#Macron is in his Trump-era | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

In the next few weeks or months, US president Joe Biden is expected to announce that he will run for re-election in 2024. As his masterful State of the Union speech on 7 February showed, the second year of his presidency was markedly successful. It all adds up to a serious possibility that he will go down in history as a, or even the, pre-eminent global figure of the 2020s.

So it is easy to forget that Biden is, in many respects, a product of a different US. He was first elected to the US Senate in 1972, closer in time to the end of the Second World War than to 9/11 – let alone the present day. The majority of his career played out during the Cold War and immediate post-Cold War era, the period between the end of the Vietnam War and the start of the Afghanistan War, during which Europe was the primary focus of US foreign policy most of the time.

In 1979, for example, he met with the Soviet foreign minister, Andrei Gromyko, in Moscow to discuss the Salt II arms control treaty. In the 1990s he was an early voice for intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo (which he later described as one of his “proudest moments in public life”). In 1997 Biden championed Nato expansion while co-chair of the Senate’s Nato Observer Group. As a proud Irish-American, he lobbied Bill Clinton’s administration to invest major efforts in the Northern Ireland peace process.

Biden carried the Atlanticist instincts from the pre-9/11 era into the one that succeeded it. He helped keep the western Balkans on the US agenda at a time when it was dominated by the Middle East and Afghanistan. As Barack Obama’s vice-president he often served as the European anchor of an administration otherwise determined to “pivot” to Asia. It was Biden who led on relations with Ukraine during the 2014 Maidan revolution and the initial Russian invasion that same year.

When he took office as president in 2021 he phoned Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron and Boris Johnson before speaking to any leaders in the Indo-Pacific, despite the latter being a stated priority of his administration. He appointed Antony Blinken, a Europe expert, as his secretary of state and Mark Gitenstein, a close confidant since the 1970s, ambassador to the EU. Biden’s first foreign trip as president took him to Europe, and Macron received the honour of being invited to make the first state visit to Washington of Biden’s presidency. The US’s dominant role in supporting Ukraine should be seen as part of that same pattern.

The Ukraine war has also supplied ample evidence of Europeans getting comfortable with this restoration of a familiar relationship, after the traumas of the Trump presidency. They looked to the Americans to lead on military aid to Kyiv and even, in the case of German chancellor Olaf Scholz, insisted that the administration send US battle tanks as a condition of Berlin providing its own Leopard 2 tanks or allowing other Europeans to do so. When the Munich Security Conference gathers between 17 and 19 February, and when Biden travels to Europe this month, we will see more of the president acting as a munificent Uncle Sam, putting a protective arm around an old continent that is broadly satisfied with that arrangement.

All too satisfied, in fact. Biden’s transatlantic instincts constitute less the restoration of old certainties than the last hurrah of a past era. The president turned 80 in November. Younger generations of US leaders see the world differently. The most obvious example is the new isolationist streak in the Republican Party: a majority of GOP voters now oppose further support for Ukraine. But even among more orthodox Republicans there is a marked “prioritiser” tendency that believes in disengaging from Europe to concentrate on Asia. As Elbridge Colby, a former senior defence official, has put it: “The United States does not have the capacity to fight both… an exceptionally stressing war with China and another significant conflict, such as in Europe against Russia.”

Even among Democrats, the post-Biden age (whether it dawns in 2025 or 2029) will mark a shift in perspectives. Centrists such as the California governor Gavin Newsom or the vice-president Kamala Harris may share Biden’s values, but they lack his formative experience of senior office during the Cold War and its aftermath, the instincts forged in that era, and his strong emotional connection to Europe.

Meanwhile, a still-younger generation of Democrats looks to standard-bearers such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ro Khanna – progressives who put less emphasis on Nato and more on topics like climate change, trade, migration and the Global South. Influential in these circles is the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and associated intellectuals, including the historian Stephen Wertheim, author of appeals such as: “Sorry, Liberals. But You Really Shouldn’t Love Nato.”

A more far-sighted Europe – including both the EU and the UK – might have used the impetus of Russia’s war to prepare for the post-Biden world. Yet overall, Europe has implicitly interpreted the leadership provided by Biden’s administration as the new normal; proof that vigorous attempts to build European structures capable of taking over responsibility for the continent’s security from the US are now unnecessary. Talk of “European sovereignty” can often be empty, and cooperation between major powers routinely falls victim to political differences. It is a comfortable delusion to nurture: Atlanticist Bidenism forever! Comfortable, that is, until it eventually collides with reality. At that point Europe’s position could become very uncomfortable indeed.

#I don't know how much I fully agree with this #but I also think it makes some good points

6 notes · View notes

ecoamerica · 24 days

Text

youtube

Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared

The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!

6K notes · View notes

cockerspaniel90 · 2 years

Text

Asthe nation has recently learned, Donald Trump’s been holding on to classified documents of such extraordinary sensitivity that the FBI felt compelled to execute a search warrant on his Mar-a-Lago mansion to retrieve them. It’s only the latest confrontation between a gangster former president and American justice, and not the last.

It was the result of a lengthy federal investigation into potential violations of the espionage act, obstruction of justice, and removal/destruction of official documents; the FBI resorted to a search warrant only after the former president refused to comply with subpoenas ordering him to hand over the materials, and lied about documents that remained on the property.

It’s a stunning moment. An American president is on the verge of being indicted, and perhaps prosecuted for espionage, the World War I era law used by the government to go after spies and leakers. This occurs as multiple state and federal investigations swirl menacingly around the former president, and heat up nearly simultaneously, just as Trump appears ready to announce a third bid for the presidency.

For his part, Donald Trump’s told allies he’s determined to use his candidacy as a shield to protect himself from prosecution, and Republicans are fully on board. This sets up a dangerous clash between the rule of law and a rogue political party, one that’s been utterly coopted and weaponized by a malevolent leader to subvert both justice and American democracy.

American secrets

A plethora of classified documents were seized by federal agents in the raid, including information about Roger Stone’s clemency, and the president of France, Emmanuel Macron. More ominously, agents retrieved 1 set of Top Secret/SCI documents, 4 sets of Top Secret documents, 3 sets of Secret documents, and 3 sets of Confidential documents.

What were these documents doing there, and why was Trump lying about them? The FBI walked out of Mar-a-Lago toting 10 boxes of American secrets.

While the classification system is baroque and unwieldy, it’s clear Donald Trump had information lying around Mar-a-Lago that was making officials extremely nervous. The involvement of the FBI’s head of counterintelligence and export control in this investigation, Jay Bratt, speaks volumes.

It’s clear the FBI had probable cause to believe a crime had been committed relating to that information, and a federal magistrate agreed, signing off on the search warrant. Clearly, there’s more to this story than what’s already been reported, though how much more is unclear.

Still, this raid wasn’t about securing souvenirs, golf balls, mere presidential memorabilia. Rather, this was about protecting American secrets from falling into the security black hole surrounding Donald Trump.

Reportedly among the seized materials were documents relating to nuclear weapons, America’s most closely held secrets. Documents about nuclear weapon systems are so highly classified that not even the president can declassify them. They’re to be held exclusively in guarded installations, SCIFs or Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities, designed to protect sensitive information from the prying eyes of foreign intelligence services.

Mar-a-Lago was the antithesis of such a facility, a security nightmare, both during his presidency and after. In 2019, a female Chinese national was arrested after making her way into the club under false pretenses, with a flash drive containing malware, presumably an intelligence agent testing security protocols, probing for weaknesses. Yet another Chinese national was arrested the next year at Mar-a-Lago under similar circumstances.

Naturally, many Americans are now left wondering if this is the beginning of Donald Trump’s legal woes, or the end. He seems to have eluded justice on far more serious allegations, including the bloody insurrection he instigated, and the election he tried to illegally overturn. However, with so many different investigations, and so few results, the inquiry that led to the search warrant feels uniquely dangerous for Trump.

The fact that the FBI took the explosive step of searching a former president’s residence, and seizing boxes of material, is itself a testament to his legal peril.

As the DOJ weighs whether or not to bring criminal charges against a former American president, and the putative leader of the Republican Party, Donald Trump is lashing out. He’s not going down without a bitter fight, and he’ll happily tear the country apart doing it.

Republicans seem anxious to help him do just that.

The law

The FBI cited three federal statutes that were potentially violated, and they appeared on the search warrant that was unsealed in federal court in an agreement reached between Trump’s lawyers and the Department of Justice.

The Espionage Act

Obstruction of Justice

Destruction of Federal Documents

The US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Friday unsealed the search warrant and property receipt…

READ: Search warrant for Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort

www.cnn.com

After unsealing the search warrant itself, Donald Trump’s lawyers have asked to unseal the affidavit underlying that warrant, a move the DOJ has resisted because it would hurt the investigation, and “chill” the cooperation of the witnesses and informants who are aiding it. It would reveal the reason the FBI suspected the aforementioned crimes were being committed, and exactly who’s telling them what. It would also reveal the nature of the “highly classified” materials at Mar-a-Lago.

For now, it’s unlikely that we’ll get a glimpse of that information, no matter how badly Trump’s team wants to find out who’s talking to the feds. In fact, we’re likely to learn these details only if and when the Department of Justice moves to bring a criminal indictment, during the course of their prosecution.

Still, there’s no guarantee that will happen. Donald Trump will certainly do everything in his power to derail the investigation, and elected Republicans show no qualms about playing ball. By now, they’re quite used to the idea of shilling for their criminal-leader, repeating his lies, and doing his bidding.

American insurgency

The FBI’s raid on Mar-a-Lago sent a political shockwave through the country, leaving Democrats wondering if a criminal prosecution is imminent, or if the DOJ is just playing very serious footsie with the idea.

It wouldn’t be the first time Democrats got their hopes up, and felt the criminal at the top of the Republican Party was nearly finished; recall the Mueller investigation, and the laundry list of other crises Trump has survived, and exploited to his own advantage. In the process, he’s transformed the GOP into his own personal fiefdom, a personality cult like nothing ever seen before in American politics.

Still, the FBI has never executed a search warrant on Trump’s private property, nor has it prosecuted him. One move is nearly as unprecedented as the next.

Meanwhile, Republicans have been frothing at the mouth, loudly fulminating about the DOJ’s supposed “political weaponization,” despite zero evidence existing that the White House was even aware of the search warrant, much less involved in the investigation that led to it.

In fact, the White House has been kept at arms length by Merrick Garland’s DOJ, for apparently good reason, considering the lies Republicans are baselessly concocting about these investigations being nothing more than political witch hunts.

Indeed, Republicans have recently accused the FBI of being like the Gestapo, the Nazi secret police, among other things, even as numerous violent attacks by Trump supporters have already materialized in response to their dangerous rhetoric in the days following the raid.

A veteran and Trump supporter, present on January 6 in Washington, D.C., tried and failed to break into the FBI’s Cincinnati field office with a nail gun and an AR-15; another man was arrested for threatening to “slaughter” federal agents in Pennsylvania. Clearly, the rhetoric coming from right-wing provocateurs and politicians, usually one and the same, is having its desired effect on the Republican base.

Indeed, we’re witnessing the birth of a small but sturdy right-wing insurgency in America. Its guiding principle? Unflinching loyalty to Donald Trump and a belief in his lies.

For those of us who have been wondering whether January 6 was the beginning or the end of an era, we have our answer. The insurrection was merely the outset of America’s democratic disarray, the dawn of America’s disintegration at the hands of a Republican Party in thrall to a malignant narcissist, devoted to violent authoritarianism, and cancerous lies.

It was a dark omen, a prelude to far worse decline.

Tragically, many of the men and women of the Republican Party have been thoroughly indoctrinated, made to exist in a universe of lies, seething conspiracy theories, and vile propaganda. There’s no escaping the fact that American democracy is deeply traumatized, suffering an illness of misinformation and morality, all of it emanating from one place, Donald Trump’s golden tongue, and radiating outward through a vast network of right-wing activists, propagandists, and professional liars.

Republicans won’t abandon him now in his hour of need. Rather, American democracy can burn first, as far as these Republicans are concerned.

In fact, that’s exactly what they want.

Democracy

As President Joe Biden prepares to sign historic legislation fighting climate change, improving American health care, and raising taxes on trillion dollar corporations that pay almost nothing, Republicans are undermining the rule of law, and offering inspiration to right-wing terrorists to attack the FBI.

How can American democracy survive when only one of its two political parties still functions? Every single election becomes an existential crisis for democracy; Republicans only have to win one, and our democratic experiment abruptly ends.

With the midterms in full swing, and Big Liars running in races across the country, America may be witnessing the death throes of our Republic, and the smothering of our democracy.

With Donald Trump still freely operating, and the DOJ hesitating to pounce on him, America is careening toward a steep cliff. Our only hope as a country is that the rule of law prevails over the criminal still leading the Republican Party.

Without justice and real accountability, American democracy is doomed.

3 notes · View notes

simonloweblog · 5 months

Text

A glimpse into 2024-sadly there will be little to celebrate.

The Democrats unwillingness to control US borders, gas, food prices and mortgage rates may well scupper Biden’s chances for re-election. His best hope is surely to ditch Kamala Harris and ask Newsom onto the ticket. That would allay fears of her becoming President in the event of him becoming incapacitated and bring the popular Governor of America's largest State in as an attractive alternative to the currently increasingly unpopular Biden.

If Trump pulls off his attempt at a second term, he will take up his animosity to NATO, where he left off last time which will further endanger peace in Europe and be what Putin has waited patiently for over the past four years.

Continued German economic stagnation and a possible recession would likely result in a bigger swing to the right and the AFD, who already garner over 22% of the popular vote; comparisons to the Weimar republic may stir in the mind.

Macron's continued weakness in France will give further impetus to Marie Le Penn and the Right , not to mention Mr. Wilders in Holland, whilst Vicktor Orban’s continued blackmailing of his EU partners all combine to weaken the European “experiment”. Putin's total mobilisation expected next Spring could be a turning point in the war with Ukraine particularly if Congress fails to backup its financial and military aid to them. If Zelensky's brave but stretched army falters and the US becomes isolationist under a Trump Presidency then an emboldened Putin will pose a real threat to the rest of the former Soviet satellites and Eastern Europe itself. The E.U. that hitherto have been unable to coordinate an effective joint foreign policy will have to put aside its members individual chauvinistic tendencies if they are to prevent further potential Russian aggression.

Meanwhile in the UK, a general election next year is likely to bring to an end fourteen years of poor Tory government. The sixth, soon to be the 7th largest economy in the world, continues to suffer from poor productivity, extremely high national debt costing the Treasury more than £100 billion a year in interest payments (which matches the entire cost of the continuously overstretched NHS.) will cripple any future government’s budget maneuverability. the Labour party will repeat the usual mantra and claim that they will pay for new policies by increasing productivity and grow the economy by percentages that no recent government has managed to produce. Lieing to the electorate is now the norm in almost all countries that still hold elections.

The ongoing “nth” war between Israel and the Palestinians will not come to an end any time soon and a settlement with a two State solution is no more likely to happen in the foreseeable future than it has been since 1948. More suffering, more waste, more death.

After 28 COP meetings and the increasingly dramatic changes to climate and the consequences thereof over the recent past it is depressingly sad that the final communique from the assembled Nations who have just gathered in the UAE could only muster an agreement to “Transition Away” from the use of fossil fuels. The dramatic advances in solar, wind and other renewables has now made them economically viable and effective but the fuel producers and the consequences of the Ukraine war on energy security means that the pace of change needed to avoid calamity is not being met.

As a natural optimist I normally look forward to the opportunities that every new year can bring but I have to admit that looking ahead to next year does not fill me with positive thoughts. Of all the above my greatest fear is that as a baby boomer who has enjoyed over 70 years of peace in Europe, that this era may be coming to an end.

I wish you all a Merry Xmas and a peaceful and Happy New Year.

0 notes

reginadeinisseni · 9 months

Video

youtube

Marty Robbins - Singing The Blues

MARTY ROBBINS, CANTANTE BLUES, POTREBBE ESSERE UNO DEI PREFERITI DEL PRESIDENTE MACRON?

IL DUBBIO MI E' VENUTO IERI, NEL FARE KARAOKE DOPO AVER VISTO IL TWIT DEL PRESIDENTE MACRON CHE ESALTAVA IL BLUES MI SONO RESA CONTO DI NON AVER MAI CANTATO UNA CANZONE BLUES. DECISA A PROVARE PRENDO UN CANTANTE BLUES A CASO, POI CERCO TRA LE SUE CANZONI SENZA VEDERE LA BIOGRAFIA MI ATTIRA SINGING THE BLUES DOPO AVERLA CANTATA MI VIENE UN DUBBIO SUL CANTANTE, VOLEVO VEDERE A CHE ETA' ERA MORTO (57) MA SCOPRO QUELLO CHE ERA PIU' IMPORTANTE IL SUO PRIMO ESORDIO IN RADIO ED ERA A FAVORE DELLA GUERRA IN VIETNAM

COINCIDENZA CASUALISSIMA... ALTRO SEGNO DEL DESTINO?

MART RO ROBBINS, BLUES SINGER, COULD BE A FAVORITE PRESIDENT MACRON?

THE DOUBT CAME TO ME YESTERDAY IN KARAOKE AFTER SEEING PRESIDENT MACRON'S TIT I REALIZED I NEVER SANG A BLUES SONG. DETERMINED TO TRY I GET A BLUES SINGER AT RANDOM, THEN I LOOK FOR BETWEEN HIS SONGS WITHOUT SEEING THE BIOGRAPHY SINGING THE BLUES AFTER SINGING IT I HAVE A DOUBT ABOUT THE SINGER, I WANTED TO SEE WHAT AGE HE WAS DEAD (57) BUT I FIND OUT WHAT WAS MOST IMPORTANT HIS FIRST RADIO DEBUT AND HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE WAR IN VIETNAM

COINCIDENTAL COINCIDENCE... ANOTHER SIGN OF FATE?

❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

#gustavopetro #colombia #DONALDTRUMP #TRUMP #BOLSONARO #DORIGHEZZI #STRISCIALANOTIZIA #FRANCESCO #RUTELLI #PROPAGANDALIVE #ELUANA #ENGLARO #ELUANAENGLARO #CRISTIANODEANDRE #twitter #facebook #skyrock #linkedin #instagram #okru #tiktok

#youtube

0 notes

wafact · 1 year

Text

Nato faces an all-out fight with Putin. It must stop pulling its punches | Simon Tisdall

In Vladimir Putin’s book of strategic blunders, a hefty, as yet unpublished tome to which new chapters are constantly added, the revival of Nato is among his more amazing own goals. Written off as “experiencing… brain death” by Emmanuel Macron and derided by Donald Trump, the 30-member cold war-era military alliance is now enjoying a renaissance – thanks, almost entirely, to Russia’s…

View On WordPress

0 notes

eagletek · 1 year

Text

Nato faces an all-out fight with Putin. It must stop pulling its punches | Simon Tisdall

View On WordPress

0 notes

newstfionline · 1 year

Text

Friday, November 11, 2022

Paying the Price for Inflation (WSJ) Political leaders around the world are being cashiered by a global problem: inflation. In polls leading up to Tuesday’s midterm election, voters regularly cited inflation as their top concern, and Republicans flooded the airwaves tying it to President Biden’s policies. Mr. Biden wasn’t on the ballot in Australia in May, but the cost of living was as voters tossed out the ruling center-right government. Inflation and energy costs were also at work when French President Emmanuel Macron lost his parliamentary majority in June, Italy’s technocratic government collapsed in July and Sweden’s left-of-center governing coalition lost to a right-wing coalition in September. This should come as little surprise; throughout history inflation has been socially corrosive and politically destabilizing

Is the world ready for President DeSantis? (Washington Post) A disappointing night for most Republicans turned into a very good night for one Floridian. Gov. Ron DeSantis not only won a second term in Tuesday’s midterm elections but also did so by a sizable margin—even winning Miami-Dade County, marking the first time a Republican has taken that largely urban electorate in two decades. The results cemented many expectations that DeSantis would run for president in 2024—a situation that’s already sparking tension with another Floridian Republican, former president Donald Trump.

Facebook parent Meta cuts 11,000 jobs, 13% of workforce (AP) Facebook parent Meta is laying off 11,000 people, about 13% of its workforce, as it contends with faltering revenue and broader tech industry woes, CEO Mark Zuckerberg said in a letter to employees Wednesday. The job cuts come just a week after widespread layoffs at Twitter under its new owner, billionaire Elon Musk. There have been numerous job cuts at other tech companies that hired rapidly during the pandemic. Zuckerberg said that he had made the decision to hire aggressively, anticipating rapid growth even after the pandemic lockdowns ended. Meta, like other social media companies, enjoyed a financial boost during the pandemic lockdown era because more people stayed home and scrolled on their phones and computers. But as the lockdowns ended and people started going outside again, revenue growth began to falter.

After socking Florida, Nicole to bring heavy rain, tornado risk to Eastern U.S. (Washington Post) Nicole made landfall as a Category 1 hurricane at 3 a.m. Eastern time near Vero Beach, Fla., bringing 75 mph winds and a damaging ocean surge as it lashed the coastline. It is now a weakening tropical storm as it hugs Florida’s west coast, but it continues to unleash heavy rain, wind gusts of 45 to 55 mph and dangerous coastal flooding in eastern and northern Florida, along both the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. About 250,000 customers are without power in the Sunshine State. The storm’s second act, which is just beginning, will bring heavy rain along its path from the Florida Panhandle into the interior Northeast, and the risk of severe storms and tornadoes to the east. In addition to the heavy rain, strong winds and surge in Florida and parts of the Southeast, the risk for tornadoes is increasing across parts of coastal Georgia and the Carolinas. That risk will expand to cover much of the Mid-Atlantic Friday.

Protester hurls eggs at King Charles III (Washington Post) King Charles III and Camilla, Queen Consort, were visiting the city of York on Wednesday when a protester hurled at least three eggs at them and shouted, “This country was built on the blood of slaves!” The man missed his target and was quickly detained by the police, while the crowd booed and chanted “God Save the King.” Charles seemed unfazed by the commotion—although he stepped around the eggs splattered on the pavement—and continued to chat with city leaders as he strolled along the street. He and Camilla were in the northern city to unveil a statue of his late mother, Queen Elizabeth II.

Paris Metro workers strike for wage hike, disrupt commutes (AP) Striking subway workers shut down half of the Paris Metro lines Thursday, a nationwide day of walkouts and protests by French train drivers, teachers and other public-sector workers demanding the government and employers increase salaries to keep up with inflation. Expecting major disruptions on their morning commutes, many Parisians biked or walked to work. Others took buses that were provided as an alternative way to reach offices and workplaces, or reverted to their pandemic lockdown routines and worked from home. Protest rallies were planned in Paris and other French cities later Thursday, amid deepening worker discontent around Europe. The strikes in France build on multiple union actions in recent months by French workers demanding higher wages to keep up with the rising cost of living. Last month, a strike by oil refinery workers caused nationwide fuel shortages that disrupted lives and businesses. The French government intervened to force them back to work.

Europe’s Energy Crunch Will Trigger Years of Shortages and Blackouts (Bloomberg) Bills will be high, but Europe will survive the winter: It’s bought enough oil and gas to get through the heating seasons. Much deeper costs will be borne by the world’s poorest countries, which have been shut out of the natural gas market by Europe’s suddenly ravenous demand. It’s left emerging market countries unable to meet today’s needs or tomorrow’s, and the most likely consequences—factory shutdowns, more frequent and longer-lasting power shortages, the foment of social unrest—could stretch into the next decade. “Energy security concerns in Europe are driving energy poverty in the emerging world,” said Saul Kavonic, an energy analyst at Credit Suisse Group AG. “Europe is sucking gas away from other countries whatever the cost.” The strong US dollar has only complicated the situation, forcing nations to choose between buying fuel or making debt payments. Under the circumstances, global fuel suppliers are increasingly wary of selling to countries that could be heading for default.

Ukraine Peace Talks Remain Distant Even as Moscow Signals a Retreat (NYT) American and European officials say serious peace talks between Ukraine and Russia are unlikely in the near future, even as the Biden administration tries to fend off growing questions from some members of Congress about the U.S. government’s open-ended investment in the war. Russian and Ukrainian officials have made separate public comments in recent days about potential peace negotiations, more than six months after their last known direct talks fell apart. But U.S. officials say that they do not believe talks will begin soon and that both sides think continued fighting, for now, will strengthen their eventual negotiating positions. They also concede that it is difficult to envision terms of a settlement that Ukraine and Russia would accept. Ukrainian officials are optimistic about their military prospects after making unexpectedly large gains this fall. Their morale soared again on Wednesday, when Russia ordered its forces to retreat from the southern city of Kherson. Perhaps more important, American and European officials say, Ukraine’s population has been hardened by Russia’s devastating military campaign, which has destroyed civilian areas and resulted in massacres, rape and looting. Even if Ukrainian leaders were prepared to make concessions to bring the fighting to an end, their people are not disposed to accept that, the officials say.

Iran protests rage on streets as officials renew threats (AP) Protests in Iran raged on streets into Thursday with demonstrators remembering a bloody crackdown in the country’s southeast, even as the nation’s intelligence minister and army chief renewed threats against local dissent and the broader world. The protests in Iran, sparked by the Sept. 16 death of a 22-year-old woman after her detention by the country’s morality police, have grown into one of the largest sustained challenges to the nation’s theocracy since the chaotic months after its 1979 Islamic Revolution. At least 328 people have been killed and 14,825 others arrested in the unrest, according to Human Rights Activists in Iran, a group that’s been monitoring the protests over their 54 days. Iran’s government for weeks has remained silent on casualty figures while state media counterfactually claims security forces have killed no one.

In a first, Israeli general opens up about use of armed drones (Reuters) Israel on Wednesday described what has been an open secret for two decades—that it has used drones not just for surveillance but also in strikes within the country, against Palestinian militants in Gaza, and possibly targets as far away as Iran or Sudan. Israeli censors in July permitted publication of information about the armed drones and the chief of Israel’s artillery corps—which runs the drones together with the air force—used his speech at an industry forum to give what he described as a first public account of the armed versions of the pilot-less planes. Brigadier-General Neri Horowitz disclosed that when jihadi insurgents from Egypt burst across the border into southern Israel in a hijacked armoured vehicle in May 2012, they were destroyed in a drone strike. Showing footage of Ukrainian forces using drones to guide shelling of invading Russian troops, he said: “We have the same application here.” Israel is expanding its drone forces, whose personnel are 30% female, Horowitz said.

Jordan Is Running Out of Water, a Grim Glimpse of the Future (NYT) Residents of Jordan, one of the driest countries in the world, have long been accustomed to a household water supply of only about 36 hours a week. But recently, even that meager flow has been curtailed by the debilitating combination of a warming planet and swelling demand. Rajaa al-Bawabiji, 64, like many others in the capital, Amman, plans her days accordingly. A human rights lawyer during the week, on Fridays she turns into a domestic marathoner, frantically cleaning, washing clothes and cooking three big meals during the brief window when the water flows. But household taps ran dry this summer for as long as three weeks in parts of this small, dehydrated Middle Eastern nation. By early summer, when her taps did not spring to life on schedule, Ms. al-Bawabiji said she feared more outages were coming. Everyone was anxious about water, she recalled. So she bought a second tank for her roof and chipped in with her neighbors to fill it with water purchased from a private water tanker business. Population growth, diminished water supplies and climate change have all taken their toll, while damaged and inefficient infrastructure and the considerable challenges posed by Jordan’s geography and topography have only made things worse. The resulting shortages serve as a warning of what the future might hold for the region and the world beyond it‌.

#headlines #news

1 note · View note

uboat53 · 2 years

Text

Story time! In 2019 I had the opportunity to go to France, one week in Normandy for D-Day memorials and one week in Toulouse for work. While I was in Toulouse I got to hand out with and talk with my French co-workers. At a certain point we ended up talking about the French President, Emmanuel Macron, who had been present at the D-Day memorials.

I mentioned that he was pretty unpopular, only about 25%-30% approval rating at that point, and my French co-workers laughed. That was the French way, they said, no one really likes anyone, but when it came time to vote he would probably win handily because they still disliked everyone else more.

I bring this up because Biden's poll numbers have improved slightly but are still pretty bad and I think it's relevant for how to think about approval ratings in American politics these days. I mean, let's face it, Trump may have lost in 2020, but a greater percentage of people voted for him than approved of his performance as President. The same will probably be true about Biden.

"Why is this happening?" you may ask. Well, I think it has to do with the expectations of the party base. You see, there's a lot of people who disapprove of Biden because they disagree with him, but there's also a bunch of people who do agree with him and disapprove because they think that he hasn't done enough to put in place the things they want. There's also probably some people who approve of what he's doing but dislike him personally, though that was probably a more significant issue for Trump.

"Why is this happening now?" I guess is the next question, right? Well, I think it's to do with the rise of negative partisanship and the drift toward extremes among the base of both major parties. Negative partisans still dislike their side, but they'll vote for them because they dislike and even fear the other side a lot more. The drift toward the extremes within both parties, on the other hand, makes some voters desire more than is politically possible and blame their leaders when it doesn't happen.

If I were you, I'd get used to it, though I don't expect media analysts to do so anytime soon. By the old standards of politics, Biden (and Trump during his own term) is in terrible shape. But people aren't approaching politics the way they used to, people who would have approved of a president in another era are now solidly on the disapprove side, but they'll still vote for the guy when it comes to an election.

I don't know about you, but I think we're in the French model of politics now.

#us politics #politics #french politics #president biden #president joe biden #trump #donald john trump #political polls #political media #negative partisanship #political extremism

1 note · View note

radiosat24web · 2 years

Photo

#radiosat24web #easternmediterraneanarea #middleeast #gulfcountries #gulfcooperationcouncil #easternmediterraneaneurope #mediterraneanregion #states #communities #localgovernment #economydevelopingcountries #socialopportunities #sportsandfreetime #dailypressreview #sunday #morningpressreview #natousarussiaukraineeuropeanunioninternationalrelations Russia's war on Ukraine puts the European Union at a crossroads NICOSIA (Radiosat24web) - The war in Ukraine is pushing the European Union, as it celebrates its 72nd anniversary on Monday, to transform fundamentally into a powerful player on the international scene. "Russian President Vladimir Putin's war in Ukraine raises fundamental questions about European peace architecture," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said Friday. The European Union celebrates the 72nd anniversary of its founding document, a declaration by former French Foreign Minister Robert Schumann proposing the creation of a European Coal and Steel Community on 9 May 1950. A trading bloc that included countries that were once at war, became a major political force capable of sending weapons to Kyiv and imposing unprecedented sanctions on Russia. It has drawn lessons from Brexit and the era of US President Donald Trump and is preparing to confront China, which is expanding its influence. But the burgeoning European Union of 450 million people, which is struggling to find consensus among its 27 members, is not the major international power it aspires to. It is still a far cry from the strategic independence that French President Emmanuel Macron, the current president of the Council of the European Union, would like the bloc to have. "Essentially, for Europe to become a political player, there must be more than a few political and institutional solutions," says Dutch political analyst Luc van Midlar. He believes that the European Union has "crossed the point of no return" when it decided to fund arms deliveries to Ukraine, in a "blatant" shift compared to its peaceful history. However, according to Medlar, his strategy is unclear about Russia and the eastern European countries that want to join him, including Ukraine. #radiosat24web https://www.instagram.com/p/CdSgapGt6Ci/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

0 notes

arcticdementor · 3 years

Link

I’ve been keeping an eye on Europe lately, and on France in particular. As I’ve tried to articulate here previously, the era of general upheaval underway is hardly a phenomenon limited to the United States. Instead, propelled everywhere by the same fundamental forces, it appears to be playing out in a more or less similar fashion all across the Western world, and perhaps beyond. In this regard France serves as an especially instructive example, as recent events have served to highlight in striking fashion.

In short, recent national controversy over a pair of open letters directed to the government by a collection of retired and active-duty military officers has not only spawned a month of political controversy in France, but revealed deeper dynamics at work in the country that may help provide a clearer picture of what’s happening everywhere.

On April 21, twenty retired French generals published an open letter to President Emmanuel Macron and the French government in the right-wing magazine Valeurs Actuelles (Today’s Values) denouncing “the disintegration that is affecting our country,” and explaining they were speaking out because “the hour is late, France is in peril, and many mortal dangers threaten her.”

…

Initially, the letter was dismissed as mere “eccentric nationalist nostalgia by octogenarian retirees,” as the British Financial Times put it, and the government appeared content to ignore it. The then head of France’s General Directorate for Internal Security, Patrick Calvar, had already warned that France was “on the edge of a civil war” as early as 2016, so this kind of thing was old news. But that changed as soon as Marine Le Pen – the leader of the right-wing Rassemblement National (National Rally) party who polls show is likely to again be Macron’s top rival in presidential elections next year – endorsed the letter, saying “it was the duty of all French patriots, wherever they are from, to rise up to restore – and indeed save – the country.”

Public conversation in France turned to politicization of the armed forces and whether the letter’s final lines were a call for a military coup d'état (the fact that the letter was published on the 60th anniversary of a failed generals’ putsch against President Charles de Gaulle in 1961 providing evidence for this in the view of many). General François Lecointre, armed forces chief of staff, stated that while “at first I said to myself that it wasn’t very significant,” at least 18 active military personnel had been found to have been among the more than 1,500 people who also signed the letter. “That I cannot accept,” he said, because “the neutrality of the armed forces is essential.” They would all be punished, while any of the generals still in the reserves would be forced into full retirement as part of “an exceptional measure, that we will launch immediately at the request of the defense minister.” Still, the government’s ministers emphasized that the signatories were nothing more than an isolated and irrelevant minority in the military.

But soon enough, on May 10, a second letter appeared, again published in Valeurs Actuelles, this time by more than 2,000 serving soldiers writing in support of the first letter’s retired generals, accusing the government of having sullied their reputations when “their only fault is to love their country and to mourn its visible decline.”

…

The second letter, this time open to the public to sign, attracted (as of the end of last week) more than 287,000 signatures.

Again came exasperated reactions from many ministers and observers. But what is most remarkable, in my view, is how little enthusiasm most seemed to have for challenging the basic premises of the letters: that France is in a state of growing fracture and even dissolution. Instead, the focus of controversy was once again on the military taking a political position.

…

But perhaps my favorite example was that of (retired) General Jérôme Pellistrandi, chief editor at the magazine Revue Défense Nationale, who prefaced his otherwise sharp criticism of the outspoken soldiers with: “Everyone agrees that society is breaking up, it’s a known fact, but…”

What was going on here? Since when do government officials reflexively agree that their country is falling apart? Well, it turns out that a rather shockingly high proportion of the French public seems to agree with the sentiments the letters expressed. The following chart, created from the results of a Harris Interactive opinion poll taken April 29, after the first letter, is in my view one of the most striking statements about the political mood in a Western country that you’re likely to see for some time:

…

So, to break this down, not only do 58% of the French public agree with the first letter’s sentiments about the country facing disintegration, but so do nearly half of Macron’s own governing party, the centrist En Marche. Awkward. Nor are those sentiments limited to any one part of the political spectrum, even if the right is more sympathetic overall. Far-left party leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon may have quickly declared that the “mutinous and cowardly” soldiers who signed the letter would all be purged from the army if he were elected, but 43% of his party seem to share their concerns.

But that’s not even the whole of it – an amazing 74% of poll respondents said they thought French society was collapsing, while no less than 45% agreed that France “will soon have a civil war.”

…

And, in short, both countries are clearly facing at least one of the defining characteristics of the Upheaval: the collapse of any agreed upon and consistently accepted authority. It is notable that, in both countries (at least until recently) there is only one institution that still garners relatively widespread respect: the military. (And French generals aren’t the only ones trying to capitalize on this with controversial open letters.)

Second, there is the key detail – almost entirely skipped over in the English-language press in favor of focusing on the anti-immigration angle, as far as I’ve seen – of the “anti-racism,” “decolonialism,” and “communitarianism” decried in the two letters as contributing to national dissolution. This is rather unmistakably a reference to the amalgamated, zealously anti-traditional and anti-liberal ideology of the “New Faith” – alternately referred to as Anti-Racism, the Social Justice movement, Critical Theory, identity politics, neo-Marxism, or Wokeness, among other synonymous infamies – that I’ve previously identified as one of the key revolutionary dynamics of our present era.

Let me repeat this proposition again: no revolution has ever remained contained by national borders. The New Faith is a trans-national ideological movement, which can no more remain confined to the United States than it remained confined within the American academy where it matured (it was arguably born in, well… France). And it is more than capable of rapidly adapting itself to and flourishing within whatever national context it penetrates. But, wherever it goes, it’s just as disruptive to the foundations of social and political order.

…

Finally, what’s striking about the situation in France is that every driving factor appears set to only get worse. The COVID-19 pandemic has only accelerated the divide between rich and poor; Europe’s economic recovery has been shaky; the ideology of the New Faith is likely to prove more difficult for the French to combat than they expect (the foundation of the established order having been hollowed out over a very long period of time); and the identitarian culture war is likely to only heat up, especially with elections approaching in which Le Pen appears to have a decent chance of actually winning (an outcome that could accelerate political and cultural fracturing, as Donald Trump’s election did in the United States).

…

It is notable that every one of these trends, including climate-induced migration, is featured in the U.S. Intelligence Community’s rather ominous recent report evaluating where the world is headed over the next five years, which I’ve written on previously. (Several readers have written to me to criticize my lack of discussion of climate change as a factor in both that post and my essay introducing the Upheaval – well fair enough, though I am uncertain about how much the climate issue has actually driven the turmoil we’re already seeing so far today, as opposed to what we may see in the future.)

France thus seems set to function as an ahead-of-the-curve epicenter for the Upheaval in Europe. No wonder the French are so pessimistic…

#n. s. lyons #substack #france

5 notes · View notes

opedguy · 3 years

Text

Germany Goes Ahead with Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

LOS ANGELES (OnlineColumnist.com), Feb. 6, 2021.--German Chancellor Angel Merkel, 66, a key player in the European Union, sent a loud message to 78-year-old U.S. President Joe Biden that she will move full steam ahead on completing the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline with Russia. While Merkel has sympathy for 44-year-old jailed Russian dissident Alexi Navalny, it won’t impact her relationship with the Russian Federation. Merkel pointed out that Germany has been buying natural gas and petroleum since post WW II days when the Soviet Union supplied German vital resources to rebuild the war-torn country. Biden came to power Jan. 20 like gangbusters going after 68-year-old Russian President Vladimir Putin, saying the U.S. would no longer be “rolling over” like 74-year-old former President Donald Trump. Trump never “rolled over “ for anyone, just wanted a chance to improve the abysmal relations with Russian left by 59-year-old former President Barack Obama.

Obama took the unusual step three weeks before Trump’s inauguration to expel 35 Russian diplomats Dec. 31, 2016. Biden apparently has picked up where Obama lseft off Jan. 20, 2017, alienating Putin and the Russian Federation. Biden’s 58-yar-old newly minted Secretary of State Tony Blinken practically jumped up and down telling Putin to release Navalny and other Russian dissidents. Threatening more sanctions and telling Putin what to do with an internal Russian affair doesn’t play well with Putin or the Kremlin. Biden forgets he had a chance to put his foot down with Putin March 1, 2014 when Russian invaded and annexed Ukraine’s Crimean Peninsula, home to Russia’s warm-water fleet in Sevastopol. Obama and Biden could have acted more forcefully but chose to do nothing. Suddenly Biden’s the tough old rooster on the block, hurling insults and warnings at Putin.

Biden and Blinken have slammed Trump’s “America First” foreign policy, pledging, like Obama, to fall in line with the European Union [EU]. Merkel’s decision to move forward with competing the Nord Stream 2 pipeline under the Baltic Sea serves notice that she intends to continue doing business with the Russian Federation. Whatever sanctions Biden or Blinken contemplate for Putin’s actions with Navalny, election-year-influence or hacking secure computers systems, etc., Merkel plans to meet her contractual obligations with the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. Biden and Blinken counted on the EU to lend clout to U.S. actions against Putin. Biden and Blinken want Germany to buy liquefied natural gas from the U.S., where it’s in abundant supply with the fracking industry. Merkel rejects the idea that Germany and the EU have grown increasingly dependent on Moscow for energy.

When it comes to energy, the Russian Federation supplies 40% of EU’s natural gas and 30% of its petroleum. Biden and Blinken won’t get Merkel to renege on her commitment to the Kremlin for energy supplies. Merkel said she wouldn’t allow Germany to be “unilaterally dependent” on Russian energy, knowing that Russia has supplied German energy for over 70 years. Alienating Putin hurts U.S. national security at a time when the State Department needs the linkage with Moscow to face growing challenges in the Middle East, North Africa, North Korea and Iran. Acting aggressively toward Putin won’t build the global linkages needed to solve evolving crises around the globe, especially on the Russia-Ukraine border when pro-Russian separatists seek to split off the Donbass region. Yet Biden and Blinken have already alienated Putin to point he would do nothing to help the U.S.

Merkel understands perfectly well that the U.S. has a beef with Putin over a variety of pressing issues, like alleged recent hacking of SolarWinds network management software used by numerous government agencies, including Homeland Security and the Pentagon. But Merkel is no fool when it comes to Germany. She’s all in when it comes to the Paris climate accord but knows that Germany’s transition from fossil fuels will take time. When it comes to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, Merkel secures low cost natural gas to heat German hopes in the cold winter. “It’s clear that this is a controversial project that is being discussed in Europe,” Merkel said, knowing that 43-year-old French President Emmanuel Macron wants to sanction Putin for his repressive treatment of Navalny and use of banned chemicals to poison his enemies. Putin has denied using Soviet-era Novichok nerve agent to poison Navalny.

Biden and Blinken think they’re talking tough with Putin, trying to contrast their firmness with Putin to that of Trump. But Trump did everything possible to improve U.S.-Russian relations only to watch it sabotaged by Democrats and the U.S. press. Democrats and the press accused Trump for four years of inappropriate ties to the Kremlin, baseless accusations made by former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton with her paid opposition research AKA “the Steele dossier,” a pile of rubbish given to the CIA and FBI by Obama and Biden. Biden and Blinken won’t get the cooperation they think to start applying more pressure on Putin, not when the EU buys 40% of its natural gas and 30% of its petroleum from Russia. “I had questions at the beginning, we coordinated, a decision has been made and I’m in fully solidarity,” Macron said, letting Biden and Blinken know where things stand.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He’s editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma. Reply Reply All Forward

2 notes · View notes

giftofshewbread · 3 years

Text

Walk Circumsectly

By Daymond Duck Published on: February 28, 2021

The title of this article comes from Scripture. “See then that ye walk circumspectly not as fools, but as wise, Redeeming the time, because the days are evil” (Eph. 5:15-16).

Here are 7 basic things that people need to know about Bible prophecy:

One, people need to know that God knows the future. Paul said, “Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world” (Acts 15:18). God knows what will happen before it happens.

Two, people need to know that God reveals the future before it happens. God said, “I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done” (Isaiah 46:9-10). There is just one God, and He reveals what He plans to do before He does it.

Three, people need to know that the Bible is full of prophecy. God put 18 books of prophecy in the Bible. He put 5 books called the Major Prophets in the Bible. He put 12 books called the Minor Prophets in the Bible. He put the Book of Revelation in the Bible. He put whole chapters of prophecy in the Bible (Matt. 24-25). Depending upon who we talk to, some say 25-40% of the Bible is prophecy. The Bible is full of prophecy.

Four, people need to know that Bible prophecy is reliable. God said, “The prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die” (Deut. 18:20). God’s prophets had to be right 100% of the time. If what they said is not from God, it is from Satan.

Five, people need to know that there is proof of the accuracy of Bible prophecy. The Old Testament records more than 300 prophecies about the first coming of Jesus. Some prophecies are repeated two or three times. After the repetitions are removed, the Old Testament still records at least 108 specifically different prophecies about the first coming of Jesus that were literally fulfilled.

Many years ago, Peter Stoner, former Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, calculated the probability of one person fulfilling just 48 prophecies to be 1 with 127 zeros (A trillion has just 12 zeros). With the odds being so great for one person to fulfill just 48 prophecies, one must wonder what the odds would be for one person to fulfill all 108 prophecies. Fulfilled prophecy is indisputable proof that Jesus is the Messiah, that God knows the end from the beginning, that God is in control, and that the Bible is the Word of God.

Six, people need to know what Peter said about Bible prophecy. “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (II Peter 1:20-21). Notice these four things: Bible prophecy is sure (it is accurate), people would do well (be wise) to pay attention to Bible prophecy, Bible prophecy is like a light (because it helps people understand other things in the Bible), and Bible prophecy was given by the Holy Ghost (the reason why it is 100% accurate).

Seven, people need to know that Bible prophecy is about Jesus. The Bible says, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Rev. 19:10b). Why would people, especially pastors and church members, willfully ignore the testimony of Jesus?

Here are recent current events that relate to Bible Prophecy and our need to walk circumspectly (believe, live and act the way God wants us to believe, live and act).

One: on Feb. 19, 2021, it was reported that Pres. Biden took office promising to improve America’s relationship with Europe, work with our allies in Europe, strengthen NATO, etc.

Pres. Macron of France believes it is time for the EU to establish a more powerful military and tell the U.S. to remove her troops.

The Antichrist will rise to power in Europe and go forth conquering and to conquer.

I am receiving e-mails from readers that want to know if I believe Emmanuel Macron is the Antichrist.

The identity of the Antichrist will not be revealed while the Church is here, but since Israel became a nation in 1948, several people have been identified as the Antichrist that are no longer alive.

There is no question that Macron has many traits of the Antichrist, and he could be the Antichrist, but be careful because skeptics will label you as a false prophet, refuse to listen to you, etc., if something happens to Macron.

Two, concerning world government: on Feb. 19, 2021, it was reported that Biden addressed global leaders with two major speeches (one at the G-7 virtual summit and another at the Munich Security Conference) to declare the end of Trump’s “America First” agenda.

As I understand it, the era of “America First” is dead, and it has been replaced by the era of “Globalism First.”

Trump put the needs of America above the needs of the UN and other nations.

Biden is putting the needs of the UN and other nations (the globalist agenda; the New World Order) above the needs of America.

Know that the World Economic Forum (WEF) plans to ask the G-7 nations to approve “The Great Reset” this fall, and Biden (or whoever is in charge at the White House) is letting people know that he supports the globalist agenda.

Be aware that a former Obama Dept. of Homeland Security Official said more than one million immigrants will try to cross the U.S. border with Mexico this year (many with Covid; some getting vaccinated before American citizens that want vaccinations can get them).

Be aware that Biden has prepared a $1.9 Trillion Covid Relief Package and less than 10% of the money is for health-related issues (more than 90% is for museums, family planning, bailing out states and cities, a bridge that Schumer wants in New York, a tunnel that Pelosi wants in San Francisco and more).

Be aware that the bailout of cities and states is based on unemployment rates, meaning that cities and states that use lockdowns to put people out of work will get more money than cities and states that don’t use lockdowns to put people out of work.

Be aware that Biden is warming up to China; that nation is requiring its people to hate God, wants to head up the coming world government, a government that will hate God, etc. (Rev. 13:4-8).

Know that God gave Daniel a vision of the latter time, the rise and fall of the Antichrist, and his world government during the Tribulation Period (Dan. 8:23-27).

“And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people. And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand. And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days. And I Daniel fainted, and was sick certain days; afterward I rose up, and did the king’s business; and I was astonished at the vision, but none understood it.”

The vision of the coming Antichrist and his world government was so evil and destructive that it caused Daniel to faint and be sick for several days.

In a past article, I stated that God may have allowed Trump to be removed from office so the globalist agenda can go forward (and it is).

God is in control, and He can speed it up or slow it down, but I expect the Democrats to lock America into a world government before the next election.

Three, concerning persecution: on Feb. 16, 2021, Worthy News reported that the Center for Family and Human Rights is warning groups and organizations that the UN (wannabe world government) is planning to create lists of those that oppose the LGBT agenda.

Those that oppose the LGBT agenda will be designated as “LGBT hate groups,” and they will be blacklisted and punished.

Four, concerning natural disasters: the state of Texas is known as a major producer of oil and natural gas, but in 2020, Texas used wind turbines to produce 23% of its electricity.

The extreme cold of the Feb. 2021 winter storm froze about half of the wind turbines, and, at one point, more than one and a half million Texans were without electricity.

It has been reported that without rolling blackouts, the entire system was just minutes away from a catastrophic failure that would have taken weeks, or perhaps months, to totally repair.

Stores closed for lack of electricity, others closed because they ran out of food, people moved into their vehicles to stay warm, more than 40 people died, and this is perhaps the costliest weather event in the history of Texas.

Thank God for fossil fuels because without them, the hunger (famine), cold, death and destruction would be much worse than it was this time.

Incidentally, on his first day in office, Biden stopped construction on the Keystone XL Pipeline in the U.S., put thousands of Americans out of work, and hurt Canada, but now he is promoting a pipeline to carry Turkmenistan gas across Afghanistan and Pakistan to India.

Why are pipelines environmentally unsafe in the U.S. but environmentally safe in Muslim and terrorist countries?

If nuclear power plants are unsafe in the U.S., why is Biden signaling his readiness to resume talks with Iran over the resumption of that terrorist nation’s nuclear program?

Since America’s economy is in danger of collapsing and the U.S. has crude oil that could be sold, why is the U.S. cutting production, jobs, etc. and starting to buy oil again?

If pollution of the atmosphere is causing climate change disasters like the one in Texas, why is Biden ignoring the fact that China is one of the worst polluters on earth, and why is Biden’s Climate Change Envoy, John Kerry, still flying around in his private plane?

It has been my opinion for a long time that God uses natural disasters to warn nations to repent and return to Him (II Chron. 7:13-14), but globalists are using the disasters as a scare tactic to bring in their godless world government.

Godless leaders do not think like Christians, and more and more, it is clear that this world is not the Christian’s home (I Cor. 2:14-16).

To be honest, I do not think America will repent, and if Covid and the Texas disaster are birth pains, there is more to come.

By the way, on Feb. 19, 2021, John Kerry was on CBS This Morning, and he was asked, “How much time do we still have left to avert climate catastrophe?”

He replied, “The scientists told us 3 years ago we have 12 years to avert the worst consequences of climate crises; we are now 3 years gone, so we have 9 years left.

This is 2021, and 9 years from now will be 2030, which is the UN agreed-upon goal for having a world government up and running.

Five: on Feb. 19, 2021, William Koenig, author of “Eye to Eye,” noted that Biden has hit the ground running on issues that are worrisome or detrimental to Israel.

Koenig is famous for pointing out that those that bless Israel are blessed, and those that curse Israel are cursed.

We cannot deny that Biden has come out in favor of the Two-State Solution (division of Israel), he opposed Israel’s construction of settlements in Judea and Samaria, he waffled on Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, he announced that the U.S. might be willing to rejoin the Iranian nuclear deal, he revoked Trump’s designation of the Iranian-backed Houthis as a terrorist organization, and more.

Now, the U.S. (especially Texas) has been hit with a record-breaking storm.

Six: on Feb. 17, 2021, it was reported that there is a leaked July 16, 2020, video of Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, expressing concern to his employees about the Covid-19 vaccine.

Zuckerberg said, “We just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA … whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream.”

This seems significant because Facebook has announced an expedited effort to remove posts that say the Covid-19 vaccine changes people’s DNA.

If Zuckerberg can warn his employees about future risks, why are others not allowed to warn people about future risks?

The U.S. Constitution gives citizens freedom of speech, and people like Zuckerberg should not be allowed to take it away.

This is another case of the rich and powerful making rules that apply to others but not themselves.

Finally, if you want to go to heaven, you must be born again (John 3:3). God loves you, and if you have not done so, sincerely admit that you are a sinner; believe that Jesus is the virgin-born, sinless Son of God who died for the sins of the world, was buried, and raised from the dead; ask Him to forgive your sins, cleanse you, come into your heart and be your Saviour; then tell someone that you have done this.

1 note · View note

alexsmitposts · 4 years

Photo

NATO’s Collapse Draws Nearer Politicians and experts have been discussing the presence of a deep crisis within North Atlantic Alliance for many decades. It may seem purely symbolic, however France has pointed out the existence of a crisis on multiple occasions: first in 1966, when Charles de Gaulle decided to withdraw France from the military integrated structures of NATO, and then when the alliance’s headquarters were transferred from Paris to Brussels. Now the French President, Emmanuel Macron, has given his objective assessment of NATO’s “brain-death” in both an interview with the Economist in November 2019, and then recently in a joint press conference with his Tunisian counterpart, Kais Saied, after a dangerous incident involving war ships of two NATO members (France and Turkey) off the Libyan coast. According to Macron, Europe today finds itself “on the precipice”, as members of the Alliance have clearly not been coordinated in their recent actions and the United States is increasingly turning away from the Old World. All of this means that the time has come for Europe to wake up, to start building up its own strength, and to think of itself as an independent geopolitical pole of power, otherwise it “will not control its own fate.” The French leader has realized that, under the United States’ leadership, the NATO bloc is not able to protect Europe’s interests in the era of China’s ascent and the West’s strained relations with Russia and Turkey. The French President has therefore expressed his frustration on Europe’s dependence on Washington’s whims, at a time where the American President is “turning his back on Europe” and does not “subscribe to the European idea”. As an example of this, he pointed to Trump’s sudden decision to withdraw some of his troops from the North-Eastern region of Syria, leaving his Kurdish allies to fend for themselves, without consulting his NATO partners first. In this context, Macron believes that NATO can only survive if the United States agrees to maintain its status as the Alliance’s main bastion of security. However, how long Washington can play this role for is unclear. On November 15, the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, whilst addressing the Baker Institute in Houston, commented on Macron’s assessment of NATO’s “brain-death”, noting that there have never been perfect relations within the Alliance. “We ought not to think the moment is new or fresh. The nations that comprise NATO have different interests. We saw what Turkey did these past few weeks,” said Pompeo. Today, a crisis is brewing between the United States and Germany, which Donald Trump is continuing to stoke, whether with automobile duties, sanctions for cooperating with Russia (in particular for “Nord Stream 2”), or the withdrawal of NATO troops, as the German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel reports. “The United States President’s decision to withdraw part of the American military contingent from Germany is evidence of the wider issues within NATO,” announced retired General Ben Hodges the other day, who previously served as commander of the US military contingent in Europe. It is interesting to note that America had originally explained that their presence in Germany was not due to the North Atlantic partnership, but to “protect [Germany] against Russia”. This announcement led to ironic ridicule in German society. “Trump is saying that he is protecting Germany’s safety. But from what? Germany has become both a target and a hostage in any military conflict,” announced Waldemar Herdt, a member of the Bundestag. “I welcome Trump’s decision to start the demilitarization of Germany, because he is using NATO to provide for the economic needs of the United States against the interests of other Alliance members. In light of this, the German elites must learn to start thinking as a sovereign state, rather than as a vassal state of the United States,” emphasized Herdt. A representative of the “Green” party in Germany and a member of the foreign affairs committee, Jürgen Trittin, has also recently discussed the idea that NATO is undergoing an existential crisis and is only a shadow of an alliance. In Der Spiegel, he called for a sober evaluation of the situation and to recognize that NATO has become threadbare. The politician has called on Europe to solve the current issues independently and to resolve disputes within NATO, especially regarding its relationship with Russia and the Iranian nuclear deal, which the United States recently scrapped unilaterally without prior agreement with its partners. Trittin is convinced that Europe should stop feeling nostalgic for NATO and start consolidating its own strengths, backing the horse of sustainable sovereignty. Many politicians and experts have already spoken about a crisis within NATO. Washington-lead operations in Afghanistan and Libya, which are outside the formal area of the Alliance’s responsibility, have been going on for many years without great success, despite bold statements from Washington and Brussels. As NATO is still a bloc in which the United States dominates militarily and imposes its policies on other member states, many European NATO countries are now raising their concerns about the possibility of the United States switching its attention to the Pacific region, and hence there being further unwarranted expansion of the Alliance’s operation zones. As we can see, NATO is ill-equipped in the combat against terrorism. It is difficult to implement the decision about the increase of defense spending by member states: in 2014 it was agreed that each state should increase defense contributions to at least 2% of GDP by 2024. However, according to NATO’s statistical data, only two countries reached the 2% threshold in 2019, Poland and Latvia, while Lithuania, Romania, Estonia, Great Britain and Greece all already spend slightly more than 2%. Only two countries allocate more than 3% of GDP on defense spending – the United States and Bulgaria. There is not a great deal of time before the deadline, and there is no certainty that 20 of the 29 member states will “boost” their spending. In many European countries, more than 50% of defense spending goes on staff. Small European armies now live in comfort and do not want to fight. There is also no European country which could simultaneously be part of NATO and a potential European army. Last December, the NATO summit was held in London, and it was perhaps the most scandalous and controversial in the Alliance’s 70-year history, which is why the West’s military and political observers and experts were united in saying that the Alliance is experiencing the most serious crisis in its existence. The American President, Donald Trump, has already spoken about the “uselessness of NATO” and the fact that “Europe should look after itself” in fairly harsh terms, and indeed Trump simply walked out of the final press conference in London. The American editor of Defense One has said that “NATO’s biggest threat is not from external enemies, but from within.” Following Washington’s directives, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg is using NATO to clamp down on the “threat policy”, at times pointing to the growing threat from Russia, or now looking at China, who “want to use the current coronavirus pandemic to strengthen their confrontation with NATO.” The formation of four NATO battalion groups has only recently been completed, strengthening grouping in the Baltic and Black seas. The Alliance’s infrastructure is continuing to be developed, and almost every day there are reports that Eastern European countries are starting or completing the construction of some facility or another. Recently, particular attention has been paid to strengthening the southern flank: American and British forces have sprung up in Romania, and multinational brigades are being formed there. Today, European security has taken a turn for the worse: for the first time in many years the security of the region is again being defined not by measures of restraint, not by efforts to ensure security without resorting to military force, but by maintaining a sort of “balance of threats”. This is leading to an even greater military concentration and confrontation in Europe. In doing this, and blinkered by his Russophobic prejudice, Jens Stoltenberg is not even listening to the Supreme Commander of NATO in Europe, Tod Wolters, who officially announced in a March 20, 2020 briefing that “Russia won’t be using the current international crisis for the advancing of its interests.” Linked with this, it is worth recalling what the previous German Minister of foreign affairs, Joschka Fischer, said, underlining the fact that, “NATO’s future is more uncertain now than at any time in its history… Europeans should not harbor any illusions about what defense autonomy will require. For the European Union, which has only ever seen itself as an economic rather than a military power, it implies a deep rupture with the status quo. To be sure, NATO still exists, and there are still US troops deployed in Europe. But the operative word is “still”. Now that traditional institutions and transatlantic security and commitments have been cast into doubt, the alliance’s unravelling has become less a matter of “if” than “when”.”

1 note · View note

emblem-333 · 5 years

Text

What-If Richard Nixon won the election of 1960?

Meanwhile, across the Atlantic Ocean, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbin is the last thing standing in the way of total economic collapse of the government. Corbin is their Bernie Sanders, only with more political clout given the parliamentary system. Through years of effective party building, mobilizing and a decaying growth of income inequality worked to provide the Labour Party a large chunk of the seats, though not a majority. Though in the minority the gains of the Labour Party causes massive upheaval in Britain’s power structure. Conservative party leader Theresa May recently left office in disgrace after numerous electoral shortcomings. Right now the Prime Minister of the U.K is Boris Johnson. Basically, he’s mini-Trump. More disheveled, and aligned with the corporate class.

Elsewhere, the French did what the United States electorate couldn’t and bite the bullet and vote for the establishment Neoliberal shill in the face of the rising tide of fascism. Perhaps it was the debacle the Trump presidency only in its infancy managed to cause scared the French into running into the arms of Emmanuel Macron. You’d hope this brush with disaster would humble the centrist in the country. Except, in victory they’re only emboldened that only they know what needs to be done and the filthy unwashed peasants need to understand that. Macron shown hostility towards the Yellow Vest movement whose aims are to raise the poultry minimum wage, in U.S dollars roughly translates to 11.62. Far better than our federal minimum wage of $7.25. But hardly something that can be described as a livable wage.

Macron sits at 70 percent disapproval and his re-election date is 2022.

These three countries have come to the unanimous conclusion that is Neoliberalism is completely useless and only works to facilitate a totalitarian ruler to wrangle enough power to squeeze into power and bring us closer to the apocalypse. However, neither country is truly democratic. So the people, their ideals and concerns don’t matter in the slightest. Though, I’d say the United States is the least democratic of of the three. Two of the last six presidential elections have given us a winner who did not secure the plurality of the popular vote, but their superiority in the electoral college swung them to the Oval Office.

We are still in the early stages of our primary for the out of power party. Democrats are weeding out the competitive field and have three choices apparently to pick from. The candidate of the Hillary Clinton-wing of the Party, made up of aspiring Pod Save America Bros. former vice-president Joe Biden. To his way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way, way left is elder statesman, self described Democratic-Socialist Bernie Sanders. He is the only candidate marching with labor unions, not crossing the picket line to hold fundraiser with the party’s bigwigs. Somewhere in the middle blowing aimlessly in the wind is Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren. A real Rockefeller Republican. If only that wing of the Republicans didn’t collapse and migrate to the Democrats.

Back when Democrats were the party of the working man (you know, the alliance that allowed them to occupy the White House for all but eight-years between 1933 and 1969) in the middle o the Great Depression recently elected president FDR inherited a country on the brink of succumbing to the same forces that destroyed the Czardom. Luckily for them, the Bolshevik Revolution did anything but wet starving Americans appetites for socialism. The ugliness of the Russian Revolution, and a tinge of antisemitism kept what many in the establishment considered the electorates darkest impulses at bay. The New Deal was designed to prevent a movement similar to Eugene V. Debs from upending the established hierarchy.

In the 1932 election there were four far left candidates. William Z. Foster of the Communist Party, Norman Thomas of the Socialist, Verne L. Reynolds of Socialist Labor, and militant labor leader Jacob Coxey of Farmer-Labor. Together the four pooled 1,029,661 votes, enough for 2.6 percent of the vote share. In Debs’ best showing in his many campaigns for the presidency was 913,693 in the election of 1920.

Suffering Americans wanted the blood of the Wall Street tycoons responsible for the demise of their lives. The wolves were at the gates and Roosevelt went to work to ensure his head wouldn’t be on a pike. The New Deal gave the populist its needed relief and the left wing third parties withered away as the dire situation grew less gruesome. Democrats dominated the White House winning five consecutive elections. Conservatives in the party brought up in the era of States’ Rights and limited government radically had to alter their persona to ensure political survival. Harry S. Truman needed to mend his relationship between the AFL-CIO in order to win re-election in ‘48. Texas senator Lyndon Johnson built upon the New Deal instituting a “War on Poverty” birthing his “Great Society.” This aggressive pro-worker party that was a force at the ballot box brought the rise of the liberal republicans in the GOP. Laissez-faire Republicans like Robert A. Taft, Alf Landon, and Wendell Willkie could only push so far in an age where the voter couldn’t stomach the rich. From 1944 to 1960 the “eastern establishment” wing of the GOP ran on platforms which assured voters worried about giving the reins back to the party of Herbert Hoover their intentions are not to gut the popular social programs such as social security, though they wished government interference would not venture farther than it already had.

Moderates like New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey, and the first presidential attempt of Richard Nixon failed to win the White House. Their only victory was famous war General Dwight Eisenhower, who could’ve ran as the nominee as any party and won by the substantial margin he did in ‘52 and ‘56. The party designed to appeal on the coasts couldn’t muster up the coalition in the Midwest needed to secure victory. Ultimately, Republicans learned the lesson today’s Democrats never will. Running as the lite-beer version of your opponent is a recipe for failure. In 1968, Nixon unleashed his Southern Strategy when the Democrats cast their lot in with the civil rights movement. The effects of the southern strategy are still felt today. The strategy itself still works over fifty-years after its inception.

But back in the early 1960’s neither party truly knew where they stood on the issue of civil rights. Dwight Eisenhower deployed federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas to ensure the entry and safety of black students during integration. His opponent, Adlai Stevenson, a great man, a forward thinker, picked a Alabaman segregationist for his V.P. While the Democrats had its fair share of activist on their team, Hubert Humphrey to name one, who fought tooth and nail for a civil rights plank to be enacted into the party’s platform for 1948. But by the 1950’s the segregationist have regained control.

Perhaps the liberal republicans could have had more success if they exercised political fortitude in advocating and legislating in favor of civil rights. Rather than seeing leaders like Martin Luther King as a controversial figure, at the very least they could have viewed him as somebody who could get them more votes and be heralded as a hero in the process. The infamous “turnip session” in the heat of the ‘48 campaign incumbent underdog Truman addresses the Congress held predominantly by republicans he dared them to put their money where their mouths were regarding civil rights. Of course, they balked and lost the White House they were supposed to win and both the House and Senate.

Playing as Nixon on the Internet game “Campaign Trail” I tapped New Yorker Nelson Rockefeller to be my veep rather than tread water with actual running mate Henry Cabot Lodge. Other options are Arizona senator staunch Neocon Barry Goldwater, and moderate elder statesman Everett Dirksen of Illinois. I choose Rockefeller because I wanted to run on a civil rights platform. I condemned the arrest of of MLK, endorsed a federal minimum wage of $1.25 and didn’t distance myself when Rockefeller promised further civil rights legislation while on the campaign trail.

Though Rockefeller was the rising star of the party at the time, his efforts did not give me the crucial state of New York. However, I fortunately did not need it to secure victory. (I’ll post my answers at the bottom)

Richard Nixon/Nelson Rockefeller: 299; 32,825,498

John F. Kennedy /Lyndon B. Johnson: 224; 33,806,388

Harry Byrd/Strom Thurmond: 14; 328,017

[Post Game Speech] With luck, you will be able to duplicate the eight years of peace and prosperity under Eisenhower. Unfortunately, the Democrats maintain their majority in both houses of Congress. With luck, they will be good partners in a bipartisan governing coalition. Your first order of business is to mend fences with Lyndon Johnson, who is returning to his role as Senate Majority Leader.

I swept the northeast and cleaned up in the west and by the skin of my teeth, despite losing the popular vote changed the trajectory of U.S history. Butterflying JFK from the Oval Office basically ensures Robert Kennedy’s effect on the political landscape as well. People often forget right around this era both parties took orders from the mob thanks to their heavy influence in organized labor. In 1952, the voters of the Democrats eyed Estes Kefauver. Kefauver won 12 primary contests and made his political bones unearthing the dirty secrets of his own party’s ties to the mafia. He was shut out of the convention and didn’t sniff the presidential ticket. Nixon complains of ballot stuffing in crucial swing like Illinois. Only reason he never brought it to court is because his party was guilty of doing the same thing.

Without a president John, we don’t get senator Bobby prosecuting scumbag apes like Carlos Marcello. They could continue to exercise extreme influence over the parties today.

The trade off is maybe a Republican comes along and flushes the monsters out of the Democratic Party. It have to be Nixon. Anyone else is a far reach. Then again, this column is attempting to articulate Nixon, of all people, championing civil rights. So perhaps nothing is impossible?

A plus in not having JFK in the Oval Office is he isn’t around to bungle the Bay of Pigs and take us to the brink of nuclear annihilation in the subsequent Cuban Missile Crisis. Young John was inexperienced and couldn’t beat back the bloodthirsty members in his cabinet advocating for the removal of Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Castro disliked Nixon - I’m not so sure the feeling wasn’t mutual. But Nixon was craftier than JFK when it comes to foreign policy. Kennedy waffled between caving completely to the pressure of Allen Dulles and standing his ground. Kennedy green-lit a half-assed attempt on Castro’s life, did not supply the CIA-sponsored Cuban exiles the support needed to sustain their offensive and their failure drove Castro right into the arms of the Soviet Union and Nikita Khruschev. By October of 1962 the Russians parked missiles 90-miles off the coast of Florida.

Nixon was far from a pacifist. But at the very least, his decisive nature would’ve warranted a legitimate threat to Castro and possibly dethroned him and turned Cuba into a puppet state for the United States. It’s debatable whether that is a good thing or not. I’m going to say it’s the latter. Cuba has tons of numerous human rights atrocities, but they treat their poor better than we do by giving them decent health care coverage.

The fate of Cuba probably isn’t different than the Dominican Republic in the mid-60’s when the U.S overthrew their democratically elected leader for implanting social programs that angered the church and corporate sectors of the country. Either Cuba becomes a fully impoverished country or succumbs to right-wing theocracy like Iran.

On a brighter note, Nixon likely pushes forward on civil rights and with his victory it vindicates the eastern establishment and sets up Rockefeller to be the face of the party. So we are spared Ronald Reagan. Though, the caveat is Rockefeller was an architect of the War on Drugs in the pre-Reagan era. So despite his superior record on civil rights we can still expect an explosion of the prison population for minor offenses for black Americans.

A Nixon victory in ‘60 keeps the GOP the party of Honest Abe. While the Democrats continue on as the White populist party. Maybe George Wallace gets a crack at the White House in ‘64 and he is the sacrificial lamb for the future trajectory of the party like Goldwater was in OTL for the Republicans. No more coastal or big city elites for the Democrats. They likely run southern gentleman like Wallace or Johnson from here on out.

Kennedy appointed two Supreme Court justices to the bench. It is likely Nixon nominates Warren E. Burger and maybe Thurgood Marshall to the bench. The difference this makes is Nixon probably never runs into Lewis Powell. The justice who would crusade in favor of big money contaminating our elections. If so, our political system is held hostage by the mob, but not by multinational corporations destroying the earth to make a profit.

#richard nixon #john f kennedy #nelson rockefeller #1960 presidential election #free coinage of silver #alternate history #what-if?#sailboatstudios

2 notes · View notes

stoweboyd · 5 years

Text

An End To Predictions, A Call For Revolution

I think it is very hard to make predictions about 2019 because there are so many wildcards. Or, as Buckminster Fuller said,

We have a hard time getting out of the way of something we can’t see coming.

Instead of specific predictions -- like Trump being impeached and convicted, or Google buying Slack -- I will discuss a few trends, more generally.

I have left aside the churning whirlwind of technological advance, such as the rise of AI, and the host of technologies that form what many are calling the fourth industrial revolution. Those are creating a foundational acceleration underlying the world's economies, a disruptive and destabilizing force, acting like a current in deep seas. If you are sailing in the same direction as the current, it is a great help, but if you seek to head a different way the current will slow and deflect your efforts. Most importantly, the current is outside of our control: we have to fight it, sail with it, or stay on land.

Polarization and Populism

There is a deep cultural movement that is leading to tectonic shifts across society, manifesting itself in polarization and populism, on the historic right and left. So across the world we are witnessing the rise of populists, like the far right parties in Europe and Trump's rise in the US, but at the same time we are experiencing a transition away from conventional left-of-center parties contending with conventional right-of-center parties, as demonstrated by the rise of Macron's En Marche in France, and the the surge of interest in social democratic ideas in the US Democratic party, as typified by Bernie Sanders and Alex Ocasio-Cortez.

One way to think of this is a growing disillusionment with the left-versus-right polarity of the post-WWII era, and a shift to an up-versus-down dynamic, where the poor, working class, and middle class -- the precariat -- realize that the game is rigged by the elite against the interests of everyone else.

Far-right politicians will attempt to leverage fear of immigrants and xenophobia to back away from liberal immigration laws and international treaties that regulate the international movement of people. Brexit is in part motivated by these desires, and if Brexit is concluded it will be an outgrowth more of anti-immigrant culltural bias than supposed desires for economic sovereignty and self-determination.

In the US, metropolitan elites continue to think that the 'left-behinds' in flyover county are misguided bumpkins voting against their own best interests, rather than seeing that the neoliberal flat-world free trade regime of the past 30 years played havoc with the heartland's economic health and future, and neither the GOP or the Democrats really paid much attention. Witness Hilary skipping the rust belt states in the final months of the 2016 election, and what that led to.

These are global trends, but they will manifest differently across the world, and in distinctly local fashion in different locales.

I believe Macron has lost his way, and since he has no deep party system to help him he will fail to make the changes that he believed he had a mandate to do. Instead, it turns out that only the metropolitan elite and business sector is with him. Will a reformulated socialist party regain control, or will the far right inherit the ashes of his term? Will a socialist populism arise from the Yellow Vests, or is a far-right populism the likely outcome? Make your bets.

In the US, the GOP is facing the defection of suburban white women and large numbers of college-educated men: are there enough far-right and disenfranchised left-behind Republicans to continue as a meaningful party, once the dust cloud around Trump settles? I don't think so. (Note: Trump will either resign, be impeached and convicted, or wither in madness: he can't possibly be reelected.)

Also note that the separatist movement in Catalonia is a manifestation of populism -- in this case the desire of people living in Catalonia (principally Catalans) to be able to secede from Spain. Their motives are many: desire for economic and legal controls, desire for independence from Spain (a historically fraught reltaionship), and relief from paying more taxes to Spain than they get in return. Does Spain have the right to deny them their right to self-government, simply because they were annexed a long, long time ago? We'll see.

Capitalism and Gigantism

A second deep cultural movement is playing out in the West: a growing distrust of unfettered capitalism and the economic inequality it has engendered over the past 30 years, along with concern with the most obvious economic manifestation of today's capitalism: the rise of gigantic monopolistic corporations, like the tech giants and major multinationals in finance, manufacturing, media, agriculture, pharma and health care, and other industries.

This slops into the growing concerns about climate and ecological change, but is principally grounded in the precarity built into modern economic life: the broken social contract in the relationship between worker and employer, and the disinterest in modern governments to close the gap through either regulation of employers or through taxation and redistribution of wealth.

Note: I think of climate change as being critically important -- another area of broken promises by governments -- but it has to be an aspect of resolution of other issues, principally unfettered capitalism. Regulation, trade agreements, and taxation are all needed here, and immediately. We can't confront 'climate change' without embracing a litany of economic actions, all at once. Yes, I know: we only have a decade.

I expect that a discussion of new laws and regulations will be prominent in 2019, such as the national movements for higher minimum wages, medicare for all, portable benefits for freelancers and contract employees, prohibitions against anti-union tactics, and the banning of forced arbitration for employees in many instances, such as sexual harassment cases.

The surge of unionism in media is one example of counter-capitalist collective action, and I expect it will spread into many other 'white collar' and 'no collar' jobs, as the tide turns toward regulation of business instead of self-regulation.

As just one manifestation, consider the fall from grace of Facebook in 2018, as a consequence of its exploitation of data arising from its services. But this controversy is actually about the duopoly of ad revenues it shares with Google, which is a story of gigantism and the lack of regulatory oversight by the world's governments.

We should anticipate a forceful swinging of the pendulum in the opposite direction, which could even lead to the breakup of large corporations -- like Google, Amazon, Microsoft and counterparts in other non-tech sectors -- into smaller, more focused companies with the intent of decreasing their power, their amassing of capital, and opening the playing field to smaller competitors. Note that in the very near term acquisitions by the giants leading to market consolidation in many industries may continue at the blinding pace we're seen in recent years, but in a year or two -- if regulatory opposition to bigness becomes entrenched as I believe it may -- we may see a major decline in such acquisitions. So predicting the acquisition of Slack by one of the internet giants might make sense now, but may be blocked in 2020.

Moving from 'Normal' Organizations to 'Revolutionary' Organizations

The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge. | Steven Hawking

Hawking sets context for what I have been calling a 'movement' since 2005 or so, the movement to drive a transition from 'normal' industrial-era organizations that are role-centered, closed, slow-and-tight, hierarchical, and backwards-focused to 'revolutionary' post-industrial-era organizations that are human-centered, open, fast-and-loose, heterarchical, and forwards-focused. Like other movements, this work revolution is defined by the dynamics of opposing forces. On one side, we have those who explicitly or implicitly uphold the principles and cultural foundations of 'normalcy', and who actively or passive-aggressively oppose those, on the other side, who advocate revolutionary change in work culture, practices, and values.

I've picked the terms 'normal' and 'revolutionary' with intention. Specifically, I have borrowed them from Thomas Kuhn's central arguments in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a work that laid out the analogous dynamics in scientific revolutions.

Kuhn argued that there is a cyclic form to science, where the work of a generation of scientist in any given field establishes a paradigm around which research and discourse are centered, like Newtonian physics. It started with various incoherent notions of motion (the pre-paradigm phase), but the central premises of gravity, and Newton's laws of motion led to the development of a second phase, where 'normal' science began, and the dominant paradigm structured the science for a considerable period of time, establishing consensus on terminology, methods, and the sorts of experiments that might lead to increased insights1.

Over time, normal science may lead to anomalies in findings -- unexpected results from experiments, questions that can't be answered -- and these can lead to questioning the old paradigm as its weaknesses are apparent. This can lead to crisis, and that can spark a paradigm shift, like quantum physics as an alternative to Newton's.

The crisis and the shift are not necessarily smooth, and there is often active disagreement and contention between the advocates of the previous, 'normal' paradigm, and the revolutionaries pushing for the new paradigm. This can lead to breaks in the scientific discipline, with huge controversies and great antagonism, since the reputations and livelihoods of the scientists are at stake.

At some point, the crisis ends, usually as a result of the establishment of a new paradigm, which eventually becomes 'normal' mainstream science, with new methods, terminology, and established approaches for experimentation.

We are at a time of such a crisis, although it's not in the traditional realm of science, per se. The crisis is in the world of business, and it is really predicated on scientific revolutions in several areas that impinge on business, namely cognitive science, behavioral economics, social psychology, and related fields. (And in the background behind the soft incursion of these revelatory social science findings, we can feel the looming hard technologies of the fourth industrial revolution.)

In the past few decades enormous advances have been made in our understanding of how people perceive the world and their relationships to others, how we reason (or don't), how people 'make decisions', how productive teams 'work', and how cultural norms impact our behavior. However, very little of this science has reached the C-suite. Consider, as only one example, the persistent problems related to diversity and the foundational issues of cognitive bias. However, few in leadership are educated in these issues, and no coherent new paradigm of organizational theory and practice has yet fully emerged.

At present, we are left with the strange dichotomy of entrepreneurial capitalism -- with capital growth and shareholder value as the highest aims -- and the independent considerations of making the world a better place, making the workplace more equitable, just, and less precarious, and attempting to construct the world of work so that people can achieve greater autonomy, meaning, and purpose in their lives, and not just a paycheck. These cross forces define a growing area of tension in the discourse about the future of work, the transformation of the 21st century business, and how to balance the desires of the many sorts of people holding stakes in these companies.

At the same time, we see growing interest in the principle that a revolution is business operations is needed to confront and overcome a long list of 'anomalies' in business and the economic sphere. The combination of increased economic pressures in a sped-up, global marketplace and the desire for greater stability and purpose for everyone at work leads to some broad trends that could stand as a proxy for the 'revolution' in organizational theory and practice:

Human-centered not role-centered. We lose a great deal when we limit people to only thinking about or acting on a limited set of activities in business. A machine press operator can have a brilliant insight that saves the copy millions, and a field sales lead can come back from a meeting with a customer suggestion for a breakthrough new product. But not if they are punished for stepping outside the painted lines on the floor. People can be larger than their job descriptions, if we let them.

Open not closed models of thinking and operations. This means a 'yes, and' mindset, where we consider alternatives rather than rejecting them because they are novel. This means activity rooting out systemic anti-creative and anti-curiosity patterns in business dogma. It means embracing Von Foester's Empirical Imperative: Always act to increase the set of possibilities.

Fast-and-loose not slow-and-tight operations. Agile, flexible, and adaptive methods of organizing, cooperating, and leading are needed. A less bureaucratic management style would increase innovation, and lead to building business operations around experiments rather than only well-established processes.

Heterarchical not hierarchical operations. The bronze age rule of kings, supposedly selected by the gods and legitimized by their personal charisma has led to terrible results, with narcissistic sociopaths all too often calling the shots. The occasional Steve Jobs or Yves Chouinard does not disprove the problems inherent to top-down-only organizations, especially in a time of great change and uncertainty. Organizational structure is another means to the ends that companies are created to effect, and serves as a powerful barrier to change when treated as sacred and inviolable.

Forward-focused, not tradition-bound. We need to adopt a new paradigm for business, one that explicitly breaks with a great deal of what passes for conventional wisdom, organized around new science, new forms of social connection, and leveraging the possibilities in the points made above. And science is not standing still, so we must incorporate new understanding into our work and the operations of business.

This is predicated upon stating -- explicitly -- that a revolution is necessary, and that a long list of practices and principles will need to be identified as problematic and rooted out. This is exactly what I founded Work Futures to do, as a research and educational institute, and in 2019 I intend to push hard to advance that agenda.

This revolution has started, but the we are in the early days of what will eventually -- decades from now, perhaps -- be a wholesale recasting of business. But the world of work cannot be changed independently of the larger world. It is one part of a larger set of changes that envelope and animate it.

The larger societal and economic trends touched on in the previous sections -- Polarization and Populism, Capitalism and Gigantism, and the Fourth Industrial Revolution -- are imparting enormous stress on the human sphere. And, as a result, it is very hard to predict what will happen in 2019. However, I believe that by 2023 a great deal of the revolution -- this transition from the 'normal' to a 'revolutionary' form of business -- will have become more clear, as the new paradigm becomes more well-defined, and as the larger world shifts to internalize new approaches to the tectonic forces at work, at all scales.

I reposted the fourth section of this essay as a piece all by itself: Moving from 'Normal' Organizations to 'Revolutionary' Organizations.

Paraphrased from Wikipedia. ↩︎

#populism #gigantism #polarization #revolution #thomas kuhn #the structure of scientific revolutions #politics #climate change #capitalism #economics #revolutionary organizations #normal organizations #fast-and-loose

10 notes · View notes