Pages: << 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 1269 >>
Chris Spencer
The political astroturf of the United States has been fractured by figures described as "saviors." The political careers of Barack Obama and Kamala Harris epitomize that trend in clay-feet "gods" and "goddesses." Both have cultivated public personas hinged upon metaphors of "hope and change" through their respective legal and political backgrounds. Their actions and decisions often conflict with their rhetorically stated ideologies. This analysis concludes that neither was a savior but rather a manipulator of identity and race politics within a framework that substantiates state overreach and erosion of civil liberties.
The Spiritual Lens: Obama as a Savior
Before the 2008 election, Barack Obama positioned himself as a transformational leader. His eloquence and charisma attracted a diverse electorate, leading many to see him as a messiah who would rescue them from the socio-political perils of the Bush era. His campaign emphasized hope, solidified when he received the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, symbolizing worldwide expectations for his leadership.
by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović
The world of Arabs (the WoA), as a distinctive part of the globe, is of extreme significance for both global politics and the global economy. On the other hand, this region is featured by slow democratic development, political instability, religious extremism (Islamic fundamentalism), and many reasons for long-time inter-ethnic conflicts especially on the Israeli-Arab relations and regional insecurity. It is quite obvious that the WoA needs comprehensive political, social, and economic reforms which the Arab Spring’s protesters clearly requested in 2010−2013. The crucial issues of reforms are about national development and governance, a succession of political authority, removal of political authoritarianism, and Arab relations with Israel and the USA.
The WoA is composed politically of 22 member states of the Arab League Organization (officially, The League of Arab States) including those from the regions of the Middle East and North Africa (the MENA) and connected by numerous bilateral and multilateral conventions and agreements. On the one hand, those 22 member states are different in size, governmental form, and richness of natural resources, but on the other hand, all of them possess many common attributes that are culturally, confessionally, and ethnically unifying them: language, alphabet, religion, history, customs, values, and traditions.
by Tracy Turner
Next time someone asks you for an alternative to coal, nuclear or fossil oil energy, talk to them about olive tree biodiesel energy.
David Swanson, World BEYOND War
We generally accept that if you do a census and only count the people who answer their doors you miss some people, and that you can calculate an estimate that reliably gets closer to reality than the list of people who answer their doors. Of course it will get closer, the more information you can gather. But those insisting that people who do not answer their doors be treated as not existing are widely understood, not as principled fact checkers, but as having ulterior reasons for desiring undercounts.
DIRECT AND IDENTIFIED
The fact is not really disputed that in every war there are people who die without being identified at a morgue. They may die from direct war violence or from starvation or disease resulting from a war’s destruction of hospitals. They may be blown into little pieces, be buried under buildings, drown in the sea, or die hours after being born. There’s no certain way to know the exact proportion between identified and unidentified deaths in a given war. But even in a dense, relatively educated place and even with the growth of social media, a zone in which hospitals, media outlets, power plants, and — in fact — every type of building, have been reduced to rubble is unlikely to set the record for the lowest percentage of unidentified deaths — much less eliminate them altogether.
RUBBLE
In fact, the same government in Gaza that provides the figure always cited in Western media for Palestinian deaths in Gaza (direct deaths from violence) — currently 41,909 — also says, according to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, that it estimates there are another 10,000 buried under rubble. In other words, the 41,909 are reported as bodies that have been counted, and a large majority of them identified with names (an independent study suggests the reliability of the identified names), but another 10,000 or so bodies are missing and have not been found. The 10,000 may be a very rough estimate, also known as a wild guess. But it’s very likely closer to the truth than is zero. Reporting an estimate of 51,909 would almost certainly be closer to the truth than reporting 41,909. And the very same source you’re citing for 41,909 would tell you that.
Cathy Smith
Kamala Harris is an intensely divisive figure in contemporary politics—an incandescent icon for some, an ongoing disappointment for many others. As the first-ever woman Vice President, she embodies a pivotal feminist moment. But this political achievement does raise some disturbing questions on what empowerment is and for whom.
Wrapped up in Harris's political persona is a profound commitment to security and law enforcement at the expense of those self-same communities that she is supposed to represent. This was taken to its logical conclusion in her tenure as Attorney General for California, where she tended towards tough-on-crime policies that evidently hit low-income and minority communities the hardest. Critics charge that her policies moved closer towards more punitive measures and away from justice itself but underline how feminist tropes of empowerment can be intertwined with state power and surveillance.
These intersections of feminism and state security raise profound ethical issues. A certain stream of feminist thought has allied itself with state interests, which often argue for policies of safety and security at the expense of individual freedoms. Such alliances more often than not further reinforce structures of domination. For example, in the context of the War on Drugs, some feminist leaders supported what was seen as "protectionist" policies that answered calls for increased surveillance and incarceration, which by and large disproportionately attacked already-marginalized communities (Crenshaw, 1991).
by Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović
Preface
A geopolitical issue of South-East Europe became of very importance for scholars, policymakers, and researchers with the question of the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire as one of the most crucial features of the beginning of the 20th century in European history. A graduate collapse of the one-time great empire was accelerated and followed by competition and struggle by both, the European Great Powers and the Balkan national states, upon the territorial inheritance of it. While the European Great Powers had the aim to obtain new spheres of political-economic influence in South-East Europe, followed by the task to establish a new balance of power in the continent, a total collapse of the Ottoman state was seen by small Balkan nations as the unique historical opportunity to enlarge the territories of their national-states by the unification of all ethnolinguistic compatriots from the Ottoman Empire with the motherland. The creation of a single national state, composed of all ethnographic and historic “national” lands, was in the eyes of the leading Balkan politicians as a final stage of national awakening, revival, and liberation of their nations which started at the turn of the 19th century on the ideological basis of the German romanticist nationalism expressed in a formula: “One Language-One Nation-One State”.¹
Paul Craig Roberts
Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Democrat Law School Deans Say Free Speech Threatens Their Agendas. Democrats are no longer the party of John F. Kennedy. They and their media whores are the party of Joseph Goebbels, Reich Minister of Propaganda.
Fearful of the Public, Western Leaders Turn to Censorship
Ian DeMartinoOn Saturday, former US First Lady Hillary Clinton called for increased federal regulation of the internet and repealing Section 230. “If the platforms… don’t moderate and monitor the content, we lose total control,” she said, raising the question of who “we” represents in that statement.
The recent purge of YouTube accounts, including those from Mark Sleboda, Rachel Blevins, Glenn Diesen, DD Geopolitics, Fiorella Isabel, Larry Johnson, and Eva K. Bartlett, it is clear that the Western leaders are scared of their populations finding out the truth about their policies and actions.
“We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people,” Former US President John F. Kennedy.
“That’s what they’re afraid of,” Sleboda, an expert in geopolitical relations and a frequent guest on Sputnik Radio, told The Final Countdown. “They don’t trust you to hear an alternate view from the official US government narrative and come to what they consider the right political conclusions.”
Many Americans were taught that freedom was proof-positive that Western-style democracies were superior to other systems.
by Chris Spencer
"In a landscape where many are silenced, the growing discontent of white men reveals an urgent cultural injury—a plea for recognition that, if ignored, could set off a destructive wave of division."
The one thing that most white men in America have in common, despite their different ages and socio-economic backgrounds, is anger and frustration born from the non-existence of a strong men's rights movement. “White Nationalists” (this identity is stuffed down our throats by Leftist Theorists) have watched, often for years, as articulate or stunt-prone minorities take over politics and culture, and what little voices they have (30% of America's population are Caucasian Males) become demeaned and marginalized. Terms like "skinhead" or "bigot" not only derail their experiences but also contribute to growing resentment and feelings of disenfranchisement. 50-years of de-masculinizing America have turned her into a hollowed out shell of her former self; the last 30-years, the greatest technological achievements are digital facial recognition, license plate readers, cell phone surveillance and satellite tracking of everyone. Workplace promotions based on sexism and reverse skin-color racism rather than merit have turned America into an open sewer.
Many Caucasian males in America detest the 0.25-0.35 grabbing the media attention with flag-burning stunts – while the seething, hideous rage in 30% of America continues to be taunted with titles like "White Nationalists," aka Hebrew Media-speak for implying we are Hitler-Mussolini-fans. This media cheating and abuse is the new newspeak.
Editor thepeoplesvoice.org
In order to explain how this situation occurred in America I will talk a little about my interactions with my neighbor. I'm not worried that he will see this article because the internet isn't how he gets his news and forms his opinions. Everything he knows comes from the Democrat left-wing globalist media, CNN and MSNBC. In fact, the more biased and filled with "fake news" the more he believes it. He doesn't possess critical thinking skills. He believes all of the left-wing democrat propaganda no matter how many times he's lied to, he believes, believes, believes.
When the Russia, Russia, Russia, hoax was in the news day and night he believed it all. He believed that Russia interfered with the 2016 and 2020 elections. He believed that Donald Trump was working with the Russians. When it was all exposed as crap and the globalist media quietly got on with a new pack of lies, he simply forgot about being misled and lied to and accepted the next idiocy. He believes men can be women and give birth because the Democrats and their media told him so. He doesn't possess the mental faculties to question it.
Sometimes when we're both outside in our backyards, we have short, strained conversations. I have to walk on eggshells and be careful not to say anything about the cost of food, the economy, Trump, the war in Ukraine, or the coming election. He lives in a fictional democrat narrative where there is no inflation, the cost of gasoline was higher during Trump, and everything is better now under Biden. I don't want to get on the subject of news and world affairs with him because inevitably he will parrot the lies he hears on MSNBC or CNN, his two favorite sources of news. He doesn't realize it's propaganda, he doesn't question anything and believes everything they tell him.
Paul Craig Roberts
Except for the neoconservatives whose agenda it is, I sometimes wonder if I am the only other person who understands what the Ukraine conflict is about. While we await Washington’s decision about firing missiles into Russia, I will explain how we reached the current crisis.
In 2007 Washington declared war on Russia without announcing it. Putin provoked Washington’s secret declaration of war when he rejected Washington’s uni-polar hegemony at the Munich Security Conference.
Washington’s first attack was a year later when, while Putin was distracted at the Beijing Olympics, Washington sent a US trained and equipped Georgian army into South Ossetia. The purpose was not to defeat Russia militarily. Instead, it was a calculated risk that Putin might stand down and to avoid a military conflict that the West could misrepresent as restoring the Soviet Empire, and allow the Russian protectorate to be absorbed into Georgia. The American neoconservatives were gambling with lives not their own that Putin and thereby Russia would be weakened by giving in, thus opening more paths of aggression against Russia.
The neoconservatives’ plot against Putin might have worked except the Georgian invaders killed Russian peace-keepers. In 2008 Putin was trying to resurrect Russian pride, which was lost with the Soviet collapse 1991, and could not turn his back on dead Russian soldiers in South Ossetia. He returned from China, sent in an army, and smashed the US trained and equipped Georgian army in 5 days.