A tale by Ursula von der Leyen at Davos 2024
Special Adress by Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, at Davos 2024
Ursula von der Leyen begins her speech by mentioning the WEF Global Risk Report 2024 https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-risks-report-2024/
"...for the global business community, the top concern for the next two years is not conflict or climate it is disinformation and misinformation followed closely by polarization within our societies. These risks are serious because they limit our ability to tackle the big global challenges we are facing, changes in our climate and in our geopolitical climate, shifts in our demography and in our technology, spiralling regional conflicts, and intensifying geopolitical competition and their impacts on supply chains. The sobering reality is that we are once again competing more intensely across countries than we have in several decades, and this makes the theme of this year Davos's meeting even more relevant: Rebuilding Trust."
Disinformation, misinformation, and the polarization of society is or should be a concern for everyone, not just the so-called global business community. Global business community? Is von der Leyen referring to an inclusive community of companies or a restricted "community" of Western megacorporations, banks, and financial institutions threatened by the emerging multipolar geopolitical order? Is von der Leyen concerned with the hegemony of financial capitalism and the rules-based international order or the business community that constitutes the real economy made up of micro, small, and medium-sized enterprises responsible for creating the vast majority of jobs?
The Western political elite uses the term global to refer to Western imperialist interests. The economic and geopolitical "climate" is changing, but Western capital still controls most megacorporations.
Over the past five decades, financial capitalism has replaced industrial capitalism, and the economy of countries like the US and UK is dominated by the FIRE Sector (finance, insurance, and real estate), what Michael Hudson calls rentier capitalism.
The division of the world into two blocs after the Second World War gave us the Cold War. The US was determined to obliterate communism so it could reign as the only global empire. The reality that President George H. W. Bush, in March 1991, called a "new world order" to replace the bipolar politics of the Cold War era. The post-World War II world economy was dominated by the USA and the most developed European countries.
The delusional hubris of Western imperialist hegemony has declared the end of history, but the Global South seems determined to take the helm of history and let us hope that humanity as a whole realizes that imperialism, colonialism, and capitalism cannot continue ravaging the planet Earth and its inhabitants. We don't need a new world order; we need a paradigm shift.
The interests of the neocolonialist capitalism that von der Leyen represents are concerned because, as she says, they have to compete with countries and economies that, in recent decades, have undergone an unforeseen transformation and, by becoming global competitors, are changing the geopolitical climate. These countries, namely Russia and China, were not supposed to be able to undermine the rules-based international order and threaten dollar hegemony.
De-dollarization and the BRICS bank, the New Development Bank https://www.ndb.int/ represent yet another headache for the Western business community, dependent on the financial and military hegemony, to continue plundering natural resources and colonizing the economies of the Global South with unpayable debts as a way of subjugating countries while undermining their sovereign development.
The sword of Damocles hangs over the Western capitalist system. The post-WWII international financial and banking system was designed, improved, and strengthened to serve Western financial hegemony. However, the monopoly is being challenged by the emerging multipolar order, and the economic sanctions, seizure of financial assets, and exclusion from the SWIFT system used as instruments of economic warfare are losing effectiveness and exposing the gangster nature of the Western-controlled global banking and financial system.
The manufactured scarcity (austerity) policy that aims to domesticate the Western working class while serving the interests of rentier capitalism should awaken Western citizens to the true face of the Western capitalist system.
Ursula von der Leyen points out the relevance of the motto of the Davos 2024 meeting, "Rebuilding Trust." Trust what and whom?
Rebuilding trust for Ursula von der Leyen means intensifying the fearmongering to make people believe in the imperative of turning to a war economy to strengthen NATO because the barbarians (Russians) are planning to trample on Josep Borrell's garden.
There is no evidence that the Russians intend to go to war with the West. The Russians, unlike the Western elites (blinded by the hubris of Western supremacy), are aware that a conventional war with the West (USA/UK/EU/NATO) could drag the world into World War III with a high probability of ending in a nuclear holocaust.
Anyone who takes the trouble to research recent history between the dissolution of the USSR and the present will realize that the US, with the complicity of the UK and most European countries, inside and outside the EU and NATO, is responsible for the current situation we are experiencing in Europe and elsewhere.
I do not doubt that all countries resort to propaganda, but the USA was the only country that managed to create a globalized propaganda system. Hollywood, the "larger-than-life symbol of the entertainment business," was entrusted with the global role of spreading American cultural hegemony.
Multiple generations around the world have been indoctrinated by the ideological-cultural narratives spread by what we all believe is mere entertainment and distraction, ignoring that we are exposing ourselves to propaganda, perception manipulation, and behavioral conditioning, and it all happens at the subconscious level.
We all have heard about subliminal messages used in marketing ads, but movies and television take it to another level; they tell us what to think about and how to think about it. The messages are framed in ideological-cultural ways to make us perceive reality within specific parameters and boundaries, as if we used blinders while making us believe that we freely choose our opinions.
American culture became the model to follow, overlapping traditional cultures. Conspicuous consumerism of superfluous goods and services and exacerbated hedonistic individualism became the norm.
The USA spread a vision of the capitalist world as ideal to unleash all potential of human ingenuity. The excesses of American society were exported as an example of the so-called American dream.
A culture that idolizes private property and corporate success and abhors everything public and free has been sold as an unambiguous symbol of freedom and democracy—a model to be followed by governments and citizens on all continents.
Pax Americana may be in decline, but American culture continues to influence behaviors and attitudes worldwide. China is an example of an Americanized consumer society. The point is that American culture, in addition to influencing people to consume what they do not need, normalizes superficiality and ephemerality while exacerbating narcissistic, hedonistic individualism.
NATO represents a real danger to European security. NATO does not represent or defend European interests, but rather those of the American deep State.
The EU's main institutions function as extensions of US interests in Europe. Keeping Europe under control is crucial for the American deep State to try to maintain global hegemonic dominance. The American deep State would have no qualms about sacrificing Europe to annihilate or balkanize Russia.
Anyone who is convinced that the Russians represent a threat to Europe should take into account what are the (hidden) agendas of those who want to militarize Europe to prevent a war with Russia.
Many people believe that the US invaded Iraq for oil, but a closer look will reveal that it was motivated mainly by geostrategic reasons, with oil being an additional gain, as in the case of the American occupation of Syria.
Do we have reason to worry about European security? Yes, but the Russian threat was a US/EU/UK/NATO creation. European politicians act as puppets on behalf of the interests of the American Deep State.
The Causes and Consequences of the War in Ukraine
A must-watch Lecture by John J. Mearsheimer
https://www.youtube.com/live/qciVozNtCDM?si=mI1t3eqkLUxTfUYv
Who benefits from a war with Russia? What did Germany gain from the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipelines?
Propaganda can have dire consequences, and Europeans must realize it before it is too late.
Ursula von der Leyen is concerned about the polarization of society and wants us to trust in the omniscience of the European Commission and the US/NATO to guide and save us. The current phase of warmongering proves that the war in Ukraine was provoked. It turns out that neither the sanctions nor the military and financial support gave the expected results. That's why the political elite is using fear-mongering to gain the population's complacency to prepare Europe for war with Russia.
"...many of the solutions lie not only in countries working together but crucially on business and governments, businesses and democracies working together. It has never been more important for the public and private sector to create new connective tissue because none of these challenges respects borders they each require collaboration to manage risks and to forge a path forward..."
For von der Leyen, disinformation and social polarization can be solved by making businesses and governments, businesses and democracies (her words), work together. Getting businesses and democracies to work together to solve the threat of disinformation and polarization in Western societies sounds like a good solution to suppress dissenting voices.
We reached the State we find ourselves in precisely because supposedly democratic governments have long governed in the interests of the plutoligarchy instead of the interests of Demos.
Democratic regimes have the duty to regulate business so that they never acquire the power to hijack democratic political power and merge the interests of the State with the interests of corporations (fascism).
The boundaries between democracy and business are increasingly blurred if they exist at all, and von der Leyen wants to "regulate" the large Internet corporations to delineate the contours of what for the powers that be is disinformation and propaganda to protect democracy, right?
It is common knowledge that governments, on behalf of the State, assume risks and losses to safeguard investments and profits from the private sector in most public-private partnership agreements (contracts).
Universal basic services and infrastructures should be in the public domain with direct public investment. Construction and maintenance works could be allocated to private companies under democratic scrutiny. There is no need whatsoever to resort to private investment and pay interest whenever a government controls its sovereign currency.
The national treasury can create money out of thin air with a few strokes on a keyboard (we prefer to give that power to private banks) and allocate it for productive investments and necessary infrastructure without debt.
I highly recommend the study of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)
The eventual initial rejection is normal because our perception of the monetary, fiscal, banking and financial system is intentionally falsified to keep us under the effect of the spell (TINA) there is no alternative.
Private companies use debt to invest in public-private partnerships. Investments that could be made with sovereign money issued by the national treasury or the central bank without interest and without the need for the State to compensate private concessionaires when revenues do not reach the contracted values.
One of the functions of the democratic State is to regulate the activities of private businesses and, in the case of global megacorporations (many of them with revenues much higher than the GDP of most countries), to protect the national economy from potential monopolistic abuses.
The neoliberal political economy is based on fiscal and political austerity, deregulation, privatization, liberalization of financial markets, free movement of capital, and the abolition of controls on global private investment to boost private enterprise. What could go wrong?
Developing countries in the Global South import products with high added value and export commodities and natural resources with low added value, contributing to a permanent balance of payments deficit. Most debts to international institutions and banks are in US dollars; these countries have to buy dollars (strong currency) with the national currency (weak currency), which creates an increasing dependence on external "aid," preventing countries from strengthening their sovereign economies.
Real wealth, such as raw materials, natural resources, and financial resources, are plundered and collected by Western corporations and predatory capital. Yet, propaganda continues to paint the West as the misunderstood philanthropist.
Private transnational corporations should comply with the sovereign laws of the countries in which they operate. However, the neoliberal capitalist order has reversed the roles; governments are forced to pass laws that favor the interests of international private investors to the detriment of national interests or risk having to compensate them for breaches of contracts and alleged losses.
It is estimated that 25,000 lobbyists are operating in Brussels https://corporateeurope.org/en/lobbyplanet.
In the EU, business, and democracy already work together for the common good, or if I'm wrong, the closer the ties between companies and democracy, the more the collective interest is neglected.
Ursula von der Leyen wants tech companies and democracies to work together to combat disinformation, misinformation, and societal polarization. Von der Leyen wants to protect civil society, families, and children from bad influences by controlling the public narrative, preventing the proliferation of dangerous ideas, and suppressing dissenting voices that demand a different path for Europe.
"In 2024, the biggest electoral year in history, democracies across the world will head to the polls, and half of the global population will be affected. This includes over 450 million people in the European Union."
Rebuilding trust in a context of uncertainty sounds fantastic, but it is crucial to know in whose interests and for what purpose.
Von der Leyen begins to talk about the "problem" of elections on a global scale (it is worth remembering that she was not elected)
"The sobering reality is that we are once again competing more intensely across countries than we have in several decades, and this makes the theme of this year Davos's meeting even more relevant: Rebuilding Trust."
What is von der Leyen's true concern? Elections should begin by being a pact of trust between elected officials and voters. Regardless of political-ideological affiliation, voters should choose parties or candidates based on the substance and quality of the electoral programs. The electoral programs should be the commitment document that informs citizens about the political priorities that each party intends to implement.
Elected politicians constantly break this socio-political contract (bond of trust) without consequences and accountability. We should never vote for candidates based on charisma or oratory skills but rather on political substance and democratic responsibility.
Whenever the circumstances impede the elected governments from implementing the electoral program, they have the obligation to explain it comprehensively, presenting facts, and if they are caught lying, there must be immediate consequences. The Demos is la raison d'être of democracy. Therefore, all elected and non-elected politicians cannot act as if the electoral act gave them carte blanche to throw away their commitments to the nation. Governments must be obliged by law to maintain a prophylactic distance from big business because "favors" and revolving doors corrode democracy and pave the way to fascism. Lobbyism should simply be banned.
The normalization of lies in politics is lethal for democracies. The EU institutions, as they exist, will ultimately destroy what remains of European democracy.
Diplomatic negotiations with Russia should be necessary in the choice of vote. The parties that defend the continuation of the war (euphemistically called support for Ukraine) at any cost must be penalized; diplomatic negotiations are the only solution to the ongoing war; enough with lies and imperialist hubris. Those who defend the expansion of NATO should be punished at the polls, as well as those who defend the rearmament of Europe. The Left in the European Parliament – GUE/NGL must be more incisive in demanding an end to the war.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2023/754620/EPRS_ATA(2023)754620_EN.pdf
Left-wing parties, organizations, movements, and groups must commit to a diplomatic solution to the war in Ukraine. Pointing the finger at Putin and calling him a monster doesn't make us more virtuous, nor does it solve anything. Hypocritically talking about Russian imperialism and turning a blind eye to American imperialism will not solve the problem, but it will increase the danger of escalating the conflict between NATO and Russia. Everyone who identifies with leftist values should demand an end to the war, regardless of what we personally think about Putin.
Russia does not have to be Europe's enemy. The democratic will of the majority must stop those who defend this reality. Ursula von der Leyen is worried because the wall of propaganda is crumbling; more and more people are beginning to realize that continuing a war that could have been avoided is madness.
Russia is being used as a scapegoat to scare Europeans, as a way of preventing, at all costs, the opposition to the war from gaining momentum.
Russia has a population of less than 145 million citizens, while the EU alone has 450 million and 22 countries in NATO. About twenty-three percent of Russia's surface is in Europe, whose borders are the Ural Mountains and the Ural River. Around 110 million of the 144 million people, or 80%, live in the European part, making Russia the most populous country in Europe. You can google it. It makes no sense to turn Russia into a permanent enemy unless the objective is to destroy Russia. In this case, it makes perfect sense to dehumanize and demonize Russians.
The concern of von der Leyen and the interests she represents (I could swear they are far from being the interests of ordinary European citizens) is to design a strategy to control the public narrative so that the electoral results do not alter the current political agenda.
It is crucial to be skeptical when faced with the idea of the need to transform the EU into a war economy. Firstly, we have the obligation to identify who is interested in a war with Russia and why. Secondly, it is imperative to reflect on the potential consequences of a direct confrontation with Russia. We cannot nor should trust (at face value) the analysts, experts, and think tanks who are selling us the Russian threat.
We are talking about war; It seems wise to be skeptical before we allow ourselves to be carried away by hate speech and demonization to drum up support for a war. The political parties and elites that are spreading a climate of threat are the same ones that, in the past, lied to us in order to invade countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Yugoslavia, to mention the most well-known cases.
Social polarization worries von der Leyen because she fears the collapse of the European political status quo, vital to US/NATO interests. The shameful disinformation and misinformation campaigns do not come from those who oppose the war, nor are they a problem caused by political-ideological plurality; they are woven by the elites in power in collusion with all mainstream media outlets. When von der Leyen mentions the need for governments and businesses and democracies and businesses to work together, she is thinking about the imperative to control public discourse, censor opposition, and neutralize dissent.
Manufacturing an unfounded and unrealistic threat is not innocent; we need to understand it. It is clear to me that some of the analysts, experts, and commentators firmly believe that the Russians represent a real existential threat, but this does not make them any less dangerous, along with those pushing an agenda using European security as a convenient alibi.
The ultimate objective of the current campaign is to seek by all means to weaken and destroy the Russian Federation. The armaments industry will benefit from the rearmament of Europe and the expansion of NATO. The neoconservative hubris wants it at all costs, and the majority of citizens remain apathetic in the face of what will become yet another avoidable tragedy. Contracts worth billions will be signed with companies such as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and their European counterparts, wasting funds that should be channeled into social and environmental policies.
We should already be immunized against propaganda campaigns centered on demonizing nationalist leaders who refuse to follow the neoliberal playbook and the dictates of Washington, but apparently, we are not. The belief that the Russians created this crisis, or that it began with the invasion of February 24, 2022, is ridiculous and can lead us to commit the mistake of believing and trusting the wrong people (again).
It is public knowledge that the American government, the deep state, and the CIA resorting to cutouts such as NED, as well as the non-profit industrial complex (NPIC), create, finance, and train jihadist groups, pink revolutions, pro-imperialist communication networks, and even secret armies trained by NATO (Operation Gladio).
There are no benevolent empires; imperialist expansion is based on two main pillars: violence and propaganda. When the empire overstretches, the Republic suffers. People have the right to dislike countries like China, Russia, or Iran; what we cannot do is turn a blind eye to the destruction and carnage caused by the USA's imperialist endeavor from the end of the Second World War to the present, with the aim of creating the first global military, economic and financial empire.
Globalization, or globalism as some call it, did not emerge from a global cabal; it was a Western project led by the USA to dictate global governance. An integrated and synchronized globalized military and economic-financial network were the foundations for exercising this control, and the emerging multipolar order is now threatening this globalist project.
This does not mean that in some issues, there is no confluence of interests between opposing powers, as in the case of the imposition of CBDCs, digitalization of the economy, the fourth industrial revolution, etc., but we cannot put everything in the same bag, without risking being fooled.
US Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, that NATO would not expand. "Not an inch to the east." https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
Three decades have passed, and apparently, the Russians should passively accept US/NATO military bases and ballistic missile silos (planted along the Russian border) with nuclear warheads capable of reaching Moscow or St. Petersburg in less than ten minutes.
"As of September 2022, there are 171,736 active-duty military troops across 178 countries, with the most in Japan (53,973), Germany (35,781), and South Korea (25,372). These three countries also have the most US military bases – 120, 119, and 73, respectively."
What was the democratic entity that assigned the role of global police to the USA? The US appointed itself global police after the fall of the USSR as the only remaining superpower. The imperial bully created a global network of military bases and installations, designed the unipolar geopolitical order, imposed the hegemony of the dollar and the liberalization of financial markets, overthrew governments, promoted and executed coups d'état, invaded and destroyed countries based on lies but somehow we must believe that all this was done to transform the world in an oasis of freedom and democracy.
The right to freedom does not apply to those who freely choose socialist governments or defend sovereign interests. The list of countries whose democratically elected governments were deposed by the US through coups d'état, regime change operations, and assassinations is vast. Overthrowing other people's governments:
https://williamblum.org/essays/read/overthrowing-other-peoples-governments-the-master-list.
Capitalist ideologues preach that people who choose socialism are mistaken or brainwashed, but dictators allied with or helped by the US to become government and who have committed heinous crimes against humanity are a virtuous choice.
Capitalism represents good, while socialism represents evil; even social democracy is considered a socialist deviation. According to capitalist theologians, socialism is the incarnation of the devil.
But anyone who takes the time to analyze the capitalist mindset closely realizes that most capitalists abhor competition; any capitalist desires to build a monopoly, or alternatively form a cartel, in order to bypass competition.
Most large corporations depend on government subsidies in addition to having access to special lines of credit, among many other benefits, including legislation allowing tax evasion and access to tax havens.
The USA transitioned from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism, relocating production to countries with cheap labor and special economic zones (SEZ) with open borders to foreign investment.
Why did industrial capitalism "evolve" into financial capitalism? Because the capitalist dream is to live off rents by imposing artificial scarcity on the majority of citizens. This parasitic phase of the capitalist system destroys the fabric of society and paves the way to fascism.
Class-based societies tend to encourage the formation of a parasitic social class with multiple subclasses across multiple sectors.
The capitalist dream is kept alive in the common citizenry on the assumption that anyone can be successful as long as they work hard. Most of us understand that if we play the lottery, we are eligible for the prize, but the probability of winning is remote, just like the capitalist dream, a mirage that, for a few, will turn into an oasis that could never be democratically shared.
The FIRE sector represents the essence of the financialized rentier economy. We can also have a parasitic economy controlled by bureaucrats and technocrats (technocracy) or both.
The triumph of parasitic rentierism is a systemic problem. Celebrities, for example, are presented as an example of success and good living, a raw model for the rest of us.
Financial capitalism aggravates the problem of rentierism by codifying it into law.
It is evident that there are no political or economic systems immunized against the acquisition of special or unforeseen powers by vested interests, groups, classes, organizations, or institutions, which means that prevention is the only way to control the problem. It is essential to institute precautionary measures to remove the nodules before they become malignant and spread metastases throughout society.
Financial capitalism is not an aberration; it is the "natural evolution" of productive capitalism following the opportunist sense of the capitalist mentality. Getting rich is the priority objective of those who follow the capitalist doctrine; when the political, economic, and legal conditions allow making more money by manipulating financial instruments rather than by producing something useful for society, parasitic rentierism becomes the new normal.
The economic-financial and infrastructural means available to the post-war USA guaranteed a clear supremacy over the USSR in the design of international geopolitical architecture.
The American deep State's determination to transform the US into a global empire has been the most constant variable over the past seven decades. When one aspires to build a global empire, it is essential to suppress internal and external opposition. These two fronts are equally crucial; when internal enemies become an affront to the imperialist project, they are either arrested or simply eliminated. By the same token, governments that do not align with the so-called rules-based international order become priority targets.
The deep State will end up destroying the Republic if it does not give up on the imperialist project.
The American war economy was never dismantled. President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the danger of a permanent MIC in his farewell address on January 17, 1961.
"A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be might, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. . . . American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. . . . This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. . . .Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. . . . In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address
The resources spent on invasions, coups d'état, pink revolutions, dictatorships, terrorist groups, death squads, etc., and on the almost 800 military bases spread around the world would have been enough to build a more just, egalitarian, social, and ecological society.
The only country that for seven decades was focused on establishing itself as a global empire was the USA (some call it the Anglo-American Empire) with NATO serving as its armed wing.
The European vassals, under American pressure, are willing to convert the European economy into a war economy based on the excuse of the Russian threat for daring to unleash the end of the unipolar Era.
Ursula von der Leyen's hypocrisy is appalling. The militarization of Europe, in addition to all the dangers it entails, represents the antipodes of any effort to "green" the economy. The death industry is one of the largest producers of CO2, among other atmospheric pollutants. Read this excellent TNI report: Climate Crossfire, How NATO's 2% Military Spending Targets Contribute to Climate Collapse (English and Spanish) https://www.tni.org/en/publication/climate- crossfire.
A new international geopolitical architecture can be democratically designed respecting the national sovereignty of all countries, without exception, promoting dialogue and justice, as well as economic, technological, and scientific cooperation, and, last but not least, demilitarization and neutrality.
The US-controlled rules-based international order was designed to subject the world to the dictates of a unipolar, imperialist, and undemocratic geopolitical order.
I am convinced that we have had enough of imperialism and that it is imperative to put an end to the arms race. For this to become a reality, in the case of the US, the Republic must rise up and demand an end to neoconservatism and the deep state influence in politics. Being a patriot means equalizing the value of the sovereign natives with our own instead of living in the illusion of fictitious exceptionalism that causes unnecessary suffering to the Republic itself.
The main objective of the demonizing rhetoric is to neutralize internal opposition by instilling fear in the population through a barrage of non-stop propaganda, describing those who oppose the single narrative as internal enemies.
Anyone can access the maps showing the American bases surrounding Russia and China to understand why both countries were pushed onto the path of militarization.
"George Robertson, a former Labour defense secretary who led NATO between 1999 and 2003, said Putin made it clear at their first meeting that he wanted Russia to be part of Western Europe. "They wanted to be part of that secure, stable, prosperous west that Russia was out of at the time," he said.
"Putin told Frost he would not rule out joining NATO "if and when Russia's views are taken into account as those of an equal partner." He told Frost it was hard for him to visualize NATO as an enemy. "Russia is part of the European culture. And I cannot imagine my own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilized world."
Will the commitment to militarize the European economy make Europe safer, or will make World War III inevitable? Those who preach the need to increase the European military budget to face the Russian threat do so because the Ukrainians are losing the war that was supposed to destroy Russia.
The Russians are open to negotiations based on good faith; it is the West that does not want negotiations; listen to Lavrov
https://www.youtube.com/clip/UgkxSphAguFVImY7JHdAQAM0Vhbpv3OKMZsH
The European citizenry will regret giving credit to those who are selling the Russian threat to prepare Europe for a direct confrontation with Russia. People like Dr. Christian Mölling https://dgap.org/en/user/18346 and Torben Schütz https://dgap.org/en/user/23269 defend the rearmament of Germany and NATO in order to prevent the next war https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/preventing-next-war-edina-iii cannot swallow the defeat in Ukraine, because it represents the end of American hegemony and Western colonialism.
Russia is a partner for the future, while the US/NATO represents a heavy ballast that has already expired but continues to drag us down.
NATO should have been dismantled when the Warsaw Pact was dissolved. A series of criminal interventions could have been avoided, and we are about to accept being next on the list. European diplomacy must establish friendly relations with Russia. Firstly, because it is fundamental for the future of Europe and secondly, because we are going through a crisis manufactured by the West because the American deep State has more influence in Brussels than European governments. This is an unacceptable situation on all levels.
The arms race is not inevitable; the US/NATO does not have to dictate the fate of Europe. It is up to the European citizens to stop the escalation and think seriously about demanding the end of NATO because as long it continues to represent a threat to countries like Russia, there is no other choice but to escalate the militarization.
Western propaganda reverses the roles, but it is easy to prove that the American bully does not seek peace or diplomacy; the deep State is the incarnation of Hybris, the spirit (daemon) of insolence, violence, and ambition.
I hope Europeans realize the seriousness of the situation before it is too late. The delusional hubris of a large part of the European political class blinds them from accepting reality. The 2024 EU Parliament elections are an opportunity for us to show vehemently that we do not want the militarization of Germany and the rest of Europe.
Stop demonizing Putin and the Russian people, period. The real threat is the US imperialism and NATO. The neocons and the American deep State are not interested in negotiating peace; they have to be forced into it. The powers that be are managing the public discourse to camouflage and deny the real situation on the battlefield to prevent the results of the elections for the European Parliament and the US presidency from being disastrous for the political status quo. The only counterpoison at our disposal is to demand negotiations, constructive diplomacy, and peace.
The left https://left.eu/ and the DiEM25 https://diem25.org/en/ must have a more assertive and less politically correct speech regarding the war. I said it, and I am going to repeat it: When will Varoufakis realize that calling Putin a monster is useless and counterproductive? Concentrate on what matters: negotiations to end the war. We cannot count on democratic socialists and social democrats to change their stance on the war in Ukraine. The liberals and the greens are more rabid warmongers than the neoconservatives themselves; I mean, you can't anymore tell which is which!
Will we let the populist far-right be the ones riding the tide of diplomatic negotiations?
The left needs to focus more on those who are dissatisfied with the system and less on the culture wars. The rights of minorities are important, but many citizens are literally fed up with a left that does not take a more open approach to divisive sociocultural issues. To be realistically inclusive, the left needs to become less politically correct and more populist so the people dissatisfied with the political elites feel they are talking to them, not solely to an urban petty bourgeoisie.
We have a duty to demand to know who blew up the Nord Stream gas pipelines. Unfortunately, it will never happen because the evidence must have been destroyed while telling us that we live in democracies and the rule of law!
We are not condemned to be led by a bunch of warmongers. Die Grünen is an example of a neoliberal "environmentalist" party colonized by neoconservatives. This is the reality we have. A pro-imperialist and militarist neoliberal environmentalist political party! Is this the type of society and economy that the Germans who voted for this party want?! So, something needs to change, but is it wise to vote far right?
No. The left and left-leaning independents are the ones that need to grow in numbers and influence. The example of Clare Daly https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/197731/CLARE_DALY/home is extraordinary. I value policies above political stars, but still, we have to recognize that these inspiring voices are important.
Why should we allow the US/NATO to dictate EU foreign policy?
Who believes without blinking that it was Putin's imperialist aspirations that led to the invasion of Ukraine?
As for the intentions of the neoconservative elites and the American deep State, there is a lot of data confirming their intention to become the global hegemon.
Full Spectrum Dominance Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-spectrum_dominance, Wolfowitz Doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine, project for the New American Century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century.
The Ukrainians were encouraged to believe that they would receive all necessary support in the event of Russian retaliation to defend the self-proclaimed People's Republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was considered a pre-emptive war of self-defense based on lies against a country 11,135.32 km away from the USA! However, if the Russians claim that Russia's security is at stake, the pre-emptive concept does not apply because it is an American exception. The hypocrisy of the West is something else!
The Russians had long known that they had to prepare for an avoidable war that the West was interested in making happen.
The USA/NATO intended to put pressure on the Russians with Ukraine's adhesion to NATO, knowing that they were crossing a red line. Russia's invasion of Ukraine was a clear case of a provoked war using Ukrainians as proxies that began with the 2014 coup d'état. Ask Victoria Nuland, United States Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
The US/UK/EU already had the sanctions plan prepared. They mistakenly thought it would be disastrous for the Russian economy, forcing the Russians to negotiate or precipitate Putin's overthrow. The West's expectations were frustrated, and the military escalation is sold to us as the way to go. For now, Ukrainians are the ones paying with their lives (cannon fodder) to contribute to the Pax Americana noble cause.
The war must continue because admitting defeat is out of the question, and this is where we have to ask, what is the next move? We are told that the arms race aims to intimidate the Russians and prevent their advance. The argument is logical, but the objective is to prolong the war instead of ending it, stop the slaughter, and resume diplomatic negotiations with the Russians.
The problem is that the American deep State's agenda is the destruction of Russia and why the arms race is a priority. This war must stop now because whoever gets carried away by the bellicose rhetoric of the imperative to defeat Russia is betting on the self-inflicted destruction of Europe.
"...our freedom comes with risks, there always will those who try to exploit our openness, both from inside and out, there will always be attempts to push us off track, for example with disinformation and misinformation and nowhere there has been more of that than in the issue of Ukraine, so let me provide you with some real information Russia is falling on strategic goals..." and she went on a "factual" rant.
The European Parliament elections could turn the tide. Meanwhile, von der Leyen will do everything in her power to minimize the damage caused by dissenting voices in order to avoid any major change in the European political landscape.
AI technology is already used for content moderation and censorship, but the so-called community standards and legal regulations can become more restrictive. AI algorithms can be trained for any purpose and automatically scan and filter new content in real-time.
The role of AI in content moderation and censorship
"AI is an exciting technology that has the potential to revolutionize content moderation and censorship. The basic idea behind AI-powered content moderation is to use machine learning algorithms to automatically analyze and filter user-generated content on social media platforms and websites.
To work effectively, AI algorithms need to be trained on large datasets of labeled content that reflect the specific community standards and legal regulations that they aim to enforce. For example, an algorithm designed to detect hate speech may be trained on a dataset of social media posts and comments that have been labeled as either hateful or non-hateful.
Once the algorithm has been trained, it can be deployed to automatically scan and filter new content in real-time. This is done by analyzing the text, images, and video in the content and comparing them to the patterns and features that the algorithm has learned from the training data.
When the algorithm identifies content that violates community standards or legal regulations, it can flag the content for review or remove it automatically, depending on the severity of the violation. For example, an algorithm may remove a post that contains hate speech or nudity but flag a post that contains political content that is borderline or ambiguous for human review.
One of the advantages of AI-powered content moderation is its ability to scale to the enormous volume of user-generated content on social media platforms and websites. AI algorithms can analyze and filter content in real time, which allows them to identify and remove harmful content quickly, even when the volume of content is too high for human moderators to handle.
However, AI-powered content moderation also has its limitations, including the potential for bias, false positives, and false negatives. Therefore, it's important to carefully design and test AI algorithms to ensure that they are effective and fair, while also balancing the needs for safety and free speech." https://aicontentfy.com/en/blog/role-of-ai-in-content-moderation-and-censorship
Citizens' freedom of expression and thought ends where the dictatorship of the single narrative of Western liberal "democracies" begins. If we continue waiting for a miracle to happen, we will end up in fascism.
Many people are attracted to the fascistic far-right because they believe that these parties will bring order to the chaos into which liberals, socialists, and social democrats have transformed the economy, politics, and society. Fascism can have many faces and interpretations https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism, but for me, fascism is the suppression of political, economic, and sociocultural democracy. The type of fascism we run the risk of having in Europe will deepen the role of the State in protecting the capitalist system.
The capitalist system no longer has the conditions to impose itself democratically. For rentier capitalism to survive, governments need to become increasingly authoritarian, and the far-right parties will promise to bring order to the neoliberal mess, but what they will do is support and save the oligarchs and plutocrats.
Technofascism is a form of fascism that will resort to the entire panoply of available technological resources to control the population. There is no need to ban elections; what difference does it make if the population's living conditions continue to worsen and fundamental rights are not respected?
Ideological-cultural manipulation and control of public discourse will become more effective with the development of AI. Participatory democracy centered on the development of a social and ecological economy is the antidote to the advance of green techno-fascism. We cannot continue to elect people who, at best, will only promote cosmetic changes.
The left must assume the political responsibility for humanizing society, helping people to understand the need to decommodify society. The commodification of literally everything, including life, is an aberration that must be eradicated because it turns upside down how we perceive life and the human condition.
Ursula von der Leyen referred to the "openness" that can be exploited by political enemies to misinform and polarize society.
According to her, the EU must protect itself against disinformation, misinformation, and the polarization of society, especially concerning the war in Ukraine. And von der Leyen continued her "factual" speech about the strategic flaws of Russian objectives.
If we could stop the barrage of propaganda, only a minority would believe the absurd claims that she and others make about the situation in Ukraine and the real objectives of the war.
Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of what is happening on the ground knows that Ukrainians are being massacred despite all the military equipment sent by the West.
Propaganda is the backbone of Western liberal "democracies." We live in managed democracies, legitimized by supposedly free and fair elections, that never call into question the dominant order. A game of smoke and mirrors with the aim to create the illusion of political changes that never happen.
We are led to believe that we understand how institutions work based on dominant ideas that are nothing more than fiction. We don't just live in managed democracies; we live in a managed reality.
I do not deny that there is political-ideological and cultural plurality and civic and personal freedoms. However, we must evaluate the degree of political agency we enjoy to know that we actually enjoy something tangible. To verify this, we have to "measure" our ability to intervene in the affairs of the polis. Legal rights can be limited or suppressed by a myriad of circumstances, and our freedoms, rights, and guarantees never go beyond theory.
We assume that dominant narratives do not affect our ability to judge, that is, to separate the wheat from the chaff. However, it seems unreasonable to believe that we can reach factual conclusions starting from wrong or fabricated axioms.
We live in a reality manufactured and managed by the dominant elites, and disinformation and misinformation are, first and foremost, a privilege of those who control the means to extract political and economic dividends through their use.
The EU Institutions are at the top of the donor list for the Ukraine project. Visualizing $233B in Ukraine Aid
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-233b-in-ukraine-aid/
According to von der Leyen, Ukraine is one step closer to joining the EU, and Ukrainian victory is considered assured as long as the EU continues to allocate resources to the noble goal of destroying Ukraine in the hope of depleting the Russian economy and military. Meanwhile, Germany, in particular, and the EU as a whole must invest heavily in rearmament to "prevent" the coming war with Russia.
Ursula von der Leyen said Ukrainians need predictable financing in 2024 and beyond and a sustained supply of weapons to recover lost territories, re-emphasizing the importance of Ukraine's accession to the EU. Only good news for Ukrainians!
"... and Ukraine is closer than ever on its path to the European Union and all of this tells us that Ukraine can prevail in this war, but we must continue to empower their resistance. Ukrainians need predictable financing throughout 2024 and beyond, they need a sustained supply of weapons to defend Ukraine and regain its rightful territory... it was with immense joy that last month we decided to launch the negotiations of accession for Ukraine's EU membership. This will be Ukraine's historic achievement and it will be Europe responding the call of history." Applause.
Read the article:
Preventing the Next War (#EDINA III) Germany and NATO Are in a Race Against Time
https://dgap.org/en/research/publications/preventing-next-war-edina-iii
Whether elected or not, politicians have the right and duty to be concerned with the safety of the countries they represent or of which they are nationals. This does not mean that fomenting fear to promote militarization or military interventions is legitimate because, firstly, fear is not a good advisor, and secondly, scaring people is a way of getting them to comply with a situation or choice that it is not supposed to be discussed (subjugation).
Militarization and war represent precisely what must be avoided at all costs and which, therefore, should not be instigated by fear but upon reflection based on proven facts.
During the Cold War period, militarization was justified by the existence of two archenemy blocs. The fall of the USSR and the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact was the opportunity desired by the American deep State to consolidate unipolarism.
Any nation or group of nations that aspires to lead the world and become a global empire must expand military power to "convince" the skeptics of the goodness and benignity of the project.
Unilateral militarism encourages the militarization of countries that perceive themselves to be potential victims. Militarism is the exacerbation of the death spiral that should, under any circumstances, be discouraged.
When the majority of citizens of all countries become aware that imperialism and colonialism persisting in the world as a means of dominating and exploiting the resources of sovereign nations unable to defend themselves due to the asymmetry of power, must end once and for all.
Free trade requires international laws that regulate and protect all parties involved. Why do we lightly accept foreign bases being installed (today's ally could be tomorrow's enemy and vice versa) in sovereign territories?
We often hear politicians and the media talking about protecting American interests abroad. Why on earth should there be American interests on other people's sovereign soil?!
Colonialist capitalism normalizes the ownership of the wealth of other countries. Modern colonialism is regulated by international agreements codified into law. In many countries of the Global South, local oligarchs, instead of contributing to the development of their countries, open the doors to foreign investment and businesses to extract and exploit the natural and mineral wealth that deplete the countries instead of developing them for the common well-being.
Not all investment is unproductive; it all depends on the agreements made and the contracted debt conditions. The development model and the way of financing it is what really matters; secrecy only interests those who have something to to hide.
The war in Ukraine could have been avoided, but the neoconservative horde and the American deep State were not interested in compromises; undisputed hegemony is their only commitment.
It turns out that diplomacy is the way to avoid the absolute risk of the war turning into a direct conflict between NATO and Russia.
The behavior of the European political elite, particularly the EU Commission and the European Council, demonstrates that the EU functions as an extension of American imperialism.
Hastings Ismay, NATO's first Secretary General, said the Alliance's aim was to "keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in and the Germans down".
Germans have to consider whether Germany's rearmament is in the collective interest of German society or in the interest of the occupying country, the USA. Who poses the greatest danger to Europe, the Russians or the US/NATO?
Russia's natural riches are an irresistible attraction for the Western capitalist elite. Imperialism, in addition to conquering territories and their geostrategic management, always has economic motivations.
It seems evident to me that either Ursula von der Leyen and many of her colleagues are agents serving a foreign government or Europe is American territory.
Later in the speech, von der Leyen returned to the number one concern of the global risk report: disinformation and misinformation, and again warned about the dangers of an unregulated internet, mentioning the digital services law created to make the internet politically aseptic, my words.
"... let me go back to the number one concern of the global risk report: disinformation and misinformation. Tackling this has been our focus since the very beginning of my mandate with our digital services act. We defined the responsibility of large internet platforms on the content they promote and propagate... the boundary of online and offline is getting thinner and thinner, and the values we cherish offline should also be protected online."
It is about time to create a ministry or commissariat for truth, an entity responsible for the monopoly on disinformation, misinformation, and propaganda committed to defending the interests of the US/NATO.
Governments and businesses and democracy and businesses will work together, resorting to the technological, economic-financial, infrastructural, and logistical means at their disposal to give us the best version of reality that money and power can buy.
Ordinary citizenry and grassroots organizations that mainly use the Internet and social media to spread their messages, share experiences, and try to create critical mass will have an army of police algorithms monitoring their behavior, ready to punish those who dare to ask the wrong questions, pick taboo themes, etc., in short, the ones that try to exercise freedom of thought and expression.
It is clear that there is disinformation on all sides and in all forms—much of the misinformation circulating online results from a lack of rigor, ignorance, and decontextualization. We have to learn to live with this reality because if we think about it, it is just a virtual replication of what was already happening in the real world.
The alternative that von der Leyen and her peers want is an Orwellian dystopia of the world to sell unnecessary wars without opposition. How many times has the US resorted to false flag operations to ignite the public patriotic fervor to rally popular support for military campaigns based on lies?
Whoever controls the economic, financial, logistical, media, technological, and scientific means has the power to control public discourse. For most of us, the Internet is the only means of accessing relevant information and knowledge; if the Internet becomes an aseptic environment, we will be the losers.
Dissonant voices represent a threat to European unity. For von der Leyen, the idea of European unity involves coercing and blackmailing non-compliant governments to change their stance. Political sovereignty is meaningless due to the obligation to follow the policy dictated by the European Commission/NATO.
European unity must be based on verifiable facts and not on acts of faith and blind submission. The official discourse of European institutions does not become truth by imposition but reveals the anti-democratic nature of the EU.
Elected politicians have a duty to demand facts whenever the official EU version raises doubts. In politics, we need to be open to compromise, but if facts don't matter, then it is reasonable to believe that elected politicians are committed to questionable agendas.
"The first victim of war is truth." The call for war always resorts to propaganda, lies, and the imperative to control the public narrative, which should reinforce our skepticism no matter how much we trust the sources from which we get the information.
Habit and blind trust do not guarantee the potability of the water that runs in a fountain; we have to resort to laboratory analysis to confirm it.
As visual beings that we are, television and cinema have been and continue to be used as weapons of mass deception (WMD). Television anchors, talk show hosts, movies, music and sports stars, socialites, and celebrities play the role of entertainers, which means distracting and deceiving people for profit and perception manipulation.
Whoever controls the "art" of framing cultural-ideological identity controls society, and Americans were quite effective in shaping the global culture of the 20th century that still has too much influence on most of the world population, even the ones that perceive themselves as anti-American.
Ursula von der Leen is not interested in facts; besides their eventual usefulness in manufacturing more convincing propaganda, a hint of truth makes a lie easier to swallow.
Ursula von der Leyen also highlighted how "Europe is well positioned to become the leader of industrial AI..." and she repeats, "... how democracies and businesses can help strengthen each other. The artificial intelligence act builds trust by looking at high-risk cases like real-time biometric identification, and by building that trust, it enables companies to innovate in all other fields to make the most of this new and revolutionary technology."
At least, I agree with von der Leyen on one point: multiple inflection points with overlapping and compounding risks represent the greatest risk to the global order in the postwar era. The rules-based international order is losing influence, and the unipolar moment is in trouble."... the world is at multiple inflection points with risks overlapping and compounding each other, and there is no doubt that we face the greatest risk to the global order to the postwar era."
