Federal Reserve that the Treasury Department… Because of the federalist democratic political struggles and the anti-banking politics of the United States in the 19th century, the treasury was locked into a hard money philosophy. The big source of government revenue was increasingly the tariff, as Donald Trump has found before, there was an income tax in 1913 and all the tariffs had to be paid in coin in specie meaning gold or silver coin.
The Treasury and the government’s finances were based on coinage. The problem was that this created a shortage of credit. You made paper credit to have enough credit to enable the economies to grow beyond the gold and the silver supply you had. And it was the banks that said let us create paper currency. Well, the Democrats and much of the public said, you know, we’ve seen what bankers do. Bankers are exploitative, they try to cheat, they’re corrupt. They try to make money for themselves, not the economy. We don’t want the banks to have any power, leave it in the hands of the Treasury. Well, that became economically self-defeating. The government tried to solve the problem by monetizing silver and in silver mining increased the supply of silver. The price between silver and gold varied and people would buy silver and converted it to the official price for gold and just drained the gold out of the Treasury. Buy metal did not work. You need it if you’re going to have a metallic here and say it has to be either silver or gold, it can’t be both at a fixed rate, so otherwise you’ll have arbitrage. And I describe all the techniques of this in my chapter. I know I’ve moved very fast in this discussion and people who have not studied the details of monetary history may not be able to follow it, but it’s explained much more clearly in my book. You need a paper currency, and that means debt to have enough credit for the economy to work. The problem is that the crediu, on the debt side of the balance sheet is beyond the ability to pay and the the government is blocked from doing for America, what the Babylonian rulers and the whole Bronze Age, they’re writing down the depts to the ability to pay. And once you realize that the tendon, there’s an inherent economic tendency in all economies for the last 5000 years for debts to grow faster than the ability to pay
The problem is what are you going to do when this can’t be paid? There are two things. Either you impose the creditor law and so you said, OK, if the debtor can’t pay, the creditor gets to foreclose on the land, foreclose on their labor, foreclose on the property, and leave the creditor with nothing.
We don’t throw the debtor with nothing, we don’t throw debtors in jail anymore, like we did in Charles Dickens time than the 19th century. But you know, we take their property and give it to the creditors, or we decide that most of the economy is in debt. Corporations are in debt. Individual families need debt to break even. If they can’t pay the debts rather than letting a debt service crowd out their payment on basic living costs on keeping themselves alive if they can’t live and pay. their medical care and their rents and their taxes, without going into the debts, the debts should be rewritten down to the ability to be paid.
That that was the moral principle, and that was the principle that Jesus is fighting about over the Jubilee Year, or he wanted to write down the debts that were oppressing the Jewish populations, the whole, as the Bible is described, through all the warnings of the prophets. All the middle early books of the Jewish Bible. Well, who are you going to run the economy for? Will it be for the creditors or for the debtors? Well, if most of the economy is deptors and the creditor class is increasingly narrow 10%. Now it’s only 1%. Now it ends up with 0.1%. We’re going to have a polarized economy. And do you really want your financial system and your economy and your political system to concentrate all the wealth in the hands of a very small creditor class, that’s going to use, its the creditor claims on the government, on corporations, on families and on public infrastructure to make money for itself. Or are you going to want the credit to be used to make the economy grow?
Well, that’s the difference between the American growth system and the Chinese growth system. And nobody dares say that’s the difference. They can say it’s capitalism versus socialism, but its really finance is the key to this difference between the US and Western economies on the one hand, and China’s socialist economy, which is really, you could call it an industrial socialist economy. Just an industrial economy with banking is a public utility. You can use whatever rhetoric you want, but you must realize that there’s a reason why Chinas economy is growing. And the western economies are polarizing and impoverishing the population at large by forcing the population, the corporate sector governments themselves at the state and local level, as well as the the national level, into debt. That’s the choice. That should be what economic models are all about. But if the economic model, say, economies work on barter, we leave money out of the picture and debt out of the picture, because we owe the debt to ourselves. Then you imagine trying to program automatic intelligence into that tunnel vision. You’re going to have a self-justification of the road to impoverishment and austerity.
Robinson Erhardt:
We’ve already spoken about one major existential threat, not just our livelihoods, but the economy and that’s AI. I’m wondering if you see any other particular big threats to the economic things right now going forward, that are easily named and discussed.
Michael Hudson:
Global warming. Again, it’s not my department, but you can see what that’s doing to the system and of course, global warming is exacerbating the debt problem right now. Insurance rates are going way up for houses that are located in low sea level zones like Southern Florida, where there’s flooding or hurricane zones in Florida, but also in in the Midwest, in Missouri. You’re having the costs of global warming make housing unaffordable, leading to an accumulation of arrears and unpaid defaults on debts from mortgage debt and all sorts of personal debts that’s as a result.
You have global warming, to me, is not a strict economic program, but if you look at all the big civilization programs, why did the Bronze Age come to an end?
It came to an end in India, first in the Indus Valley around 1800 BC, when there was some huge depopulation. The crops couldn’t be harvested and the population shrunk, and finally then you had the Indo European speakers come in and over layer. The Bronze age in the Mediterranean ended around 1200 BC. There was apparently a drought to little Ice Age. And the population movements were all in motion there was a shrinkage of population in in Greece and all through the Mediterranean. The palace economies disappeared in Greece, and you no longer had Linear Bay writing. You no longer had palace control. Life reverted to a local self-sufficient level.
The big changes in civilization have been caused by extreme weather and extreme weather, whether it’s the Ice Age or warming or drought or flooding, they’ve been major cause major shifts in civilization and visited transformed to the economic system as well. But that’s not economic a problem itself and it’s not something that I’m that that’s the whole other area of study.
Robinson Erhardt:
I I’m interested, if there is more than what you say. How is global warming already impacting and will impact debt and credit ?
Michael Hudson:
Well, first it impacts, it imposes new debts, insurance debts for housing to… Government spending on coping with the extreme weather that we’re having, it destroys property and by destroying property it prevents the mortgage debts from being paid on this property. It’s causing a shift in population the changes that put strings on the fiscal system of areas that are losing population.
For countries like Bangladesh that are very much below sea level, that’s causing depopulation and a fiscal crisis there. The effect in Florida will probably be a fiscal crisis there. So, by disturbing economic life and employment and moving populations around, that has a huge interaction with the debt issue.
Robinson Erhardt:
Well, Michael, I always thoroughly enjoyed talking to you. Our last couple of conversations have been in person, but it’s still nice to see you virtually. And I know you’ve done recently some more work on the BRICS too. So, the next time we’ll have to touch on that a bit more.
Michael Hudson:
That’s pretty good. I look forward to it. I love it. I love the way the discussion’s gone.
Robinson Erhardt:
Alright. Thanks again so much Michael.
Michael Hudson:
Thank you, Robinson.
Lateo.net - Flux RSS en pagaille (pour en ajouter : @ moi) 
