Sunday 24th of November 2024
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

stercore tincidunt... or keeping us safe....

As I was saying to Diocletian over Prosecco just last week, it is hard to run an empire these days. You have to lie to people more or less incessantly to keep the troops minding the perimeter in supplies. No falsehood is too preposterous to gain the public’s acquiescence. At times you have to deceive even the Senate. 

“Ah, yes, the solons,” the old persecutor replied. “It is mere ceremony with them. You can keep the senators in the dark if protecting the arcana imperii requires it. They usually prefer this, indeed. As for the vox populi, one must occasionally feign to hear it, but there is no need to pay any attention.”

 

By Patrick Lawrence / Original to ScheerPost

 

“Son of a bitch,” I exclaimed, quoting the current guardian of America’s imperial secrets. “You’ve got the Biden regime to a ‘T.’” 

Did he ever, the crafty autocrat.  

There is nothing new about lying to Americans to get the empire’s business done. It was 76 years ago last week that President Truman won public acceptance for Washington’s endless postwar interventions in his famous “scare hell out of the American people” speech to Congress. It was 60 years ago this August that President Johnson faked the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify sending ground troops to Vietnam. As for cutting the dolts on Capitol Hill out of the loop, we have been talking about the imperial presidency since Arthur Schlesinger coined the term in the latter days of the Nixon administration. 

Three-quarters of a century later, Joe “New Ideas” Biden has altered course not one minute on the policy cliques’ compass.  

It has been objectionable enough in many quarters that the Biden White House has sent two on-the-record shipments of weapons to Israel for use in its genocide of the Palestinians in Gaza since the Israel Occupation Forces—we’re renaming these barbarians—began their siege last autumn. These were for $106 million and $147.5 million; in each case the administration invoked emergency authority to bypass the mandated congressional approval. 

At this point, a decisive majority of Americans want President Biden to force Israel to declare a ceasefire—which, as everyone knows, he could do in a trice. In a poll conducted Feb, 27 to Mar. 1 for the Center for Economic and Policy Research, more than half of those surveyed thought the U.S. should stop all arms shipments to Israel—“no more U.S. money for the Netanyahu war machine,” as Bernie Sanders, the Vermont senator, put it.  

But never mind the populus and never mind Congress. The former are to be ignored and there are various ways to circumvent the latter. The Washington Post reported in its Mar. 6 editions that, as arms sales to the apartheid state grew more politically perilous, Biden’s policy people have covertly authorized more than 100 separate, under-the-radar shipments. We do not know the value of these, but each has been small enough to require no legislative authorization. 

No debate, no disclosure. We know about these transfers now only because regime officials told Congress about them in “a recent classified briefing.” Before that, Congress didn’t know anything about the shipments, either—although this seems highly unlikely. I do not see how Capitol Hill could be unaware of an op of this magnitude. My surmise is that legislators were perfectly happy once again to surrender their responsibilities to the imperial presidency. That recent classified briefing made page one of The Post because this is the national security state’s way of easing the public into the picture.    

These shipments are obviously counter to the spirit of the law, if not its letter. But no one in the administration has felt compelled to offer an explanation since The Post’s piece appeared, to say nothing of an apology for deceiving a public increasingly critical of the regime’s Israel policy. Congress has raised not the slightest objection—Congress, as in the 435 representatives and 50 senators elected and paid to represent your interests and mine. 

Cut to historical flashback. 

Diocletian’s reign, from 284 to 305 C.E., was noted for a few things. He executed thousands of Christians and burned a lot of churches while also seeing to numerous constitutional and administrative reforms intended to make the imperial throne more imperial. The Roman Senate continued to convene in a building Diocletian fashioned for the purpose. But there were no more fictions or illusions attaching to its powers. One of his reforms was to make sure it had none in matters of state. The body once responsible for Roman law was down to housekeeping chores and sheer ritual. 

■

We do not yet have official permission to conclude publicly that Ukraine has lost America’s proxy war with Russia—that remains among our Great Unsayables. But we are allowed—encouraged, indeed—to talk about how desperately the Kyiv regime needs more American guns if it is to stop Russian advances and—I love this part—reverse them and win the war. 

In the Mar. 8 edition of Foreign Affairs, this headline: “Time is Running Out in Ukraine.” And this subhead, well-crafted to preserve the necessary degree of delusion: “Kyiv Cannot Capitalize on Russian Military Weakness Without U.S. Aid.” You can read the rest of Dara Massicot’s essay here if you insist, but the display language as just quoted is what Foreign Affairs wants you to know, or think you know: The $60.1 billion in additional support the Biden regime proposes will save the day and Congress must stop blocking it. 

This has become something like the running theme on Ukraine since the Council on Foreign Relations, which publishes Foreign Affairs, announced it a couple of weeks back. It is now O.K. to suggest the conflict that has literally destroyed yet another nation and another people in the U.S. imperium’s cause has reached “a stalemate,” but only if it quickly follows that more weaponry is necessary to keep the thieves and neo–Nazis in Kyiv going. Stalemates can be overcome, you see. You only get to lose once, at which point you don’t need more guns. 

On Mar. 14 The New York Times published “America Pulls Back from Ukraine” in its daily feature called The Morning. “What the war may look like if Ukraine does not receive more U.S. support,” is the subhead this time. Same story: All will be lost if the U.S. does not send Ukraine more war matériel tout de suite. All can be gained if it does. 

You know, it is one thing for a Dara Massicot to go on about the desperate need for the U.S. to ship Kyiv more weapons. That is her job at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and we can leave Ms. Massicot to her war-is-peace paradox. It is entirely another for a New York desk reporter at The Times to do the same. As you read German Lopez’s “report,” keep in mind: You are not reading journalism. You are reading a clerk for the policy cliques normalizing the latter’s desire to resupply Ukraine as our incontrovertible reality. 

Sound journalism must have multiple sources, as any first-year J–school student can tell you. Lopez’s is a one-source story allowing of no other perspective on the war other than the official perspective as the Biden regime tries to shake loose the dough from Congress. What is vastly worse, the one source Lopez quotes is not even the usual administration official who cannot be named because of the “sensitivity” of something or other. No, the source is “my colleague Julian Barnes, who covers the war.”

Wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh-wait. First, Julian Barnes does not cover the war. From The Times’s Washington bureau he covers what the regime wants the public to think about the war, full stop. Second, where do The Times’s editors get off having one reporter quote another reporter as the authority in a story when the quoted reporter is lock-and-stock repeating—uncritically, without qualification, in roughly the same  language—what the administration declares at every press conference concerning the Ukraine war and in every public statement?   

“With an aid package, the Ukrainians will have a much better chance of solidifying their defenses, holding the line. And in some places, they may be able to retake territory,” Barnes tells Lopez. “So it falls on the U.S. to supply Ukraine.”

He’s an original thinker, our Julian. You have to give him this. 

I have long speculated that the many Massicots, Barneses, and Lopezes among us may get dressed every morning in the same locker room, so similar are the things they say. I wondered this again when, a day after The Times piece appeared, The Washington Post published “U.S. anticipates grim course for Ukraine if aid bill dies in Congress.” I tell you, if you switched the bylines on The Times and Post pieces not even the reporters would notice.

These people are doing not more, not less than getting the imperium’s lying done for it. Three cases in point:

One, if U.S. weaponry is so critical to the war as is proclaimed, this is no longer Ukraine’s war, if ever it was. It is America’s, yours and mine. 

Two, Ukraine has not stalemated the Russians. If Kyiv has not already lost Washington’s proxy war—my assessment—it is losing it in slow motion with no prospect of reversing this outcome. 

Three, we have a lie of omission. The Biden regime has already allocated an all-in total of roughly $75 billion for the Kyiv regime’s war effort, according to figures Foreign Affairs published recently. This equals Russia’s 2022 defense budget and compares with the $84 billion in Moscow’s 2023 budget—this before the $60.1 billion Biden now wants. 

Given that the reported record indicates more than half of what the U.S. has already sent appears to have been either stolen or black-marketed, I have questions for Messrs. Barnes and Lopez and the squad of reporters the Washington Post bylined. Where is the analysis here, if crooked pols and military officers are stealing aid Kyiv says it needs to fight Russian forces? Where is even a mention of this obvious factor in the course of the war? Where are the editors in New York and Washington who should insist their reporters address this question? And if they can report that theft is not such a factor, where is your story telling us why all the thievery has not mattered?

There is one assertion in these pieces—finally, something—that distinguishes one from the others. The Post story, taking things further than The Times or Foreign Affairs, reports that “absent more American military support, ‘countless lives’ will be lost this year as Kyiv struggles to stave off collapse.” This comes from the usual unnamed “senior official,” who tells The Post, “Here’s the bottom line: Even if Ukraine holds on, what we really are saying is that we are going to leverage countless lives in order to do that.”

Do we all understand? Ending support for a war that is already lost or is ineluctably headed that way will not save lives: It will cost lives. The interior logic here is that it is out of the question for Kyiv to negotiate a peaceful settlement with Moscow, as the Kremlin has proposed on numerous occasions. This has long been advanced as another “normalized” reality. It is, once again, one thing for an administration official to make this repellent case and entirely another for reporters to repeat it uncritically. 

The Biden regime is stuck this time having to deal with lawmakers tired of sending money to crooks. And the media clerks who are supposed to cover it are stuck lying to the public in the service of the regime’s case. Are we surprised to read, here and there, that the policy cliques are already considering ways to circumvent Congress once again? 

I am not.

https://scheerpost.com/2024/03/22/patrick-lawrence-late-imperial-duplicities/

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW.................

 

 

moribundus

 

BY Marco Carnelos

 

As US hegemony fades away, Biden and his allies are focusing on a deeply flawed ‘democracies versus autocracies’ narrative

A distinctive feature of western political thinking is its astonishing capacity to justify and self-absolve when the West commits atrocities or tolerates those perpetrated by allies.

This attitude is combined with a peculiar tendency to see everywhere enemies who are allegedly determined to destroy freedom and democracy.

This is nothing new; it is neither a byproduct of the Cold War era nor of the post-Cold War one. Its roots go back thousands of years, at least to the ancient Greeks facing the Persians, and fits with Edward Said’s observation that modern societies tend to “derive a sense of their identities negatively”. In other words, they affirm and reinforce themselves in comparison with other societies deemed to be opposite and inferior.

To a certain extent, this is a binary distinction resulting from the dichotomous thinking inherited from Aristotelian philosophy, which continues to shape western political thought.

A recent political construct supporting this mindset is the “democracy versus autocracy” narrative incessantly promoted by the Biden administration, to the point that it was fully incorporated into the US national security strategy, and whose fundamental ideas have been promptly accepted by Washington’s lost and disoriented European allies, apparently unable to develop autonomous strategic thinking attached to their own national interests.

This narrative frames Russia, Iran and China as the three main autocracies threatening the US-led rules-based world order, which, regardless of how many western theorists try to portray it as international law, is actually something quite different. Rather, it could be aptly summarised by the motto: “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

The test cases of the new western narrative are the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, in addition to issues with China over the South China Sea, Taiwan, and the latter’s impressive technological accomplishments.

Dystopian views

To get a real sense of such dystopian and problematic views, one needs only to read a recent article by historian Niall Ferguson, one of the main contemporary apologists for western imperialism.

In a shocking 2,000-word piece titled “Ukraine Needs Total Western Support – and So Does Israel”, Ferguson fails to even mention the 30,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, noting that “there might have been far more bloodshed” if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had heeded his defence minister’s call for a pre-emptive attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. In other words, we should be thankful to Netanyahu for having spared a higher number of casualties in Lebanon amid the ongoing carnage in Gaza.

In this view, Russia, Hamas and Hezbollah (and the enabler of the latter two, Iran), are sworn foes of western civilisation. China is the next one. And western democracies have no responsibility for the current geopolitical tensions, notwithstanding the blatant double standards displayed in all major international crises.

Ferguson equates Ukraine and Israel, when the latter, due to its decades-long occupation of Palestinian lands, should rightly be compared with Russia.

German political theorist Carl Schmitt has written extensively on the friend-enemy binomial. An interesting corollary of his work is the “state of exception”, which is a major part of the self-absolving drive displayed even today, in the rubble of Gaza, by western democracies. According to this principle, in order to save democracies from their enemies (either real or imaginary), democracy itself must sometimes be suspended.

A vivid application of this principle can be seen in Gaza, where Israel – according to the western narrative – must commit atrocities to defend itself and save “the only democracy in the Middle East” from the threat of Arab-Islamic autocratic actors: Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

It goes without saying that if a threat does not materialise, it must be invented; otherwise, the entire intellectual construct of western identity could collapse. And over the last two decades, western political elites and their numerous mouthpieces in the mainstream media have honed a considerable ability to invent and promote a wide range of threats.

Internal threats

This issue also arises in a recent Foreign Affairs essay by Hal Brands, titled “The Age of Amorality: Can America Save the Liberal Order Through Illiberal Means?”

Brands asserts that “the only way to protect a world fit for freedom is to court impure partners and engage in impure acts”. His essay displays binary thinking and a typical western zero-sum approach, describing US competition with China and Russia as “the latest round in a long struggle over whether the world will be shaped by liberal democracies or their autocratic enemies”.

Nevermind the fact that the war in Ukraine might also be the result of two decades of warnings by Moscow that Ukraine joining Nato was a red line for Russia’s security, like the Soviet nuclear missiles deployed in Cuba in the early 1960s were for US security; or that the 7 October Hamas attack followed more than a half-century of brutal occupation of Palestinian lands, which Israel has carried out with an impunity never granted to any other country in recent history, thanks to Washington’s political shield.

On China, Brands does not mention the fact that tensions over Taiwan might be related to the US gradually backing away from its “One China” policy, which was established in the 1970s and has since been a cornerstone of East Asian stability.

While the US views its allies’ security concerns as important, those of other players, such as Russia, Iran and China, are usually dismissed, as are historical grievances, such as those of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. If the motivations and security concerns of the “others” are deliberately ignored, it is impossible to pretend there will be peace or stability.

This obsession with external threats, whether real or imaginary, prevents western democracies from dealing with their own, very real domestic threats. The “autocracies versus democracies” discourse is a weapon of mass distraction, aiming to divert the western public’s attention from internal polarisation, the crisis of representative democracy, widespread inequality, and many other vital issues.

The US and its allies cannot accept that centuries of western global domination are fading away, as the power balance shifts towards the so-called Global South. Western exceptionalism cannot accept power-sharing arrangements or true multipolarity. The only option left is the friend-or-foe narrative.

 

As US hegemony fades away, Biden and his allies are focusing on a deeply flawed ‘democracies versus autocracies’ narrative

A distinctive feature of western political thinking is its astonishing capacity to justify and self-absolve when the West commits atrocities or tolerates those perpetrated by allies.

This attitude is combined with a peculiar tendency to see everywhere enemies who are allegedly determined to destroy freedom and democracy.

This is nothing new; it is neither a byproduct of the Cold War era nor of the post-Cold War one. Its roots go back thousands of years, at least to the ancient Greeks facing the Persians, and fits with Edward Said’s observation that modern societies tend to “derive a sense of their identities negatively”. In other words, they affirm and reinforce themselves in comparison with other societies deemed to be opposite and inferior.

To a certain extent, this is a binary distinction resulting from the dichotomous thinking inherited from Aristotelian philosophy, which continues to shape western political thought.

A recent political construct supporting this mindset is the “democracy versus autocracy” narrative incessantly promoted by the Biden administration, to the point that it was fully incorporated into the US national security strategy, and whose fundamental ideas have been promptly accepted by Washington’s lost and disoriented European allies, apparently unable to develop autonomous strategic thinking attached to their own national interests.

This narrative frames Russia, Iran and China as the three main autocracies threatening the US-led rules-based world order, which, regardless of how many western theorists try to portray it as international law, is actually something quite different. Rather, it could be aptly summarised by the motto: “For my friends, everything; for my enemies, the law.”

The test cases of the new western narrative are the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, in addition to issues with China over the South China Sea, Taiwan, and the latter’s impressive technological accomplishments.

Dystopian views

To get a real sense of such dystopian and problematic views, one needs only to read a recent article by historian Niall Ferguson, one of the main contemporary apologists for western imperialism.

In a shocking 2,000-word piece titled “Ukraine Needs Total Western Support – and So Does Israel”, Ferguson fails to even mention the 30,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza, noting that “there might have been far more bloodshed” if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had heeded his defence minister’s call for a pre-emptive attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon. In other words, we should be thankful to Netanyahu for having spared a higher number of casualties in Lebanon amid the ongoing carnage in Gaza.

In this view, Russia, Hamas and Hezbollah (and the enabler of the latter two, Iran), are sworn foes of western civilisation. China is the next one. And western democracies have no responsibility for the current geopolitical tensions, notwithstanding the blatant double standards displayed in all major international crises.

Ferguson equates Ukraine and Israel, when the latter, due to its decades-long occupation of Palestinian lands, should rightly be compared with Russia.

German political theorist Carl Schmitt has written extensively on the friend-enemy binomial. An interesting corollary of his work is the “state of exception”, which is a major part of the self-absolving drive displayed even today, in the rubble of Gaza, by western democracies. According to this principle, in order to save democracies from their enemies (either real or imaginary), democracy itself must sometimes be suspended.

A vivid application of this principle can be seen in Gaza, where Israel – according to the western narrative – must commit atrocities to defend itself and save “the only democracy in the Middle East” from the threat of Arab-Islamic autocratic actors: Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.

It goes without saying that if a threat does not materialise, it must be invented; otherwise, the entire intellectual construct of western identity could collapse. And over the last two decades, western political elites and their numerous mouthpieces in the mainstream media have honed a considerable ability to invent and promote a wide range of threats.

Internal threats

This issue also arises in a recent Foreign Affairs essay by Hal Brands, titled “The Age of Amorality: Can America Save the Liberal Order Through Illiberal Means?”

Brands asserts that “the only way to protect a world fit for freedom is to court impure partners and engage in impure acts”. His essay displays binary thinking and a typical western zero-sum approach, describing US competition with China and Russia as “the latest round in a long struggle over whether the world will be shaped by liberal democracies or their autocratic enemies”.

Nevermind the fact that the war in Ukraine might also be the result of two decades of warnings by Moscow that Ukraine joining Nato was a red line for Russia’s security, like the Soviet nuclear missiles deployed in Cuba in the early 1960s were for US security; or that the 7 October Hamas attack followed more than a half-century of brutal occupation of Palestinian lands, which Israel has carried out with an impunity never granted to any other country in recent history, thanks to Washington’s political shield.

On China, Brands does not mention the fact that tensions over Taiwan might be related to the US gradually backing away from its “One China” policy, which was established in the 1970s and has since been a cornerstone of East Asian stability.

While the US views its allies’ security concerns as important, those of other players, such as Russia, Iran and China, are usually dismissed, as are historical grievances, such as those of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation. If the motivations and security concerns of the “others” are deliberately ignored, it is impossible to pretend there will be peace or stability.

This obsession with external threats, whether real or imaginary, prevents western democracies from dealing with their own, very real domestic threats. The “autocracies versus democracies” discourse is a weapon of mass distraction, aiming to divert the western public’s attention from internal polarisation, the crisis of representative democracy, widespread inequality, and many other vital issues.

The US and its allies cannot accept that centuries of western global domination are fading away, as the power balance shifts towards the so-called Global South. Western exceptionalism cannot accept power-sharing arrangements or true multipolarity. The only option left is the friend-or-foe narrative.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/western-world-last-gasp-global-dominance

 TAGS: 

 

Marco Carnelos

Marco Carnelos is a former Italian diplomat. He has been assigned to Somalia, Australia and the United Nations. He has served in the foreign policy staff of three Italian prime ministers between 1995 and 2011. More recently he has been Middle East Peace Process Coordinator Special Envoy for Syria for the Italian government and, until November 2017, ambassador of Italy to Iraq.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/western-world-last-gasp-global-dominance

 TAGS: SEE ALSO: https://johnmenadue.com/geopolitical-grand-larceny-and-its-risks/

their malicious actions.....

by Amar Djerrad 

The world is going through a pivotal period which is characterized by a shift from a criminal, predatory, subjugating world which only lasts through force, compromises, blackmail and wars, towards a world wanting to be fairer and more balanced! Let's be honest! Asians, Africans and Latin Americans (in part) know that this reversal is beneficial for them! This evolution, favored by scientific progress, can only bring balance and harmony.

A 2nd antagonistic pole, for balance or “new imperialism”? 

The 21st century will see the world split into two antagonistic poles where the West can only lose! It is a natural and irreversible historical process, resulting from the evolution of human behavior, its contradictions, ambitions, interests, whims and its villainous actions. Deliberate attempts to divert this course, in order to perpetuate their undue privileges, will be in vain!  

Imperialism and colonialism arise from a human quirk characterized by pride, greed and perversity; deficiencies that alter the vision of the world in all its complexity. After the disappearance of serfdom and slavery, and while vestiges of colonialism persist, we are today confronted with other forms of thought and action such as neocolonialism and the "supremacist and globalist world", which are reaching their inevitable end, despite attempts to deviate from their course! 

The groupings of States/nations within the framework of common and existential defenses represent an additional force which can prevent any hegemonic intention through aggressions which become improbable when the provocateur urges responses risking causing unbearable damage. “Tyrants are only great because we are on our knees". (La Boétie). It is true that it is not necessary to destroy this "world", although it is possible. It is simpler to no longer allow him to illegally appropriate anything and to remove all plundering tendencies, so that everyone can live according to their means and abilities, in harmony and balanced exchange, without feeling the need to covetously covet the possessions of others. 

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have witnessed a drift towards a “globalist”, “supremacist” spirit, while a large part of the world is in another perspective! They do not see that in the wisdom of Confucius “Arrogance goes before ruin, pride goes before a fall". We are there in view of what is happening in the Middle East with Israeli colonialism, in Ukraine against Russia, in Taiwan against China, in Africa to get rid of neocolonialism, etc. Westerners have never acted for good and truth. They even mock their people by depriving them of the opportunity to see the hidden reality that provides a semblance of peace that lasts only for the duration of a rose. “In the calmest rivers, devils swarm» says a Russian proverb! Their demon has come out to find itself confronted with a quiet, irreducible and unshakeable force! 

A new “imperialism”? It is better that one which we do not know, but which gives concrete indications to the contrary than that which has been “experienced” for centuries and which has ruined them! Did the Russians and Chinese ever colonize and exploit a single country in Africa – unlike the West which has a disastrous, barbaric colonial past by colonizing it in its entirety, the majority of which by France – to accuse them of colonialist aims in this continent?

NATO locks itself in Ukraine against a crushing Russia

It is clear that the Atlanticists have been waging a war against Russia since February 24, 2022, without formally declaring it, using Ukraine as a proxy as well as mercenaries, while inflicting unprecedented sanctions which have dangerously turned against them! You need to have the intelligence of the Russians to achieve the feat of reversing difficult situations! 

We hear them incessantly and deliriously repeating contradictory remarks on Russian and Chinese threats, their “unhealthy” objectives, their power or impotence, warning that we must not “push Russia into the arms of China” while They are together in the BRIC, all in a nauseating hodgepodge reflecting their dismay. If they are capable of this, why then resort to a proxy war that needlessly destroyed Ukraine and caused significant losses in its army without directly and loyally engaging their own troops? Why surreptitiously encourage the split of Taiwan when they fully recognize China's sovereignty over the island? This is a form of American-style bluffing and intimidation followed by gullible European nations! They are trying to achieve through propaganda and lies what they failed to achieve through military means. 

The Baltic countries, Poland, Finland, Sweden, the Czech Republic, Romania, France, the United Kingdom and Germany among others seem reluctant to openly engage in an armed conflict against Russia in view of declarations tinged with uncertainty hidden behind a semblance of bravery. “Courage, let’s run away!” The United States, appearing to be the main beneficiaries of the conflict in Ukraine to the detriment of Europe, has ruled out any “official” sending of its troops without denying their “support”. The idea of ​​bringing down Russia or China is more of a chimera born from a feeling of frustration and fantasy among those who have lost their free will. 

The American-Anglo-Franco-Zionists are like this criminal brandishing a knife in front of someone and asking them to only react if they are hit! We don't play this roulette with the Russians! Knife, divisions or nuclear weapons, here is an overview of the possible responses mentioned by Putin: “… We remember the fate of those who once sent their contingents to the territory of our country. Today the consequences... will be much more tragic... you won't even have time to blink when Article 5 is executed", or "they have been accustomed for centuries to filling their bellies with human flesh and their pockets with money... they must understand that the vampire ball is coming to an end»1 or again, to the question of an American journalist on the possibility of a first nuclear strike on Russia, the response of the Russian president was unequivocal: “they won't have time to regret it». 

We therefore believe that the use of nuclear power in the American narrative remains a form of intimidation, a bluff. Their system, built on predation and the money of a few dozen multi-billionaires, will not allow them to venture into such an enterprise.

The trap of arrogance: “He who thinks he catches is caught” 

What is remarkable is that history often has surprises in store for malicious individuals, boasters and liars. The imperialist West finds itself caught in the traps it constantly sets for others. All institutions and organizations (especially financial) established mainly after the Second World War to promote democracy, freedoms and human rights, by imposing their will on others through the abusive use of information technology. advanced information, have proven to be tools of provocation and domination aimed at coercing, or even overthrowing, governments that do not follow their globalist ideology. They finally turned against them in a deplorable way! The Internet has proven to be a particularly effective means of thwarting them to the point of shaking their system of governance, security and “information”! 

These “social” media have surpassed their traditional media of propaganda and subversion! “He is taken who thought he was taking !” In seeking to manipulate and deceive, they ended up being caught in the same global subversive net that they spun for others. 

Among these manipulations are those consisting of ignoring the start dates of conflicts as well as their historical context in order to mislead about the objectives. Which explains the blocking of free debates which are only allowed within the framework of a pre-established communicative narrative, but which now seem to be collapsing! Hence the sudden turn for another more diverse one like “stop the Russians from winning". Funny goal!

Europe lowered, under the caudine forks of the USA 

A Europe that fell very low under the clutches of the USA thanks to the “assistance” provided at the end of the Second World War which was transformed into the “right of intervention”. Here they are in a sort of 'bis repetita' which pushes them towards self-destruction with a view to a reconstruction market which begins with the relocation of their industries made uncompetitive due to a ban on the purchase of Russian energy . In this regard, the latest independent investigation, by data analysis, of a certain «Mortymer”, demonstrated that the sabotage of the Nord Stream2 is the work of the Anglo-Americans involving English personalities, confirming the assertions of Seymour Hersh and the Russian services. 

Not satisfied with the consequences for Russia and insensitive to failure, the European oligarchs have pushed their dirty maneuver to the point of wanting to use the interest generated by Russian assets to finance Ukraine, according to them. In fact, it is a manipulation aimed, certainly, at raising money for Ukraine, but above all at redirecting most of it towards Israel, their latest puppet; without imagining the astonishing Russian responses! “He who swallows a whole coconut trusts his anus» says an Ivorian proverb. Which doesn't seem feasible! 

They nevertheless remain quick to show off their pectorals against small countries... “Small” African countries which have succeeded in ousting powers such as France and the United States from their territory by establishing, henceforth, sovereignly, relations with whom they want and when they want! Let's see what Nathalie says about it.3 

This is to emphasize that arrogance corrupts minds to the point of alienation! “For some, arrogance takes the place of greatness; the inhumanity of firmness; and deceitfulness, of mind» (Jacques Sternberg).

In conclusion, it appears that getting rid of their imperialism and colonialism; guarantee respect for the rights of peoples, including those of the Palestinians; withdrawing their threatening military bases around the world and establishing balanced relations with countries, do not figure in their vision. They remain locked in their paradoxes and contradictions, only noticing their failures once their actions are accomplished, without recognizing them; then they start again. They hear nothing of the advice of the Sages.

They are aware of their loss of global influence, but only manage to find "solutions" through behaviors that fuel anti-Westernism, thus accelerating their decline and leading to the countries of the European Union who do not even perceive that “Brexit”, for example, is nothing more than a ploy for the UK to avoid the repercussions of US policy on the EU.

The model of Western “democracy” which marginalizes patriotism and the interests of people, including their own, favoring groups of influence organized around oligarchs is the harbinger of decline.

Thus, they seem to reach the final phase of an irreversible process in their historical evolution, as experienced by all the disappeared empires.

There remains this malignant tumor in the Middle East called Israel (supported in particular by the Rothschilds) with its disastrous and satanic colonial projects. This entity believes it can progress happily against the tide of the historical evolution of the world while ignoring the people who observe their malicious actions, from a bygone era, towards the Palestinians. An anachronism that offends intelligence and reason!

https://en.reseauinternational.net/limperialisme-occidental-en-declin-face-a-limperialisme-bienseant-des-brics-en-formation/

 

READ FROM TOP

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....