Sep 192025
 


Caspar David Friedrich The Monk by the Sea c1809

 

Prove Charlie Right (David DesRosiers)
TPUSA Names Charlie Kirk’s Widow Erika as New CEO (Salgado)
Chris Cuomo Schools the Left on Kimmel’s Suspension (Margolis)
Jimmy Kimmel Missed This Clue About Trump; It Was His Downfall (Tim O’Brien)
Kimmel Has No One to Blame but Himself for Cancellation by ABC (Perrotta)
Trump to Antifa: IT’S GOING DOWN (Victoria Taft)
Brigitte Macron To Prove To US Court She’s A Woman (NYP)
Macron Is In A Political Death Spiral (Amar)
‘Not The Right Time’ To Call For Russia-Ukraine Ceasefire – Trump (RT)
Trump Files Emergency Request With SCOTUS To Make Lisa Cook Fired Again (ZH)
RFK Jr. Cannot Proceed With Overhaul of Health Agencies, Court Rules (ET)
The ‘Golden Billion’ Has Lost Its Crown (Bobrov)
Bank of Russia Governor Dismisses Talk Of Recession (RT)
Great Moments In The History Of Chrystia Freeland’s Failure (Helmer)
China To Test Arctic Express Route To Europe (RT)

 

 

https://twitter.com/TONYxTWO/status/1968488772468650199

Benny

 

 

 

 

The Charlie tragedy enters day 10 today.

Prove Charlie Right (David DesRosiers)

On Sept. 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated for the political sin of showing up on college campuses across our country and taking and answering questions. These queries came from students and guests whether they were allies or adversaries – or simply curious-minded Americans engaging in their unalienable birthright to engage in civics openly. Charlie Kirk was martyred for the free exercise of his First Amendment rights. And the right to free speech, which he championed, was critically wounded in the attack. The aftermath marks a turning point in our nation’s “house divided” future. Let’s do as Charlie did masterfully and probe the mindset of the other – in this case his assassin’s and that of his like-minded enablers. It was Charlie’s way. It is the Socratic way. It is the Western Civ, the American way.

Who will rid us of this meddlesome apostle of free expression? Progressives don’t like to think of themselves as King Henry, the man who uttered the fateful words that caused four loyalists to murder Thomas Becket. But where else can their constant denunciations of Republicans as “Nazis” or “fascists” lead? A young man, who was being groomed to be a moral monster by our culture and the passions it unleashes, heard the dog whistle call to arms, seized the opportunity of a public event in his home state, and did what was collectively seen by his ilk as necessary and proper. To do so, he suspended morality, the rule of law, and human decency in order serve what he and too many others see as a higher political purpose. Sadly, this moral madness is what is taught in our nation’s colleges. This is the ethic that guided the global left – paired now with America’s identitarian vanguard –to fundamentally remake America.

Their immoral reasoning not only led to the killing of Charlie Kirk, but it is also the rationale of messianic monsters through the ages. In the 20th century alone, under the guise of National Socialism and global communism, it led to the murder of a hundred million souls. Social media has given it another Great Leap Forward. It is the justification for the show trials, the guillotine, the oven, the suicide vest, and the lone sniper. This assassin’s creed is not for everyone. Only a few have the wherewithal to take this beyond-good-and-evil step. But those who do take things to their evil conclusion do so knowing that those with less nerve but shared adjacency on the ends will find in their partisan hearts that what they did was needed and therefore good, if not praiseworthy.

This is the recipe for political madness and incompatible with our venerable experiment in self-government that we must now defend in common. What does Charlie Kirk’s assassination portend for our country? I see the potential of a natural turning point towards the good, the restoration of the First Amendment’s spirit, and a return of political, civic, cultural, religious, and economic toleration. That would be a big rainbow following a storm. So far, there has been little call for retaliatory violence. So much for the “Hitler Youth” handwringing. There have only been completely peaceful prayer vigils. Unlike this assassin’s creed and its enablers, Charlie Kirk’s soul and mind would not allow such a demonic transvaluation of value. His true followers share that moral position. On this point, the partisan calls for moral equivalence don’t hold.

The good news for us, the living, is that Charlie is being honored in death by his followers in a way that gives us all a new political lease on life. I first heard of his shooting from my 28-year-old son and 18-year-old nephew. They saw Charlie’s execution with their own eyes within moments of it happening and captured the core un-American inhumanity of it all. “A man is gunned down for the thought crime of debating on a college campus.” “This guy is a family man,” they said. “He has a wife and two young children.” What happens going forward? Charlie’s influence was huge before he was shot. It appears to be growing by the day in death. I hope something good is happening in real time. I believe you can see, hear, and feel it.

It turns out that when a public figure with 35 million followers gets assassinated for the whole world to see for simply speaking on a college campus, those who never heard of him – or heard something, good or bad – will naturally check it out themselves. A national re-examination may be happening. The curious are finding an immediate and growing corpus, which is deconstructing the demonic caricature made of him, and are standing up for this smart, fast-talking, civil, happy man in the prime of this life. Charlie’s wife Erika gave a speech full of love and principle that brought tears to those with open hearts. This organization Charlie dedicated half of his life to is not going anywhere but onward and upward. Since his assassination, Turning Point USA has received tens of thousands of applications to set up TPP college chapters.

College Mandarins in charge of green-lighting or gaslighting student organizations and regulating speech to their Orwellian liking should tread lightly going forward. The Justice Department will be watching. Charlie is dead but not gone. His happy warrior spirit and first-rate mind are already immortalized in the cloud. TPP should enlist the help of AI to give Charlie’s mind and his “Prove Me Wrong” method a second lease on life for our collective sake. To the legion of young people whose hearts are broken and want to do more, you know that Charlie would want you to follow in his footsteps. The time for being a spectator was canceled with an assassin’s bullet. Today, it is time to stand up, show up, and be like Charlie. You know his mind and his method. From heaven, Charlie is saying to all those who love him, “Prove Me Right.”

Read more …

“We have a country to save.”

TPUSA Names Charlie Kirk’s Widow Erika as New CEO (Salgado)

Turning Point USA lost its beloved CEO and founder, Charlie Kirk, to an assassination last week. Who better to take his place than his widow, Erika? Erika Kirk not only lost a friend and inspirational leader but also her much-loved husband last Wednesday. Now she has to raise their children alone. But she is not cowed by the horrific leftist violence that took her husband’s life, and she will be taking his place as the CEO and chairwoman of the board at TPUSA.= During her heartbreaking but inspiring comments after Charlie’s death, Erika declared, “You have no idea the fire that you have ignited within this wife. The cries of this widow will echo around the world like a battle cry. To everyone listening tonight across America, the movement my husband built will not die.” She is more committed than ever to his life’s work.

In the X post announcing Mrs. Kirk’s new position, TPUSA’s Board explained that Charlie had told multiple executives within the organization that, if he should die prematurely, he would want his wife to take over his job. The TPUSA Board voted accordingly for her yesterday, on Constitution Day. The statement from TPUSA began by citing Ecclesiastes in the Bible and expressing faith in God, just as Charlie always did: In Ecclesiastes, King Solomon wrote that mankind is to be tested by God. Today we are facing such a test, yet we also know that God has prepared us with everything we need to overcome this ordeal. It was the honor of our lives to serve as board members at Charlie’s side. Charlie prepared all of us for a moment like this one. He worked tirelessly to ensure Turning Point USA was built to survive even the greatest tests. And now, it is our great pride to announce Erika Kirk as the new CEO and Chair of the Board for Turning Point USA.

Charlie said he wanted his legacy to be his faith. And he wanted to inspire a whole generation of young patriots to carry on his work. The outpouring of love for him, not just in America but around the world, highlights his great success. The TPUSA board emphasized that every member of the organization has “a special role in carrying Charlie Kirk’s mantle and completing his vision of bringing us all closer to our Lord and fostering a prosperous country for generations to come.” It quoted Charlie’s famous saying, “We have a country to save.” Notably, just before his death, Charlie expressed a goal of putting a TPUSA “Club America” chapter at every high school in the country (somewhere around 25,000). Since Charlie’s assassination, TPUSA has had 37,000+ applications for new chapters.

Therefore, the Board affirmed: We will not surrender or kneel before evil. We will carry on. The attempt to destroy Charlie’s work will become our chance to make it more powerful and enduring than ever before. May God Bless Erika, the Kirk family, and the entire team at Turning Point USA. As Erika Kirk very truly said to her husband’s murderer, “You have no idea what you have just unleashed across this entire country and this world.”

Read more …

If Kimmel had been a big hit, he would never have been cancelled. Nothing to do with Trump.

Chris Cuomo Schools the Left on Kimmel’s Suspension (Margolis)

Chris Cuomo just dropped a dose of inconvenient truth about Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, and it’s not what the left wants to hear. Instead of feeding the narrative that this was some grand assault on free speech, Cuomo cut through the noise—and his blunt take won’t sit well with leftists desperate to turn Kimmel into a martyr. Cuomo began by stripping the drama down to the essentials: “You can like or not like Disney’s decision on Kimmel.” He then explained the obvious point the media refuses to entertain: absent evidence of state interference, this is a brand protecting itself. “But until I see proof of actual government coercion of their decision, this is about Disney making a business decision about its brand and the responsibility it has to respect the desires of its audience and its license.”

Throughout, Cuomo refused to barter facts for feelings. “I don’t care how you feel about it,” he said, adding bluntly, “We don’t have the proof before us. Maybe we will, then I’ll change my analysis.” In other words: show me the evidence or stop pretending the First Amendment has been violated. After the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, the facts quickly confirmed what many already suspected: his killer was a radicalized leftist. Yet on his show, Jimmy Kimmel mocked the truth, sneering, “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

https://twitter.com/JasonJournoDC/status/1968833785513828511

That wasn’t just inaccurate—it was blatant propaganda, and it crossed a legal line. Under 47 CFR § 73.1217, better known as the FCC’s “broadcast hoaxes” rule, television networks and radio stations are strictly prohibited from airing false information about crimes or catastrophes when they know it isn’t true. And it simply wasn’t and there was no excuse for anyone at ABC not to know that. Cuomo reiterated the point that should shut down every hysterical hot take on the left: the First Amendment limits government action, not private companies. “And no, it is not a First Amendment issue until you have proof of government intervention because the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private industry in this context. It’s a restriction on government regulation. Okay?”

That’s the core of Cuomo’s point. The idea that a network’s license hinges on personal loyalty to a president—or that Disney somehow lost its autonomy because of political pressure—is the stuff of tabloid headlines, not court-ready proof. “The basis of having a license is not on whether or not you are good to Trump. Okay?” Cuomo said, cutting through the noise. That suspicion is precisely why he insists on proof. And right now, the left has none.

Read more …

“And she reassured the president, because as his friend, she knew he may have needed this reassuring, that Charlie knew the president loved him, too. This is powerful because anyone who knows how men actually think knows that there is a good chance this was on the president’s mind..”

Jimmy Kimmel Missed This Clue About Trump; It Was His Downfall (Tim O’Brien)

If you didn’t know that Jimmy Kimmel has been suspended from his nightly gig producing a propaganda broadcast in front of a live audience, you’ll be forgiven for actually having a life. But for those of us who’ve been inundated with online reports of how this is bad or good for Western civilization, our forensic investigation continues. My colleague Stephen Kruiser put it all in perspective in The Morning Briefing today. And if gloating is your thing, you have to read about Roseanne Barr’s epic reaction, courtesy of Matt Margolis. Going by the headlines, the major reason Kimmel now has more time on his hands is that, when he inserted the Charlie Kirk assassination into his “comedy” monologue, he spread the myth that the alleged shooter, Tyler Robinson, was MAGA.

This has raised the question of whether comedians should be held to the same standards for truth and accuracy as journalists. While it’s one thing to debate how far-reaching the government should be in policing speech, it’s certainly within the purview of Disney, the owner of Kimmel’s show, to make the prudent decision to take him off the air if he’s spreading a dishonest narrative that adds to the current culture of toxicity. A culture that many blame for Charlie’s assassination. But there was another part to Kimmel’s monologue that demonstrated just how out-of-touch he has become and why his humor so consistently misses the mark.

He set up his joke by saying, “On a human level, you can see how hard the president is taking this.” And then he played a clip of President Trump taking impromptu questions from a scrum of White House reporters. One off-camera reporter offered the president his condolences and asked him how he was holding up. The president in DJT style answered by deflecting and pivoting in less than a second. “I think very good, and by the way right there you see all the trucks. They just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House,” the president said as he proceeded to change the subject. Kimmel’s punchline then is that Trump is at the fourth stage of grieving, “construction.” He then went on to frame the president’s approach to grieving as that of how a four-year-old mourns a goldfish.

OK, we all know it’s a joke, and a bad one, and timing-wise, a very insensitive one. But it also shows just how clueless Kimmel is when it comes to how real men deal with personal loss and grief. Kimmel, who’s surrounded by Hollywood types who revel in their identities of victimhood, doesn’t get real men, which is why he doesn’t get Trump. Trump is among the richest people in the world, and yet he does not afford himself the luxury of showing off his vulnerabilities to the world. He grew up on movies where John Wayne and Clint Eastwood presented the classic male archetype. Fortitude in the face of danger, death, and tragedy. In all of these stories, the hero is not distracted by all of the madness around him. He stays cool and focused, and he serves as a solid guidepost for those around him.

The current, more fashionable term for this is stoicism. Trump came up in the construction industry. It’s always been a man’s world, populated by no small number of tough and unsavory characters. To deal with all of the interests he’s had to deal with over the years, and to change skylines, he’s learned not to show weakness. Now in his second term as president, he knows the world is watching his every move. The Middle East is watching. Europe is watching. Vladimir Putin is watching. Xi Jinping is watching. The last thing Trump wants to show them is a crack in his armor. In terms of his public persona, Trump is easy to understand. He almost never takes off his tie or suit, and when he does, he’s on the golf course. When he talks in public, he’s rarely introspective.

For those who’ve met him, it’s always about you when he talks. He wants to talk about you. When he talks to the press, it’s almost always about the thing he’s trying to get done, or the people who stand in his way. One of his skills is to break this up often enough to entertain, and he does that by bragging a little (or a lot) and by praising or taking shots at famous people. He never uses the media to serve as his therapist, as so many celebrities do. This approach to compartmentalizing personal feelings is not unique to Trump. Most men are this way in some fashion, especially men of his generation. But Kimmel has lost sight of that, and that’s why he couldn’t comprehend why the President of the United States wouldn’t vomit his vulnerabilities to the press corps on demand.

Last Friday night, when Erika Kirk gave her address to the nation, one of the most touching parts of an extremely touching speech was when she looked into the camera and spoke directly to Charlie’s friend, President Trump. She told the president that Charlie loved him. And she reassured the president, because as his friend, she knew he may have needed this reassuring, that Charlie knew the president loved him, too. This is powerful because anyone who knows how men actually think knows that there is a good chance this was on the president’s mind. Just don’t expect him to talk about such a personal and intimate thing in public. It’s ironic that Kimmel’s breakout venture into entertainment was a show about men called “The Man Show,” and in 2025, the one thing Kimmel doesn’t have a clue about is men.

Read more …

“(A decision made easier by the fact Kimmel’s audience is down to about 12 leftists and whatever tourists and homeless he can drag off Hollywood Boulevard into his studio.)”

Kimmel Has No One to Blame but Himself for Cancellation by ABC (Perrotta)

Jimmy Kimmel has been yanked faster than a pitcher who gave up five home runs in a row … and spit on the bat boy. The longtime late-night host who self-identifies as a comedian was pulled off the air “indefinitely” by ABC/Disney after making a horrific slur against the “MAGA gang” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination. Specifically, despite mountains of public evidence that the suspect held in connection with Kirk’s killing is an antifa-echoing, trans-loving, MAGA-loathing leftist, Kimmel declared in somber tones Monday night: “We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and doing everything they can to score political points from it.”

He lied to his audience. Period. He explicitly pinned the killing on supporters of President Donald Trump. Period. This was not a poor attempt at a joke. At this point, Kimmel wouldn’t know a joke from a jukebox. This was not a live, on-the-air slip-up. (Like ABC News reporter Matt Gutman gushing about the “very touching” nature of accused gunman Tyler Robinson’s texts to his live-in transitioning lover.) This was a deliberate, scripted, placed on the cue-cards, vicious character assassination against a grieving segment of the population. It would be like Johnny Carson after James Earl Ray’s arrest for the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s 1968 assassination going on “The Tonight Show” and saying, “The Negroes are acting like a white man did this to hide that it was a brother, just so they can get more welfare.”

It was outrageous, and decent people agree: “No more.” As conservative podcaster Megyn Kelly posted on the social media platform X: “But what the Left doesn’t seem to understand and needs to hear is that MAGA has f****** HAD IT. We are ANGRY. We are INCENSED watching the [Left] smear us, our [people], literally getting some of our friends killed (not to mention our president shot and nearly assassinated again weeks later) and then LYING about it. (‘Trump faked his injury! He wasn’t actually shot!’ ‘We have no idea what the motives ever are … if they are bad for our side!’)” Two major TV-station owners of ABC affiliates, Sinclair and Nexstar, also had enough. ABC/Disney finally had it as well. (A decision made easier by the fact Kimmel’s audience is down to about 12 leftists and whatever tourists and homeless he can drag off Hollywood Boulevard into his studio.)

Faux Outrage
Naturally, Democrats and some in the liberal media are gnashing their teeth over Kimmel’s cancellation. As are those dozen Kimmel viewers. Daily Signal Executive Editor Rob Bluey laid out five of the most egregious examples, from Sen. Chris Murphy to CNN’s Van Jones. Too bad the Emmys were last Sunday night. These performances would have swept the awards. Even Barack Obama, the nation’s Divider Emeritus, weighed in. They’re the worst breed of hypocrites. As Bluey noted, these sudden champions of free speech were perfectly happy to sit on their pampered rear ends while the Biden administration launched an all-out war on conservative voices. And Obama? He’s the one who unleashed the rabid dogs of the IRS to maul the Tea Party movement to death. On this, he should on Mount Shushmore.

It’s not just that they’re hypocrites. They’re gaslighters. Again, they’re talking about the oppressive Trump regime (read “fascists”) stamping out dissent, the same basic messaging that got Kirk killed, when Kimmel’s canning was simply a corporate decision. In recent years, when cancel culture was at its peak, the very same woke ABC/Disney machine: • Fired Roseanne Barr from her show because of a single Ambien-fueled joke on Twitter about former Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett that was deemed racist. • Fired “The Mandalorian” star Gina Carano over some pointed political posts on social media that did not fit their woke view of the world. • Forced out longtime “Bachelor” host Chris Harrison for showing sympathy for a contestant who got canceled after trolls dug up that she had attended an antebellum plantation-themed party years before in college. Not a peep from those weeping and gnashing teeth over Kimmel’s ouster.

Let’s go back even further. This same ABC canceled Bill Maher’s show “Politically Incorrect” after 9/11 when he suggested the hijackers were not “cowards” because they undertook a suicide mission … as opposed to the U.S. military lobbing bombs from a thousand miles away. Nobody’s infringing Kimmel’s free speech. He’s free to launch a podcast tomorrow … free to play the martyr on X …. free to do more blackface. Free to hit open mic nights and pretend to again be a comedian. And ABC is free to say they don’t want Kimmel representing the network.

Read more …

Shapiro undoubtedly thinks he makes a coherent argument. It’s just that I don’t see it.

The Assassination and the Violent Movements We Must Denounce (Ben Shapiro)

This week, my friend Charlie Kirk was murdered in cold blood in front of a crowd of thousands at Utah Valley University. He was assassinated while debating with students — something Charlie did frequently, and with aplomb — by a radicalized leftist with a trans boyfriend. That assassin decided to kill Charlie because of Charlie’s belief that men cannot become women, and vice versa; as he allegedly wrote in a text message to that trans boyfriend, “I had enough of his hatred. Some hate can’t be negotiated out. If I am able to grab my rifle unseen, I will have left no evidence.”

I was in Los Angeles when Charlie was shot. My first reaction was shock; my second, horror; and my third, the realization that the shooting was almost certainly the result of a radicalized leftist, probably associated with transgender ideology. If we are to be honest with ourselves, we all have such reactions upon learning of acts of evil: We jump to the most likely conclusion about the source of that evil. If a synagogue is targeted in a mass shooting, the suspect will almost certainly be either a radical Muslim or a white supremacist; if a church is targeted, a radical Muslim or a trans activist; if a CEO is shot, a Marxist radical of some sort. There is a reason for such suppositions: Not all ideologies are equally likely to produce violence at the margins.

Ideologies that breed violence share three specific elements. First, they share a conspiratorial view of the universe in which a shadowy cabal of powerful people are responsible for all of your failures and shortcomings, and in which their arguments are not in fact arguments, but instead, a la Michel Foucault, a facade for power. Second, such ideologies share a belief that you or your group are being targeted for destruction by that shadowy cabal. Finally, such ideologies hold that violence is justifiable self-defense.

All the ideologies listed above fit this model. Trans ideology argues that trans people are victims of a conspiracy — a conspiracy to deny their identity; that such denial is responsible for all their life problems and amounts to a form of “erasure” or “genocide”; and that the proper response to such “hate” is violence. Radical Marxism argues that poor people are victims of a conspiracy of the wealthy, who exploit them; arguments on behalf of free markets are merely false consciousness promoted by the powerful; violence is therefore an appropriate response (“FREE LUIGI!”). White supremacy argues that whites are being targeted by people of color, Jews, and other minorities and fellow travelers; their very existence is a threat, and force is thus a justifiable response. Radical Islam argues that the failures of Islamic civilization are due to imperialism and colonialism; that the success of the West is inherently violent; and that violence is the proper response.

When politicians say, therefore, that they are against “political violence” but then move to justify violence by massaging these ideologies, their words are useless. They are a prettification of reality, an attempt to gloss over radical evils gnawing at the intestines of a functional society. Even worse, politicians who continue to foment such ideologies provide a permission structure for violence, excusing it and even valorizing it. The only way to truly fight political violence is to denounce the ideologies that breed it. Anything less means that more radicals take their ideologies to the logical extreme — and the result is blood in the streets, innocents dead and an ever-widening cycle of violence.

Read more …

“..it’s possible that the very organizations he needed to carry out his order — the FBI and DOJ — were too busy trying to destroy his presidency.”

Trump to Antifa: IT’S GOING DOWN (Victoria Taft)

President Trump announced on TruthSocial on Constitution Day that he is officially designating Antifa a domestic terrorist organization. To commemorate the occasion, I’ve used one of Antifa’s own hype quotes from its posters, websites, and signs to announce: Antifa: It’s Going Down. It’ll take some work, but at least some of the people in this destructive, antisocial organization will likely get rolled up in the Trump Administration’s efforts to treat Antifa like the terror organization it has proven itself to be. Trump 45 gave oxygen to the idea of treating Antifa like a terrorist organization, but it’s possible that the very organizations he needed to carry out his order — the FBI and DOJ — were too busy trying to destroy his presidency. Political treachery carries a cost. And Portland has carried much of that cost.

Despite Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s endorsement of Antifa in that feature photo above, Antifa has been a scourge on the American political landscape for more than a decade. You saw their work in Portland, starting in 2015 when they made their presence known by running “security” as “allies” of the Black Lives Matter movement. There were swarming assaults on independent journalists such as Mike Strickland and Andy Ngo before and after Donald Trump’s election, and, most notoriously, you, like most of the nation, were horrified by the “Summer of Love” in 2020. Those riots were so calamitous that Portland hasn’t yet recovered from the untold hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and the ongoing public relations disaster that cost the city and local businesses millions more. The recent sale of a downtown high-rise for pennies on the dollar shows the disrepute in which Portland — and the security of its citizens — is held.

Seattle’s autonomous zone, Atlanta, Minneapolis, Kenosha, and Antifa in San Diego were all involved in what looks like a conspiracy to foment violence. Professional protesters started hundreds or thousands of riots with impunity. Those few who were arrested were freed by woke George Soros district attorneys. The damage done by this group is unquantifiable. It certainly was for Aaron Danielson’s family. He’s the man who was assassinated on the streets of Portland in 2020 during Antifa’s “Summer of Love.” Danielson was part of the group Patriot Prayer. That group would hold free speech rallies, and when Antifa invariably showed up to start the violence, the Patriot Prayer guys would make sure the Anti-First Amendment collection of trans, soy boys, and strapped and trained Antifa members regretted it.

Patriot Prayer was eventually and unofficially PNG’d from Portland by city and county officials. That’s right: Portland eventually kicked out the only people doing anything about Antifa. That happened after an Antifa shoot-out on Portland streets. We digress, however. Danielson was walking with his buddy in downtown Portland during the riots and was shot at point-blank range by a “100% Antifa” assassin. I wrote about it in this story, “Police Say Suspected Antifa Hit-Man Stalked Pro-Trump Victim Before Portland Murder.” Oh, Antifa has much to answer for. If you think designating them as a terrorist organization is impossible because of our First Amendment laws, however, you may have a point. But there is hope of finally bringing these bastards to court.

In 2021, God bless San Diego County for charging a violent sect of Antifa, some of them on loan from L.A., under state law. I wrote about it then in this story, “Violent Antifa Terrorists Are Finally Prosecuted for Attacking Conservatives,” and in 2023, a swath of this group was found guilty. Three years later, I wrote about their sentencing in my West Coast, Messed Coast™ report, in which one of the defendants apologized at his sentencing, saying, “I want to apologize to the victims and the city of San Diego. No one should be attacked for their political views.” I wrote at the time, “…another blaring advertisement for requiring civics to be taught in schools.” Defendants were brought up on a variety of charges. But they were also charged with a conspiracy to commit riot.

The Antifa of their day were members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and Animal Liberation Front (ALF). A federal prosecution that few remember occurred in Oregon — if you can believe it — and was against ELF and ALF, which the feds dubbed “The Family.” These were the same losers that, over a period of years from mid-1990s until someone set that Vail ski lodge on fire, incinerated a lab and 20 years of research at the University of Washington Horticulture Center, burned a “street of dreams” multi-million dollar home in Seattle, torched a San Diego condo complex under construction, and firebombed SUV dealerships, attacked furriers, torched an excavator in Mexico, and conspired to do it all in their commune in Eugene, Ore. It was a case that no one thought would ever come to fruition, and the members of those domestic terrorist groups were rolled up by the feds in Operation Backfire in 2006. The last person was sentenced in 2009.

On Wednesday, Ryan Mauro of the Capital Research Center released his report about the tentacles of the George Soros empire in the violent movements on college campuses and America’s streets. It’s quite enlightening. You should read it. The most salient part of his research concerns the funding of Antifa’s violent takeover of what they called “Cop City” in Atlanta. Antifa expert, independent reporter Andy Ngo, said he thinks there might be some problem going after Antifa as a terrorist organization because, under current U.S. law, there must be an international touchstone. Mauro’s report may indeed be the international touchstone connecting Antifa in America. On page 60 of his 95-page report, Mauro discovered that the Grassroots Global Justice Alliance, which has ties to Hamas and the Union of Palestinian Women’s Committees, helped support the Antifa group in their “Stop Cop City” reign of terror.

The Alliance has also come to the defense of the aforementioned Stop Cop City/Defend the Atlanta Forest terrorists. …In 2020, the Alliance endorsed violence against law enforcement, posting a graphic showing weapons and criminal tactics used by protestors, such as blockading roads in order to impede police cars and encouraging demonstrators not to provide information about each other’s crimes. Over 40 of the anarchists are being prosecuted on domestic terrorism charges as of February 2024 and over 60 were indicted in August 2023 on racketeering charges. Among those accused of being terrorists is Thomas Jurgens, one of the Southern Poverty Law Center’s attorneys.

Read more …

This should be good.

Brigitte Macron To Prove To US Court She’s A Woman (NYP)

French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, will present photographic and scientific evidence to a US court to prove the French first lady is, in fact, a woman. The two are submitting the documentation as part of a defamation lawsuit against conservative influencer Candace Owens, who claimed that Brigitte Macron was born a male and later secretly transitioned. The Macrons’ attorney, Tom Clare, told the BBC’s “Fame Under Fire” podcast that there will be “expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature.” The attorney did not elaborate on exactly what it would be, beyond that it would include pictures of Brigitte, now 72, when she was pregnant with their kids.

The French power couple is ready to demonstrate “both generically and specifically” that the allegations are false, Clare stated firmly. “It is incredibly upsetting to think that you have to go and subject yourself, to put this type of proof forward,” he said of the distress it has caused the first lady. “It is a process that she will have to subject herself to in a very public way. But she’s willing to do it. She is firmly resolved to do what it takes to set the record straight,” he said. Owens has repeatedly claimed, without evidence, that Brigitte Macron, 72, was born male — going as far as to say on her podcast earlier this year that she “would stake my entire professional career on all of those points.”

The Macrons filed a lawsuit against Owens in Delaware in July, alleging Owens “disregarded all credible evidence disproving her claim in favor of platforming known conspiracy theorists and proven defamers.”Owens’ claims are similar to those previously made in France by two women whom Brigitte Macron sued in 2021. That case was initially ruled in the French first lady’s favor but has been overturned on appeal. She has taken the case to France’s highest appeals court. Brigitte Macron was 39 years old when she became the future French leader’s teacher when he was 15 in 1993. The pair married in 2007.

Read more …

“Two British experts discussing the French mess for the conservative British magazine Spectator could not help but recall that the French Revolution – the big one, 1789 – started with a debt crisis, too.”

Macron Is In A Political Death Spiral (Amar)

The France of President Emmanuel Macron, who is really the egomaniac-in-chief, is somewhere on the spectrum between “spiraling political crisis” (Financial Times), “big trouble” (The Economist) and terminal collapse. Again. Barely a week after a new, if fragile, government was cobbled together in acute crisis mode, the country is bracing “for big anti-austerity street marches and labor strikes,” while the state’s finances are “pernicious” and the budget for 2026 a big question without an answer. In Paris, for instance, the Metro is semi-comatose; in the country as whole, a third of teachers are on strike. An earlier wave of protests – under the slogan “Let’s block everything”– did not quite achieve that ambitious aim, but it did attract double the number of participants the authorities had expected.

In that respect – even if they were different in their ideological background – the French protests resemble the recent ‘Unite the Kingdom’ rally in London. On both sides of the Channel, decrepit, unpopular, unresponsive Centrist regimes are barely hanging on now. As the French have taught us to say “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose” (“The more things change, the more they stay the same”). Especially after Macron’s two irresponsible and egotistic decisions of 2024, France can’t find a way out of the mess he has created: first, he called snap parliamentary elections to then, second, ignore the will of the French voters.

If Macron had respected the results of the elections that he himself initiated, he would have had to charge either a left-wing bloc, with the most combined votes, or the new-right Rassemblement National (RN), which obtained the most votes for a single party, with building a new government. Yet the man with a vast ego and an incredibly shrinking popularity base, clearly rejected by a preponderant majority of his people, felt he knew better. Since then Macron has tried to impose his will against parliament. The problem? Parliament won’t agree.

So, after what the YouTube channel of venerable left journal l’Humanité calls “the parliamentary hara-kiri” of the last politically short-lived prime minister, here we go again. Total deadlock at the political center; in the streets, picturesque unrest featuring traditional folklore, such as burning rubbish bins, baton-charging police, and teargas galore; and finally, yet another compulsive attempt by Macron the Unpopular to succeed with what keeps failing: installing a new – his fifth in less than two years – prime minister (his name is Sébastien Lecornu, but don’t bother remembering) who has no majority in parliament and thus, cannot possibly pass the budget ex-investment banker Macron wants in order to get his kind of austeritarian-neoliberal handle on France’s very real debt crisis. Please the rich, squeeze all others.

In short, since Macron refuses to either call fresh parliamentary elections or go away, let’s do the doom loop again. That at least is a tempting reading of the current situation in Paris and the unfortunate country that its detached president plagues. And yet, perhaps things are different this time. As in, even worse. Maybe this crisis is not just bad-business-as-usual but a sign that a bigger political earthquake is coming, the kind that reshapes the landscape. Consider for starters the intriguing frequency with which commentators are making historic comparisons. Two British experts discussing the French mess for the conservative British magazine Spectator could not help but recall that the French Revolution – the big one, 1789 – started with a debt crisis, too.

Read more …

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that Trump had shifted “from issuing an ultimatum for an unconditional ceasefire to advocating for a long-term, sustainable solution.”

‘Not The Right Time’ To Call For Russia-Ukraine Ceasefire – Trump (RT)

US President Donald Trump said it is not the right time for him to call for a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine. A reporter asked Trump aboard Air Force One whether it was time to press for a ceasefire, noting that a month has passed since his rare face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska. “It doesn’t feel like it,” Trump said. “But at the right time, if I have to do it, it will be harsh,” he added. Trump, who has at times criticized both Russia and Ukraine, recently admitted that negotiating an end to the conflict would be harder than he had anticipated. Speaking at a press conference with Prime Minister Keir Starmer during his trip to the UK on Thursday, Trump said that Putin had “really let me down.”

Last week, the US president said he would impose additional “major sanctions” on Moscow, but only if all NATO members stop purchasing Russian oil. “This is not TRUMP’S WAR (it would never have started if I was president!), it is Biden’s and Zelenskyy’s WAR,” he wrote on his Truth Social platform, referring to his predecessor and the leader of Ukraine. In an interview aired on Russian TV on Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov noted that Trump had shifted “from issuing an ultimatum for an unconditional ceasefire to advocating for a long-term, sustainable solution.” Moscow has demanded that Ukraine recognize its new borders, abandon its plan to join NATO in favor of permanent neutrality, and agree to limit its military. Zelensky has rejected these terms.

Read more …

“..the district court judge “lacked authority to order reinstatement as an equitable remedy for the removal of an officer of the United States..”

Trump Files Emergency Request With SCOTUS To Make Lisa Cook Fired Again (ZH)

The Trump administration filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Thursday to allow it to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook from the central bank’s board while a lawsuit plays out in lower court over Cook’s ouster by President Trump last month. The request comes after a federal appeals court in Washington DC rejected the administration’s attempt to remove an order blocking Cook’s removal in a 2-1 decision the night before the Fed’s meeting earlier this week. “This application involves yet another case of improper judicial interference with the President’s removal authority — here, interference with the President’s authority to remove members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors for cause,” wrote the administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General John Sauer.

According to court filings, the Trump administration maintains that Cook committed mortgage fraud based on evidence provided by Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte – which showed that Cook claimed two properties as her primary residence within weeks of each other. On Aug. 25, Trump announced that he was firing Cook from the seven-member Fed Board. Cook sued in response, resulting in a federal district court on Sept. 9 barring her removal while the suit plays out – which the appeals court upheld. Sauer says that the Supreme Court, for various reasons, should stay the district court judge’s preliminary injunction reinstating Cook to the Fed, claiming that the DOJ is likely to prevail in the lawsuit “because Cook lacks a Fifth Amendment property interest in her continued service as a Governor of the Federal Reserve System,” and her job is not protected by due process considerations.

Sauer also disputed the judge’s alternative finding that Cook’s firing “for cause” was invalid because the alleged conduct occurred before she was appointed to the Fed. “The Federal Reserve Act’s broad ‘for cause’ provision rules out removal for no reason at all, or for policy disagreement,” he wrote, adding “But so long as the President identifies a cause, the determination of ‘some cause relating to the conduct, ability, fitness, or competence of the officer’ is within the President’s unreviewable discretion.” “Cook had made contradictory representations in two mortgage agreements a short time apart, claiming that both a property in Michigan and a property in Georgia would simultaneously serve as her principal residence,” Sauer continued. “Each mortgage agreement described the representation as material to the lender, reflecting the reality that lenders usually offer lower interest rates for principal-residence mortgages because they view such mortgages as less risky.”

“When her apparent misconduct came to light, the President determined that Cook’s ‘deceitful and potentially criminal conduct in a financial matter’ renders her unfit to continue serving on the Federal Reserve Board, and at a minimum demonstrates ‘the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question [her] competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator.” Sauer also says that the district court judge “lacked authority to order reinstatement as an equitable remedy for the removal of an officer of the United States, as we have discussed in several recent stay applications.” Cook has denied wrongdoing, and has argued that unproven allegations are not sufficient grounds for removing the Biden appointee.

Read more …

“.. the administration “does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress.”

RFK Jr. Cannot Proceed With Overhaul of Health Agencies, Court Rules (ET)

A federal appeals court on Sept. 17 declined to lift a preliminary injunction blocking a plan by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to overhaul the department in line with the Trump administration’s policy priorities. Attorneys general from 19 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in May challenging Kennedy’s restructuring of HHS, including layoffs and the reorganization of several agencies, arguing that the changes violate federal law and the U.S. Constitution.= On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the Boston-based First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s claim that the states could not show they would be immediately harmed if the injunction were lifted pending an appeal. The panel noted that the lower court relied on hundreds of pages of testimony from state officials.

“The government does not explain how the district court clearly erred in crediting these uncontroverted facts,” the court said in an unsigned order. Kennedy announced on March 27 that his department would “streamline the functions” of its federal workforce by consolidating subagencies, reducing the number of regional offices, and implementing a reduction-in-force plan that would impact 10,000 HHS employees. They were all offered buy-out options to incentivize them to quit ahead of the announced job cuts. The restructuring plan looked to streamline 28 divisions into 15, and close half of the department’s 10 regional offices. Four HHS sub-agencies were named in the restructuring: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, the Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Head Start, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE).

Attorneys general filed a lawsuit in federal court in Rhode Island challenging the restructuring plan. Plaintiffs said the executive action violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the scope of executive authority, violating the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine and appropriations clause. They also pointed to potential harms their states would face if the executive action were allowed to proceed, saying their agencies would be unable to conduct sufficient laboratory testing or process critical health data needed to track infectious diseases and improve maternal and infant health outcomes. They added that the reforms would create financial strain, forcing the states to cover funding gaps left by the pullback in federal resources.

The Trump administration had argued that the states’ case rested on speculation about what harms they would suffer as a result of changes to department services, and that any challenges to the firings had to be pursued by the federal employees themselves before the Merit Systems Protection Board. In July, the District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose ruled that the administration “does not have the authority to order, organize, or implement wholesale changes to the structure and function of the agencies created by Congress.” Her injunction ordered the HHS to freeze its reduction-in-force and restructuring plans at the four agencies. On Aug. 12, the government filed to temporarily lift the injunction, pending court proceedings.

In its appeal, the HHS said that the lower court ruling should be set aside as the lawsuit was functionally identical to two earlier cases in which the U.S. Supreme Court lifted orders requiring it to reinstate employees let go en masse at other agencies by the administration. The Epoch Times contacted the HHS and the office of New York Attorney General Letitia James, which is spearheading the lawsuit, for comment but received no response by publication time. HHS’s mandate is to “enhance the health and well-being of all Americans, by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services,” according to its website.

Read more …

“Today, these countries not only occupy most of the earth’s land and constitute the majority of the world’s population but they also account for the majority of the world’s GDP.”

The ‘Golden Billion’ Has Lost Its Crown (Bobrov)

In economics and sociology, there’s a well-known observation called the Pareto Principle. Named after the Franco-Italian thinker Vilfredo Pareto, it is often summarized as the “80/20 rule”: 20 percent of efforts yield 80 percent of results, while the remaining 80 percent of efforts account for just 20 percent. Over time, this idea inspired Western “elite theory,” a convenient justification for why every society contains an active minority that dominates a passive majority – why 20 percent of the population holds 80 percent of the wealth. Today, the principle has outgrown national borders. In diplomacy, it has come to symbolize a deeper conflict: the “global minority” versus the “global majority.”

The first group, sometimes called the “golden billion,” began to take shape in the late 20th and early 21st centuries under the Democratic administrations in the United States and their allies in the G7 and NATO. This group gradually solidified its position through exploiting globalization in their favor. In contrast, the latter group, resisting the formation of a unipolar world and advocating for a more equitable multipolar global order, has gained increasing significance on the world stage. This momentum has been fueled not only by the individual efforts of nations like Russia, China, and India but also through the establishment of fundamentally new institutions for multilateral diplomacy such as BRICS, the SCO, and others.

Achieving significant progress in diminishing the hegemony of the collective West, evidenced by the SCO+ summit in Tianjin (August 31 – September 1, 2025) which became the largest in the organization’s history, and the second BRICS summit during Brazil’s presidency this year (September 8, 2025), the nations of the ‘global majority’ have effectively reversed the Pareto principle. Today, these countries not only occupy most of the earth’s land and constitute the majority of the world’s population but they also account for the majority of the world’s GDP. Leveraging their vast reserves of essential resources and consistently demonstrating robust economic growth, these nations have achieved remarkable success by overcoming internal divisions and consolidating power with the support of their populations.

In stark contrast, the countries of the “global minority” are witnessing an opposite trend. As they lose their leading positions in the global economy and access to key natural resources, political fragmentation is becoming prevalent. In many of these nations, an active minority with low trust ratings clings to power. This has resulted in deepening societal divides in numerous countries – from the US, UK, and France to Poland and Israel – and a clear paralysis of government authority. For instance, in the US, the Democrats, who are rapidly losing ground, are resorting to increasingly radical political tactics.

Read more …

NOTE: Russian debt-to-GDP is 18-20%. US debt-to-GDP is 124%.

Bank of Russia Governor Dismisses Talk Of Recession (RT)

Russia is not in recession, central bank governor Elvira Nabiullina said on Thursday, adding that a slowdown in growth should not be mistaken for an outright contraction. Since the Ukraine conflict escalated in 2022, Russia has operated under sweeping Western sanctions. The economy, however, has proved resilient, with GDP expanding 4.1% in 2023 and 4.3% in 2024. Growth is expected to slow to 2.5% this year, with the central bank’s forecast even more cautious, at 1-2%. Nabiullina said Russia was experiencing an economic slowdown but not a recession, stressing that even the criteria for a technical recession — two consecutive quarters of contraction — had not been met.

“One should not confuse a recession, which I agree is associated with very negative phenomena, with an economic slowdown. Yes, the economy is slowing, but there is no recession,” she said at the Moscow Financial Forum. She noted that growth had cooled to more moderate levels after a period of overheating, though the summer months had brought signs of renewed activity, including stronger consumer demand and rising corporate lending. Earlier this month, Russian Economic Development Minister Maksim Reshetnikov said growth was slowing faster than expected and that forecasts were being revised. He had earlier warned that the country was close to recession, with the outcome hinging on policy and interest rates.

The central bank, which raised its key rate to a record 21% in October 2024 to curb inflation, has since cut it to 17%. His warnings were echoed by Sberbank CEO Herman Gref, who described the second quarter (April-June) as a period of “technical stagnation” and urged timely measures, including lower borrowing costs, to avoid slipping into recession. “July and August showed clear signs we are approaching zero growth,” he said. Russian President Vladimir Putin disagreed with the assessment, saying that while many were unhappy with the central bank’s key rate, it was necessary to fight inflation. He warned that sharp cuts to the rate could trigger higher prices.

Read more …

She almost took over Canada.

“ACHIEVED MORE FOR UKRAINIAN FASCISM (2013-2025) THAN HER GRANDFATHER ACHIEVED AS HITLER’S PROPAGANDIST AND SPY (1939-45)”

Great Moments In The History Of Chrystia Freeland’s Failure (Helmer)

Chrystia Freeland’s final leap at political power in her 12-year attempt to rule Canada ended yesterday when she fell flat on her face. Prime Minister Mark Carney, whose push has proved more kinetic than Freeland’s jump, allowed this to be understood when he offered Freeland the less than face-saving post of reconstructing the Ukraine which her warfighting campaign against Russia has all but destroyed. The cost to Canada of this destruction since the Special Military Operation began in February 2022 has been C$22 billion, including about C$13 billion in loans which the Kiev regime cannot repay but which are being serviced from the interest earned on Russian assets seized by the NATO allies. Freeland’s ouster was so rushed, there was no time for her to explain what the hurry was in her departure, nor for Carney to prepare what Freeland would be doing as his special envoy to the Ukraine without any staff or diplomatic rank.

In his official release, Carney appeared not to know that Freeland is resigning her parliamentary seat. According to Carney’s announcement, Freeland had “helped to secure historic trade negotiations, guide the response to a global pandemic, complete early learning and child care agreements across Canada, and…remove all federal barriers to internal trade.” Not a word about the priorities of Freeland’s career, war against Russia and war against China. “I have asked Chrystia to serve as Canada’s new Representative for the Reconstruction of Ukraine,” Carney said, “in addition to her responsibilities as a Member of Parliament.” Carney is believed to have authorized press leaks ahead of his cabinet meeting on Tuesday to reveal Freeland was resigning her combined portfolio of internal trade and transport. In the rush, Carney took several hours before deciding to split the portfolios and assign them to different individuals.

After the cabinet meeting Freeland avoided the press. Returning to her office, she drafted the social media post of a letter which she addressed, not to the prime minister, but to “dear neighbours, dear Canadians.” She then announced: “I do not intend to run in the next federal election.” As her reason for the exit, Freeland claimed she “is not leaving to spend more time with my family or because the burden of elected office is too heavy to bear.” Instead, “after twelve fulfilling years in public life, I know that now is the right time for me to make way for others and to seek fresh changes for myself.”

Freeland had her 57th birthday last month. A Canadian source in a position to know commented that there have been growing policy differences between Carney and Freeland. “Carney has signaled his willingness to lower tariffs on Chinese electric vehicle (EV) imports in order to secure Chinese cooperation on their tariffs on Canadian canola. Freeland is recognized in Beijing as a China-hater who, as we know, made sabotaging Canada’s relationship with Beijing a top priority.” Canola is Canada’s most valuable field crop and farm export, with farm cash receipts of C$12.9 billion in 2024.

China had been importing about two-thirds of the Canadian canola crop until Beijing imposed a 100% tariff on canola oil and canola meal in March, and then a 76% tariff on canola seed in August. This was retaliation against a series of hostile Canadian political and trade attacks on China, culminating in August 2024 in a 100% tariff on EV imports and a 25% tariff on imported Chinese steel and aluminium. Freeland’s “past behaviour”, said the source, “displays that she’s not at all trustworthy, let alone capable of putting the government’s goals in front of her own ambitions. Other members of cabinet didn’t hide their dislike of her from Carney. She has the reputation of blowing up cabinet meetings with clumsy, hysterical attempts to run everyone else’s business. That has threatened Carney. Freeland then underestimated his ruthlessness in getting rid of her.”

Read more …

One oil tanker disaster and….

China To Test Arctic Express Route To Europe (RT)

China is preparing to launch a new shipping route along Russia’s Northern coast, via the Arctic to Europe, Politico has reported on Thursday. The Northern Sea Route (NSR), which runs for thousands of miles through Russia’s Arctic waters along its northern coast, has become more accessible due to receding sea ice and has been hailed in Moscow as an opportunity for new international projects. On September 20 China is sending the Istanbul Bridge container ship on an 18-day trip with icebreaker escort from Ningbo-Zhoushan port to Felixstowe in the UK. The new route is significantly faster than traditional voyages, which take about 40 days via the Suez Canal, 50 days via the Cape of Good Hope at Africa’s southern tip, and around 25 days via Eurasian railways.

“The Arctic is the first region where climate change is changing the geopolitical map,” Malte Humpert of the Arctic Institute told Politico, adding that the region is “changing the geopolitical dynamics because of resources and access to shipping routes.” He noted that while most trade still flows through the Suez Canal, Mediterranean and Singapore, the Arctic could soon become an alternative because the voyage is about 40% shorter and faces “a lot less geopolitical uncertainty.” His comments come as traditional corridors like the Suez Canal have faced piracy flare-ups near the Horn of Africa and missile and drone threats in the Red Sea, pushing some carriers to detour around Africa.

Russia has repeatedly called for international cooperation to develop the Arctic. Earlier this year, President Vladimir Putin outlined goals for the region, including making the Northern Sea Route a central part of the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor and raising cargo volumes to 70–100 million tons by the end of the decade. He also announced plans to ensure year-round navigation supported by Russia’s exclusive nuclear icebreaker fleet, as well as to expand existing ports such as Murmansk and build new ones along the route. Putin has further highlighted the vast opportunities for oil, gas, metals and rare earth extraction in the Arctic, calling for joint ventures with foreign partners such as China, India, the UAE and others. He has also pledged to expand development of Arctic cities and promote tourism across the region.

Read more …

 

 

 

 

Rogan

Yeadon

statins

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in wartime with Paypal, Bitcoin and Patreon.

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 202023
 
 March 20, 2023  Posted by at 5:40 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  5 Responses »


Jacob Lawrence Struggle: From the History of the American People, Panel 10 1954

Andrew Korybko:

The impending trifurcation of International Relations will result in the formation of three de facto New Cold War blocs: The US-led West’s Golden Billion, the Sino-Russo Entente, and the informally Indianled Global South. Intrepid readers can review the preceding hyperlinked analysis to learn more about the grand strategic dynamics behind this latest phase of the global systemic transition, while the present one will elaborate on those connected to the Russian-Chinese Strategic Partnership in particular.

These two Eurasian Great Powers had already closely aligned their foreign and economic policies far before Russia was forced to commence its special operation in Ukraine last year after NATO clandestinely crossed its red lines there and refused to diplomatically resolve their security dilemma. This was due to their shared multipolar vision, which in turn resulted in Moscow synchronizing its Greater Eurasian Partnership (GEP) with Beijing’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).

The purpose behind doing so was to supercharge multipolar processes across the supercontinent with a view towards making International Relations more democratic, equal, just, and predictable a lot sooner than even the most optimistic observers could have expected. None of this was driven by anti-Western animosity either since both of them envisaged the EU and US playing pragmatic roles in this emerging world order, which is proven by their proactive engagement of each over the years.

Russia expected that it could diplomatically resolve its security dilemma with the US over NATO’s expansion simultaneously with encouraging it and the EU to get Kiev to implement the Minsk Accords, thus ending the then-Ukrainian Civil War and optimizing trans-Eurasian trade. Meanwhile, many EU countries joined BRI and China even clinched an investment pact with the bloc, all while seeking to diplomatically resolve its own security dilemma with the US and work out a new trade deal with it.

Had the US formulated its grand strategy with mutually beneficial economically driven outcomes in mind instead of remaining under the influence of Brzezinski’s zero-sum divide-and-rule teachings, then everything could have been much different. That declining unipolar hegemon could have responsibly carved out a comfortable niche in the new era of globalization that Russia and China were jointly seeking to pioneer, thus ensuring that the global systemic transition smoothly moved towards multipolarity.

Regrettably, liberalglobalist members of the US’ military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) continued to believe that Brzezinski’s geostrategic schemes could successfully reverse the aforesaid transition and thus indefinitely retain their country’s dominant position in International Relations. This explains why they subsequently sought to “contain” Russia and China at the same time by worsening regional disputes instead of reciprocating those two’s efforts to peacefully resolve them.

The decision was eventually made to prioritize Russia’s “containment” over China’s with the expectation that the first would either strategically capitulate to NATO’s blackmail campaign or quickly collapse due to sanctions if it resorted to military force for defending its red lines in Ukraine, thus making China’s successful “containment” a fait accompli in that scenario and therefore preserving the US’ hegemony. Where everything went wrong was that the West never prepared for a protracted conflict in Ukraine.

Russia proved much more resilient in all respects than the Golden Billion expected, ergo why they’re panicking that the over $100 billion that they’ve already given to their proxies in Kiev isn’t anywhere near enough for defeating that Eurasian Great Power. The New York Times admitted last month that the sanctions failed just like their “isolation” campaign did, while the NATO chief recently declared a “race of logistics” and the Washington Post finally told the truth about just how poorly Kiev’s forces are faring.

Amidst the past year of international proxy hostilities that the West itself provoked, the globalized system upon which China’s grand strategy depended was unprecedentedly destabilized by their unilateral sanctions regime that’s responsible for the food and fuel crises across the Global South. This influenced President Xi to seriously consider a “New Détente” with the US, which he initiated during last November’s G20 Summit in Bali after he met with Biden and a bunch of other Western leaders.

To be absolutely clear, this well-intended effort wasn’t meant to reverse any of the multipolar progress that China was responsible for over the past decade but purely to pursue a series of mutual compromises aimed at establishing a “new normal” in their ties so as to restore stability to globalization. In other words, it was about buying time for the world’s top two economies to recalibrate their grand strategies, ideally in the direction of working more closely together for everyone’s sake.

Their talks unexpectedly ended in early February, however, after the black swan event that’s known as the balloon incident. This saw anti-Chinese hardliners in the US suddenly ascend to policymaking prominence, thus dooming the “New Détente”, which resulted in China recalibrating its approach to the NATO-Russian proxy war to the point where President Xi, Foreign Minister Qin, and Ambassador to the EU Fu all concluded that it’s part of the US’ anti-Chinese “containment” strategy.

Under these newfound circumstances, the US consolidated its successfully reasserted hegemony over the EU by getting Germany to go along with Washington’s very strongly implied threats that the Golden Billion will sanction China if it decides to arm Russia should Moscow require such aid as a last resort. In response, China felt compelled to consolidate its strategic partnership with Russia to the point of turning it into an entente, hence the purpose of President Xi’s trip to work out the finer details of this.

Just like these two Great Powers earlier synchronized Russia’s GEP and China’s BRI, so too are they now poised to synchronize the first’s Global Revolutionary Manifesto with the second’s global initiatives on development, security, and civilization. This prediction is predicated on the articles that Presidents Putin and Xi published in one another’s national media on the eve of the latter’s trip to Moscow, which confirms that they intend to cooperate more closely than ever before.

Observers can therefore expect the Sino-Russo Entente to solidify into one of the world’s three premier poles of influence as a result of the Chinese leader’s visit, thus making it a milestone in the New Cold War over the direction of the global systemic transition. The worldwide struggle between this pole and the Golden Billion will intensify, especially in the Global South, which will reinforce India’s importance in helping fellow developing states balance between both and thus bring about true tripolarity.

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.

Mar 042023
 
 March 4, 2023  Posted by at 1:05 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  8 Responses »


Robert Capa Capucine, French model and actress, on a balcony, Rome 1951

Andrew Korybko:

The global systemic transition’s impending evolution towards tri-multipolarity could see the US-led West’s Golden Billion, the Sino-Russo Entente, and the de facto Indian-led Global South becoming the most prominent poles in International Relations, below which would be rising powers and regional groups. All actors would balance one another by multi-aligning within and between their respective levels, which might result in stabilizing global affairs much more than the prior unipolar and bi-multipolar orders did.

International Relations are hurtling towards tripolarity at an astounding pace as a result of the dramatic events that unfolded over the past year and especially the last month. Those readers who haven’t closely been following this megatrend might be taken aback by this assessment, hence the need for them to review the following analyses that’ll place everything into its appropriate context. After listing them, they’ll then be summarized for convenience before explaining what might soon come next:

The “New Détente”

To oversimplify the confluence of these complex trends, the US prioritized containing Russia in order to facilitate its containment of China, ergo the latest phase of the Ukrainian Conflict that it provoked via Moscow’s ongoing special operation there. Throughout the course of the NATO-Russian proxy war that followed, the US successfully reasserted its unipolar hegemony over the EU while destabilizing the globalized system upon which China’s grand strategy depends, thus giving it an edge over Beijing.

This in turn prompted President Xi to initiate an attempted “New Détente” during mid-November’s G20 Summit in Bali, during which time he hoped that China and the US could eventually reach a series of mutual compromises aimed at establishing a “new normal” in their ties. The purpose behind doing so was to delay the end of the bi-multipolar world order within which these two superpowers exerted the most influence over International Relations, which was challenged by India’s rise over the past year.

India’s Game-Changing Influence

That South Asian state became a globally significant Great Power during this time as a result of its masterful balancing act between the US-led West’s Golden Billion and the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which it’s a part. Its kingmaker role in the New Cold War between them over the direction of the global systemic transition enabled the rest of the Global South to rise in India’s wake, thus revolutionizing International Relations by accelerating the emergence of tri-multipolarity.

The aforementioned sequence of events imbued the Sino-American “New Détente” with a sense of urgency since both superpowers had self-interested reasons for regaining joint control of these processes, though their attempted rapprochement was unexpectedly derailed by the balloon incident. The resultantly renewed influence of hardline factions over policymaking that occurred in the aftermath of that incident abruptly ended their incipient talks and placed them on the trajectory of intense rivalry.

China’s Grand Strategic Recalculations

In parallel with the abovementioned development, NATO declared that it’s in a so-called “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with Russia, which implied that it’ll redouble its military support to Kiev even at the expense of meeting its own members’ minimum national security needs. Should that bloc succeed in making a breakthrough along the Line of Control (LOC), then it could catalyze the worst-case scenario of Russia’s “Balkanization” if those disadvantageous military-strategic dynamics spiral out of control.

Both President Putin and his predecessor Medvedev recently warned about that possibility, which remains unlikely for now but still can’t be discounted, thus contributing to China’s gradual recalibration of its approach to the NATO-Russian proxy war when coupled with the end of the “New Détente”. This directly led to the People’s Republic seriously considering the dispatch of lethal aid to its strategic partner in order to offset that worst-case scenario, thus prompting sanctions threats from the West.

“The Great Trifurcation”

In the event that China feels forced by NATO to aid Russia in such a way and the Golden Billion imposes sanctions against it in response, then it’s expected that a US-initiated Chinese-European “decoupling” along the lines of the prior US-initiated Russian-European one could potentially follow. Reuters’ exclusive report on Wednesday citing four unnamed US officials and other sources extended credence to the preceding scenario by revealing that the Golden Billion is indeed discussing multilateral sanctions.

Should those two developments take place – China arming Russia and then being sanctioned by the Golden Billion in a way that provokes their “decoupling” (whether gradual or instantaneous) – then International Relations would enter a period of tri-multipolarity characterized by the prominence of three poles that exert the most influence over global affairs, but whose influence nevertheless wouldn’t be absolute since it’ll be kept in check to an extent by rising powers and regional groups.

The Tri-Multipolar World Order

The three expected poles are the US-led West’s Golden Billion, the Sino-Russo Entente, and the de facto Indian-led Global South that’ll likely continue informally assembling into a new Non-Aligned Movement (“Neo-NAM”). Within the last-mentioned will reside rising powers like BrazilIranSouth Africa, and Turkiye, among others, alongside regional groups like the African Union (AU), ASEAN, and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC).

Each of these three categories of actors – the three poles as well as the rising powers and regional groups that sit below the former in this informal international hierarchy – are expected to balance one another by multi-aligning within and between their respective levels. India’s role will be the most important of them all since it’s poised to facilitate trade between the Golden Billion and the Sino-Russo Entente in the event that their potential “decoupling” is taken to an extreme, which can’t be ruled out.

India’s Kingmaker Role

Furthermore, India’s earlier virtual hosting of the Voice Of Global South Summit positioned this civilization-state as the center of gravity for its fellow developing peers, which bolsters the likelihood that the Neo-NAM will continue informally assembling around it. From there, India can promote its own financial, technological, and other platforms in order to provide Global South states with a neutral third choice between the Golden Billion and the Sino-Russo Entente’s respective ones in the New Cold War.

Those rising powers and regional groups that participate within the unofficially Indian-led Neo-NAM could also develop their own platforms too, but India’s might become the standard for facilitating engagement between them at their early stages. In parallel, global fora like the UN and G20 will no longer have much significance other than functioning as talking clubs, while interests-driven and regional groups will replace their prior role in promoting tangible cooperation between countries.

Concluding Thoughts

The global systemic transition’s impending evolution towards tri-multipolarity could see the US-led West’s Golden Billion, the Sino-Russo Entente, and the de facto Indian-led Global South becoming the most prominent poles in International Relations, below which would be rising powers and regional groups. All actors would balance one another by multi-aligning within and between their respective levels, which might result in stabilizing global affairs much more than the prior unipolar and bi-multipolar orders did.

Background Briefings

* 7 October 2021: “Towards Bi-Multipolarity

* 16 December 2021: “The Neo-NAM: From Vision To Reality

* 15 March 2022: “Why Did The U.S. Prioritize Containing Russia Over China?

* 26 March 2022: “Russia Is Waging an Existential Struggle in Defense of Its Independence & Sovereignty

* 22 May 2022: “Russia, Iran, And India Are Creating A Third Pole Of Influence In International Relations

* 6 June 2022: “India Is The Irreplaceable Balancing Force In The Global Systemic Transition

* 20 June 2022: “Towards Dual-Tripolarity: An Indian Grand Strategy For The Age Of Complexity

* 5 August 2022: “The Russian Foreign Ministry Comprehensively Explained The Global Systemic Transition

*  1 October 2022: “The Ukrainian Conflict Might Have Already Derailed China’s Superpower Trajectory

* 29 October 2022: “The Importance Of Properly Framing The New Cold War

* 19 November 2022: “Analyzing The US-Chinese-Russian-Indian Interplay In The Global Systemic Transition

* 29 November 2022: “The Evolution Of Key Players’ Perceptions Across The Course Of The Ukrainian Conflict

* 14 December 2022: “India’s Principled Neutrality Reaps Grand Strategic Dividends

* 28 December 2022: “The Five Ways That The US Successfully Reasserted Its Hegemony Over Europe In 2022

* 1 January 2023: “The New York Times Tried To Throw Shade On India’s Global Rise

* 7 January 2023: “India’s Global South Summit Is The Most Important Multilateral Event In Decades

* 11 January 2023: “Exposing Western Media’s Narrative Agenda In Spinning The Sino-American New Détente

* 4 February 2023: “The Chinese Balloon Incident Could Decisively Shift China’s & The US’ ‘Deep State’ Dynamics

* 14 February 2023: “NATO’s Self-Declared ‘Race Of Logistics’ Confirms The Bloc’s Military-Industrial Crisis

* 26 February 2023: “China Compellingly Appears To Be Recalibrating Its Approach To The NATO-Russian Proxy War

* 28 February 2023: “Just How Drastically Would The World Change If China Armed Russia?

* 1 March 2023: “Global Fora Like The UN & G20 Are Gradually Losing Their Importance

* 1 March 2023: “Germany Is Lying: Chinese Arms Shipments To Russia Wouldn’t Violate International Law

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.

Feb 162023
 
 February 16, 2023  Posted by at 5:36 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , ,  22 Responses »


Cy Twombly Fifty Days at Iliam: Like a Fire that Consumes All before It 1978

Andrew Korybko has more time to write articles than I do these days. And I must transfer his Word files to my own editor. Not obvious. What can I say? I don’t like Bill Gates. Plus, I need to find a new apartment here in Athens,  a perfectly affordable place until recently, where now real estate agents seem to think they live in Manhattan. It just takes so much time… Andrew:

Andrew Korybko:

Speculation has been swirling over the past month about why the US-led West’s Golden Billion so decisively shifted its “official narrative” about the Ukrainian Conflict from prematurely celebrating Kiev’s supposedly “inevitable” victory to seriously warning about its potential loss in this proxy war. This took the form of related remarks from the Polish Prime Minister, President, and Army Chief as well as the US’ Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after which the New York Times admitted that the sanctions failed.

The reason why they decided to so decisively shift the “official narrative” was because NATO’s military-industrial crisis, which the New York Times warned about last November and was then touched upon by Biden’s Naval Secretary last month, finally became undeniable. Putting all prior speculation about this to rest, NATO’s Secretary-General declared a so-called “race of logistics” against Russia on Monday precisely on this pretext and thus confirmed the bloc’s crippling military-industrial crisis.

According to the transcript of Jens Stoltenberg’s pre-ministerial press conference that was shared by NATO’s official website ahead of his meeting with this anti-Russian alliance’s Defense Ministers, he said the following of relevance to this subject:

“It is clear that we are in a race of logistics. Key capabilities like ammunition, fuel, and spare parts must reach Ukraine before Russia can seize the initiative on the battlefield.

 

 Ministers will also focus on ways to increase our defence industrial capacity and replenish stockpiles. The war in Ukraine is consuming an enormous amount of munitions, and depleting Allied stockpiles. The current rate of Ukraine’s ammunition expenditure is many times higher than our current rate of production. This puts our defence industries under strain.

 

For example, the waiting time for large-calibre ammunition has increased from 12 to 28 months.

Orders placed today would only be delivered two-and-a-half years later. So we need to ramp up production. And invest in our production capacity.

 

 Well, this is an issue we started to address last year, because we saw that an enormous amount of support for Ukraine, the only way to deliver that was to dig into our existing stocks. But of course, in the long run, we cannot continue to do that we need to produce more, to be able to deliver sufficient ammunition to Ukraine, but at the same time, ensure that we have enough ammunition to protect and defend all NATO Allies, every inch of Allied territory.

 

 Of course, in the short run, the industry can increase production by having more shifts, by using existing production facilities more. But really to have a significant increase, they need to invest and build new plans. And we see a combination both of utilizing existing capacity more and also by making decisions to invest in increased capacity. This has started but we need more.

 So what I said was that the current rate of ammunition consumption is higher, bigger than the current rate of production. That’s a factual thing. But since we have been aware of that for some time, we have started to do something. We’re not just sitting there idle and watching this happening.  

 And of course the industry has the capability to increase the production also short term, sometimes this on some non-used or not utilized capability there. But even when you have a factory running, you can have more shifts. You can even work during weekends.

 

 So yes, we have a challenge. Yes, we have a problem. But problems are there to be solved and we are addressing that problem and we have strategies to solve it both in the short term and also longer term to as a mobilized defense industry. And if there’s anything NATO Allies, and our economies and our societies have proved over decades, is that we are dynamic, we are adaptable, we can change when needed.

 

 And let me also add, of course this is –the challenge of having enough ammunition is also a big challenge for Russia. So it just shows that this is a war of attrition, and the war to attrition becomes a battle of logistics and we focus on the logistical part of the defence capacity, defence industry capacity to ramp up production.”

As proven by Stoltenberg’s press conference, there should thus be no doubt that NATO is experiencing an unprecedented military-industrial crisis, which is responsible for reshaping its members’ narratives and overall strategy towards the Ukrainian Conflict.

This self-declared “race of logistics”, which he also described as a “war of attrition”, first of all proves that the bloc wasn’t prepared for waging a prolonged proxy war against Russia otherwise they’d have preemptively retooled their military-industrial complexes accordingly. The New York Times’ recent admission that the anti-Russian sanctions are a failure also suggests that NATO completely miscalculated in this respect by expecting Russia to collapse as a result of those restrictions, which didn’t happen.

These two factors add crucial context to why the Golden Billion’s “official narrative” about the conflict so decisively shifted over the past month. They simply can’t sustain the pace, scale, and scope of their armed assistance to Kiev, especially not after their much-ballyhooed sanctions failed to catalyze Russia’s economic collapse or at the very least give their proxy an edge in this “race of logistics”/”war of attrition”. As a result, they were forced to change how they present this conflict to their people.

Most tellingly, the Polish President didn’t rule out the scenario of Kiev making territorial concessions to Russia in his recent interview with Le Figaro, which he said should solely be that country’s choice to make and not anti-war Republicans’. Even Stoltenberg let slip during his latest press conference that “we must continue to provide Ukraine with what it needs to win. And to achieve a just and sustainable peace”, which also didn’t include his usual explicit condemnation of the territorial concession scenario.

That selfsame “just and sustainable peace”, according to the Jerusalem Post’s Dave Anderson, can actually be achieved by Kiev finally giving up its territorial claims. In his opinion piece about how “Ukraine can win against Russia by giving up land, not killing troops”, which was coincidentally published on the same day as Stoltenberg’s press conference, he argued that this swift resolution of Ukraine’s territorial disputes with Russia could result in its accelerated admission to NATO.

That outcome would thus sustainably ensure its security, thereby representing a victory over Russia, at least according to Anderson’s view. In the broader context of this analysis and in particular the interpretation of Stoltenberg’s remarks from his latest press conference, his article can thus be seen as the latest contribution to decisively shifting the “official narrative” about the Ukrainian Conflict in the direction of preconditioning the Western public to accept some sort of “compromise” with Russia.

All of this, the reader should be reminded, is occurring because of NATO’s military-industrial crisis hamstringing its members’ capabilities to sustain their bloc’s pace, scale, and scope of armed assistance to Kiev. Their “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” against Russia is obviously trending towards Moscow’s favor after that Eurasian Great Power proved that it truly has the wherewithal to sustain the pace, scale, and scope of its special operation in spite of the Golden Billion’s unparalleled sanctions against it.

If someone still remained in denial about the existence of NATO’s military-industrial crisis in spite of Stoltenberg’s surprisingly candid admission on Monday, then they should also be made aware of Politico’s exclusive report that was published on the same day, which reinforced his claim. Four unnamed US officials told this outlet that their country can’t send Kiev its requested “Army Tactical Missile Systems” (ATACMS) because “it doesn’t have any [of them] to spare”.

This revelation should thus serve as the proverbial “icing on the cake” proving that NATO is in the midst of such a serious military-industrial crisis right now that its US leader itself can’t even afford to spare important munitions that could give its proxies in Kiev the edge that they so desperately need right now. What’s so stunning about this strategic dynamic is that the combined military-industrial capabilities of the bloc’s two and a half dozen countries can’t compete with their single Russian adversary’s.

That insight in turn shows just how mighty Russia’s military-industrial complex is that it’s still capable of sustaining the same pace, scale, and scope of the ongoing special operation in Ukraine despite the sanctions against it while 30 Golden Billion countries can’t collectively do the same. Should its rumored full-scale offensive transpire, then it’s likely to deal a deathblow to NATO’s proxies due to Russia’s edge in this “race of logistics”/”war of attrition” and thus force them to finally cede their disputed regions.

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.

Feb 092023
 


Anthony Van Dyck Self portrait with sunflower 1632

 

 

More from Andrew Korybko on a interesting theme: how the sanctions on Russia created a whole new energy supply line.

 

 

Andrew Korybko:

 

Indian media revealed in mid-January that their country had been processing and re-exporting discounted Russian oil to the West, including the US, in a move that discredited the spirit of that de facto New Cold War bloc’s anti-Russian sanctions. Most observers brushed off those reports since they went against their worldview wherein it was taken for granted that the US-led West’s Golden Billion wouldn’t ever relieve pressure on Russia by having India serve as the middleman in their oil trade.

According to an expert quoted by Bloomberg in their latest report titled “Oil’s New Map: How India Turns Russia Crude Into The West’s Fuel”, “India’s willingness to buy more Russian crude at a steeper discount is a feature, not a bug, in the plan of Western nations to impose economic pain on Putin without imposing it on themselves.” Another one was cited as saying that “US treasury officials have two main goals: keep the market well supplied, and deprive Russia of oil revenue.”

That other expert added that “They are aware that Indian and Chinese refiners can earn bigger margins by buying discounted Russian crude and exporting products at market prices. They’re fine with that.” This insight from Bloomberg, which is held in high regard as one of the world’s premier business outlets, completely shifts the paradigm through which observers interpret the energy dimension of the Golden Billion’s anti-Russian sanctions.

The “official narrative” up until this point was that they were aimed bankrupting the Kremlin in the hopes that it would immediately stop its ongoing special operation and perhaps even “Balkanize” if the desired economic collapse catalyzed uncontrollable socio-political processes like during the late 1980s. The New York Times recently admitted that the anti-Russian sanctions failed, however, pointing to reputable evidence that this targeted state’s economy has stopped contracting and even began to grow.

In the face of these “politically inconvenient” facts, it was thus foreseeable in hindsight that the “official narrative” would have to more comprehensively change in an attempt for the Golden Billion to “save face” before its people, ergo Bloomberg’s latest contribution to this perception management end. The public is now being gaslighted into thinking that the sanctions were never meant to bankrupt the Kremlin, stop its special operation, or “Balkanize” Russia, but just erode a little bit of its revenue.

The reality is that the outcome reported upon by Bloomberg is indeed a “bug” and not a “feature” like they’re claiming in hindsight out of desperation to revise history for self-interested soft power reasons. The Golden Billion didn’t fully forecast the lasting consequences of their sanctions since they naively took for granted that they’d immediately bankrupt the Kremlin, stop its special operation, and subsequently “Balkanize” Russia, none of which ultimately transpired.

They can’t rescind their unilateral economic restrictions though since that would be an unprecedented soft power victory for Russia, hence why they began putting feelers out across the market to explore alternative workarounds for ensuring the reliability of their imports, albeit at a premium. India’s pragmatic policy of principled neutrality towards the Ukrainian Conflict in full defiance of US demands upon it to “isolate” Russia ended up being an inadvertent godsend for the West in this context.

Had that globally significant Great Power not ramped up its purchase of Russian oil to the extent that it did in order to withstand the systemic shocks caused by the West’s sanctions and which destabilized dozens of fellow Global South states, then there wouldn’t be excess supply for re-export. After helping them meet their needs, which wasn’t part of some “5D chess master plan” between India and the West but the organic outcome of how events unfolded, they reduced their pressure upon it as a quid pro quo.

It was difficult to explain late last year why the US noticeably began reducing pressure on India to distance itself from Russia, but it was thought at the time that this was simply a delayed recognition of geostrategic reality and was being done for pragmatism’s sake to retain their strategic ties. Now, however, it appears as though India’s indispensable role in the global energy market as the middleman in facilitating the now-taboo Russian-Western energy trade played a role in the US’ policy recalibration.

From this insight, it can be concluded that India succeeded not only in resisting US-led Western pressure upon it vis-à-vis its relations with Russia, but also unwittingly ended up doing the Golden Billion a favor in the process by placing itself in the position to ensure the reliability of their energy imports. This observation speaks to its newfound role as the kingmaker in the New Cold War, which will imbue it with increasingly more influence within the global systemic transition the longer that this struggle continues.

 

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.

 

 

Feb 032023
 
 February 3, 2023  Posted by at 3:26 pm Finance Tagged with: , , , , , , , ,  6 Responses »


Johannes Vermeer The glass of wine c 1658-1660

 

 

Andrew Korybko approached me a few days ago asking if we could share some of his work. I don’t view the Automatic Earth as a publishing platform, and given all the censorship of the past 2-3 years (it’s expensive!), I will be very cautious about letting anyone in. But I like Andrew’s writing, so I said: let’s give it a go.

Then I had to transfer his Word file to the simple text editor I have been using for many years, but that only took half an hour … I don’t like Word. Or Bill Gates. Here’s Andrew:

 

 

Andrew Korybko: The “official narrative” surrounding the Ukrainian Conflict has flipped in recent weeks from prematurely celebrating Kiev’s supposedly “inevitable” victory to nowadays seriously warning about its likely loss. It was therefore expected in hindsight that other dimensions of the information warfare campaign waged by the US-led West’s Golden Billion against Russia would also change. As proof of precisely that, the New York Times (NYT) just admitted that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions are a failure.

In Ana Swanson’s article about how “Russia Sidesteps Western Punishments, With Help From Friends”, she cites Western experts who concluded that “Russia’s imports may have already recovered to prewar levels, or will soon do so, depending on their models.” Even more compelling, she references the IMF’s latest assessment from Monday, which “now expected the Russian economy to grow 0.3 percent this year, a sharp improvement from its previous estimate of a 2.3 percent contraction.”

Neither the NYT, the Western experts that Swanson cites, nor the IMF can credibly be accused of being “Russian-friendly”, let alone so-called “Russian propagandists” or even “Russian agents”, which thus confirms the observation that this dimension of the Golden Billion’s infowar has also decisively shifted. The fact of the matter is that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions failed to catalyze the collapse of that targeted multipolar Great Power’s economy, which continues to remain impressively resilient.

The timing at which this narrative changed is also important because it extends credence to the more widely known new narrative that’s nowadays seriously warning about Kiev’s likely loss in NATO’s proxy war on Russia. After all, if the sanctions achieved the goal that they were supposed to and which the US-led West’s Mainstream Media (MSM) hitherto lied that they supposedly had, then it naturally follows that Kiev would “inevitably” win exactly as they claimed would happen up until mid-January.

With this in mind, the most effective way to “reprogram” the average Westerner after brainwashing them over the past 11 months into expecting Kiev’s supposedly “inevitable” victory is to also decisively change the supplementary narratives that artificially manufactured that aforesaid false conclusion. To that end, the order was given to begin raising the public’s awareness about the failure of the Golden Billion’s anti-Russian sanctions, ergo the NYT’s latest piece and the specific timing thereof.

What’s left unsaid in that article is the “politically incorrect” but nevertheless heavily implied observation that the jointly BRICS– & SCO-led Global South of which Russia is a part has defied the Golden Billion’s demands to “isolate” that multipolar Great Power. No MSM outlet will ever admit it, at least not yet, but their de facto New Cold War bloc has limited sway outside the US’ recently restored “sphere of influence” in Europe, whose countries are the only ones suffering from these sanctions.

The NYT’s latest piece might inadvertently make many members of their public conscious of that, however, and they might therefore increasingly object to their governments scaling up their commitment to NATO’s proxy war on Russia under American pressure. Croatian President Zoran Milanovic recently joined Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in condemning this campaign and raising wider awareness of just how counterproductive it’s been for Europe’s objective interests.

As Europeans come to realize that they’re the only ones suffering from the anti-Russian sanctions that their American overlord coerced them into imposing and that their sacrifices haven’t adversely affected that targeted multipolar Great Power’s special operation, massive unrest might follow. It’s unlikely to influence their US-controlled leaders into reversing course, remembering that the German Foreign Minister vowed late last year never to do so, but could instead catalyze a violent police crackdown.

The reason behind this pessimistic prediction is that a reversal or at the very least lessening of the presently rigid anti-Russian sanctions regime would represent an unprecedentedly independent move by whichever European state(s) does/do so. Seeing as how that didn’t even happen in the eight years prior to the US’ successful reassertion of its unipolar hegemony all across 2022, the likelihood of that happening nowadays under those much more difficult conditions is practically nil.

The US’ “Lead From Behind” subordinate for “managing” European affairs as part of its new so-called “burden-sharing” strategy, Germany, has more than enough levers of economic, institutional, and political influence to several punish any of those lower-tier American vassals who get out of place. It’s therefore unrealistic to expect any single EU member to unilaterally defy the bloc’s anti-Russian sanctions that their own government previously agreed to.

Considering this reality, those leaders who want to remain in power or at least not risk the US’ German-driven Hybrid War wrath against their economies are loath restore a semblance of their largely lost sovereignty in such a dramatic manner. Instead, their most pragmatic course of action is to not participate in the military aspect of this proxy war by refusing to dispatch arms to Kiev exactly as the emerging Central European pragmatic bloc of Austria, Croatia, and Hungary have done.

The population of those countries are thus unlikely to protest against the sanctions even after being made aware of the facts contained in the NYT’s latest piece and naturally coming to the conclusion that the anti-Russian sanctions have only harmed their own economies and not that targeted Great Power’s. Folks in France, Germany, and Italy, however, could very well react differently, especially considering their tradition of organizing massive protests.

In such a scenario, their governments are expected to order a violent police crackdown under whatever pretext they concoct, whether it’s falsely accusing the protesters of employing violence first or accusing them all of being so-called “Russian agents”. Regardless of how it happens, the outcome will be the same whereby Western European countries will slide deeper into liberal-totalitarian dictatorship, which will in turn contribute to further radicalizing their population towards uncertain ends.

Returning back to the NYT’s piece, it represents a remarkable reversal of the “official narrative” by frankly admitting that the West’s anti-Russian sanctions are a failure. This coincides with the decisive shift of the larger narrative driven by American and Polish leaders over the past month whereby they’re nowadays seriously warning about Kiev’s likely loss in NATO’s proxy war on Russia. It remains to be seen what other narratives will change as well, but it’s predicted that more such ones will inevitably do so.

 

 

 

We try to run the Automatic Earth on donations. Since ad revenue has collapsed, you are now not just a reader, but an integral part of the process that builds this site. Thank you for your support.

 

 

Support the Automatic Earth in virustime. Click at the top of the sidebars to donate with Paypal and Patreon.