Mexico President AMLO: "The question is: is there really democracy in the world? Or is it an oligarchy that predominates with a facade of democracy? Because democracy as defined since the time of Aristotle… "demos" is people, "kratos" is power. Democracy.
— COMBATE |🇵🇷 (@upholdreality) March 29, 2023
Is it really the… pic.twitter.com/8QVCY7i1VU
Political science
The U.S. does not have a high-functioning representative democracy. Voters are uninformed, don’t trust the media and can’t agree on the facts at the heart of stories and issues like whether climate change is real or Biden won the election.
https://sputniknews.com/20230329/the-us-is-not-a-democracy-1108886575.html
March 28, 2023
© AFP 2023 / FILIPPO MONTEFORTE
Ted Rall
Is a system working as well as possible? Inertia lulls people into believing that legacy products are great—even that they’re perfect—without objectively considering whether it’s really true.
The QWERTY computer keyboard works but the 1936 Dvorak version is superior. Skim milk makes you fatter. The U.S. may still be a shining city on a hill but our Constitution has become so out-of-date that new nations no longer refer to it as a template for their own legal charters.
Ask yourself: if our political system were created today, by a group of intelligent people, what would it look like? If the real-world system we see now falls short of that ideal, there’s room for improvement.
What if we were to scrap our centuries-old Constitution? What if we built a shiny new government from the ground up, without considering legacy or precedent?
This is a complicated question. Only one out of four Americans would vote to repeal the Second Amendment, so the right to bear arms might make it into a new charter. Much of that support, however, derives from voters who own the hundreds of millions of guns already in circulation. An America without a legacy of individual firearms ownership would be much less likely to codify it as a fundamental right.
Leaked FBI List of ‘Extremist’ Symbols Includes Historical Flags and 2nd Amendment
So what would an ideal representative democracy look like for the United States, 2023 edition?
Nothing like what we have now.
Every citizen of sufficient age to exercise sound judgment should be allowed to vote. Our society currently says 18. But there are strong arguments in favor of allowing children to vote as well as for raising the age of enfranchisement to 25. If mental acuity matters, what about the one out of ten Americans over age 65 who suffers from dementia or those with very low IQ?
Among those permitted to cast ballots, each vote ought to count equally. The principle of one person, one vote is almost universally accepted.
Yet the current system falls dismally short of our professed ideal. Due to the electoral college, the vote of a resident of Wyoming in a presidential election counts 3.6 times more than that of someone who lives in California. People in the District of Columbia enjoy no vote at all; nor do the 4 million Americans who reside in overseas territories. Gerrymandering through redistricting has radically reduced the weight of a vote cast by a Black citizen compared to a white one. Forty-eight out of 50 states either ban convicted felons, people in prison and/or on parole from voting; the U.S. has some of the most vicious disenfranchisement laws in the world.
If a representative democracy is healthy and vibrant, voters ought to be able to choose from a broad selection of candidates who represent a wide range of ideological viewpoints that reflect the broad diversity of opinions in our vast country.
Biden Backtracks After Calling Trump Supporters ‘Threat’ to Democracy
In this respect, the U.S. is not a democracy.
We only have two major parties. But not by choice. 62%of Americans say they want the option of a third party; dissatisfaction with the Democrats and the Republicans helps explain why the U.S. has one of the lowest voter-turnout numbers in the world. Smaller parties are barred from presidential debates, don’t receive coverage in the press, are stymied by draconian ballot-access laws drafted by Democrats and Republicans, and bludgeoned by nuisance lawsuits filed by the big two in order to drain their resources and block them from the ballot.
In many elections, there aren’t even two parties. In 2016, 42% of races for seats in state legislatures were uncontested, meaning there was only one candidate on the ballot. There’s no word whether any of them was named “Saddam.” In 2022, a whopping 57%of state elections for judges were unopposed. I live in New York, where the Working Families Party provides an illusion of choice by appearing on the ballot next to the Democrats. But the WFP’s candidates are the same as the corporate Democrats.
Ranked-choice voting, promoted by progressives, sometimes leads to anti-democratic results. California’s small state Republican Party rarely has one of its candidates among the top two vote-getters who move past the first round to the general election.
Party primaries can be coronations, as when Barack Obama and Donald Trump essentially ran unopposed in 2012 and 2020, respectively.
Candidates are not legally bound to carry out their election promises if they win. Evolving circumstances or further reflection—or dishonesty—may prompt a politician to change course after victory. But there is accountability for perfidy, whether real or imagined, in a vibrant representative democracy. Rather than outsource politics to a political class every two or four years or whatever, citizens in a high-functioning representative democracy keep informed beyond the carnival of election season, express their opinions and hold their representatives’ feet to the fire with public protests and demonstrations, as we’re currently seeing in France after their imperious president ignored popular will by increasing the national retirement age without holding a parliamentary vote.
France Postpones King Charles’ State Visit Over Pension Riots
The U.S. does not have a high-functioning representative democracy. Voters are uninformed, don’t trust the media and can’t agree on the facts at the heart of stories and issues like whether climate change is real or Biden won the election.
Worst of all, we fail to hold our representatives accountable when they ignore us. Abortion is no longer legal in 17 states, with more expected to codify bans in the coming months. Meanwhile, 85%of American adults favor abortion rights, yet the streets remain calm and protester-free. Two out of three Democrats want significant and immediate action against climate change, yet they don’t have anything to say to President Biden—who probably blew up a major gas pipeline and created an ecological disaster, and authorized oil drilling in the ecologically fragile Alaskan wilderness.
If we were to create a new political system out of whole cloth, it wouldn’t look anything like this.
(Ted Rall (Twitter: @tedrall), the political cartoonist, columnist and graphic novelist, co-hosts the left-vs-right DMZ America podcast with fellow cartoonist Scott Stantis. You can support Ted’s hard-hitting political cartoons and columns and see his work first by sponsoring his work on Patreon.)
Envoy Alexey Saltykov says the accusations by the French leader reflect his “neo-colonial approach”
https://www.rt.com/africa/573620-russia-envoy-macron-claims/
March 26, 2023
© Getty Images / mtcurado
French claims that Moscow is pursuing a “predatory project” in Africa merely “reflect the neo-colonial approach of Western countries to cooperation with African states,” Alexey Saltykov, Russia’s ambassador to the Ivory Coast and Burkina Faso, told Sputnik in an interview published on Saturday.
Saltykov’s remarks come after French President Emmanuel Macron blamed Russia for his country’s deteriorating relations with its former colonies.
Protest movements against France have recently swept Africa’s Sahel region, with many people expressing pro-Russian sentiments. Paris has begun to withdraw its troops from some nations following failures in combating security threats, and Macron admitted that French influence in the region has diminished.
According to France’s president, Moscow is feeding disinformation in Africa, particularly Burkina Faso and Mali where Paris has suffered military setbacks. He stated in November 2022 that there was a “predatory project” at work in the region, “financed by Russia, sometimes others.” Macron alleged that “a number of powers, who want to spread their influence in Africa, are doing this to hurt France, hurt its language, sow doubts, but above all pursue certain interests.”
However, Saltykov argued that local people have started to question the benefits of cooperation with France, resulting in a decline in the country’s influence.
Uganda ‘very satisfied’ with defense ties with Russia – president
“As for France, I think the events that took place speak of shifts in the mass consciousness of Burkinabes, and not only of them but also of other African countries,” the ambassador told Sputnik. He added that “under the influence of world events, Africans are beginning to understand more what France’s policy was like, whether it was productive and useful in everything for bilateral cooperation.”
The envoy to the two Sahel countries proposed that African problems be solved by Africans themselves, but that Russia was willing to assist. He also said that as a sovereign state, Burkina Faso should decide with whom it wishes to collaborate.
He further stated that African countries should rely on the UN Charter, which forms a universal basis for establishing relations, rather than on the policies of individual countries, which change depending on the political situation. Saltykov said dealing with the terrorist threat in the Sahel would require as much cooperation as possible.
The envoy also mentioned the Russian embassy in Burkina Faso, which was closed in 1992 for financial reasons, and expressed optimism about its reopening in line with Russia’s strategic course of developing relations with countries on the continent.
Russia and China are shaping global politics while the US dominates its partners across the Atlantic, leaving European countries as mere passengers
The European Union has been reduced to the status of a mere bench player in it all and has become effectively irrelevant.
https://www.rt.com/news/573676-russia-china-politics-eu-us/
By Timur Fomenko, a political analyst
March 28, 2023
Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Chinese President Xi Jinping toast during their dinner at The Palace of the Facets in the Moscow Kremlin, Russia, Tuesday, March 21, 2023. © Pavel Byrkin, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP
The meeting of Russian president Vladimir Putin and his Chinese counterpart Xi Jinping in Moscow last week was met with predictable accusations in Western circles that Moscow was becoming “subservient” or even a “vassal” of Beijing.
MEP Guy Verhofstadt, a Euro-fantasist and former prime minister of Belgium, jeered on Twitter, “Putin’s appalling legacy now includes turning Russia more and more into a Chinese vassal state,” oblivious to the irony of his own words. As the United States took the lead in denouncing China’s peace plan for the Ukraine conflict, publicly setting out the conditions on which it should end, the European Union was nowhere to be seen, or at least had nothing original to say.
This makes Verhofstadt’s comments a damning display of lacking self-awareness. Russia and China are setting out their vision for a new multipolar world, while the US struggles against them in seeking to maintain its hegemonic position. Meanwhile, the European Union has been reduced to the status of a mere bench player in it all and has become effectively irrelevant. The failure of EU countries to stake out their own will and position amidst the larger powers, as well as their total subservience to the US, has made a mockery of the “strategic autonomy” concept once championed by Emmanuel Macron.
Biden downplays Russia-China ties
“Strategic autonomy” is a principle of European integration where the EU should be an actor in a multipolar world, which advocates for its own interests and pursues its own agenda. Supporters of this principle insist that the EU should not blindly follow the will of the US when it comes to every foreign policy issue, but should be proactive and enhance its role on the world stage. Therefore, they should not, as is commonly demanded by Washington, take sides on matters such as a new Cold War with China. The term gained growing traction during the years of the Trump administration when Europe’s relations with the US hit a low due to his particular interpretation of the “America first” doctrine.
However, the practical reality of “strategic autonomy” is that the EU is not a unitary state, but a loose intergovernmental organization of states which, while seeking to establish common positions on a principle of unity, do not truly have a unified foreign-policy-making mechanism. The intra-institutional politics of the EU are often a messy compromise and battle of wills between different levels of actors, including the states themselves, the European Commission, and the European Parliament. This combines with the reality that “European integration” has been a broken process since 2008. Challenges such as the Eurozone financial crisis, Brexit, Covid-19, and internal conflicts with various states such as Poland have all weakened and fractured the EU.
As a result, the EU has been ill-suited to deal with what is, despite media misdirection, the single most explicit source of foreign influence and interference against it, the US. Washington has multiple channels whereby it exerts control over the EU’s many foreign policy actors. Firstly, it uses a web of government-funded think tanks and associated journalists to control public opinion and steer EU countries toward supporting its objectives. Secondly, the US has an extraordinary political hold over the former Soviet bloc states to the east of the EU (with the exception of Hungary), which it uses to foment increased antagonism against Russia and China, and therefore undermines the attempts of the bloc’s most “autonomous” and powerful states – Germany and France – to pursue more reconciliatory foreign policies.
Xi invites Putin to visit China
Thirdly, the US uses the United Kingdom as its primary cheerleader in Europe (be it from within or without the EU) to project its political will onto the continent and override the will of any defiant member states. An example of this is the BBC World Service acting as a massive propaganda machine to push narratives in line with Washington’s foreign policies. Additionally, the US has shown an ability to work with and weaponize the intelligence services of member states against their own countries, such as using Danish intelligence to spy on other European leaders.
Through all these factors, both past and present, the US has been able to keep Europe divided, conflicted, and seemingly unable to pursue any foreign policy which actually meets European interests, as opposed to those of the US. This has culminated even to the extent of literally destroying the Nord Stream pipelines and then propagating a false narrative that Ukraine was responsible. The Ukraine war has ultimately only accelerated the isolation and irrelevance of Europe, which has strengthened the hold of the military-industrial complex over the continent, undermined its energy industries, and thus converted the term “strategic autonomy” into a laughing stock.
One might ask, who is truly the vassal? If a new multipolar world is emerging, it’s fair to say, Europe simply isn’t part of it. Russia, China, and America are the drivers of current events, and the EU is but a passenger.
The US stations its arsenal in Europe, but rebukes Russia for planning to do the same in Belarus, Ambassador Antonov has said
“It is Washington that has long been systematically destroying the legal basis of bilateral relations in the strategic sphere. Trying to find a speck in someone else’s eye, they stopped seeing the log in their own eye a long time ago,” he added.
Antonov cited the US’ decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002, and more recently, from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) and Open Skies Treaties. Washington also failed to comply with certain limits of the New START Treaty, which places restrictions on the Russian and American nuclear arsenals. This led to Moscow suspending its participation in it, Antonov noted.
https://www.rt.com/russia/573717-russia-us-nuclear-hypocrisy/
March 28, 2023
Russian Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile system. © RIA Novosti
Washington’s criticism of Moscow over its plans to place tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus rings hollow, as it also keeps its own nuclear arms in other countries, Anatoly Antonov, Russia’s ambassador to the US, said on Monday.
Antonov was asked to comment on remarks made by US State Department representative Vedant Patel, who blasted what he called Russia’s “irresponsible nuclear rhetoric,” suggesting that “no other country is inflicting such damage on arms control, nor seeking to undermine strategic stability in Europe.”
In a statement on Telegram, the ambassador said, “US officials have an extremely short memory.”
“It is Washington that has long been systematically destroying the legal basis of bilateral relations in the strategic sphere. Trying to find a speck in someone else’s eye, they stopped seeing the log in their own eye a long time ago,” he added.
Russia will place nuclear weapons in Belarus – Putin
Antonov cited the US’ decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002, and more recently, from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) and Open Skies Treaties. Washington also failed to comply with certain limits of the New START Treaty, which places restrictions on the Russian and American nuclear arsenals. This led to Moscow suspending its participation in it, Antonov noted.
The US’ response to Russia’s plans to place nukes in Belarus “is a vivid example of hypocrisy of… American politics,” he continued. For the last 60 years, Washington has stationed its tactical nuclear weapons in five non-nuclear weapon states – Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye, the ambassador said.
“We have repeatedly demonstrated to the world the double standards in US foreign policy… The Administration conveys one message to everyone: the United States is allowed anything, while the rest of the world, especially Russia, is allowed nothing.”
Last week, President Vladimir Putin announced that Russian tactical nuclear weapons would arrive in Belarus as early as this summer, explaining that the move was prompted by the UK’s recent decision to provide Ukraine with depleted uranium shells.
Commenting on the decision, US National Security Council spokesperson Adrienne Watson said that Washington has not seen any signs that Russia is planning to use nuclear weapons, while the EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, threatened to place sanctions on Belarus, calling Moscow’s plans “an irresponsible escalation.”
Minsk and Moscow have close military ties with Belarus a staging ground for the invasion of neighbouring Ukraine.
Putin also said that by stationing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia will be doing what the United States has done for decades by putting its nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/3/28/why-does-russia-want-tactical-nuclear-weapons-in-belarus
28 Mar 2023
Vladimir Putin’s announcement that he intends to deploy tactical nuclear weapons on Belarusian territory appears to be another attempt to raise the stakes in the conflict in Ukraine – and follows the Russian leader’s warnings that Moscow is ready to use “all available means” to fend off attacks on Russian territory, a reference to its nuclear arsenal.
Belarus said on Tuesday it had decided to host the weapons after years of pressure from the United States and its allies aimed at changing its political and geopolitical direction.
“Over the last two and a half years, the Republic of Belarus has been subjected to unprecedented political, economic and information pressure from the United States, the United Kingdom and its NATO allies, as well as the member states of the European Union,” the Belarusian foreign minister said in a statement.
“In view of these circumstances, and the legitimate concerns and risks in the sphere of national security arising from them, Belarus is forced to respond by strengthening its own security and defence capabilities.”
Minsk said the Russian nuclear plans would not contravene international non-proliferation agreements as Belarus itself would not have control over the weapons.
A look at Putin’s statement and its implications:
How did Putin explain the move?
Putin said that President Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus has long urged Moscow to station its nuclear weapons in his country, which has close military ties with Russia and was a staging ground for the invasion of neighbouring Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
Russia already has helped modernise Belarusian warplanes to make them capable of carrying nuclear weapons – something that Belarus’s authoritarian leader has repeatedly mentioned.
In remarks broadcast Saturday, Putin said the immediate trigger for the deployment of Russia’s tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus was the UK government’s decision to provide Ukraine with armour-piercing shells containing depleted uranium. Putin toned down his language after first falsely claiming that such rounds have nuclear components, but he insisted they pose an additional danger to the civilian population and could contaminate the environment.
Putin also said that by stationing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, Russia will be doing what the United States has done for decades by putting its nuclear weapons in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey. He said the Russian move does not violate an international treaty banning the proliferation of nuclear weapons, even though Moscow has argued before that Washington has breached the pact by deploying them on the territory of its NATO allies.
Putin’s move contrasted with a statement that he and Chinese President Xi Jinping issued after their talks at the Kremlin last week, which spoke against nuclear powers deploying atomic weapons outside their territories, in an apparent jab at the US.
What are tactical nuclear weapons?
Tactical nuclear weapons are intended to destroy enemy troops and weapons on the battlefield. They have a relatively short range and a much lower yield than nuclear warheads fitted to long-range strategic missiles that are capable of obliterating whole cities.
Unlike strategic weapons, which have been subject to arms control agreements between Moscow and Washington, tactical weapons never have been limited by any such pacts, and Russia has not released their numbers or any other specifics related to them.
The US government believes Russia has about 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons, which include bombs that can be carried by aircraft, warheads for short-range missiles and artillery rounds.
While strategic nuclear weapons are fitted to land or submarine-based intercontinental ballistic missiles that are constantly ready for launch, tactical nuclear weapons are stored at a few tightly guarded storage facilities in Russia, and it takes time to deliver them to combat units.
Some Russian hawks long have urged the Kremlin to send a warning to the West by moving some tactical nuclear weapons closer to the aircraft and missiles intended to deliver them.
What exactly will Russia do?
Putin said that Russia already has helped upgrade 10 Belarusian aircraft to allow them to carry nuclear weapons and their crews will start training to use them from April 3. He noted Russia also has given Belarus the Iskander short-range missile systems that can be fitted with conventional or nuclear warheads.
He said the construction of storage facilities for nuclear weapons in Belarus will be completed by July 1. He did not say how many nuclear weapons will be stationed there or when they will be deployed.
Putin emphasized that Russia will retain control over any nuclear weapons deployed to Belarus, just like the US controls its tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of its NATO allies.
If Moscow sends nuclear weapons to Belarus, it will mark its first deployment outside Russian borders since the early 1990s. Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan inherited massive nuclear arsenals after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 but agreed to ship them to Russia in the following years.
What are the possible consequences?
With his latest statement, Putin again is dangling the nuclear threat to signal Moscow’s readiness to escalate the war in Ukraine.
The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons to Belarus, which has a 1,084-kilometre (673-mile) border with Ukraine, would allow Russian aircraft and missiles to reach potential targets there more easily and quickly if Moscow decides to use them. It would also extend Russia’s capability to target several NATO members in Eastern and Central Europe.
The move comes as Kyiv is poised for a counteroffensive to reclaim territory occupied by Russia.
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy head of Russia’s Security Council, warned last week that attempts by Ukraine to reclaim control over the Crimean peninsula were a threat to “the very existence of the Russian state,” something that warrants a nuclear response under the country’s security doctrine. Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014.
“Every day of supplying Western weapons to Ukraine makes the nuclear apocalypse closer,” Medvedev said.
Ukrainian military analyst Oleh Zhdanov said that Putin’s goal is to discourage Ukraine’s Western allies from providing Kyiv with more weapons before any counteroffensive.
Putin is “using nuclear blackmail in a bid to influence the situation on the battlefield and force Western partners to reduce supplies of weapons and equipment under the threat of nuclear escalation,” Zhdanov said.
“The Belarusian nuclear balcony will be looming over not only Ukraine but Europe as well, creating a constant threat, raising tensions and rattling the nerves of Ukrainians and their Western partners.”
How have Ukraine and its Western allies responded?
Ukraine has responded to Putin’s move by calling for an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council. A UN spokesman referred questions on the issue to the Security Council, which had announced no meeting on it by Monday afternoon.
“The world must be united against someone who endangers the future of human civilisation,” the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said.
White House National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said Monday that US officials “haven’t seen any movement of any tactical nuclear weapons or anything of that kind” since Putin’s announcement on Belarus.
He has said Washington has seen nothing to prompt a change in its strategic deterrent posture.
NATO rejects Putin’s claim that Russia only is doing what the US has done for decades, saying that Western allies act with full respect for their international commitments.
“Russia’s nuclear rhetoric is dangerous and irresponsible,” NATO spokesperson Oana Lungescu said, adding that the alliance hasn’t yet seen any change in Russia’s nuclear posture.
Lithuania, which borders Belarus, described Putin’s statement as “yet another attempt by two unpredictable dictatorial regimes to threaten their neighbours and the entire European continent,” calling them “desperate moves by Putin and Lukashenko to create another wave of tension and destabilisation in Europe.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry responded to Western criticism by pointing out that Washington and its allies had ignored repeated Russian calls for the withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from Europe. The ministry reaffirmed Moscow’s right to take “the necessary additional steps to ensure security of Russia and its allies”.
SOURCE: AP, REUTERS
Last Thursday, Macron ordered Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne to buck Parliament and ignore overwhelming public opinion and impose the pension reform plan via Article 49.3 of the French Constitution. The article permits passage of the bill while bypassing a vote at the National Assembly, though it is still subject to revision from the Constitutional Council before it becomes law. Macron lost his parliamentary majority last year, and the plan had support neither from the left nor the far right, but from Macron’s centrist alliance alone.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/french-strikes-cautionary-tale-us
BY TYLER DURDEN
MONDAY, MAR 27, 2023
Authored by Adeline Von Drehle via RealClearPolitics.com,
In the city’s 14th municipal district, known here as an “arrondissement,” people walk in the street as mounds of trash stake their claim on the sidewalk.
And walk they must. Sanitation workers aren’t the only ones on strike. Transportation workers are also among the many refusing to work in retaliation against French President Emmanuel Macron’s pension reform plan. The plan aims to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64.
Thursday marked the ninth day of inter-union national strikes since the bill was introduced in January, days of protest in which virtually every French union member participates. Transportation, sanitation, and energy unions, however, have been on daily renewable strikes since March 7. Trains and planes arriving to, departing from, and crossing over France are experiencing major delays and cancellations. Teachers are walking off the job. The stench of weeks-old trash mingles with pain au chocolat.
Last Thursday, Macron ordered Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne to buck Parliament and ignore overwhelming public opinion and impose the pension reform plan via Article 49.3 of the French Constitution. The article permits passage of the bill while bypassing a vote at the National Assembly, though it is still subject to revision from the Constitutional Council before it becomes law. Macron lost his parliamentary majority last year, and the plan had support neither from the left nor the far right, but from Macron’s centrist alliance alone.
Immediately following the employment of Article 49.3, some 7,000 demonstrators flooded Place de la Concorde, a grand square in central Paris famous for housing the guillotine during the French Revolution. More than 230 years later, it remains a site of unrest. Protestors charged riot police armed with stones and were met with tear gas. Over 300 activists were arrested.
The public outrage is two-fold. On one hand, the French despise the plan. Activists would rather see taxes increase on the wealthy. Yet Macron insists that because France’s retired population is expected to increase from 16 to 21 million people by 2050, that won’t be nearly enough, and his proposal is the surest way to make the French economy competitive.
“It’s in the greater interest of the country,” Macron said. “Between opinion polls and the national interest, I chose the national interest.”
Pushing it by way of Article 49.3, though, has been seen by many as a slap in the face to the democratic process. Far-left lawmaker Mathilde Panot put it simply: “The government is already dead in the eyes of the French; it doesn’t have any legitimacy anymore.”
Lawmakers on the left and right each filed a no-confidence motion against Macron’s government, though both were rejected by the National Assembly on Monday. One motion lost by just nine votes, increasing the pressure on Macron to either withdraw his reform or replace Borne to refresh his government’s image. Mass union strikes and protests in France are not uncommon. But the battle lines in this fight may foreshadow a future fight in the United States.
In last month’s State of the Union address, President Biden seemingly achieved rare unanimity on one key issue: Social Security and Medicare. For now, it appears both parties have agreed to leave the programs untouched – irrespective of what the actuary tables portend.
“Let’s stand up for seniors. Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security. We will not cut Medicare,” Biden exhorted members of Congress, most of whom began clamoring to their feet.
The conversation about Social Security was sparked by Republicans’ mere mention of the same issue that is roiling France: delaying the retirement age.
One of these plans, proposed by the Republican Study Budget Committee, suggests raising the retirement ages for both Social Security and Medicare from 66 or 67 (depending on date of birth) to 70. The increase in retirement age would be gradual. Based on the proposal, people born after 1977 would have a full retirement age of 70.
Democrats, for their part, would like to see money from additional payroll taxes on the wealthy shore up senior benefit programs. Currently, payroll taxes are capped at $160,200. Proposals on the left look to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare while reapplying payroll taxes on incomes as high as $400,000.
The retired population in the United States is expected to increase from 17% to 22% by 2050, a jump equal in proportion to that of France.
America’s aging demographic suggests a potential clash that is generational as well as ideological.
“Gen Z and Millennials will rely on their Social Security benefits even more than current seniors do,” says Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
Citing “massive student debt, disappearing pensions, and the ever-widening wealth gap,” he argues that Americans 40 and under will find it more difficult to accumulate wealth over the course of a career.
The vast majority of strikers and protestors in France are two-to-four decades from retirement age. And while the United States is perhaps too sprawling, diverse, and individualistic to experience crippling national strikes, Congress need only to look across the Atlantic Ocean to understand just how serious people are about their government benefits.
In response to questions he received during a press conference on Monday about Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin cementing a “new era” in the strategic partnership between China and Russia, the White House National Security Council’s John Kirby made no fewer than seven assertions that the US is the “leader” of the world.
The message they’re putting out is, “This is our world. We’re in charge. Anyone who claims otherwise is freakish and abnormal, and must be opposed.”
BY TYLER DURDEN
SATURDAY, MAR 25, 2023
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,
Here are excerpts from his comments:
- “The two countries have grown closer. But they are both countries that chafe and bristle at U.S. leadership around the world.”
- “And in China’s case in particular, they certainly would like to challenge U.S. leadership around the world.”
- “But these are not two countries that have, you know, decades-long experience working together and full trust and confidence. It’s a burgeoning of late based on America’s increasing leadership around the world and trying to check that.”
- “Peter, these are two countries that have long chafed, as I said to Jeff — long chafed at U.S. leadership around the world and the network of alliances and partnerships that we have.”
- “And we work on those relationships one at a time because every country on the continent is different, has different needs and different expectations of American leadership.”
- “That’s the power of American convening leadership. And you don’t see that power out of either Russia or China.”
- “But one of the reasons why you’re seeing that tightening relationship is because they recognize that they don’t have that strong foundation of international support for what they’re trying to do, which is basically challenging American leadership around the world.”
The illusory truth effect is a cognitive bias which causes people to mistake something they have heard many times for an established fact because the way the human brain receives and interprets information tends to draw little or no distinction between repetition and truth. Propagandists and empire managers often take advantage of this glitch in our wetware, which is what’s happening when you see them repeating key phrases over and over again that they want people to believe.
We saw another repetition of this line recently at an online conference hosted by the US Chamber of Commerce, in which the US ambassador to China asserted that Beijing must accept the US as the “leader” of the region China happens to occupy.
US empire managers are of course getting very assertive about the narrative that they are the world’s “leader” because that self-appointed “leadership” is being challenged by China and the nations which support it with increasing openness like Russia. Most of the major international news stories of our day are either directly or indirectly related to this dynamic, wherein the US is struggling to secure unipolar planetary domination by thwarting China’s rise and undermining its partners.
The message they’re putting out is, “This is our world. We’re in charge. Anyone who claims otherwise is freakish and abnormal, and must be opposed.”
Why do they say the US is the “leader” of the world instead of its “ruler”, anyway? I’m unclear on the difference as practically applied. Is it meant to give us the impression that the US rules the world by democratic vote? That this is something the rest of the world consented to? Because I sure as hell don’t remember voting for it, and we’ve all seen what happens to governments which don’t comply with US “leadership”.
I’m not one of those who believe a multipolar world will be a wonderful thing, I just recognize that it beats the hell out of the alternative, that being increasingly reckless nuclear brinkmanship to maintain global control. The US has been in charge long enough to make it clear that the world order it dominates can only be maintained by nonstop violence and aggression, with more and more of that violence and aggression being directed toward major nuclear-armed powers. The facts are in and the case is closed: US unipolar hegemony is unsustainable.
The problem is that the US empire itself does not know this. This horrifying trajectory we’re on toward an Atomic Age world war is the result of the empire’s doctrine that it must maintain unipolar control at all costs crashing into the rise of a multipolar world order.
It doesn’t need to be this way. There’s no valid reason why the US needs to remain in charge of the world and can’t just let different people in different regions sort out their own affairs like they always did before. There’s no valid reason why governments need to be brandishing armageddon weapons at each other instead of collaborating peacefully in the interest of all humankind. We’re being pushed toward disaster to preserve “American leadership around the world,” and I for one do not consent to this.
US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said the leader’s Moscow visit is a cause of grave concern for Washington
“Since the start of the Ukraine conflict more than a year ago, Western countries have supplied Kiev with large amounts of military equipment, with the US alone having committed more than $32.5 billion in security assistance. Moscow has repeatedly warned the West that such support will only prolong the conflict while making it a direct participant in the hostilities.”
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley and US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin testify during a House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on March 23, 2023. © Drew Angerer / Getty Images / AFP
Chinese President Xi Jinping’s recent state visit to Russia should be regarded as a matter of grave concern for Washington, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin told lawmakers on Thursday.
Speaking at the House of Representatives’ subcommittee on defense appropriations, Austin was asked to comment on Xi’s trip to Moscow, and its ramifications for Sino-US competition.
“Xi’s visit to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin and remaining there for a couple of days I think sends a very troubling message, a message of support,” the Pentagon chief replied.
He stated that while the Pentagon has not seen signs that China had been providing Russia with military equipment for use against Ukraine, it is watching the situation “very closely,” cautioning that “if they were to go down that path, I think that would be very troubling for the international community.”
Multiple agreements crown historic Putin-Xi meeting
He went on to warn that if Xi decided to arm Moscow, “it would prolong the conflict and certainly broaden the conflict potentially – not only in the region, but globally.”
On Monday, the Chinese leader embarked on a three-day state visit to Moscow, holding talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. During the summit, the two sides signed more than a dozen documents on increased defense, industrial and economic cooperation.
Moscow and Beijing also pledged to “deepen relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction entering a new era.”
The US has claimed that China has been considering sending arms to Russia while threatening “consequences” should it make such a move. Beijing, however, has dismissed such plans, accusing Washington of “spreading false information” and “fanning the flames” of the Ukraine conflict.
“It is the United States and not China that is endlessly shipping weapons to the battlefield,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said last month.
Since the start of the Ukraine conflict more than a year ago, Western countries have supplied Kiev with large amounts of military equipment, with the US alone having committed more than $32.5 billion in security assistance. Moscow has repeatedly warned the West that such support will only prolong the conflict while making it a direct participant in the hostilities.
The International Criminal Court issues an insignificant arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for what is happening in Ukraine – Russians are prouder than ever to be Russians. Meanwhile, American pride is fading before our eyes, and the IQ of an entire nation has dropped to a record high for the first time in a hundred years.
March 25, 2023
The reality is different from the fakes of Western propaganda. The rating of Russian President Vladimir Putin is 82%, and in any case, it is higher, even according to independent estimates, than that of the head of the White House, Joe Biden, with his miserable inflated 42%. The level of approval for Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s actions can only be guessed (and dreamed of), but the Chinese have almost unanimous confidence in their government. Disappointing information is provided by the author of The American Thinker article, Kathleen Brush.
More than half of Russians trust their government. Less than a third of Americans trust their manager’s policy. These statistics are not accidental but speak of America’s inevitable loss in this undeclared second Cold War.
The International Criminal Court issues an insignificant arrest warrant for Vladimir Putin for what is happening in Ukraine – Russians are prouder than ever to be Russians. Meanwhile, American pride is fading before our eyes, and the IQ of an entire nation has dropped to a record high for the first time in a hundred years.
Why don’t Americans rally around the flag, and the symbols, as they did before? Pride, approval and support for their flags in China and Russia are not the same as in America today, and this is not an accident. All governments influence the memories they want their people and foreigners to have of them. This is called political memory, which determines the future and behavior in the present.
A look at how the governments of Russia, China, and the US use political memory sheds light on why Russians and Chinese love their governments and rulers, while Americans are angry at America and Biden. Russia and China are preparing to win the second round of the Cold War, and America is giving them the opportunity to do so.
Instead of systematic work in the field of national memory and patriotism, America is being implanted with new “values” that destroy all foundations. And, it seems, for this purpose, Washington is preparing to raise a white flag (or maybe a rainbow one, which is the same thing). Pride in America has waned, and this is due to the government’s design for America’s political memory. In this sense, Biden’s task is to prepare Americans for defeat, disgrace and inevitable image losses in a short time.
And while Russia and China are writing a new chapter in world history, the United States is dying quietly under the destructive influence of Biden, his administration and the Democratic Party.
- Photos used: pixabay.com
Moscow will finish building a facility for tactical arms in the neighboring country by July, the Russian president has said
https://www.rt.com/russia/573589-nuclear-storage-belarus/
March 25, 2023
Russian President Vladimir Putin © Sputnik / Gavriil Grigorov
Russian tactical nuclear weapons might arrive in Belarus as early as this summer, Russian President Vladimir Putin revealed on Saturday. Moscow is completing the construction of a specialized storage facility for such arms, amid repeated calls by Minsk to deploy them on its soil, he added.
The site in Belarus will be ready by July 1, Putin told Russia 24 TV. The president also said that Moscow does not plan to hand over control of any tactical nuclear weapons to Minsk and that it would only deploy its own arms to Belarus. He did not specify when exactly the weapons would be transported to the new site.
The move was prompted by the UK’s decision to provide Kiev with depleted uranium munitions, Putin explained. The UK announced earlier in March that it plans to send the shells to Ukraine for use with Challenger 2 battle tanks. Moscow blasted the move as a sign of “absolute recklessness, irresponsibility and impunity” on the part of London and Washington.
The US dismissed Russia’s concerns by calling depleted uranium shells a “commonplace type of munition” that has “been in use for decades.” The Russian Defense Ministry then warned that their use could trigger nothing short of a radioactive disaster in Ukraine, citing the aftermath of the use of such munitions by NATO in Iraq.
Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko has repeatedly raised the issue of threats posed to his nation by nuclear weapons deployed by the US to EU countries. In October 2022, he pointed to “nuclear sharing” talks between Washington and Warsaw, warning that nuclear weapons could be placed in Poland, which borders Belarus.
Minsk needs to take “appropriate measures” to address this threat, Lukashenko said at that time, adding that he would discuss the matter with Moscow.
Currently, US nuclear weapons are deployed in Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Türkiye. In 2021, Russia called on the weapons to be repatriated as part of its security proposals, but the US and NATO refused.
The western world is solemnly commemorating the 20th anniversary of the Iraq invasion by blindly following the US into more conflict and militarism while repeating all the same kinds of mass media malpractice.
❖
If you think it’s a coincidence that the western world suddenly got super–duper interested in China’s human rights record right when China began threatening US planetary domination, then you’re a bootlicking moron who deserves to be shamed in public.
A leaked 2017 State Department memo explicitly acknowledged that it’s US government policy to ignore the human rights violations of US-aligned nations while attacking them in nations like China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. Stop buying into this performance.
China has been sorting out China’s internal affairs for thousands of years; they don’t suddenly need help from a bunch of white stuffed shirts in Washington, London and Canberra just because a few sociopathic think tankers say so. Leave China’s issues to the Chinese to address.
❖
People who live in the Middle East have every right to attack the occupying forces there whose presence they oppose, and those occupying forces do not have any legitimate right to retaliate.
Every American who is killed or injured by those opposing US military occupations was killed or injured because the US empire put them there. What happens to them is the empire’s fault, not the fault of those rightfully resisting a hostile occupation.
Claims that attacks on US occupiers in Syria are “backed” by Iran should never be taken on blind faith, but to be clear it is entirely legitimate for Iran to involve itself in this conflict. Iran is an ally of Syria and is in Syria with the Syrian government’s permission; neither of these things are true of the US. Perhaps more importantly, Iran is in the Middle East, and therefore has infinitely more legitimacy than the US in making the Middle East its business.
❖
Even if everything US pundits and politicians are saying about TikTok is true (and of course it isn’t), it’s still far less scary than what the US government does to us with American apps, and it’s still far less scary than giving the White House massive new censorship powers. If you live anywhere under the thumb of the US empire, then any information-gathering or censorship policies the US government sets for itself have real relevance to your life, because the US government has actual power over you. The Chinese government does not. This is obvious to anyone who doesn’t have soup for brains.
It’s crazy how the First Amendment explicitly says “Congress shall make no law” abridging freedom of speech or freedom of the press, and yet congress is preparing to do literally exactly that with all American TikTok users.
It’s also crazy that US congressmen who don’t understand any technology more advanced than a shovel and think the internet comes from magic beans are making decisions about online platforms that affect everyone.
❖
The problem is not that Australia’s corrupt media are saying the nation will have to follow the US into war with China, the problem is that they’re almost certainly correct. This means Australians must demand we immediately exit our alliances with the US that would lead to this. They’re not being dishonest when they say we’ll have to follow if the US goes to war against China, they’re being dishonest in their failure to immediately begin asking “Okay, so how do we GET THE FUCK OUT OF THIS BAT SHIT INSANE SITUATION RIGHT THIS VERY INSTANT?”
Because that’s the only sane response to finding out that your nation will have to go to war with its primary trading partner to facilitate some dopey agendas cooked up in Washington, Arlington and Langley: asking how the fuck do we get ourselves the fuck out of this situation? What do we need to do? What alliances need to be shredded? Whose offices do we need to storm and whose desks do we need to pound on? Failure to ask these questions is malpractice. Because going to war with China will destroy our country. Absolutely destroy it. It cannot happen.
The Australian media aren’t criminal in telling us the US is going to drag us into a war of unimaginable horror, the Australian media are criminal for telling us we just need to accept that and get comfortable with the idea. Fuck you. No. Get us out of this World War III trap immediately.
Never in history has hard-hitting, adversarial journalism been so urgently needed in Australia as it is right now, and never in history have the Australian media been less fit for the job.
If you’re wondering why I’ve been writing so much about my home country lately instead of focusing on the hub of the empire in the US like I usually do, that’s why. It’s because our worthless, bootlicking press aren’t doing their fucking jobs right when it’s most urgently important that they do.
Yes, France should learn the basic concepts of democracy. Canada should ponder this advice as well. Hypocrites.
Tales from the Conspiratum 
