[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 11:36am

Originally Published on the Strategic Culture Foundation

Like everyone, I would love to live in a pollution-free world.

I would love to see human civilization strike a balance with nature and at the risk of sounding like a naïve idealist, I sincerely do believe that this is ultimately our destiny as a species.

My personal experience has led me to the conclusion that we have only failed to achieve this paradigm as a species due to the system (and cultural influence) of oligarchism which has managed to stubbornly sink its claws parasitically onto its host for a few too many generations- corrupting and perverting everything that it dominates.

Due to the pervasiveness of oligarchism, mass exploitation, wars and pollution have lain waste to ecosystems and countless human lives alike, and as the neo-liberal order continues to careen towards the inevitable breakdown of a 2 quadrillion dollar derivatives bubble which our un-repentant decades of decadence has caused, very serious choices will need to be made.

False Remedies to the Oncoming Meltdown

Many false solutions will be presented as society wakes up to the burning building it is trapped in, and unless our minds have become aware of those false solutions, (not to mention those arsonists managing this fire from the top), then many well-intentioned souls from all walks of life may sign onto their own death warrants and accidentally usher in a solution far worse than the disease they sought to remedy.

Before you, dear reader, accuse me of being overly dramatic in my claims, let me bring your attention to a June 3rd event sponsored by the World Economic Forum (WEF) entitled The Great Reset featuring impassioned calls by leaders of the IMF, World Bank, UK, USA, corporate and banking sector to take advantage of COVID-19 to shut down and “reset” the world economy under a new operating system entitled the Green New Deal.

WEF founder and Executive Chairman Klaus Schwab said “the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions… Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”

Schwab’s message was amplified by Prince Charles who gushed over the this golden opportunity to radically modify human behaviour in ways that decades of environmentalism have failed to accomplish when he said“We have a golden opportunity to seize something good from this [COVID-19] crisis. Its unprecedented shockwaves may well make people more receptive to big visions of change,”

While the World Economic Forum is usually known as a forum of global corporate elites, this organization branched out in recent years to become a leader in global pandemic coordination as a co-sponsor of the creepy October 2019 Event 201 and has embraced leaders of typically “anti-capitalist” resistance groups like Greenpeace who now speak regularly at their events.

Jennifer Morgan (current head of Greenpeace) stated at the event “We set up a new world order after World War II… We’re now in a different world than we were then. We need to ask, what can we be doing differently? The World Economic Forum has a big responsibility in that as well—to be pushing the reset button and looking at how to create well-being for people and for the Earth.”

So is this definition of international wellbeing truly what it appears? Or does something more nefarious lurk under the surface? How can we know?

Those who are ignorant to their history will easily believe the cover story they are being fed by the players managing the World Economic Forum. The cover story is as follows: A new system was shaped during a two week conference in Bretton Woods New Hampshire 1944 under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt and this was designed to export the New Deal program which reconstructed America after the Great Depression to the rest of the world. Since our current crisis demands a new system in a similar manner as the world needed a reset in 1932 and again in 1945, so too must we do so again.

On the surface this is all true. But here’s the rub…

FDR’s New Deal was premised around: 1) Stopping a bankers’ dictatorship in 1933 when he singlehandedly torpedoed the Bank of England/League of Nations’ London Conference, 2) imposing mass regulation on Wall Street speculators under Glass-Steagall laws and the broad bank acts that broke up megabanks, created the SEC, protected legitimate savings and put hundreds of elite bankers on trial under the Pecora Commission, 3) launched vast infrastructure projects under the Tennessee Valley Authority, Rural Electrification projects, Grand Coulee Dam, Hoover Dams etc which increased the national productive powers of labor turning America into a FULL SPECTRUM agro-industrial economy capable of constant growth, and 4) fought valiantly to guarantee those same capabilities to all nations of the world in total opposition to the British Empire.

Today’s Green New Dealers use the form and name of FDR’s historic precedents but are totally committed to the opposing goals.

Under the global response mechanisms being proposed by the oligarchs running the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset strategy, green energy grids designed to lower the world temperature by two degrees within 30 years by de-carbonizing society will have the effect of reducing the productive powers of labor of all nations rather than increasing those powers as the original New Deal had done.

Meanwhile Cap and Trade/Carbon pricing mechanisms designed by the Bank of England and the Carney/Bloomberg Task Force on Climate Related Financial Disclosures promise to create financial incentives to reduce the world population potential by deconstructing the industrial economic order needed to sustain the nearly 8 billion souls on the surface of earth currently. In a recent speech to the City of London the former head of the Bank of England who now leads Boris Johnson’s Climate Finance team said:

“Achieving net zero emissions will require a whole economy transition – every company, every bank, every insurer and investor will have to adjust their business models. This could turn an existential risk into the greatest commercial opportunity of our time.”

Carney, who also happens to be the architect of the Central Bankers Climate Compact has previously threatened destruction on all businesses that refuse to conform to the new green standards which he and his controllers wish be imposed upon the world saying: “the firms that anticipate these developments will be rewarded handsomely. Those that don’t will cease to exist”.

While the new reset green system promises to feature more regulations onto finance, will those regulations be controlled by sovereign nation states in the interests of the general welfare of their people or by private central banks in the interests of an oligarchical elite obsessed with control, balance, and keeping nations gullible, confused, divided, depopulated and impoverished?

I think you can figure this out for yourself.

The only form of a legitimate Great Reset that will protect people, nations and reduce the influence of the financial oligarchy WHILE actually protecting the environment in the long-run is tied to the modern International New Deal known as the Belt and Road Initiative. By creating a new system of finance tied to long-term development, agro-industrial growth of full spectrum economies across the world, China and its allies have taken up the torch which was dropped by Franklin Roosevelt’s early death on April 12, 1945. Any arrangement for a new economic reset would have to adhere to the proven principles of anti-fascist political economy that have been proven to work in the past and continue to work in the present.

A powerful start to this reset would involve President Trump agreeing to an emergency summit of Russia-China and the USA followed by a five-nation summit featuring the UK and France under the guidelines set forth by President Putin in January 2020 and reiterated again weeks ago.

BIO: Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , a BRI Expert on Tactical talk, and has authored 3 volumes of ‘Untold History of Canada’ book series. In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .

[Category: Latest, News]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 11:22am

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at Strategic Culture

The gradual process of Turkey’s becoming an Islamic sharia-law country , again, is no longer so gradual . It has taken a sudden and sharp rightward turn, into Islamic-nationhood. Turkey’s Hagia Sophia, which had been “the world’s largest cathedral for nearly a thousand years, until Seville Cathedral was completed in 1520,” has now been officially declared by the Turkish Government to be, instead, a mosque.

On July 10th, the BBC bannered “Hagia Sophia: Turkey turns iconic Istanbul museum into mosque” and reported that the biggest , oldest, and the most important, cathedral in all of Orthodox Christendom — and the world’s most important Byzantine building, which was constructed as the Saint Sophia Cathedral by the Byzantine Roman Emperor Justinian I in Constantinople (now Istanbul) in the year 537, and which stands on the site that had been consecrated in the year 325 by the Roman Emperor Constantine (and which cathedral was relabelled the Hagia Sophia “museum” in 1935 by Turkey’s Constitutionally secularist Government) — has now become, officially, at last, designated, by the restored Islamic Government of Turkey, a Muslim house of worship, a mosque, a Muslim house of worship.

This signals the end of Turkey’s being ruled by a secular Government, which it had been, ever since 1923. It is the end of Turkey’s secular Government and the restoration of the Islamic Mehmed the Conqueror’s 1453 order that it be a mosque . That ended the Byzantine Roman Catholic Empire, and started Islamic-ruled Turkey. It ended Constantinople and started Istanbul . Mehmet, however, allowed Christianity to continue, in the Islamic Ottoman Empire, but only as an accepted part of the Greek East (“Orthodox”), not as part of the Roman West (imperialistic) , Christianity (which he had just then conquered with the fall of Constantinople on that same date, 29 May 1453). And now, even the Orthodox Christians are being marginalized in Turkey, because the Hagia Sophia had been “for almost 1,000 years the most important Orthodox cathedral.”

This is an act with huge international implications. It is an important event in human history.

Turkey’s dictator, Recip Tayyip Erdogan, whose entire actual education was only in Islamic schools though he lies about it and claims to have received a degree from a non-Islamic university , is in the process of transforming Turkey back again into a specifically Islamic type of dictatorship, a Sharia-law-ruled state. The secularist Turkish Republic that was instituted in 1923 by the Enlightenment-inspired Kemal Attaturk has now decisively ended. The widespread speculations that Erdogan has been aiming to restore Turkey to being the imperial nation and ruler of a restored Islamic Ottoman Empire are now decisively confirmed by this brazen act of insult to Orthodox Christians, and even to Roman Christians, because — as Wikipedia notes — “Justinian has sometimes been known as the ‘Last Roman’ in mid-20th century historiography.” The Orthodox Church in America titles him as “Saint Justinian The Emperor” . However, Wikipedia also notes that Constantine XI Palaiologos, who was killed by Mehmet’s forces on that date, 29 May 1453, was actually the last Roman Emperor. That ended the Roman Empire.

In other words: the Turkish Government’s official change of Saint Sophia Cathedral, which Justinian had created in 537, into now and henceforth a mosque, is a taking ownership of, and a Turkish-Muslim declaration of supremacy over, a different religion’s main house of worship. It’s a historical dagger into the heart of Orthodox Christianity, as well as being an insult to Roman Christianity.

This is not merely an isolated act, either; it is, instead, something to which Erdogan has long been building. Erdogan’s grab of land from secularist-ruled (committedly anti-sectarian) Syria , and his recent sending of troops to help conquer the formerly secularist Libya, which land had been turned into a hellish civil war by a U.S.-and-allied invasion in 2011 and which chaos there continues to this day, all are consistent with an understanding of Erdogan in which his foremost objective is a restoration of the Ottoman Empire. And the U.S. Government has supported this objective of his (but only as Turkey being a branch of the U.S. empire), and tried to get the EU to accept it.

The question now — since the United States Government has been pushing against European resistance to accepting a military alliance with an Islamic dictatorship — is whether continuation of the NATO alliance will be ended because of the path that Erdogan and the United States Government have jointly been taking to re-impose a decidedly Sunni Islamic dictatorship upon Turkey (by means of which, Turkey will serve as a wedge against both Shiite controlled Iran, and an increasingly Orthodox-dominated Russia). However, there has been a split between Erdogan and the U.S. regime, because he does not intend his restored Ottoman empire to be a part of the U.S. or any other empire. Erdogan’s independent streak is what now threatens to break-up the Western Alliance — the U.S. empire (which is actually the Rhodesist UK-U.S. empire ).

The United States Government has been preferring Erdogan’s former political partner but now enemy, Erdogan’s fellow Sunni Islamist Fethullah Gulen, who cooperates with the U.S. and is a CIA protégé (including rabidly against Shiite Iran and against Iran’s main ally Russia). Gulen is passionately endorsed by America’s aristocracy . The U.S. regime has been preferring Gulen to impose this transformation of Turkey into an Islamic U.S. satellite , because Gulen models his operation (and he has even described it in remarkable detail ) upon U.S. and UK ‘intelligence’ practices (CIA & MI6), whereas Erdogan has insisted upon an independent Turkey with its own nationalistic ‘intelligence’ organization — a nationalistically transformed version of Turkey’s existing MIT or National Intelligence Organization — an ‘intelligence’ organization that’s cleansed of what the CIA praises as “Gulen is interested in slow and deep social change, including secular higher education; Erdogan as a party leader is first and foremost interested in preserving his party’s power, operating in a populist manner, trying to raise the general welfare.” (The CIA actually knows that this has nothing whatsoever to do with “trying to raise the general welfare” — the U.S. regime’s goal is to extend everywhere the U.S. empire, and Erdogan’s Turkish regime has that same goal for the Turkish empire, which doesn’t yet even exist, though it once did as the Ottoman Empire, and he wants to restore it.) Erdogan insists upon Turkey’s not being merely a vassal-state or colony within a foreign-led empire, but instead the leading nation of its own empire, starting perhaps with gobbling up Syria and Libya , but extending ultimately more globally. There is a soundly documented article titled “Why Are Gulenists Hostile Toward Iran?” and it provides much of the reason why the CIA supports Gulen (they do largely because Erdogan isn’t so obsessive against Iran — which country America’s aristocracy crave to conquer again, as they had done in 1953, and Erdogan doesn’t support that as passionately as they require).

The question now for Europe is whether it wants to be again a participant in various aristocracies’, and clergies’, imperialistic designs, or instead to declare itself finally non-aligned and to lead thereby a new global non-aligned movement, not militaristically, but instead by providing, to the entire world, an anti-imperialistic and truly democratic model, a re-start and replacement of today’s United Nations, and one that will reflect what had been Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s anti-imperialist intention , and not Harry S. Truman’s American-imperialist intention — a start from scratch that has FDR’s statements to guide it, and not Truman’s actions to guide it (such as has been the case). Perhaps even the U.S., NYC-based, U.N. would ultimately sign onto that new international global federation; but the only basis upon which nations in the old U.N. should be accepted into its successor would be if the old U.N. were gradually to dissolve itself as its individual nations would, each on its own, sign onto the new one. Ultimately, this option must be made available to all Governments, to choose to either continue in Truman’s U.N., or else join instead a new, and authentically FDR-based, authentically anti-imperialistic, replacement of it.

That is what this dictatorial Islamization of Turkey is really all about, and only Europe can make the decision — no other land can. However, such a decision will only fail if any such organization as a new U.N. is to be at all involved in the particular national issues that now are so clearly coming to the fore in the transformation of Turkey into a Sunni Islamist dictatorship.

The “international community” should have no say in Turkey’s intranational (or “domestic”) affairs — regardless of whether Turkey is in or out of Europe. Sectarian and nationalistic concerns cannot rule in the formation of any authentically democratic new international order — an authentically non-imperialistic international order. All such concerns, domestic concerns, must be strictly the domain of the authority and power of each one of the individual constituent units, each individual national Government itself controlling its own internal affairs. FDR was adamant about that. He was insistent that the U.N. not get involved in individual nations’ internal affairs. The profoundly anti-FDR, “Responsibility to Protect” idea (which now has even acquired the status of being represented by an acronym “R2P” catch-phrase), has increasingly arisen recently to become a guiding principle of international relations, and must be soundly and uncompromisingly rejected in the formulation and formation of any replacement-organization — any authentically democratic international federation of nations. Otherwise, everything would be futile, and there will be a WW III. We are heading in exactly the opposite direction from that which FDR had intended — which was to prevent any Third World War.

This decision will be made by the individual nations of Europe. Only they collectively hold this power. They will be able to exercise it only if they will terminate their alliances outside of Europe, and proceed forward no longer bound by external alliances, but instead become a free and independent European federation of European states. Only they, collectively, will be able to make this decision, as Europeans, for the entire world, regarding what the world’s future will be. And only they will hold the ultimate responsibility — and it’s NOT the “responsibility to protect” . It is instead the responsibility to protect the future of the entire world. It’s the responsibility to protect a future for the world. And if Europe fails it, then the world will inevitably move forward to WW III, as it is doing. A new international order is needed, and only Europe can lead it, if   Europe will.

In order for Europe to do that, Europe must first define itself. Is Turkey part of Europe? Is Russia? What is Europe? If Europeans won’t be able to agree on that, then the world will continue to move forward towards WW III, because the world will then have no center, it will continue to have only contending empires — exactly what FDR had aimed to prevent.

Europe is the key. But will Europe’s leaders place the key in the lock, and open, finally, the door to a non-imperialistic world? The present, U.S.-empire-aligned, Europe, won’t do that. Turkey’s action on the Hagia Sophia, which is an insult to all Christians, and especially to Orthodox ones, might finally force the issue — and its solution.

Other than that, however, the official designation of the Hagia Sophia as being a mosque is entirely a domestic, Turkish, matter.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of   CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

[Category: Latest, Russia, Turkey, NATO, Erdogan, Orthodox, Rome, Christianity, Vatican, Catholic, Gulen]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 9:39am

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the UK decision to crackdown on Chinese telecom giant Huawei based on “national security risks”, and remove Huawei’s hardware footprint from the UK’s telecom infrastructure by 2027.

Support Free Speech:

Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.

The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.

Via Global Times…

When the UK made the unwise decision to join the US’ politically driven crackdown on Chinese telecom giant Huawei based on fabricated “national security risks,” it seemed to be ready to take the countermeasures from China even at the cost of the interests of the UK’s businesses.

As China is evaluating the development and is expected to take countermeasures to protect the legitimate rights and interests of Chinese enterprises, here is a list of the available options for China to fight back.

Chief among the options, China could call for businesses to revise their investments in the UK. With the discriminatory act, the UK has made it questionable whether the country can provide an open, fair and non-discriminatory business environment for companies from other countries. The UK is China’s largest investment destination in Europe. If some Chinese companies, especially state-owned enterprises, start to pull back investments and sell assets in the UK, this could cause more Chinese companies and even other Asian countries’ businesses to reconsider their plans to invest in the UK.

For UK companies in China, especially those largely benefiting from bilateral cooperation, the UK has complicated their situation by taking the first step of politicizing commercial and technological issues. The UK’s interference in the Hong Kong issue had already made companies like HSBC suffer. HSBC’s support of the national security law and further investment plans in China have clearly shown its objections to the UK’s practice of curbing China. Companies like HSBC may start lobbying the UK government as their interests are further impacted.

China-UK trade remains in a stable condition despite the impact of COVID-19. But since the UK has started violating free-market principles, China may take corresponding measures. China could even consider cancelling the UK’ s most-favored-nation treatment. Overall, bilateral trade may see a decline, but China could tackle the impacts by expanding domestic demands.

In terms of the financial sector, China is a vast market for the UK’s financial services. If China starts to transfer parts of its financial cooperation with UK companies to their European competitors, their profits will see severe impacts.

China can also expand the influence of the yuan in Europe and we can join forces with the euro. Following Brexit, it is very difficult for the UK to maintain the dominance of the pound in Europe. Because the EU is also reluctant to see the strengthening of the pound, it means that the yuan and the euro can gradually expand in the European market and finally suppress the pound. And this is feasible.

The UK should not forget that China’s economy has gained significant strength and the UK’s available options are fewer than China’s in a showdown over not just technology but also the Hong Kong issue. Of course, although China may fight back, it will not blindly escalate the situation. China’s possible countermeasures are expected to be accurate, reciprocal and justified.

It should be noted that the UK government has given a buffer period in its Huawei ban, indicating that banning Huawei is a difficult action for it to take. There is reason to believe that giving the UK some time, as more UK companies taste the pain and start to be dissatisfied, they will let the government understand that the Huawei ban is a very unwise decision and the UK should change its attitude, before it is too late.

The author is a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ Institute of European Studies. bizopinion@globaltimes.com.cn

[Category: Latest, Video, China, UK, 5G, Huawei]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 7:23am

Over the last ten days, I have been watching and reading the news from the US on the coronavirus spike of late, trying to find any sensible pattern or reasoning behind it. Since I live in Moscow, where we are down to a daily reported new infection rate in the 500’s to 600’s, life has largely returned to normal, but the news from the United States appears to scream of a “second wave” that will be far worse than the first one. It is logical to assume that if such a second wave took place in one land, it would do so elsewhere, and Russia is still Number Four in leading numbers of cases in the world. But the news is so inconsistent that it is honestly impossible to predict what will happen. Not only that, it is impossible to get a good idea of what created the spike in the US. To put it succinctly, the one thing that we know about this pandemic is that we do NOT know anything about it. With all the scientific resources thrown at it, this is truly astounding and, honestly, it is humbling.

Predictions people got wrong since this started are numerous.

Let’s go through a perfunctory list of all the claims we were told were facts that turned out to be incorrect about COVID-19 and its parent virus SARS-CoV-2.

  1. The virus is not highly contagious.
  2. The virus is confined to China and a very few Americans who were exposed to it.
  3. It will not spread through the US.
  4. Masks do not help. Do not wear them (Dr Fauci).
  5. Masks are required. We must wear them as much as possible (Dr. Fauci).
  6. Going to Church and singing in Church is deadly. Don’t do it. In fact, don’t receive Holy Communion. (Dr. Fauci)
  7. Race rioting is necessary and sanctioned by 1,000 medical professionals, and it is worth the risk if people social distance.
  8. We will have as many as two million deaths in the US (Trump)
  9. We beat the virus, we will stay below 60,000 (Trump)
  10. The spike in the virus is due to border crossings
  11. The spike in the virus is due to the riots
  12. Masks do not help
  13. Coughing expels no virus – people sick with COVID-19 (See video below)
  14. Businesses and restaurants can open but Churches must be at 25% (amalgamation in the US)
  15. Holy Communion is dangerous (Greek Community of Toronto, covered here)
  16. Kids are generally not susceptible to COVID-19 so schools must open.
  17. Some kids died, so COVID-19 is super dangerous and schools must be closed.
  18. The virus is from the Andromeda galaxy, not from China.
  19. The virus is Bill Gates’ personal servant to enslave us all with birth-cancelling vaccinations and DNA overwriting with “custom” genes. Therefore we will all either become supermen and superwomen, or we will enter upon the Zombie Apocalypse.

Okay, so the last two I just made up or derived from super crazy conspiracy theory guesses.

But the consistency of almost diametric contradiction does tell us something. I believe that it tells us that we do not know anything about the virus. What is more is that it says that the news media is using this story to pump its own business (as am I, to tell the truth), and as such the COVID story creates a great deal of buzz. It is a great success story for the media.

I also believe it shows Dr Anthony Fauci’s utter incompetence (at best) and political and policy manipulation (at worst, especially if this story is true). He has shown himself to be a good politician, because he lies. Period.

However, it is a terrible distraction for all people everywhere. From what I observe, it appears that the biggest effect the virus has had on Americans is to tip them past a psychological “breaking point” and now we have these awful riots and manifestations of truly brutal, godless and vile behavior from leftists.

That is awful to watch but it is also useful. Now the nature of such people is revealed. Even the Democrat Presidential candidate sounds like he might be accepting membership to Black Lives Matter at any point. It also reveals the nature of the great many Americans who may have widely varying political and social views, but who have retained their sanity enough to know that this violence is deadlier than its “causes”, and that law and order must be preserved and strengthened in the country.

Here in Russia by contrast, there is no virus rioting. We hope for the best, but do not trust our news media much. Nevertheless, with the reopening of businesses life seems to be returning to normal and the number of new cases is reportedly dropping gradually. Church is fully open as normal, after a period of complicity with the secular authorities.

Perhaps one difference here is that the Coronavirus cannot be tied to Putin either for a sign of his failure or success. Nor can this be done with the Mayor of Moscow, the city hardest hit by the virus. The measures were painful but they appear to be sensible, and we do not see Russians going out and burning things down in anger. We were all not happy with the quarantine. We prayed and did what we could and some fared better than others, but overall, things seem to be reasonably peaceful.

In light of all the contradictions, I have made my own set of predictions to people privately about what is to come, but predictions are not very useful in a situation like this, so I may be wrong. The only thing to really come to understand is that we do not understand, and the amazing truth is that an invisible fragment of RNA is now being treated like it is the Ultimate Power on Earth. It has certainly humbled ALL the experts, both scientific and political. It has become the policy setting lynchpin for many places and people all around the world. I think that power is wrongly attributed, and I glad to see great numbers of people beginning to realize this error, in the US, certainly here in Russia, and everywhere else.


[Category: Latest, News, Russia, Moscow, Putin, Politics, Trump, propaganda, violence, Black Lives Matter, riots, lies, truth, Laura Ingraham, church, Coronavirus, Covid-19, Fauci, claims]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 7:23am

Every life should be an education of understanding. Most journeys discover love, hate euphoria and disappointment. All the great authors worte about this as I did in my novel and illustrated book ‘”Mutiny”. Discover the modern truth in my updated ‘Anthony and Cleopatra’

[Category: Latest, News]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 3:13am

Sadomasochism is the giving and receiving of pleasure from acts involving the receiving and giving of pain or humiliation. The two words, “sadism” and “masochism,” were initially derived in the 19th Century from the names of two authors. The term “sadism” has its origin in the name of the Marquis de Sade, the French writer who practiced giving pain and wrote novels about it. “Masochism” is named after Leopold von Sacher-Masoch, the Austrian writer who wrote novels expressing his fantasies in receiving pain.

The “sadism” and “masochism” were introduced to the medical terminology as illnesses in 1890, by the German psychiatrist Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his book “New research in the area of Psychopathology of Sex.” In the 20th Century, many psychologists, psychiatrists, and philosophers wrote about sadism and masochism. Among them were Sigmund Freud, Havelock Ellis, Gilles Deleuze, Jean-Paul Sartre, and René Girard. According to these scientists, there are many reasons why sadists and masochists find their practice enjoyable, and they all depend on individuals. This might not be true enough.

Jean-Paul Sartre argued that masochism is an attempt to reduce oneself to nothing, while sadism is the effort to conquer the subjectivity of the victim. Sigmund Freud described sadism and masochism as abnormal psychological development from early childhood. He noted that both were often found in the same individuals, and combined the two into a single dichotomous entity known as “sadomasochism.” Scientists gave different interpretations of sadism and masochism. Still, they agreed that sadists and masochists joined together encounter pleasure in giving and receiving pain as a form of sexual satisfaction. However, they failed to define the origin of sadomasochism and then, of course, they were not able to find the prevention, neither the cure for it.

The recent researchers have found an easy way out from the problem by suggesting that sadomasochism is merely a sexual interest, and not a pathological symptom or a sexual problem and that people with sadomasochistic sexual interest are in general neither damaged nor dangerous. The current version of the American Psychiatric Association’s manual DSM-5 excludes consensual sadomasochism from the diagnosis of illnesses when sexual interests cause no harm or distress. On June 18, 2018, the World Health Organization removed sadomasochism from psychiatric diagnoses in the International Classification of Diseases – ICD 11.

The pathology of enjoyment in pain has become a normal state. It has happened nowhere in nature but in human society. So why do we accept abnormal behaviour as normal? Because we live in an abnormal society.


My research on sadomasochism is based on the analysis of available data. The result is presented here and defines the origin of sadomasochism, as well as its prevention and cure. It was not a difficult task for me because the same medicine cures each and every social and psychological problem of society. I’ve worked on solving it for a long time.

The origin of sadism and masochism are embedded in social relations. They are the results of tension coming from living in an authoritarian society that prevents people from a natural way of living. When children like to play out but cannot because they are forced to spend a long time in schools, this is the starting point of sadomasochism. When adults want to enjoy their lives but cannot because they have to obey to the rules authorities have created, this is the starting point of sadomasochism as well.

A normal, natural reaction to the oppression of authorities is resistance. Those who resist the authorities and manage to release themselves from authoritarian tyranny would most likely have relaxed, productive lives free of tension. They would neither try to oppress anybody nor let themselves be oppressed. This is the best possible way of living and the best choice for society.

However, authorities may have been too strong, feared, or respected so that people were never able to escape from their oppression completely. Therefore, we all possess some tension coming from the abuse of authorities and therefore carry some level of sadomasochism. People who value strength try to suppress the anxiety by intensifying control of themselves, but it worsens the problem because self-discipline increases the tension. This explains why well raised, strongly disciplined, better-educated, and more successful people, are more prone to become sadists and masochists.

Under the influences of authorities, sadists oppress masochists who enjoy being obedient to them. Sadists find enjoyment in domination over masochists and masochists find pleasure in submission to sadists. They build a strong mutual dependency, which might look like being in love. However, every relationship based on the control of authority and the servility of subordinate people always represents some level of a sadomasochistic relationship. It should be labelled as a perversion of love.

People cannot endure the tension of living in an authoritarian society endlessly so that their bodies find an escape from the anxiety in the perversion of emotions and senses. The perversion of emotions and feelings is the origin that actually produces sadism and masochism. The strong tension of sadists perverts their emotions strongly, and then they enjoy giving pain to other people and become strong sadists. Lower level sadists would be satisfied by watching fights in brutal movies, for example. Ordinary people do not enjoy any of it.

Masochists enjoy being obedient to sadists. Scientists offer a spectrum of explanations about the masochist’s need to submit to the power of controlling authorities. According to them, authorities give masochists safety and protection from the stresses, from helplessness, from fear of life responsibilities, or from guilt. According to me, the permanent tension under anxiety, discomfort, and fear perverse masochists’ emotions, so that they find enjoyment in obedience to sadists. But it explains the origin of the emotional perversion only. It does not explain the pleasure of pain.

Masochist must enjoy the pain they receive from sadists a lot; otherwise, they would not accept it. Masochists enjoy the pain much more intensively than sadists who deliver the pain can. Scientists have problems to understand what causes the enjoyment of pain. They understand the chemical process in the body, which creates pleasure in pain, but they do not know why it happens.

My analysis has given a pretty convincing conclusion about the origin of pain enjoyment. Permanent tension in masochists beside emotions perverts their sensations as well. High-level anxiety perverts the nerves of masochists. The nerves start producing pleasure from the sense of pain. At this moment, this is the best explanation available for masochistic attraction to pain.

All people possess some degree of masochism. A low level of masochism would not make people enjoy pain, but it may bring emotional satisfaction in obedience to authority. They would follow the authorities uncritically and enjoy it. For example, it makes people fans of politicians or celebrities. Almost no one is immune to it. Idolatry always puts people on the wrong path, which is one more origin of the masochistic tension, and it increases the possibility of pain enjoyment.

A large number of people do not know they may enjoy pain in sexual contact because they have never tried it. Those who encounter pain in the sexual relationship and get released from the tension, enjoy it. Then the pain becomes their need. The more tension they suppress, the more pain they enjoy, the bigger masochist they are. Big masochists may enjoy extreme pain similarly to orgasm. Nothing can bring more intense enjoyment than this. This is why masochists love pain.

People who escape authoritative pressure, who live normally and do not build tension in themselves, are generally relaxed and cannot enjoy giving or receiving pain. Sadism and masochism come as the result of a very unhealthy way of living. Sadists cannot love, and masochists cannot be interested in people who offer love. If a sadist shows weakness towards a masochist, he or she will lose interest in the sadist instantly. In this case, a masochist can even despise the sadist. In the movie “Last Tango in Paris,” the masochist killed the sadist when he showed weakness. The screenplay writer and director understood sadomasochism correctly and presented it realistically. However, sadomasochism could look much worse than the movie presented. Neither sadism nor masochism let people live normally. They are diseases.


Now when the origin of sadomasochism is understood, what would be the prevention for it? The answer lies in everything opposite from the authoritarian system in which we live. We need freedom. Freedom will let people to sense their natural needs and to live following their nature. We have to stop everyone from preventing the natural way of living, and especially from hurting anybody. It will enable the best life possible.

The best result will be achieved through the implementation of equal human rights. These rights will establish equal opportunities and power to all people. When people become equal, nobody would be able to expose power over others. This will prevent the existence of authorities and their oppression on the people. This will eliminate the unpleasant life and fear which authorities produce. That will make people get rid of both sadism and masochism.

The essential step in building equal human rights will be creating a system of equal rights evaluation among people. It will make a radical transformation of powers in capitalism, which will completely change the world. I’ve called it democratic anarchy. Each person will have an equal right to evaluate a few people of their choice. A positive assessment will bring small awards to the assessed person, and a negative evaluation will carry small punishments. Such assessments will force every person to respect other people, to do everything they can to beautify the lives of other people and do nothing that can hurt other people. This will create a good society where sadism and masochism may hardly exist.

Equal human rights will give each person the right to work. As long as unemployment exists, such a right does not exist. Unemployment will be eliminated by shortening working hours proportionally to the rate of unemployment. This would increase the demand for workers on the free market so that employers would have to pay them more. Better paid workers will be able to purchase more, which will grow the economy. This will remove the problems of capitalism, but also it would give people employment security. This will release people from the fear of living in a capitalist society and give them more choices to find a pleasant job. It will certainly additionally diminish sadomasochist tensions in people. These two simple measures will also make capitalism a decent social system.

The ultimate stage of equal human rights will create an equal possibility for the employment of all people at every public work post at any time. It will be necessary to open a permanent competition of workers for every public work post. The best productivity offer of workers would get the right to work at any time. It sounds impossible to achieve because such a division of labour never existed. But the realization of it is just a technical problem. I have developed a system that will effectively evaluate the productivity of work offers, harmonize rewards for work, and define the job responsibilities of workers. This is a complex task that is explained in my book Humanism. The implementation will bring two great results, the best economy possible and fully equal human rights. In such a society, sadism and masochism cannot exist.


My definition of equal human rights is based on 37 years of my work. They are far beyond the poor reality we live in today. The equal human rights are the only condition and only solution for building a good society. But scientists do not accept me. They want me to prove my work through scientific references or by social practice. The problem is nobody has ever worked on this kind of rights beside me, and that means scientific references that may support my work do not exist. Insisting on references of previous scientists prevents entirely new ideas from coming and the progress of society. Also, I cannot test equal human rights on my own. That is the reason my work has difficulties in getting support for building the bright future of humankind.

My work will one day completely change this world and make it a beautiful place to live, but the sciences and media ignore it. This cannot be anything else but a conspiracy of the rich who secure their privileges and power over society by preventing new ideas from coming. Social sciences were always created under a strong influence of authorities. Authorities have always blocked truth and social ideas, which may replace their power. They support ideas that cannot improve society. This is the reason why sadomasochism has become normal sexual behaviour today. Conspiracies have existed from ever. The influential people today even prevent a term conspiracy from being used seriously. In today’s society, a conspiracy theory means that people use their imagination to spread false accusations. This information is essential for understanding why immorality and perversion, and then sadomasochism, cannot be eliminated.

In the end, I owe the answer on how to cure sadomasochism. The human psyche is not a dough that can be easily modified. A perversion needs time to occur in a sick society, and time will be required to eliminate perversions through a healthy society once it is established. Equal human rights will do it along with solving all social problems of humankind.

My article Do you love? presents the power of equal human rights in spreading love among people. Nobody will be able to “escape” from loving other people. Equal human rights will bring a wonderful life to all, but I have difficulties in presenting it to people.


[Category: Latest]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 1:47am

Submitted by infoBrics, authored by Lucas Leiroz, research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro…

Libya’s situation is worsening day after day. Since the fall of Muammar al-Gaddafi in 2011, the country has been immersed in a deep political, economic and social crisis, with its National State liquidated in a civil war. There is currently a dual power in Libya: the interim government, together with Parliament in Tobruk, which controls the eastern part and has the support of the Libyan National Army (ENL) led by Marshal Jalifa Haftar, and the Government of National Accord, headed by Fayez al Sarraj, based in Tripoli, in the northwest of the country.

As the situation of the civil war in Libya worsens, the interest of other countries in the conflict is increasing. Egypt, a country neighboring Libya, sees the war as a profound threat to its national interests and is about to take steps to ensure its security during the Libyan chaos. Cairo has recently begun military maneuvers on the border with the aim of deploying its troops for a possible intervention in Libya. The exercises are developing and becoming increasingly complex, which has drawn the attention of warring militias in Libya. The Egyptian military training project on the border with Libya is being called “Hams 2020” and is mobilizing several troops in the region.

On June 20, Egypt’s President, Abdul Fatah Khalil Al Sisi, declared that an Egyptian military intervention in Libya would be legitimate under United Nations rules, using the principle of self-defense in international law. Abdul is not alone in his thoughts: Libyan Parliament in Tobruk (east) declared on July 14 that the Egyptian Army has the right to intervene in the Libyan conflict to defend the national security of Libya and Egypt if there is a threat imminent to the security of the two countries.

In contrast, the Government of National Accord did not adhere to possible military cooperation with Egypt and reacted with severe criticism to Cairo’s position. According to an official statement of the National Accord, published by the TV network Al Jazeera, the Egyptian interest in intervening in Libya totally affronts the national sovereignty of the country and can be understood as a true declaration of war. The representatives of the Government of National Accord also stated that they are ready to negotiate peaceful solutions at the United Nations through impartial international arbitration, but that they will not tolerate any military intervention from another country.

The war of words between the Egyptian president and the Government of National Accord took place moments before the arrival of representatives of the Arab League in Libya for a discussion on the issue of Egypt. The National Accord denied participating in the meeting, which turned out to be fruitless. Since then, the situation has worsened and, finally, Haftar, head of the eastern government, formalized a request for Egyptian military intervention in the country. Haftar had previously asked for help from Egypt and both maintain close cooperation in the civil war, while the Government of National Accord is supported by Turkey, which aims to increase its projection in North Africa through Libya.

Several ceasefire agreements between Libyan governments have previously been signed and violated during the civil war. The current peace project elaborated by Egypt, however, was well received by the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, the European Union, Russia and the USA. The central problem of the Egyptian proposal is to demand the exclusive disarmament of the Government of the National Accord, proposing a recognition of the legitimacy of the eastern government. Turkey and Algeria condemn Egypt and show support for the opposing government, perpetuating the country’s civil war scenario.

The central point in the matter is that Cairo, although it has a peace proposal well received by the main world powers and acts strongly for Haftar’s victory, does not have a position on the geopolitical scenario important enough to guarantee its interests in Libya, unlike Turkey. The military powers that supported Cairo’s peace proposal do not have an involvement in the conflict as great as the Turkish role, so the project tends to fail. However, we can contemplate a particularly interesting role for Russia in the war, which must be explored in order to achieve peace. Moscow has a great capacity for dialogue with both governments and is better able to mediate negotiations in search of an agreement than Turkey or Egypt – which are directly involved in the war.

It does not matter which side will win the war, the most important thing for Libya is to promptly find a solution to this problem that has plagued the country for almost ten years. Only in a peaceful scenario will Libya be able to restructure itself as a National State – or two States, if the two governments fragment the country – and finally return to exploiting its enormous economic potential from oil reserves.

[Category: Latest, News, Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Sisi]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 1:20am

Submitted by infoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, independent geopolitical analyst…

Discussions on strategic stability and regional crises between representatives of Russia and representatives of the French ministries of Europe, Foreign Affairs and the Armed Forces took place yesterday in Paris. These discussions followed the June 26 meeting between Russian President Vladimir Putin and French President Emmanuel Macron where they discussed bilateral topics as well as the crises in Libya, Syria, Iran and Ukraine. The meeting between the two came about nearly a year after the French President welcomed his Russian counterpart to Fort Brégançon on August 19, 2019 shortly before the G7 summit in Biarritz.

This meeting is part of the increasing cooperation between Russia and France, with the latter acting as a driving force for normalizing relations between Moscow and the European Union. In a press release, the French Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs indicated that these discussions were organized as part of the upcoming Franco-Russian Cooperation Council on Security Issues meeting which is to bring together the French and Russian Foreign and Defense Ministers.

“Taking place within a framework defined by two special presidential envoys, Ambassador Yuri Ushakov and Ambassador Pierre Vimont, this meeting focused on the implementation of the trust and security agenda launched at the behest of President Macron and his Russian counterpart last summer,” the press release said.

According to the French statement, “these consultations also addressed the political and military aspects of various regional and international crises such as the situations in Iran, Libya, Syria and on the African continent, and the geopolitical implications of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

It appears that France wants to work with Russia to protect its interests that are contrary to those of the U.S., such as the defeat of the Turkish-backed Government of National Accord in Tripoli and France slowly normalizing relations with Syria after many years of aggression started by former President Nicolas Sarkozy and continued by François Hollande.

This suggests that France under Macron acknowledges a changing world system and does not want to be left behind in the old unipolar world. Sarkozy brought France back into NATO’s fold when Charles de Gaulle split from the alliance 40-years earlier, but it is Macron that is bringing back de Gaulle’s desire for French independent decision making and is why Paris wants normalized relations with Moscow today.

Macron’s opinions against NATO are well established. It is also well established that Washington views NATO as a tool to oppose and contain Russia, so-much-so that America’s top think-tanks like RAND ignore NATO’s deep divisions in the hope that the alliance will unite to oppose Russian influence. This demonstrates how divorced Washington is from the realities on the ground and shows why they have little influence over events in Syria and Libya.

NATO is a Washington-controlled organization and is in opposition to France’s strategic and security interests, which are increasingly becoming aligned with Russia’s. In Libya, France is finding the inundation of tens of thousands of Turkish-backed jihadists unacceptable, while the U.S. continues to give legitimacy to the Muslim Brotherhood Government of National Accord that are recipient to these radical Islamist fighters. Such a large jihadist force is not only a direct security threat to France as they are now on the doorstep of Europe, but also a strategic threat as these forces are also on the doorstep of France’s former colonies – Chad, Tunisia, Algeria and Niger, which Paris still sees as its sphere of influence. As France’s security and strategic interests are being challenged by Turkey, which has rhetorical support from the U.S., Paris is finding more common ground with Moscow who also has a vested interest in oil and construction contracts in Libya, and perhaps another foothold in the Mediterranean to have influence.

Meanwhile, Paris is slowly thawing its frozen relations with Damascus, using Moscow as a catalyst. Although Macron has been critical of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, he has realized that Turkish backing of terrorist organizations in what was France’s former colony is a far larger security and strategic threat to France then the Syrian leader. Thousands of French jihadists flocked to Syria and Iraq at the height of the Islamic State in 2015, mostly entering these two countries via Turkey where they also received arms, training and finance. Their return to France is a major security threat.

In fact, it was because of the U.S.’ evacuation of northern Syria to allow the Turks to control it that triggered Macron’s famous NATO “brain death” comment. Although Russia and Turkey have a cold truce in Syria, it is also the source of a deep division as Turkey unrelentingly continues to back jihadist forces while Russia continues to back the Syrian government. The U.S. remains on the side of Turkey, triggering another point for France to align closer to Russia to strengthen their mutual interests.

With these deep divisions between NATO members, France and Russia will continue strengthening their relations as there are only mutual benefits. Paris is working towards normalizing Moscow’s relations with the European Union, and as the world’s financial centers begin shifting to the East, a contiguous landmass from Lisbon to Vladivistok is needed to propel Europe into the realities of 21st century multipolarity. It is for this reason that bilateral relationship building between Paris and Moscow will continue, and as France is one of the major EU powers, it will reflect on EU policy despite inevitable opposition from EU minnows like Poland and the Baltic States.


[Category: Latest, News, Russia, NATO, France, Macron]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 1:13am

Submitted by infoBrics, authored by William Stroock, author of military fiction, commentator…

Since the police murder of George Floyd and the subsequent riots, the Woke left has waged a war against American history and iconography. The mob has toppled statues of Confederates, Founding Fathers, Abolitionists, and Christopher Columbus. In San Francisco they brought down a statue of Francis Scot Key, author of the Star-Spangled Banner. Taking note of this act of vandalism, the Los Angeles Times published an editorial calling for the national anthem to be changed. Said the piece ‘the very idea of a national anthem, a hymn to the glory of country, feels like a crude relic, another monument that may warrant tearing down.’

Simultaneously, the Woke have attacked corporations that use African American and Native American imagery. Some of these images are iconic and have been part of American life for generations. Victims include the Land of Lakes Native American ‘butter maiden’, the African American woman portrayed on the Aunt Jemima breakfast foods logo, and the African American chef on the box of Cream of Wheat. In this way, the Woke systematically remove Native and African American iconography from American life

Now, the Woke have come for sports franchises with Native American nicknames. Their most prominent target is the National Football League’s Washington Redskins. The left has long claimed the nickname is offensive and racist and, last week, Redskins owner and superfan Daniel Snyder announced that the team is ‘retiring’ the Redskins nickname.

2020 being what it is, this lifelong fan of the New York Football Giants feels compelled to come to the defense of the division rival and much loathed Washington Redskins.  The Woke do not care that Gallup polled Native Americans about the Redskins name and 90% of them don’t care, or that many Indian reservation high school football teams are nicknamed the Redskins, or that the Redskins’ Indianhead logo was designed by a Native American and depicts Black Foot chief John ‘Two Guns’ White Calf.

Native American sports team nicknames aren’t meant to be insulting. Nobody looks back on the Indian wars, the Indian Removal Act, Wounded Knee, or The Trail of Tears with pride. The nation has been trying to make amends ever since. The government set aside large tracts of land for semi-autonomous reservations. In 1924, Native Americans were made citizens by act of congress. Today, the nation reveres and honors Native Americans.  Great leaders like Tecumseh, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, and Geronimo are considered American heroes. The United States military names combat systems for native tribes, the Bell Kiowa helicopter and the Apache helicopter gunship, for instance. Paratroopers shout ‘Geronimo’ as they jump out of airplanes.

Americans have been naming sports teams for Indians since the early 20th century. Every American sports league has at least a few Native American nicknames. Chicago’s National Hockey League team is named the Blackhawks. Baseball has the Cleveland Indians, founded in 1901, and the Atlanta Braves whose fans perform the ‘Tomahawk Chop’ in which one makes a chopping motion to the beat of  Native American warpath music. The Super Bowl Champion Kansas Chiefs brandish an Indian Arrowhead helmet logo, they also do the Tomahawk chop, as do the Florida State Seminoles, where the custom originates.  These nicknames are honorifics, a way for Americans to pay tribute to people respected and admired. While there are hundreds of amateur and professional sports teams named for Native American tribes, there are none, for example, named for the Belgians.

The Woke won’t stop with Native American nicknames. Not hardly. This week The Washington Post published an editorial calling for Baseball’s Texas Rangers to change their name. You see, The Post reasoned the Texas Rangers can be associated with racism and Jim Crow. For foreign readers, the Texas Rangers are a legendary law enforcement organization that has fought Indians, Banditos, Yankees, and just about every unsavory sort that ever roamed the great state of Texas. When foreigners think of horse riding, cowboy hat wearing, Winchester Rifle carrying Texas lawmen, they’re thinking of the Texas Rangers.

In 2013, Daniel Snyder proclaimed, ‘We will never change the name of the team.’ He should have stood his ground. The Woke aren’t placated by the Redskins’ name change.  Capitulating to them is like putting chum in shark-infested waters and there is sure to be endless debate about a new team name whatever that may be. Daniel Snyder has yet to make an announcement. Rumor has it he’ll rename the Redskins the ‘Red Tails’ after a black Army Air Corps in World War Two, the famous Tuskegee Airmen. Doing so allows him to honor other Americans and keep ‘Red’ in the team name. But hold on. When having an African American chef on your Cream of Wheat box is racist, renaming a team for African American war heroes may also be problematic. The Woke go looking for ‘systemic racism’ in every corner and under every bed, when they’ll find it amongst themselves.

[Category: Latest, News, Washington, Redskins, woke mob]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/18/20 12:56am

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org:

Is the U.S., preoccupied with a pandemic and a depression that medical crisis created, prepared for a collision with China over Beijing’s claims to the rocks, reefs and resources of the South China Sea?

For that is what Mike Pompeo appeared to threaten this week.

“The world will not allow Beijing to treat the South China Sea as its maritime empire,” thundered the secretary of state.

“America stands with our Southeast Asian allies and partners in protecting their sovereign rights to offshore resources … and (we) reject any push to impose ‘might makes right’ in the South China Sea.”

Thus did Pompeo put Beijing on notice that the U.S. does not recognize its claim to 90% of the South China Sea or to any exclusive Chinese right to its fishing grounds or oil and gas resources.

Rather, in a policy shift, the U.S. now recognizes the rival claims of Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.

To signal the seriousness of Pompeo’s stand, the U.S. sent the USS Ronald Reagan and USS Nimitz carrier battle groups through the South China Sea. And, this week, the guided-missile destroyer USS Ralph Johnson sailed close by the Spratly Islands.

But what do Mike Pompeo’s tough words truly mean?

While we have recognized the claims of the other littoral states of the South China Sea, does Pompeo mean America will use its naval power to defend their claims should China use force against the vessels of those five nations?

Does it mean that if Manila, our lone treaty ally in these disputes, uses force to reclaim what we see as its lawful rights in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy will fight the Chinese navy to validate Manila’s claims?

Has Pompeo drawn a red line, which Beijing has been told not to cross at risk of war with the United States?

If so, does anyone in Washington think the Chinese are going to give up their claims to the entire South China Sea or retreat from reasserting those claims because the U.S. now rejects them?

Consider what happened to the people of Hong Kong when they thought they had the world’s democracies at their back.

For a year, they marched and protested for greater political freedom with some believing they might win independence.

But when Beijing had had enough, it trashed the Basic Law under which Hong Kong had been ceded back to China and began a crackdown.

The democracies protested and imposed economic sanctions. But the bottom line is that Hong Kong’s people not only failed to enlarge the sphere of freedom they had, but also they are losing much of what they had.

The Americans, seeing Hong Kong being absorbed into China, are now canceling the special economic privileges we had accorded the city, as the British offer millions of visas to Hong Kong’s dissidents who fear what Beijing has in store for them.

In June, Pompeo also charged Beijing with human rights atrocities in Xinjiang: “The world received disturbing reports today that the Chinese Communist Party is using forced sterilization, forced abortion, and coercive family planning against Uyghurs and other minorities in Xinjiang, as part of a continuing campaign of repression.”

These reports, said Pompeo, “are sadly consistent with decades of CCP practices that demonstrate an utter disregard for the sanctity of human life and basic human dignity.”

China has rejected U.S. protests of its treatment of Uighurs and Kazakhs and of its handling of Hong Kong as interference in its internal affairs and none of America’s business.

As for the South China Sea, China dismissively replied, the U.S. seems to be “throwing its weight around in every sea of the world.”

These American warnings, and Beijing’s response, call to mind the darker days of the Cold War.

So, again, the question: Is America prepared for a naval clash in the South China Sea if Beijing continues to occupy and fortify islets and reefs she claims as her own? Are we prepared for a Cold War II — with China?

While China lacks the strategic arsenal the USSR had in the latter years of the Cold War, economically, technologically and industrially, China is a far greater power than Soviet Russia ever was. And China’s population is four times as large.

Can we, should we, begin to assemble a system of alliances similar to what we had during the Cold War — with NATO in Europe and Asian security pacts with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand? Should we adopt a policy of containment of Communist China, which, says Pompeo, is an expansionist and “imperialist” power?

Should we start issuing war guarantees to China’s neighbors? Should we start putting down red lines China will not be allowed to cross?

Before we plunged into our half dozen Middle East wars, we didn’t think through where those would end. Have we considered where all our belated bellicosity toward Beijing must invariably lead, and how this all ends?

Do You Appreciate Reading Our Emails and Website? Let us know how we are doing – Send us a Thank You Via Paypal!


[Category: Latest, News, China, South China Sea]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/17/20 11:20pm

The massive wave of protests began on the 7th of July, and it is still happening now. The main reason is that people are not satisfied with the political way of the Serbian government and continuing quarantine around the country.

[Category: Latest, News]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/17/20 8:57am

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the never ending Russian hacking narrative, this time US, UK and Canadian intelligence issued a 16-page report on accusing “Russian hackers” of targeting unspecified entities involved in developing a Covid-19 vaccine.

Meanwhile British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab claimed that Russians meddled in last year’s UK election by “amplifying” leaked documents that revealed a potential post-Brexit trade deal with the US.

Of course no real evidence was provided to support these various hacking claims.

Support Free Speech:

Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.

The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.

Via Off-Guardian…

he Guardian, and all the other predictable voices, are currently reporting that Russian “state sponsored hackers” have been attempting to steal “medical secrets” from British pharmaceutical researchers.

At this stage they offer no substantiation, but it does serve as good teaching exercise in the techniques of modern propagandists.

First the lack of evidence. Observe the Guardian article, note the complete absence of sources or references. There’s not a link in sight. There’s no content there beyond the parroted words of UK government officials, whose honesty and/or competence is never interrogated.

Second, the lies by omission. They don’t mention, for example, the Vault 7 revelations from Wikileaks that the CIA/Pentagon have developed technology to make one of their own cyber-attacks appear to come from anywhere in the world, Russia obviously included. This is clearly vital information.

Third, the multitasking. When you splash a huge red lie on your front pages, it’s always best to make it serve several agendas at once. In fact, an unsupported statement which serves multiple state-backed narratives at the same time is one of the telltale signs of propaganda.

With this one completely unverified claim, the Guardian – or rather the people who tell the Guardian what to say – back up three narratives:

  1. The further demonisation of an “enemy”. Russia is portrayed as pursuing “selfish interests with reckless behaviour”, whilst we (and our allies) are “getting on with the hard work of finding a vaccine and protecting global health.”
  2. Promoting the vaccine. The vaccine is coming. It will likely be mandatory, it will certainly have been insufficiently tested, if tested at all. They need some pro-vaccine advertising, and nothing sells better than “our vaccine is so good, people are trying to steal it”.
  3. Most importantly – Enhancing the idea that Sars-Cov-2 is a unique global threat which puts us all in danger. The unspoken assumption is that Russia needs to steal our research because the virus is so dangerous we all need to be afraid of it…despite it beingharmless to the vast majority of people.

Whether it’s the (totally unsubstantiated) allegation that Russia put bounties on NATO servicemen in Afghanistan, or the (very predictable) “leak” that “Russian interference” was backing Corbyn in the general election, it’s clear that any Globalist deal on the coronavirus is dead and buried, and it’s very much open season on Putin’s Russia again.

Nothing shows just how much the Guardian has become the voice of the Deep State more than its coverage of anything Russia-related. And nothing serves as a better exemplar of how modern propaganda works.

[Category: Latest, Video, Russia, UK, hacking, vaccine, U election meddling]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/17/20 8:29am

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the Twitter meltdown that saw accounts belonging to companies like Apple and Uber, and high-profile blue check mark accounts like sleepy, creepy Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates, all compromised as part of a coordinated bitcoin scam.

According to Twitter, the accounts were compromised by hackers who “successfully targeted” employees who had access to internal systems and tools that provided access to these accounts. In other words, an inside job.

Support Free Speech:

Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.

The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.

Via RT…

Twitter has announced the number of accounts affected by this week’s online attack in which high-profile pages were hijacked by hackers. It said that only “a small subset of these accounts” was taken over.

“Based on what we know right now, we believe approximately 130 accounts were targeted by the attackers in some way as part of the incident,” Twitter’s support team wrote a day after a rash of verified accounts, including those of Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Joe Biden, Jeff Bezos, Barack Obama, and Kanye West, fell victim to a massive security breach.

Based on what we know right now, we believe approximately 130 accounts were targeted by the attackers in some way as part of the incident. For a small subset of these accounts, the attackers were able to gain control of the accounts and then send Tweets from those accounts.

— Twitter Support (@TwitterSupport) July 17, 2020

The service said it has reached out to the owners of the accounts affected, checking if their “non-public data” was compromised. “We have also been taking aggressive steps to secure our systems while our investigations are ongoing,” it stated without elaborating.

As a precaution, Twitter has locked down accounts whose users have changed their passwords during the past 30 days. The step was taken “out of an abundance of caution” to protect account safety, the company said.

Hackers sent out compromised posts in an apparent bid to swindle followers out of their cryptocurrency assets.

They were able to hijack “a small subset of these accounts and then send Tweets from those accounts,” Twitter said on Friday.

On Thursday, hackers claiming to be behind the mega-attack told Motherboard that they “used a rep that literally done all the work for us.” The Twitter insider in question was bribed to gain access to an internal tool instrumental for launching the hack, they explained.

[Category: Latest, Video, Obama, twitter, hack, Elon Musk, Jack Dorsey, bitcoin, blacklist, Bil Gates]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/17/20 5:33am

Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Lucas Leiroz, research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro…

Mexico is currently experiencing a serious social and economic crisis. The global pandemic of the new coronavirus is affecting the country fiercely, counting 317,000 confirmed cases and 37,000 deaths. In the first two quarters of 2020, Mexican GDP shrank 1.7%. It is estimated that at least 9 million Mexicans will go into poverty due to the social chaos generated by COVID-19. It is estimated that 70 million people will face economic difficulties in the country – about 56% of the national population. To escape the financial and social chaos, the Mexican government is betting on proposals of international cooperation and seeing international agreements as the main chance to prevent the crisis from worsening.

The main bet of cooperation of the Mexican government is with the neighboring countries of the north through the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada-Agreement), also called “new NAFTA” or “NAFTA 2.0”, a free trade agreement that became effective July 1. Mexico saw the agreement as an opportunity to strengthen its ties with the U.S., overcoming the relationship of uncertainty that had been created since 2016, when Trump had promised to break free trade agreements with the Latin country. Replacing NAFTA, the USMCA sets a new path for economic integration in North America, but the nature of this new path and its benefits for Mexico remain uncertain.

The terms of the agreement are clearly designed to guarantee American interests in a global context of trade war. The agreement, for example, establishes a rule for the automotive sector and an agreement with which 75% of the production of vehicles must necessarily originate in the countries of the region. Apparently, this measure would be generating continental protectionism to strengthen local economies, but, in truth, the objective is different: to prevent negotiations with China and to favor Washington in the trade war.

There is yet another curious rule established specifically for the automotive industry that directly harms Mexico: the agreement states that 45% of vehicles produced in North America must be manufactured by workers who receive a minimum wage of $ 16 an hour. The salary is fair, but it does not meet Mexico’s labor and economic reality, especially during the crisis generated by the pandemic. In practice, this percentage of workers could only be supplied by the USA and Canada, which would have their markets strengthened. It is a real blow to the Mexican automotive industry.

One of the most controversial points of the agreement is its clause 32.10, which states that if a North American country makes an agreement with a country that does not have a free market regime, this agreement must be reviewed and approved by all members of the USMCA. Apparently, this clause was meticulously designed to affect China, a country that does not adopt a free market system and that disputes with the United States in a trade war. In practice, this means that any agreement with Beijing can be vetoed and, thus, relations between Mexico and China could be near the end.

Cooperation between Beijing and Mexico City are many, mainly in infrastructure projects, as evidenced by the Chinese participation in the “Tren Maya” railway project. The ties are many, but the position of Chinese economic superiority is fully evident, with Mexico being the weakest part of the relationship. In 2019, Mexico imported 12 times more products from China than it exported. In short, China does not establish a relationship of economic dependence with Mexico and the end of strategic partnerships would mean much more for the Latin country, which does not have a strong and developed industrial policy, than for the Asian country, which is in the best phase of its history and is able to look for other markets in any part of the planet.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with a country establishing strict economic rules to limit imports and exports, in order to develop its economy. However, these measures are only rational and necessary when inserted within a national sovereign project, which is not the case with the USMCA. Mexico is not abdicating its relations with China to develop its economy through protectionist policies, but it is adhering to American protectionism and taking sides in a trade war in which it should not participate.

The most strategic and rational for the Mexican government would be to create international cooperation projects that are politically out of alignment and aimed only at the benefit of the country’s economy. Projects should be developed on a case-by-case basis, considering each sector of the economy and each country capable of cooperation. The current policy, however, is different: investing in relations with the North in a policy of automatic economic alignment, abdicating relations with any country that poses a threat to American hegemony.

The US and Canada, rich and aligned countries, will benefit from the USMCA, Mexico will not. For a president who came to power with several promises of social reform, Lopez Obrador is taking inadequate paths and putting Mexican sovereignty and economy at real risk.

[Category: Latest, News, China, Mexico]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/17/20 5:28am

Submitted by InfoBrics, authored by Paul Antonopoulos, independent geopolitical analyst…

Relations between the U.S. and European powers like Germany and France are reaching a historic low. This is especially true after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew a large portion of the American military stationed in Germany to other European countries and after German Chancellor Angela Merkel refused to travel to the G7 summit in the U.S. because of the out of control coronavirus situation in the North American country. Another major reason for the breakdown of relations is Washington’s announcement that companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project will be sanctioned.

Merkel said in an interview for The Guardian that the Germans grew up knowing that the U.S. wanted to be a world power. However, now that the U.S. is abusing its power against some of its strongest allies, Germany, which is currently holding the EU Presidency, could make efforts for the European bloc to be more independent of the U.S.

Although a multipolar world order has been emerging for over a decade, the pandemic has accelerated the redistribution of the current international balance of power. Europe has found itself needing to make an urgent decision – remain in Washington’s orbit or establish greater independent thinking to serve its own interests. The idea of European independent decision making has been gaining clout. A strong advocate is French President Emmanuel Macron who speaks of the “brain death of NATO” and attempted to impose extremely high taxes on American network giants like Google. In fact, many of the major EU countries have pushing for the bloc to be more independent of Washington. This is contrast to most of the former Warsaw Pact members of the EU, like Poland and Lithuania, who are aggressively pro-U.S.

Along with Macron, Ursula von der Leyen often said that the EU Commission, that she is the president of, would make its own decision on its geopolitical direction. In addition, Merkel, who has taken on the leadership role in the EU for the second time, has chosen the motto for her second chairmanship: “Together. Making Europe Strong Again.” Some major European politicians now understand the geopolitical direction that Europe should develop – and if it wants to remain relevant it needs to find its own independent path. We are beginning to see this, especially with Germany strongly resisting pressure from the U.S. to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline construction with Russia.

It is unlikely that Europe will fully break off from Washington’s orbit due to historical and ethnic ties, but European independent decision making is becoming more apparent.  The order by Trump for 10,000 U.S. soldiers to be withdrawn from Germany could convince Berlin and the other EU countries that it is time to reconsider the foundations of NATO that lost its legitimacy after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This is why Europeans could take a big step towards establishing a pan-European defense system or an organization that could replace NATO – a proposition that Macron fully supports.

While the U.S. remains the greatest military and economic power in the world today, it is clear that it is losing its global influence to China and Russia. Therefore, the U.S. will actively defend its status, whether Trump remains in power or his Democrat rival Joe Biden wins the upcoming election. The most important geostrategic interests for the U.S. will remain constant no matter who is in power.

Trump wants to block China’s Belt and Road Initiative from expanding, keep Chinese companies like Huawei away from Europe’s technological infrastructure, curb Chinese expansion in the Pacific region, and challenge Beijing’s influence in Africa, Latin America and Central Asia. For her part, Merkel wants to use her upcoming meeting with the Chinese president to determine future relations with China. In fact, the EU is facing a dilemma: maintain its current relationship with the U.S. or gradually turn to China.

Relations between the major powers have become much more changeable than before. The EU has every opportunity to develop new models of cooperation between different civilizations, especially between Europe and Asia. An advantage Europe has is that it can emphasize thousands of years of trade between Europeans (beginning with Ancient Greeks and Romans) and East Asian kingdoms. However, for this to occur, Germany needs to make the first brave step of pursuing policies that are to the benefit of Europe and not the agendas of Washington. It is for this reason that Merkel is defying Trump’s orders to stop the construction of Nord Stream 2. It is also why Macron is planting the idea of NATO being a redundant organization and that Europe must work towards normalcy with Moscow after European Union-Russian relations strained when Crimea reunited with Russia in 2014.

None-the-less, Germany’s presidency over the EU may be the most important junction of the bloc’s history since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The world is on the cusp of a multipolar order with a more evenly distributed power structure – Germany representing the EU must decide to join this new world order or remain stuck in the old one.

[Category: Latest, News, EU, Germany]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/17/20 2:14am

Submitted by George Callaghan…

In Ireland it is the love that dare not speak its name: imperialism. We Irish are one of the most imperialistic peoples on the globe. Many a philodox will tell you that we were not imperialists.

Ireland has not been an imperialistic country on its own. Usually we have been imperialists in close concert with our kith and kin in Great Britain. Irishmen were soldiers, sailors, missionaries, bureaucrats, engineers and businessmen in the British colonies from the Falklands to Nigeria and Hong Kong. New Ireland in the Pacific Ocean is an island that was named by an Irish British imperialist in honour of Erin.

Under the aegis of Britannia Irishmen brought emancipation, literacy, medicine, modern agriculture, advanced technology, jurisprudence and parliamentarianism to the less enlightened zones of the world.

In ancient times we were far behind China or India. More advanced nations assisted us despite our occasional unwillingness to learn. But in recent centuries we have been among the most lettered and civilised people in the world.

For good or ill we have been imperialists for many centuries. We can be justifiably proud of the innumerable splendiferous accomplishments of men of our stock. It is true that some Irishmen wrought enormous evil as imperialists too.

At the zenith of British imperialism a third of the British Army was Irish. This was higher than our proportion of the UK populace. So many Irishmen have risen to the highest ranks in the British Armed Forces. Viscount Wolseley, Sir John French (Viscount French of Ypres), the Earl of Cavan, Sir Henry Wilson, Lord Gort, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, Sir Richard O’Connor, Lord Alanbrooke, Sir Garnet Wolsey and so on are some of the Irishmen who became part of the top brass. Admiral Sir George Callaghan served imperialism at sea.

In Soldiers Three Rudyard Kipling had three British soldiers in India recount their experiences. Each speaks his local patois. The three he chooses are an Irishman, a Yorkshireman and a Cockney.

Before the UK was formed the Irish were so often confederates of the English and Welsh in their foreign wars. When the King of England also claimed to be the rightful King of France there were Irishmen who fought for him as their liege lord. They sailed to France to do battle on behalf of the Lord of Ireland. In Shakespeare’s Henry V Captain MacMorris represents this.

The Harmsworth brothers were Dubliners whose newspapers did more to blazon forth the cause of imperialism among the working class than any other. They founded the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror. These brothers were ennobled for their efforts.

The Indian Civil Service was a career open to talents. Irishmen chose to share in this cornucopia.

Do not imagine that we Irish were only squaddies. We rose to the highest levels of imperialism. John Nicholson was an army officer who was instrumental in maintaining British dominion in India in 1857. He laid down his life for this cause. John Bourke (the Earl of Mayo) was Viceroy of India in the 1870s. His lordship paid with his life for his service to the cause of imperialism. He was slain by a prisoner when he inspected a prison. The memory of Lord Mayo is immortalised in a school in Ajmer named in his honour. Under British tutelage cruel practices such as suttee and slavery were terminated.

In Africa the indigenous nations in place such as Nigeria were often at war against each other. Irishmen were the pacificators of such places. It is true that Nigerians and other Africans have helped to end Europeans fighting each other in the world wars and subsequently in UN missions.

There are places in Africa which have names of Irish origin. Rorke’s Drift is an example. Even in Jamaica there are toponyms which refer to Ireland.

The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava was the Governor-General of Canada. There was a MacCarthy who was sent to the Gold Coast (Ghana). His ineptitude sparked the Ashanti War.

You have heard tell of the Hussein-MacMahon correspondence. This was a series of epistles exchanged between the Hashemite chieftain and an Irish civil servant during the First World War. Admittedly MacMahon was born beyond our shores. But to paraphrase that apocryphal utterance attributed to the Duke of Wellington a horse born in a donkey’s stable is a horse not a donkey. MacMahon was Irish. His name means son of a bear.

The Marquess of Wellesley was one of the first Governors-General of India. He was a Dubliner and the elder brother of the Duke of Wellington. People claim that Wellington said he was not Irish. However, there is no documentary proof of this. As quotation attributed to him after his death has negligible evidentiary value. He wrote that he was ‘un gentilhomme d’Irlande.’ The real surname of His Grace was ‘Colley’. He was a distant relative to the Fine Gael politician George Colley. Though the family has English forbears they had been in Hibernia for centuries prior to the duke’s birth.

I have heard people say that the Irishmen who were governors-general and suchlike were only Protestants. There are those who say that Protestants are not real Irish people. This is sectarian furphy. I reject such bigoted bile. There were Catholic governors-general too such as a Governor of Hong Kong.

Sir Michael O’Dwyer was the Governor of the Punjab which was perhaps the most important Indian province. It included much of what is now Pakistan. He was another Catholic who rose to high office. Sir Michael was a distinguished Tipperaryman who was an oustanding undergraduate at Balliol College, Oxford. He did sterling work in India. However, he ruined his good name by his appalling act in 1919. Brigadier Reginald Edward Harry Dyer ordered his Indian troops to open fire on a largely unarmed crowd at Jallianwala Bagh. Dyer’s men killed hundreds of people. Sir Michael had not ordered that this be done. But he offered a postfactum apologia for this odious and infamous massacre.

Many Irish nationalists and republicans will say that we Irish were not imperialists since Irishmen only furthered imperialism when we were part of the United Kingdom. This is ludicrously incoherent. It is as preposterous as saying that the English were never imperialists since then only ever acted in an imperialistic manner when part of the UK or when united with Wales.

There was of course a wicked side to imperialism. The infernal evil of slavery is part of that. Unfortunately, some men from Ireland took part in this baleful traffic. That is why so many African-Americans have Irish surnames. Some of the wars in which Irishmen fought were fought for unrighteous causes.

Irish-Americans were imperialists too. Americans were once not ashamed to say that they were imperialists. Benjamin Franklin said the US was an empire of liberty. Manifest destiny was imperialism. The Native Americans were sometimes ill-used. The Great White Chief sometimes reneged on solemn treaties signed with Native American nations promising to respect their sovereignty. Not much has changed!

The US was imperialistic with regard to North America. It was also imperialistic in relation to the Caribbean, Latin America and the Pacific. The US ruled the Philippines. The United States garrisoned China and took German ruled islands in the Pacific.

Irishmen in Australia were imperialists. When I put it to another Irishman that we were imperialistic in Terra Australis Incognita he said, ‘we did not go to dominate’. My riposte was, ‘Were we not imperialist to the Aborigines?’ The autochthonous people of that land suffered but they also gained from our arrival.

In New Zealand we were very imperialist. The Maoris came under British dominion partly through our endeavour.

In China Irishmen were imperialists. As missionaries, Irishmen brought the Gospel to the smooth Confucian. The International Zones in Shanghai and Beijing were guarded by Irish soldiers as part of various armies.

Irishmen moved to Austria. Those who did were the Wild Geese. Irishmen there entered into the service of the Holy Roman Empire. This empire ruled over much of Central Europe until 1918.

Irishmen in France were imperialists. In 1691 many Irishmen sailed overseas. These were Catholic supporters of James II. These Jacobites entered the service of Louis XIV. Irish-Frenchmen helped to build the Gallic empire in Quebec, Algeria, Senegal, Indochina and other places.

MacMahon was a President of France of Irish descent. He advanced imperialism.

There were Irishmen who served in the Pontifical Army. Do not forget that until September 1870 the Pope ruled the whole of Rome. The pope was in a sense a successor to the Roman emperors and took the title Pontifex Maximus because a high priest in pagan Rome had had that handle. The Bishop of Rome gave his imprimatur to European imperialism. The flag follows the cross. Many Catholic clergy were bringing the blessings of salvation to what they considered the benighted heathen.

The Catholic Church was an ardently imperialistic force at the height of imperialism. The Church was an inveterate opponent of nationalism. It was anathematised in Syllabus Errorum.  The Church blessed imperialism and by the Treaty of Torremolinos divided South America between the Portuguese and the Spanish along the Pope’s Line.

Irishmen in Spain were imperialists. In the service of His Most Catholic Majesty men of our blood carried la sangre y oro to Latin America. O’Higgins was an 18th century governor of Chile.

In South Africa Irishmen were imperialists. Alfred Taylor was a Southern Irishman who fought in the Second South African War on the British side. He was one of those charged with various crimes at the same time as the Irishman Harry ‘Breaker’ Morant. Some of the Irish folk in South Africa were British imperialists. Taylor was acquitted on all charges. This jackeen then retired to Zimbabwe (then Southern Rhodesia). He did not enjoy a good reputation. But he is an example of the many Irishmen were imperialism in that region of Africa.

Other Irishmen in the region fought for the Afrikaners. The Transvaal Republic and the Orange Free State were scions of Dutch imperialism. The Irish Brigade fought alongside the Afrikaans speaking people in the 1899-1902 war. Among this brigade was a certain Mr Lynch who later fought for the British cause in 1914. John MacBride was another doyen of the Irish Brigade. He was later put to death for high treason in 1916. Catholic support for the Transvaal and the OFS was hypocritical since these states denied Catholics the right to vote. The Catholic majority in Ireland had legal equality. But republicans were so Anglophobic that they were willing to back anti-Catholicism so long as it was also anti-English.

Arthur Griffith was an ardent apologist for the cause of the Afrikaner states. He went so far as to found the Transvaal League in Ireland. Griffith wanted a dual monarchy for Ireland. He later inclined towards republicanism. He never objected to European imperialism but just felt that Ireland ought to leave the UK.

The Irish Brigade in the German Army in 1916 was also serving an imperialistic cause. Sir Roger Casement had been a passionate imperialist when he exposed gross abuses in the Congo Free State. Though he became a republican he was not against imperialism per se.

In ancient times were invaded an annexed much of what is now Scotland. The Scots were an Irish tribe. We defeated the Picts. That is why Scots Gaelic is much the same as Irish.

In the 5th century we raided the west coast of Great Britain for slaves. St Patrick was one such captive who was forced into thraldom. Is that not imperialism?

All across the globe our beneficent influence is felt. People bibble Guinness partly because of our imperialism.

I can already hear the brontide of rage. How dare I tell the plain truth? People may say it is churlish to recount the history of Irish imperialism. But no unbiased person can doubt that we were very imperialistic indeed. No people is hypermnesic. It does not suit some individuals to recall our imperialist past.

Irish imperialists have written our name higher than ever before.

There are pros and cons to imperialism. For good or ill we Irish were extraordinarily imperialistic.

Vivat Pax Hibernica.

[Category: Latest, News, imperialism, Ireland]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/17/20 12:26am

Very few people are shot or otherwise killed by the British police, including a young lady who was asked by a police constable if he could shoot her. With his camera! In October 2018, PC Kevin Mohess and another officer attended the home of an unidentified woman who complained nude intimate photographs of her had been circulated on Instagram without her permission. Instead of asking her why she had posed nude, PC Mohess told her he was an amateur photographer and asked if she would pose for him!

Last month, he appeared before a Metropolitan Police disciplinary tribunal, and was sacked without notice. He wasn’t the only one. In September 2017, PC Philip Hunter met a vulnerable female at her home address. The two embarked on a sexual relationship, something which did not come to light for two months. Strange, is it not that so many ‘vulnerable’ women fall into the clutches of predatory police officers? Or could it be that many women of a certain type are attracted to men in uniform and offer it up on a plate? At any rate, once a police officer has committed to such a relationship, he is the vulnerable one because he is on a hiding-to-nothing.

Philip Hunter had already resigned from the Metropolitan Police, but his disciplinary hearing went ahead last month anyway, and he was found guilty of gross misconduct that would have resulted in him being sacked if he hadn’t. Sadly, they never learn.

Less deserving of sympathy than Philip Hunter was Kate Blackett, who also resigned before her disciplinary hearing. Her crime was to embark on a relationship with a man who appears to have been a small time drug dealer as well as a user. The proverbial hit the fan only after he took her car, apparently without her permission. This sort of behaviour isn’t entirely unknown for women police officers either. Seven years ago Kayley Newman narrowly escaped prison when she appeared in the dock for sending text messages to her lover while he was himself behind bars.

Finally, a man who perhaps deserves a little sympathy. Kevin Downard was a detective inspector. In December last year he was convicted of drunken driving. As a result of that, on June 25, he was dismissed without notice.  This seems doubly unfair, because the same day a humble police constable was given a final written warning after he screened positive for cocaine. Surely DI Downard could have simply been demoted, but hey, who said life was fair, even for the police?

[Category: Latest, News, police misconduct, vulnerable women]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/16/20 6:25pm

No, no! It was me in my kitchen with WD40, a white turnip maliu float and a pair of black-market red pliers that done it. What a triumph! More details following…. but I can fix it in an instant if you want. All I need is one of Hillary’s fingernails.When hubris surpasses reason an empire crumbles.

[Category: Latest, News]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/16/20 11:56am

Eric Zuesse

Though Bernie Sanders is less dishonest than any other of the U.S. political leaders who have contested in the 2016 and 2020 U.S. Presidential primary campaigns, no one should trust his endorsements of the DNC’s choice (which was what it was) of Joe Biden to carry the Party’s banner against Trump. Sanders knows that he was cheated out of the nomination by the DNC’s billionaires in 2020 , just as he had been in 2016 . And he knows that Biden is just as corrupt as Trump . Why, then, does Sanders endorse Biden?

Is it because “the voters of the Democratic Party chose Biden?” Well, in a sense, they did — from 29 February 2020 onward they did, because the billionaires were no longer donating mainly to Pete Buttigieg (23 billionaires), Cory Booker (18), Kamala Harris (17), Michael Bennett (15) and Joe Biden as #5 (at 13). (Sanders was at 0.) So, they suddenly piled in, on Biden, right after Sanders’s win in Nevada, the last before the February 29th South Carolina primary, and the final score of billionaires became Biden 66, Buttigieg 61, Klobuchar 33, Steyer 13, Warren 6, Gabbard 3, Bloomberg 1, and Sanders still 0 (and nothing being shown for candidates who had withdrawn early).

Instead — and no one can say why or what with any certainty — Sanders probably has some commitment from Biden regarding national policies once Biden becomes the President. (Trump himself does everything he can to assist that outcome, Biden’s Presidency. He might not be doing it intentionally, but he is doing it very successfully.)

Furthermore, Sanders knows, or ought to know, that Joe Biden was one of the leading segregationists in the U.S. Senate and was condemned in 1977 by Ted Kennedy and others for the insincerity of his protestations to the contrary . At the very same time in the 1960s when Sanders himself was being arrested in Chicago for demonstrating peacefully against the segregationist policies of Mayor Richard J. Daley, Joe Biden was a college playboy but subsequently lied to say that while in college he worked with civil rights leaders to end segregation. Yet Sanders, himself, remains silent about Biden’s lying, and about Biden’s actual support for segregation. Why?

Everything in politics is for only two purposes: winning power, and exercising power. Sanders’s promise to support the Party’s nominee was implicitly based upon his expectation that he would not be, yet again, cheated out of receiving its nomination. That expectation was not fulfilled. The DNC knew, even back in May 2016 , that Sanders would be stronger than Hillary against Trump, but they nonetheless rigged the results for Hillary against Sanders (and sometimes even blatantly ) because their billionaires are more important to them than their voters are. And the same happened with Biden against Sanders in 2020 . So: what obligation does Sanders have now to the DNC? Clearly, none. What obligation does he have to the American people? To keep on his fight to become FDR’s successor! If he withdraws from it, then surely America is heading into a massive economic crash which will result (under a President Biden) in martial law, and, then, an extremely bloody revolution, the outcome from which can’t be predicted (but one can only hope that enough troops will quit or even mutiny against their commanders).

Consequently, only a private commitment from Biden can explain this.

In a dictatorship such as the United States is , a politician’s commitments made to the public, such as Barack Obama’s back in 2007 and 2008, that he would have a “public option” in his healthcare plan, are lies, which they have no intention to fulfill (and Obama dropped his “public option” virtually the day after he beat John McCain for the Presidency in November 2008). However, a politician’s private commitments to the billionaires who funded his career are kept and honored. As a general rule, also the private commitments that are made to other politicians — such as to Sanders — are kept.

We just don’t know what those commitments are.


Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of   CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity .

The post Does Sanders Have a Secret Deal with Biden? appeared first on The Duran.

[Category: Latest, Sanders, Biden, Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Harris]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/16/20 6:42am


As much as I know, only Erich Fromm wrote a popular scientific book about love. I have studied his work entirely and may say that his book “The Art of Love” presents an excellent psychological analysis of love, which contributed significantly to its understanding. Fromm has influenced my work greatly. In this essay, I have not quoted him because his psychological study of love cannot successfully build love among people. He has based the creation of love on the consciousness of people, and that was never an efficient path. I have defined a socio-political method based on equal human rights, which will make people love unconditionally. Love will create a healthy society and a wonderful world beyond the wildest dreams today. This article presents how to do it.


Love is the most significant achievement a person can realize in their lives. Love is a state of mind based on the equality of people, mutual care, and eagerly giving help. Love is the condition of the soul that enriches the person and therefore, the world. A person who loves carries a feeling of inner peace, stability, lightness and joy of living, and that is how they can be identified. In natural society, love is a spontaneous act that develops on its own. In a society alienated from its nature such as the one we live in, we do not know how to love each other enough. You dear readers most likely think that you can love and you are right because there is not one person who is not able to love at least a little bit. But if you think that your love is high enough, then please read this article from start to finish, and you might be assured of the contrary.


What people today mostly call love is actually narcissism. Narcissistic people adore their images, their character, their deeds and especially their great happiness that brings them success in society. They enjoy their abilities, their thoughts, their beauty, their characteristics, their family, their nation, and everything that is connected to them. They value themselves more than other people, and that is what develops the narcissistic aspect of their character. Narcissism presents a person falling in self-love. In the idealization of their personalities, narcissistic people often consider themselves very modest. For this reason, it is challenging for a man to recognize the narcissistic character in himself.

Does narcissism contain love in itself? I would say that it does not, but the problem is, in fact, semantic. If one can say, “I love chocolate,” where the term “love” actually means “enjoy,” then one can stretch the meaning of love to narcissism but in an inferior form. Narcissism and love are separate categories as their names speak. All people possess both characteristics; however, the man who loves more is less narcissistic and vice versa. In the following pages, I will call the people who have more developed narcissistic characteristics as the narcissistic people even though they can love, but their abilities to love are less developed.

If a narcissistic man exercises his wishes successfully, then he feels great love for the whole world, but this love is an illusion. When a narcissistic man is unable to achieve his intentions, then he will deflate like a balloon into depression and will hate the whole world. A narcissistic man is quite unstable, and that is how he can be recognized. A natural man loves continuously. If the world does not match the needs of the natural man, he does not hate; he is just saddened. Love creates benefits to the man who loves and to the world around him, while narcissism can hardly achieve that. Narcissism will rather create evil to the narcissistic man and to the world around him.

Narcissistic people are very ambitious. If you actively want to become a boss or any authority; if your primary goal in life is to earn money, win a contest, or something similar, you are a pretty narcissistic person. You strongly prefer to compete, and even more so, to win! Your ego and narcissus are hungry. You have great opportunities to win, but it gives you less chance to love. You need love! Then you will not have a great need to compete. People who love base their mutual relations less on competitions and more on agreements. These examples only tell you how much you can love, but it cannot at all help you to love more. If you give up from ambitions or competitions that do not mean at all that you will begin to love more. The problem of knowing how to love does not depend on the wishes of the people; it is located deep in the psyche of a person, which is built throughout their entire life.

A narcissistic man is very subjective and tends to give his successes greater importance than they deserve. The narcissistic culture has overly raised very superficial forms of value such as power, wealth, fame, beauty, strength, speed, etc. In today’s society, these have become the most valuable goals. These values are objectively not so high, but the alienated society has put them on the pedestal. They are alienated, and as such cannot bring lasting benefits to individuals nor to society as a whole. On the contrary, those values usually carry all the opposite. These values destroy the long-term possibility of creating benefits in society.

If a narcissistic person is very successful in his society like famous singers, actors or politicians are, then the narcissus in him can shine for a long time. Such successes may form an illusion of overcoming man’s powerlessness in nature, and therefore, the narcissistic happiness may be pretty intense, and as such, it can easily deceive a man into thinking that he is on the right track. Narcissistic happiness is not good because it is primarily based on illusions. Taking into account that the narcissistic man overestimates himself and underestimates everything that surrounds him, he often comes in contradiction with the objective reality. Life shows a narcissistic man sooner or later that his capabilities are not as significant as he wants, that he is not quite as perfect as he would like to be, that his youth and beauty have passed. New, smarter, stronger, more skilled people always appear, and they threaten the superior vision of the narcissistic man, which brings severe disappointment to him. Any happiness a man exercises undeservedly by the help of illusions will come back as payment in the form of pain. Narcissistic people often try to find escapes from extreme tension by drinking alcohol and taking drugs and thus they can be recognized.

Narcissistic happiness alienates a man from objective reality. Such a man loses respect towards other people and reduces the chance to reach the natural advantages in the relationships with other people so that he minimizes the opportunity to love. Only love can elevate men from these kinds of problems, but narcissistic people do not know enough love to be able to balance themselves.

Narcissistic people strive to be the strongest, the smartest, the most beautiful, the best in any sense, and hardly tolerate the competition that may threaten their vision. Therefore, narcissistic men clash with each other easily. It can be said that virtually all conflicts in society are based on the narcissistic character of a man. By their subjective vision, narcissistic people can identify threats to their alienated needs as threats to their real existence. It induces the fight between narcissistic people for the survival of their illusions. The more narcissistic people are, the more brutal their conflicts are. All the cruelty of this world comes from endangered narcissism. An injured narcissism causes a very destructive orientation of the narcissistic man. Such a person can fall into depression, which can be developed to the needs of self-destruction or create hatred that can be extended to the needs of the destruction of the world.

Narcissism is primarily developed by the privileged statuses of people in society because those people have realized the feeling of superior power in society almost effortlessly. I wrote more about this in the article Privileges are Evil. One can generalize that the more privileged people are, the more narcissistic they are. Spoiled children, excellent students, people in positions are generally more privileged, and that most likely means, more narcissistic. But the differences are often only in nuances because every person can build an illusion of power or privileges in a world of their thoughts. Almost all people possess some narcissistic traits of character because our alienated culture teaches us to be narcissistic. The less narcissistic person is a healthier person for himself and society as a whole. In this article, I will try to demonstrate that the more narcissistic man loves less.

Love of authorities

Higher skilled people develop knowledge which improves society, and that makes them authorities. Right authorities impact society by their positive example and help other people when they are asked to do so. They do not impose their opinions, knowledge, or values to other people. Such people are a high rarity today.

There are wrong authorities as well. These are the people who strive to achieve the privileged status of authority because this status gives them power over people, along with considerable alienated benefits. Such power develops the narcissistic character of people. Narcissistic authorities propagate their subjective values and knowledge to the community with the primary objective of reinforcing their privileged statuses. People who do not know are helpless and are prone to give authorities greater importance than they objectively deserve and therefore they accept the subjective knowledge of authorities. Wrong authorities through the history of humankind have created a vast amount of utterly unnecessary knowledge that society has adopted. Such knowledge is alienated, false, wrongful, and therefore prevents the natural development of society. I wrote more about it in the article My Clash with Sciences.


The alienated society readily accepts the culture that favours the development of wrong authorities and diminishes the power of people. Authorities and their followers build a stable mutual relationship, which might look like love. Specifically, authorities need subordinated people because they help them to establish their status and high power. Subordinated people are very connected to the authorities because it is often more convenient for them to subordinate themselves to the authorities than to be left by themselves in the terrifying world. But the relationship between authority and follower is only an illusion of love. If we extend the meaning of love very much, then such love is at least entirely undeveloped. However, I would label it as a very perverted concept of love. The relationship based on the servility of subordinate people and the control of authority always represents some level of a sadomasochistic relationship, and because of it, it’s very unproductive. A sadist is a person who finds pleasure in the domination of other people that on the way to achieve higher benefits can be developed to extreme brutality. A masochist finds pleasure in the subjugation to authorities until the point of complete obedience, which can be developed into enjoyment in the form of pain. A humble masochist, under the guidance of authority, may become a ruthless henchman of the authority.

Today’s society does not know how to love enough but also is not aware that all the evil that is happening in the world stems from a lack of love. Without love, society is becoming very brutal, and as such does not have a good future. Capitalism is brutal. I wrote more about this in the article The End of Capitalism. The brutal capitalist system tries to convince people that brutality is a normal condition. This is achieved by the censorship of humanistic ideas, such as mine, combined with the spreading of brutal messages with the production of brutal films, for example. By watching brutal heroes in brutal movies, brutal people meet their brutal needs and thereby accept the existence of the brutal system as a normal state. Today, to see hundreds of people killed in movies is a normal thing that horrifies no one. People who can easily watch brutal movies have difficulties to love; those who enjoy watching these movies cannot love at all. In today’s world, brutal films are produced the most. For who are they produced?

Millions of people have developed their brutality by living unhappily in an alienated society. These people are potential time bombs that wait for a reason to exercise their brutal needs in real life. Such a phenomenon is impossible in a community that loves. Social scientists often accuse poverty as the primary source of evil around the world. I think that this is not the case, at least not precisely. Today, poor people have higher living standards than kings in the Middle Ages. Material values are not essential. The crucial importance is the alienation of society, unfair distribution of power in society, the privileges that follow it, narcissistic traits of character built on privileges, and the lack of love that arises from all of that. I cannot imagine today that someone in the developed world would commit murder or suicide because they were hungry, but if their narcissistic vanity is violated, that can be expected. The reason for aggression can be any endangered privilege or any unrealized ambition. The economic and moral crisis in which we are all sinking deeper and deeper can influence a large number of people to attack anybody or even the whole society irrationally. They can quickly become monstrous killers.


Narcissistic authorities successfully deceive people by propagating the love of the country or nation. No man will ignore the call of love for his homeland. People who are not satisfied with the way they live would respond to this call even more. That always creates some form of group narcissism, which is manifested in the form of nationalism. Authorities who oppress people and make them dissatisfied through patriotic calls increase the power over the people. Dissatisfied people accept the patriotic invitations of authorities uncritically and become heartless weapons in their hands. Thus, the alienation of people from their nature creates militant foundations for international conflicts and wars. Militant people do not love. People who love do not support wars.

Authorities achieve maximum power by the production of national enemies. A good example is al-Qaida, for which nobody can safely prove whether it exists and if it does exist I do not believe that it has a lot of members because it would otherwise show its strength by numerous terrorist actions in the Western world. By creating the fear of al-Qaida, the American authorities successfully mobilize the American people in the fight against “evil.” In this conflict, the American people lose freedom, uncritically put themselves at the service of authorities, fund wars by their taxes, and lose their lives for the interests of the authorities. The authorities thus become the masters of life and death. People have become completely irrelevant figures for the achievement of “higher goals.” The fear of a few terrorists started the unprovoked wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, the war against 60 million people. The war against terrorism has created the terrorism of the United States against all countries that do not want to subordinate themselves to the American power, culture, politics and economy. The group narcissism of the American citizens allowed the formation of aggressive wars, whose goal is the obedience of disobedient nations, their economies and natural resources. It is difficult for uninformed people to recognize this.

Regardless of your unawareness, if the people, who died in the terrorist attack 9/11, although you know nobody there, affect you more than everyday killings of people in Iraq and Afghanistan produced by the U.S. government, then you are pretty narcissistic and have not developed the ability to love. If you do not judge members of your nation equally with others, members of your family with others, and yourself with others, then you are most likely narcissistic and have not developed the ability to love.


Religious people love God because they expect Him to save them from all evil and lead them to good. They do not believe that they can find the way alone so that they pray to God to do it for them. The awe and humbleness of religious people developed about God certainly carry elements of masochism, which is the opposite of love. The same applies to the love of Jesus, Messiah, Krishna, Buddha and other prophets of God.

Religious people accept love as a great value because their religions preach love, but love cannot be imposed from the outside by any ideology. Making a significant effort in the field of love as religions teach is not sufficient proof of love, because a masochist can try very hard but his undeveloped consciousness will not allow him to find out what love is. Love cannot be the result of awe towards God. Love comes from inside as the product of natural ways of living or is not coming at all. So how can love be recognized with certainty? Love is giving, and if the act of giving brings joy, then one can love. If one finds the act of giving as a duty, then this love is undeveloped, and sooner or later, one will get tired, give up and disappear.

I think that one does not need to cultivate awe for God but respect, which can allow a man to rely on his power in solving his problems. Religious people negate self-consciousness as the need and suppress it in some form of humbleness towards the world around them. The self-awareness of atheists smoothly goes into more negative extremes and becomes “overdeveloped consciousness” because it can quickly turn into a narcissistic illusion of power over the world that surrounds them. A productive person is aware that he is equal with other people and searches for solutions to his and society’s problems by himself. That is how he gets to know love. If I passively waited for the Messiah to save me from evil I would probably not meet Him as no other person has ever met Him, and I would not be able to create a path to a sound and sane society.

Falling in love

Probably the first association that people have to the word love is falling in love. Falling in love is the most famous expression of love today and perhaps the most described and sung term of all time. People often mystify falling in love with magical romantic feelings that rise under no control. I would say that the main characteristic of people who fall in love is fear and hope. Juvenile uncertainty and optimism towards life bring a very high possibility of falling in love.

Young people usually think that for falling in love they need to find an appropriate person and magically romantic love will happen. First, I would like to emphasize that there is nothing magic in the act of falling in love. It is entirely commercial behaviour that gives an illusion of magical performance. Every person knows how much their attractiveness is worth in the alienated market of values because everyday life teaches us that. An appropriate person for love, in reality, is a product of in-depth preparation, calculation and random events. There is almost nothing wrong in it because a person should choose a partner who suits him more. Rational behaviour in the choosing of partners is more than welcome.  But the people who quickly fall in love are pretty narcissistic, and that means not rational. Narcissistic people are not objective so that they are quite foolish and do not recognize correct values in the selection of partners.

When an appropriate person for falling in love appears in the sight of a narcissistic person, high energy of happiness is released that attracts, and if it finds an appropriate response from the other side, a miracle of “love” appears which indulges, and all the brakes release and all the doubts about the acceptability of the partner disappear. The person then feels “the chemistry,” and the whole world becomes beautiful. This miracle situation described in countless songs is just a sweet illusion that occurs as the result of the liberation of considerable uncertainty. There is almost no love here. The person who is confident in himself can hardly fall in love, but he is capable of loving.

Falling in love brings such great happiness that it can be compared to escape death. We fall in love because we feel dead in authoritarian societies that take freedom from us. In the act of falling in love, we release ourselves from complete pressure authorities have imposed on us all of our lives. Falling in love compensates for the feeling of powerlessness among people in society and builds an illusion of power. It brings euphoria and people wrongfully assign it to the “loved” person. This is why falling in love is an illusion.

If we name falling in love as love, it would be a very undeveloped form of love. Falling in love is a product of subjective experience. The success of falling in love is often measured by the quantity of attracted attention that the people who fell in love realize in society. Narcissistic people do not try to get to know the beloved person deeper because such people often do not even know what that means. Falling in love is very superficial, and a person who falls in love often quickly satiates with the loved one. If the emotions towards the loved person end, it was never the love, because love lasts. Love is taught practically the whole life. Getting to know love is, in fact, active learning in practice that brings pleasure. The person who loves does not stop getting to know his or her partner. By getting to know more of their partner, a person learns how to improve the life of his or her partner. That fills him with the joy of love.

People who fall in love often quickly see that their subjective knowledge about their loved ones, as a rule, has almost nothing in common with the character of the loved ones. Disappointment that comes results in the termination of the connection quickly. If a loving pair fell in love with falling in love, if the picture which they make together is precarious to them, then the agony of their love often occurs. The person falling in love with a considerable degree of narcissism often tries to change the loved person and make him or her closer to their needs  which is practically impossible to achieve. Suffering then starts and leads to the development of a very passionate relationship that is opposite to love. Such couples do not leave each other because their perverted pleasure of love keeps them together. Such connections are often followed by hate, and it proves that the relationship was never love. It was just narcissism. Love does not end, but if it does happen, however, it brings sadness only.

Narcissism is selfish, egocentric, possessive, greedy, jealous, and love is not any of that. Jealousy emerges from injured narcissism and love is not jealous. Falling in love can grow to love if partners are not very narcissistic and if they have enough common interest. However, this rarely happens also because the culture of love in today’s society is very undeveloped so that people do not know how to love. Expecting happiness in a marriage that has emerged from a consequence of falling in love is the same as expecting luck in the lottery. We live in such times where people come to rely more on luck than on their brains. That’s why there are so many divorces. There would be even more divorces if there were no fear of change or fear of endangering the narcissistic image of marital harmony that couples present to society. Married couples who hardly regard their partners during the day, who are not happy by the encounter, couples whose ambitions at work are more important than their life partner, certainly do not love each other and this is a great pity for both.

Nothing destroys marriages like violated narcissism among partners. If the marriage ends in dispute in court, then indeed it was not love, it was narcissism. If people leave their spouses because they fell in love with another person, then the short-term illusion has most likely forced them to make a great stupidity, because it causes long-term damage to themselves and the people around them. Namely, the new relationship could hardly be better than the previous one because if a person knows how to love, he or she would not have to seek a new partner and would not have divorced the previous one. Divorce mostly points to an alienated and spiritually poor life of such people.

Many people cannot wait to fall in love. If they knew better, they would avoid the state of falling in love. Falling in love is sweet, but it damages the person who falls in love because the happiness that uncontrollably rises makes it difficult for him or her to objectively see the situation in which he or she is in. Objective people hardly fall in love but are more prone to stay in love. Love is stable and grows over time. Love is the consequence of man’s natural productive orientation. Today, people are generally alienated from this orientation and therefore do not love. The system that I’ve proposed will build natural relationships in a society based on equal human rights. It will develop objectivity which will teach people how to love, and they will love.

Love of children

Love develops from childhood. Love is learned the same way children learn how to walk or talk. Parents who love, give love to children and teach children through their behaviour what love is. If parents do not know what love is, then they cannot teach kids to love. Today’s society is alienated from its nature and therefore, does not know love enough. Lack of love is most often manifested by inadequate care of parents for their children.

In the capitalist system, most people must work all day to cover living needs, so they do not have time to provide children with love to the extent they feel. Capitalism imposes alienated needs, which reduces the free time of people and diminish the ability of parents to raise their children. Capitalism deliberately disintegrates families to get more dependent workers and consumers. This is a political problem of the capitalist society and must be solved by political measures. Schools take over the upbringing of children. The school program is alienated from the nature of children because it is determined by authorities so that children often do not love it. The teachers take over the role of parents. Normally, it’s much harder for teachers to find love for children than parents can because they usually work with children primarily to earn money for a living. Children grow up without enough love.

Furthermore, narcissistic parents are often occupied with their ambitions so that they do not have enough time for their children. It is a great mistake to love their jobs more than their children. Do you spend more time on your career and earning money than on your children? You are then pretty much narcissistic and do not have the developed ability to love. Narcissistic people often hide their ambitions behind the sacrifice for the benefit of their families. But this is nonsense because it is about the ridiculous overestimation of the value of ambition and underestimation of children. A successful career and money cannot bring as much benefit as the neglect of the development of children bring disadvantages to all. Children who do not receive enough care and love become emotional invalids who do not know how to love and become long-term problems for themselves, for their parents and society. It is not impossible that the children learn how to love later in their lives, but in an alienated society in which we live today, it very rarely happens.

Instead of love, parents today exercise far more pressure on children to obey their will in the name of “higher interests.” Parents who have not developed the love in them cannot objectively see the needs of their children. Parents, by their pressuring, actually alienate children from their nature, and of course, reduce their chance to get to know love. When children oppose the will of adults, they can easily be right because they are closer to their nature, and therefore, the resistance of young people should be respected.

The lack of love makes children feel powerless in today’s society. They are searching to find exits from their powerlessness, and apparently, they see them in the illusions of television, films and computer games. All of these media in the first place represent animal instincts of a society alienated from its nature and profit interests of the owners of media, and as such, they are opposed to the natural needs of the community. For children who do not receive enough care and love, their role models become fierce heroes in movies, and they become the heroes in brutal computer games.

Children in computer games usually kill thousands of “enemies” daily. With such “success,” they compensate for the powerlessness in the society in which they live and build an illusion of their power. The illusion of power compensates for the spiritual poverty in which they live and brings tremendous alienated satisfaction. And when parents ban children from spending too much time before computers, while not providing almost anything except the requirements and obligations, the children perceive it as a violation of their privileges.

A long time ago, parents spent a lot of time with their children and gave love. In those times, the father was the highest authority to his child. Today, children almost do not see their parents every day, and the father is not the biggest, the strongest or smartest role model and mother is not a caring person who gives warmth. Then the whole of society can easily disturb them.

In Columbine High School in Colorado, USA, two boys decided to eliminate such disturbance and killed 13 classmates and wounded 21. Someone at school probably made fun of these boys who acquired the illusion of power through brutal computer games, and this became unbearable humiliation to them. This hurt their narcissism and made them question why they had practiced their shooting abilities if they had never tried them. They would show their “skills” and let everyone see who they harm. Then they transfer their games into reality and become murderers. Those were children who have not grown up in financial poverty but in the absence of love. One should not be very smart to assume what kind of future the generations that are grown without love should expect.

If parents do not fulfill their parental duties in the upbringing of children, then it is most likely too late for the productive development of children. Then only psychiatrists or oppressive state apparatus can somewhat help. Now you are probably wondering where the boundary in upbringing that divides responsible and irresponsible parents towards the future of their children is? This border is defined by the knowledge that is the fruit of equal human rights. This is a state where parents will learn how to love and where children will be loved. Then the children will return the love. I’ve defined a system that will achieve such a society. This system will shorten the working hours of parents so that they will be able to spend more time with their children. The next condition for the healthy upbringing of children is for parents to find love in themselves, because only then will they be able to behave appropriately with children. The system that I’ve proposed will enable it. People will live real lives without illusions; they will be satisfied with their lives and will be able to love. This system will completely change people.

In such a world, people will love and will not be interested in watching cruel movies and will not have models for evil behaviour. Loved children will not have the need to play brutal computer games. I believe that in the system that I have proposed weapons will be destroyed entirely. The people will decide. The system I’ve suggested is the final exit from the brutal world today.

Homosexual love

The homosexual relationship is not a natural connection. Homosexuals most likely build their unnatural orientation on narcissism that can be developed in a manner that requests a close emotional bond between the members of the same sex. The love between the members of the same sex is not a problem. The problem is the sexual relationship between members of the same sex.

Everyone who thinks about the homosexual relationship for a long time indeed develops the desire to investigate sex with same-sex members. Given that the homosexual orientation was until recently prohibited or very shameful, homosexuals have hidden their sexual desire. Because of that, I think homosexuals were unhappy people. The enormous pressure of forbidden desires and long-term suffering resulting from the inability to achieve their homosexual relations established the homosexual orientation of such people. After that, the first homosexual experience brings incredible happiness and strengthens the homosexual orientation of such a man. I am convinced that if homosexuality were not forbidden, that homosexuals would be less intensely homosexually oriented. This claim may be confirmed by any forbidden love between a man and a woman. If their relationship is undesirable or prohibited by their families for any reason, such a relationship raises passion. Restricting love is counterproductive. The same applies to homosexuals.

I do not believe that the sexual act is crucial for homosexuals because the sexual act in heterosexual relationships is not crucial either. Far more important is love. This opens the possibility that homosexuals in a healthy, natural environment without any pressure may become interested in the heterosexual relationship. The problem begins, and the solution lies in mind.

Members of the same sex who live together should have all the equal rights as married people except the right to name their relationship as “marriage” because it is not natural. Language should be rich enough to distinguish between natural and unnatural sexual relations. Homosexuals oppose it very emotionally, because they suffered by hiding their sexual orientation, and it is essential to them that their homosexual relationship is accepted by society. It would be better for them to take the fact that their relationship is unnatural because it would increase the possibility of returning to a natural state. A natural state can achieve a stronger and more lasting joy of life.

Freedom of choice of orientation should be a cornerstone of every society. Let the freedom of choice show people what is best for them alone. What is best for free people is best for the community as well. I think that homosexuality is undeveloped love just as falling in love. Developed love is not even necessarily sexual. When people learn to love, they will return to their nature, and that will significantly reduce or maybe even end homosexuality. I wrote more about it in the article Homosexuality.

I think that all people will find that marriage between a man and a woman is the best solution. They will find a person who objectively suits them best for marriage. They would love such a person very much, but yes, they would love the whole world as well. Love is not exclusive. Only a narcissistic man can love only one person and be utterly indifferent to other people all over the world. The person who loves, loves the whole world.

Love needs freedom and equal rights of people 

People who do not have the freedom to live following their nature, as well as people who always need someone to lead them through life, can hardly love. If you obey your teacher, boss, or president because they possess an oppressive apparatus that makes you afraid of them; therefore, you cannot love them. If you are a big fan of any authority or idol; if you admire your great president, a singer or football player, if you study your idols more than you try to understand yourself, that is idolatry and not love. Idolatry is a consequence of an underdeveloped personality that depends on authorities.

An alienated society does not permit the development of people because authorities base their power and profit on the powerlessness of people. Today, the most severe world media is more engaged with the development of idolatry, then with an objective analysis of the situation in the world. Public media rarely deals seriously and honestly with analyzing the situation in the world, and because of it, we live in the dark. The result of it is the glorifying of inequality among people. It does not matter if you follow and support authorities because you are afraid of them or adore them as idols; you carry in yourself elements of masochism and a reduced ability to love. A man who loves has equal respect for all people and thus can be recognized.

There is a fine line between the two groups of evil, between supremacy and powerlessness, between masochism and sadism, between inferiority and superiority, between obedience and narcissistic authoritarianism. People have a hard time staying on this line because they slip left or right very quickly. If people realize some success in society, they can easily slide to superior narcissism, and any failure forces them to move into inferior obedience. This thin line between two evils is called objectivity and equality between self-conscious people, and it presents the only possible healthy orientation of society. All my effort in creating a better society can be quickly clarified by the wish to convince people that it is the best choice for everyone to be on this good line. When I succeed in it, the line will become so wide that people will not be able to fall from it anymore. Then society will no longer have social problems. It will become capable of loving.

All the ways of improving society must be based on liberating people from the influences of wrong authorities and alienated values that these authorities have imposed throughout history. This is the so-called process of disalienation. Freedom of reassessing the rules which authorities have imposed on societies for centuries will liberate the people of alienation. Through their practices, free people will find out what real values are, and they will be retained, and in contrast, those which are not will be eliminated. In that manner, people will become self-confident members of society. To achieve that goal, we practically need to demystify virtually all authorities around the world. How? In the first place by giving equal rights to all of the people at all levels of social relations. People must accept the thesis that the nature of society has a foundation based on the freedom and equality of the people.

But wait a moment, haven’t we people today already had equal rights after the development and acceptance of equal human, civil, legal, constitutional, and other equal rights all over the world? Of course, we have not! It is only formal equality and propaganda of the wrong authorities. The president of your country may send you to war, and you cannot do it to him. Your boss may abuse or fire you, and you cannot do it to him. Your teacher may force you to accept knowledge, and you cannot do it to him. Where are the equal rights there? Now you probably think that is entirely normal because you have been living in such a society from ever. I claim that this is not normal!


The system I have proposed offers each man full independence, freedom of expression and action under the condition that such freedom of speech and action cannot bring other people disadvantages. The system will force people to respect each other. That will be achieved by the system of mutual evaluation. I have called it democratic anarchy. Each person will have an equal right to evaluate the activity of any other person. Each positive assessment will automatically bring a small award to the assessed person, and each negative evaluation will result in the punishment of the same form.

Let’s the rewards and punishments have an equivalent value of one dollar. Each award a person receives from somebody will bring them one dollar and each penalty will take away one dollar from them. In that manner, all people will become the same authorities who have a small direct power in society. Democratic anarchy will direct each member of society to respect other people. People will become values to all people. They will create the most significant possible advantages for the community and diminish or abolish the creation of all forms of disadvantages.

Technically watching this looks much like love because love is based on indiscriminately caring for others and in giving. But it is still not love. Once the implementation of this system starts, the people would probably not feel satisfaction in the very act of giving and therefore, that would not be love. In the beginning, the pleasure will come from the egotistic need of getting good evaluations from the people and from avoiding bad assessment. However, it will be beneficial because people will be creating advantages and avoid making disadvantages for all society.

Democratic anarchy will eliminate privileges. I have to stress that the privileged status of individuals causes the greatest inconveniences and problems for society. Democratic anarchy will teach people that no matter what kind of success they achieve in their lives, they must not forget that they are equal members of society. This will liberate people from narcissism and enable the development of love.


Freedom and equality should be introduced in production relations. In the final stage of acceptance of the new system I have proposed, people will accept equality in the production processes. It will be realized when people accept a permanent open competition as the right of workers to work in any job post in public companies at any time. The worker who offers the highest productivity at the desired work post at any time will get the right to work.

I know that such a division of labour sounds impossible because it never existed. But its realization is just a technical problem. I have developed an economic system that will effectively evaluate the productivity of work offers, harmonize rewards for work, and define the job responsibilities of workers. This will be the best economy possible because no economy can be more productive than the one where each job gets the best available worker. It will be nothing else but a developed labour market. It will take a long time for society to develop and embrace such a labour market, it cannot be established quickly, but once people recognize the right path, nothing will be able to get them off that path.

The work competition will significantly increase competition among people. Shortly before, I mentioned in this article that competition destroys love. Does this mean that I am against love? No, no way. I am for abolishing the competitions, but they cannot be removed in any other way than by understanding that the competitions are wrong and unnecessary. The idea assumes that the open competition for each work post would demystify the importance of each job, which will reduce competitive interest. Also, increasing the total number of competitions will saturate the competing interest of workers, which will enable them to find real values of their nature.

The work competition will abolish all the privileges of authorities in the production processes and demystify their working abilities. It will be especially important to demystify the ability of authorities in politics and economy, where the largest source of alienated power in society is located. Probably the most significant professional success today is to become a president of a country because such a position gives the privileges that have an almost mystical value in society. To be able to compete for the right to get the job of a country president, the competitors will need to offer the highest possible productivity of the whole country. It could be measured by Gross domestic product, by the satisfaction of people, etc. The best offer will get the job.

The new system will develop an entirely new form of responsibility of the workers that will hardly punish the president if he does not fulfill his promises. It will be a harder punishment than is the responsibility of private capital for its entrepreneurship today.

The new system envisages a new highly developed polyfunctional system of responsibility of the workers. Among other things, it will be based on mutual ratings of people. The higher the position an authority has in society, the greater the responsibility they would bare to society.

For example, The President of the US might get 100,000,000 bad evaluations from the American people for bad policies, lies, and criminal aggression on countries. That would cost him 100,000,000 dollars in only one month. Non-privileged presidents would no longer dare perform bad policies anymore. They certainly will not dare to call on wars or to develop nationalism, fascisms or similar social problems anymore. And if presidents fail to meet people’s needs, they would run away from their positions very fast. Only the most skilful and brave individuals would dare lead countries. They will not be authorities anymore, but our servants.

The labour market will demystify the attraction of the state president positions. All public work posts will be equally demanded, and this will undoubtedly reduce the competing interests of workers. Then people will base their relations more on an agreement and less on the competition. More about the new division of labour you can find in my book Humanism – A Philosophic-Ethical-Political-Economic Study of the Development of the Society.

Competition of workers at all work posts will remove privileges and thus enable demystification of the skills of workers who work in these positions. And there is no other right path. As long as privileges exist, wrong authorities will exist as well as obedient people who follow them. As long as privileges exist, there cannot be a developed love and a good future for humankind. Removed privileges will remove the main nest of narcissism. Equality is a sufficient condition for the formation of a good society and the creation of love. Equality is also the only solution to all of the problems of society today and a fundamental condition for the establishment of love. Love is a product of equal rights of people.

When people accept equal human rights, they will all rely on their power for satisfying their individual needs while respecting other people. That would develop the conscience of productive people. Then under-developed people would no longer exist. Then no one would admire a president, singer or football player more than any other person; not one idol will exist anymore. Then neither powerful nor powerless people would exist, then wrong authorities and their humble followers would not exist, then sadism and masochism will no longer exist. That will overcome the enormous alienation in which we live in today.

The man who loves does not necessarily have to be happy and satisfied, but it is preferable to be happy and satisfied to be able to love more. The responsibility before the people that the new system proposes will teach people to set their needs following their possibilities of satisfying them. This is the chief prerequisite for overcoming destructiveness in society because people who consistently meet their needs are satisfied and not destructive. Then society will develop a new culture that will create a productive orientation of people.

Developed love 

Productive orientation is unknown in today’s society, and therefore, love is rare today. The new system will enable a complete productive orientation of people. The new system will free the people from all forms of alienation that the authorities have imposed throughout history, and people will learn to live following their nature. What does it mean concretely? The lives of people freed from the pressures of authorities will allow a demystification of values that authorities have imposed throughout history. Firstly, ideologies will fall. People will explore and discover natural ways of life. Such an experience will demystify idols and fetishes. Authorities will lose power over people, money and goods will lose their alienated values. Person to person will become the prime value. People will have an increased need to pay attention and show concern for others, to develop friendships and brotherhoods. The new system will enlighten people. Then society will start creating love in its best and most beautiful form. Love is the final result of the system I have proposed. Once people start loving each other, they will create an entirely new world and benefits that are beyond the wildest dreams in the alienated society of today.

Developed people do not depend on anybody because they could achieve everything they need on their own; they love other people unconditionally just because they are. They find great satisfaction in free productive living, in building themselves as productive people and even greater joy in love.


At the end I would like to help you answer the question, do you love? If you dislike this article, then you are most likely narcissistic, and therefore you do not know love enough. If you try to repair your opinion now by finding the parts you do like, it will not help. You cannot gain any benefit from self-cheating. The more narcissistic you are, the worse your life is. If it is essential for you to hide it, you are even more narcissistic and less able to love, and even less able to find the joy of life. Narcissus allegedly drowned in the lake because he did not learn how to swim.

If you like this article, please recommend it to your friends. This article suggests a bright future of humanity.

The post Do you love? appeared first on The Duran.

[Category: Latest]

[*] [+] [-] [x] [A+] [a-]  
[l] at 7/16/20 6:19am

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss more sanction threats from US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, as the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline between Russia and Germany is set to be completed and operational by early 2021.

Support Free Speech:

Subscribe to The Duran on YouTube – Find us on BitChute.

The Duran Audio Podcast:
Follow on Soundcloud – Subscribe on iTunes.

Via Oil Price…

A Russian vessel capable of completing the pipelaying for the Gazprom-led Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline project left a German port on Wednesday and entered Danish waters where the last section of the controversial pipeline has yet to be completed.

According to vessel-tracking data from Refinitiv Eikon cited by Reuters, Russian ship Fortuna, sailing under a Russian flag, departed from the Mukran port in Germany on the Baltic Sea and moved into Danish territorial waters.

The move comes several days after the Danish Energy Agency allowed Nord Stream 2 AG to use pipelaying vessels with anchors for the construction of the Nord Stream 2 pipelines. The Danish agency previously allowed self-positioning pipelaying vessels (DP pipe-laying vessels) in the construction permit for the Nord Stream 2 pipelines.

With an anchored Russian vessel, Gazprom could complete the construction of the pipeline in Danish waters. Because of the U.S. sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 project from December, Western vessel and technology providers pulled out of the project.

Following the announcement of the sanctions, Switzerland-based offshore pipelay and subsea construction company Allseas immediately suspended Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities.

Russian officials have claimed that Russian firms can complete the project without the help of foreign partners.

U.S. lawmakers, for their part, have been seeking more sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 project, which the United States sees as further undermining Europe’s energy security by giving Russian gas giant Gazprom another pipeline to ship its natural gas to European markets.

The U.S. sanctions on the project have divided Europe, with Germany criticizing the U.S. interference in Europe’s energy policies and projects. Germany, the endpoint of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, looks at the economic benefits of the project, while the U.S., including President Donald Trump, have been threatening sanctions on the project and even on Germany over its support for the project.

By Tsvetana Paraskova for Oilprice.com

The post Despite more sanction threats, Nord Stream 2 close to completion (Video) appeared first on The Duran.

[Category: Latest, Video, Russia, Germany, sanctions, Denmark, Nord Stream 2]

As of 8/4/20 7:27am. Last new 7/17/20 4:54am.

Next feed in category: Common Dreams