O que vem sendo mais preocupante para o governo albanês é o fato de que os manifestantes não podem ser descartados como membros de algum segmento social particular.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

A Albânia voltou a aparecer nas notícias nos últimos dias, com manifestações que acabaram culminando com a destruição do Ministério da Educação, mas o processo que levou a este caos se iniciou há alguns meses por causa das negociações em torno à construção de um gigantesco resort de luxo no país, num megaprojeto capitaneado pela Affinity Partners, de Jared Kushner, o agente sionista que é genro de Donald Trump e que, ocasionalmente, atua como seu diplomata ad hoc. Junto a Kushner, neste projeto, havia também capital de três petromonarquias árabes e investidores locais.

O primeiro ponto de dissenso, a fagulha, por assim dizer, deste incêndio, foi o fato de que o projeto seria construído numa área de proteção ambiental, na zona úmida pantanosa da Albânia, que é considerada um paraíso natural onde se nidificam flamingos, pelicanos e outros animais, alguns deles estando ameaçados de extinção. Ainda assim, Kushner conseguiu autorização do governo de Edi Rama para ir em frente com o projeto, bem como a classificação de investidor estratégico, o que lhe permite passar por cima dos regulamentos locais.

O projeto em si deve alcançar a soma de 4.7 bilhões de dólares e seria implementado na ilha de Sazan (outrora uma base militar), na ilha de Vjosa-Narta e na ilha de Zvernec, que também possuem características defensivas. Kushner teria tido a “ideia” e “descoberto” Sazan enquanto viajava no iate de seu amigo Nathan Rothschild, contexto no qual também conheceu o primeiro-ministro albanês.

Os outros parceiros de Kushner na Affinity Parnters são Luis Videgaray, ex-Ministro de Finanças do México, e Elad Gil, um investidor israelense, e o projeto envolve a construção de hotéis, marinas e vilas privadas, num esforço que parece apontar para uma “dubaização” da Albânia.

Desde junho, portanto, quando esses negócios escusos foram revelados, cidadãos albaneses passaram a ir às ruas protestar, com palavras de ordem (“A Albânia não está à venda”) contra Washington e Tel-Aviv e pregando a transformação de Kushner em persona non grata. Os protestos já vinham na sequência de protestos organizados em fevereiro e março por acusações de corrupção contra Edi Rama, bem como pelo fato do primeiro-ministro albanês ter começado uma campanha para que israelenses se mudassem para a Albânia.

O que vem sendo mais preocupante para o governo albanês é o fato de que esses manifestantes não podem ser descartados como membros de algum segmento social particular, sendo em vez disso uma movimentação suprapartidária de todos os setores da sociedade. E as manifestações seguiram, intermitentemente, até agora em outubro, o que aponta para uma insatisfação permanente e difícil de sufocar.

Os protestos mais recentes estão mais focados na juventude e em novos escândalos de corrupção, problemas na educação e tentativas do governo de “forçar” um ingresso na União Europeia, mas a questão do resort de luxo de Jared Kushner permanece em pauta.

É possível analisar o caso do ângulo conspiracionista da “Ilha Epstein”, ainda mais considerando os vínculos da família Rothschild com Epstein e com Kushner, mas talvez um ângulo mais interessante aponte para a geopolítica do Mediterrâneo e o projeto de poder do Estado de Israel.

Israel tem ampliado suas atividades nessa área e expandido a sua presença. Investidores israelenses, por exemplo, têm adquirido em massa propriedades no Chipre e na cidade portuária grega de Kalamata. Quando somamos essas investidas visando propriedades no Chipre, Grécia e agora Albânia percebemos claramente que há um enfoque mediterrâneo oriental nas atividades empresariais paraestatais israelenses. Chama a atenção que se trata, sempre, de ilhas e portos, o que aponta especificamente para a construção de uma estratégia talassocrática por parte do Estado de Israel.

Chama a atenção também, um tema específico da realidade político-social albanesa, que é o fato de que tornou-se prática comum que investidores albaneses, após serem legitimados como investidores estratégicos para garantir a aprovação de projetos de desenvolvimento, revendem as suas participações acionárias por valores ínfimos para outros atores mais obscuros. Em muitos casos, estamos falando aí de esquemas de “laranja” utilizados pela máfia albanesa. Não seria o caso, naturalmente, de Kushner ou das petromonarquias árabes, mas a suspeita levantada atinge os parceiros albaneses desse investimento.

Talvez por isso a repressão violenta dos protestos tenham chamado menos atenção do que em outros lugares. Parece se tratar da autêntica erupção de insatisfação popular num país que há décadas tem sido vitimado por líderes corrupções, máfias perigosíssimas e terroristas brutais.

Pepe LUENGO

Únete a nosotros en Telegram , X y VK .

Escríbenos: info@strategic-culture.su

En los últimos años alguien está poniendo el mundo patas arriba. Los gobiernos ya no gobiernan; delinquen. Los médicos ya no curan; hacen de la enfermedad un negocio. Los jueces ya no juzgan; manipulan la justicia. Los científicos ya no hacen ciencia; hacen pseudociencia. Los medios de comunicación ya no informan; desinforman. Las religiones ya no predican amor, sino odio… Y así podríamos seguir con una lista interminable.

¿Te has parado a pensar en que todo lo que nos enseñaron desde pequeñitos puede que sea una gran mentira? Hay una evidencia: la gente que se atreve a cuestionar las cosas llega a la conclusión de que absolutamente todo nuestro sistema esta cimentado sobre mentiras. Da igual por donde empieces (Estado, gobierno, democracia, sistema financiero,…), todo es una farsa. Y los acontecimientos que estamos viviendo últimamente, como la reciente “pandemia”, el cambio climático antropogénico, la invasión de Ceuta o cualquiera de las guerras actuales, más de lo mismo.

Todo lo que nos contaron sobre la necesidad incuestionable de someternos a un gobierno, sobre la función que desempeña el sistema financiero, sobre el papel del Estado, incluso sobre la libertad que supuestamente disfrutamos en las democracias occidentales son flagrantes mentiras. Mentiras, por otra parte, que nos fueron inculcadas por padres y educadores sin ser conscientes de que nos contaban una milonga. Sin embargo, estas mentiras son mantenidas y acrecentadas por políticos y medios de comunicación a sabiendas de que son mentiras.

La realidad es que estamos gobernados por una panda de plutócratas, agencias gubernamentales y poderosos lobbies bancarios que manipulan el mundo con total impunidad.

En el transcurso del tiempo, una banda de banqueros internacionales ha creado un sistema de control financiero privado para dominar la política de cada país y la economía mundial. Familias de banqueros como los Rothschild, Morgan, Warburg, etc., junto con la masonería y otras organizaciones nada transparentes como el Club Bilderberg, el CFR. o el Club de Roma, han establecido un cártel financiero y de poder internacional durante los últimos 200 años.

Siendo los amos del dinero -tomándose muy en serio el lema de “quien controla el dinero gobierna el mundo”- se han hecho los dueños de los respectivos gobiernos que manejan a su antojo.

Los amos del mundo han creado una sociedad disfuncional, donde si no cumples con los estándares establecidos -trabajar y consumir toda una gama de productos innecesarios- eres considerado “persona non grata”, por decirlo de una manera suave. Nos han programado para competir con nuestros semejantes y para que nuestra vida sea un cúmulo de metas profesionales y económicas, donde el fin último es la acumulación de bienes materiales. Luego, cuando te mueres, todas esas metas que conseguiste y los bienes materiales que acumulaste se quedan aquí. Lo único bueno que dejas –si es que lo dejas- es tu legado del conocimiento; el resto, un montón de cosas superfluas. Así que la pregunta es: ¿merece la pena tanto esfuerzo?

La mayoría de la gente que peina canas sabe por experiencia propia que esta es una forma de vida demencial que, sin embargo, se ha extendido por todo el mundo. Porque disfrutar de la vida –y cuando hablo de disfrutar de la vida no me estoy refiriendo a viajar en un crucero de lujo, etc.- no requiere ningún esfuerzo. Basta con deleitarse con las experiencias sensoriales que nos brinda la vida en cada momento, disfrutar de las maravillas de este extraordinario planeta azul y compartir conocimiento y alegría con nuestros semejantes.

Cuando tienes salud, familia y amigos que te quieren, una actividad provechosa y ningún conflicto es que la vida no te va nada mal. Entonces, ¿por qué se empeñan en convencernos de todo lo contrario?

El día que dejemos de escuchar en nuestra mente todas esas retahílas programadas sobre el éxito, la competitividad, la codicia y el miedo a todo lo que no se encuentre dentro de nuestra zona de confort es cuando realmente empezaremos a vivir. Porque la vida no es más que eso que sentimos cada mañana al despertar, y no una programación continua de nuestro tiempo, por parte de otros, que es lo más valioso que tenemos en esta vida.

La nuestra es una civilización profundamente enferma. Una civilización donde se le ha dado la vuelta a todo: hombres que ahora son mujeres y viceversa o delincuentes que tienen derechos y víctimas que no los tienen.

Veamos, a modo de ejemplo, el reciente caso de la invasión de Ceuta. En Ceuta los invasores son protegidos por el gobierno que sufrió la invasión y sus gobernados, los Ceutíes, abandonados a su suerte. Y lo más incongruente: el país invadido da las gracias al país invasor y tilda de fascistas y xenófobos a los invadidos que piden una solución. Esta es la locura a la que hemos llegado en una sociedad distópica, donde se le ha dado la vuelta a todo.

La pregunta es: ¿cómo ha sido posible esto? Pues mediante la contaminación de nuestras mentes a través del relato. Porque quien controla el relato controla nuestro pensamiento; quien controla nuestro pensamiento controla nuestro comportamiento; y quien controla nuestro comportamiento influye en nuestras opiniones, estado de ánimo y, por supuesto, en nuestros miedos. Por lo tanto, llegar a ejercer una influencia de la percepción del mundo que nos rodea se ha convertido en la manera más sutil de ejercer el poder. Por cierto, esto lo hace de maravilla nuestro Presidente de Gobierno, Pedro Sánchez.

Pero las cosas son de esta manera porque la mayoría de la gente ha aceptado voluntariamente la esclavitud, ya que el ser humano es el único animal en la naturaleza que se deja gobernar. La absurda idea de elegir un amo que le controle y domine es lo mejor que ha podido salir de su cabecita. Obviamente, es el gobierno quien desempeña el papel de amo. Por lo tanto, la sumisión al gobierno, y el voto para legitimarlo, hace responsables de la situación actual a todos aquellos que siguen estas prácticas. Y lo más incongruente. Si lo han querido así ellos mismos, ¿de qué coños se quejan?

El “populacho” –pobre e ignorante- parece empeñado en su propia desgracia. Ha perdido su dignidad dejándose despojar de su riqueza y su libertad sin la más mínima resistencia. Y aunque bien es verdad que desde tiempos inmemoriales ha sido pobre e ignorante, es a partir del Covid-19 cuando, además, se ha vuelto extremadamente imbécil. Y así no hay manera.

By Glenn DIESEN

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The very public execution of my professorship and reputation continues in Norway. Today’s media article about me makes three claims that are misleading and/or false.

1) The article dismisses my claim that my research is being criminalized as the journalists merely cite the dismissive comments from the university – no arguments are apparently required.

It is not possible for an academic anymore to analyse the policies of rival powers by assessing their security concerns, as it will be smeared by the government, the government’s NGOs and the media as “legitimizing” the enemy and supporting their narratives. The current Defence Minister singled me out with the accusation of spreading propaganda and criticised two podcasters for even speaking with me (as I have already been cancelled by the media in Norway). How was this accusation by the Defence Minister substantiated? I had argued that NATO expansion triggered the war in Ukraine, which the Defence Minister denounce as dangerous “Russian propaganda”, with no need to substantiate his vile accusation. I can cite a sea of evidence and also refer to statements by American and European political leaders, ambassadors, intelligence chiefs, and others to make my case. However, the purpose is not to engage in debate, but to smear, censor, and cancel. By going after an individual academic for challenging official truths, the government has already claimed a monopoly on the truth. Academics should have their arguments scrutinised and criticised, but these are severe personal attacks from the government without the possibility of even defending myself. How is this not criminalising the research of an academic?

I cannot even speak at any events in Norway without the event being cancelled. The last event I agreed to speak at was because I shared the stage with the former CIA officer John Kiriakou. A newspaper had the event at a church cancelled, and when the backup location did not also cancel, the journalist simply printed in the paper that it had been cancelled so people would not show up. Is this normal? I must use my allotted holiday days to attend conferences because any event I attend can be presented as “controversial,” and then the NGOs and journalists will go after the reputation of the university. Is this normal? Every newspaper article about me merely refers to me as “controversial” or “pro-Russian” without ever assigning meaning to these labels or presenting my argument.

I have argued, much like former CIA director Burns, that if the West attempts to pull Ukraine into the NATO orbit, then there would be war and Ukraine would be destroyed. This is considered a “pro-Russian” argument. Arguing that we should respect the will of most Ukrainians who want negotiations to end the war is also considered a “pro-Russian” argument, while in contrast, boycotting diplomacy, deporting Ukrainian refugees, and calling for the conscription of Ukrainian women is “pro-Ukrainian”.

2) To avoid addressing any of my arguments, the journalists go on to uncritically cite personal attacks against me, pointing out that I have been called a propagandist by the Norwegian Helsinki Committee. This is a “non-governmental organisation” financed by the government and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), which was set up by Reagan and the CIA director in 1983 to manipulate the civil society of other states. The Norwegian Helsinki Committee has been relentless in its smears on social media to have me fired, writing hit pieces in the media, pushing to cancel my speaking events, writing a letter to my university, and even posting a picture of my house on social media. This is a governmental “human rights organisation” that cites human rights concerns to build the case for war.

3) Lastly, to further avoid addressing my actual arguments, they simply cite the fact that arguments I made at a debate last year have been “wholly or partially debunked” by a fact-check. The state-run media (NRK) invited the state-run military defence institute (FFI) to fact-check three of my claims. What claims did they “debunk”?

My first claim was that only 20% of Ukrainians wanted NATO membership between 1991 and the regime change in February 2014. The fact-checker argued that the number went up by the middle of 2014 (after Russia responded by seizing Crimea), which is a completely meaningless comment intended to muddy the waters, as my argument was about the previous era.

My second claim was that Zelensky had argued in an interview with The Economist in March 2022 that there were some Western countries that would like a long war with Russia to weaken a strategic rival, even if it would result in the destruction of Ukraine. The fact-checker argued that not all Western countries wanted a long war and that it was not an official policy. I never claimed it was an official policy, as it was primarily the US and UK pushing for a long war.

My third claim was that the US and UK sabotaged the Istanbul peace agreement in April 2022. The fact-checker claimed this was incorrect and suggested that it could only be based on one statement by David Arakhamia. The fact-checker did not want to mention that both mediators also confirmed it: Turkey’s foreign minister and the former Israeli prime minister both said that Russia and Ukraine were close to a deal, but the US and UK saw an opportunity to weaken Russia by fighting with Ukrainians. Zelensky’s former adviser Arestovych confirmed it, and the Ukrainian ambassador Chaly, who participated in the negotiations, confirmed that Putin was willing to do almost anything to end the war. The former head of the German armed forces confirmed that Boris Johnson sabotaged it, and Boris Johnson himself wrote articles warning about a “bad peace” and arguing for “strategic patience.” I am being fact-checked by war propagandists.

Unfortunately, none of my arguments matter because in Norway there is no debate and no interest in any arguments. Reality means nothing anymore as war narratives must be defended against inconvenient truths. I used to be naïve and think that the endless smears were caused by misunderstanding, as I had simply not been able to convey my arguments properly. However, the endless articles with smears and labels are deliberate lies and deceptions.

Original article: glenndiesen.substack.com

Given the vitriol gushing out of corporate media over the purchase of about two weeks’ worth of Russian diesel fuel, we just might be watching the beginning of the endgame in Ukraine.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

By Patrick LAWRENCE

Given the gush of vitriol and condemnation since Oct. 9, when Donald Trump announced his deal to import 5 million metric tons of Russian diesel, roughly 37 million barrels, one would think the president had surrendered the United States’ sovereignty to the Kremlin, or handed over the Ukrainians to the Russian army, or rankly betrayed the Europeans or altogether renounced what we picturesquely call Western civilization.

This is, indeed, what we read daily in the corporate press these days and what we are supposed to think. It is 2016 redux, it seems. Another round of Russiagate may not be far off, given 16 House Democrats have introduced a Prohibit Corrupt Russia Oil Deals Act and 12 senators now attack the diesel accord as “a gift to our adversary.”

If there is one thing essential to recall about those dreary years it is that the wobbly-from-the-first Russiagate edifice, the whole of it, was made of mis– and disinformation, hyperbole, innuendo, extravagant abuses of office and propaganda incessantly disseminated in corporate media.

It was, in short, the Deep State’s attempt to scuttle any effort to advance beyond the poisonous Russophobia it had spent a decade cultivating (taking my date from Vladimir Putin’s era-defining speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007).

It is the same again as Trump tries once more to end the war in Ukraine and refashion East–West relations, a project the old “MICIMATT”— the military-industrial, congressional, intelligence, media, academic and think tank blob — simply cannot abide.

Let us listen to this new round of rubbish with the recent past in mind.

“Donald Trump, meet Neville Chamberlain.” That is Tom Friedman, writing in The New York Times last week under the headline, “Trump’s Democracy–for–Diesel Deal Shames Us All.”

“When future students search online for ‘sellout,’ ‘appeaser’ or ‘traitor to his country’s core values,’” Friedman elaborates, “their two pictures will come up first, side by side.” There is no matching our Tom when it comes to overdrawn historical reference dressed up as intellectual gravitas.

Harold Meyerson, writing in The American Prospect Tuesday under the headline, “Why Putin Is Now Our Ally,” is unhappy that Americans are not angrier and more contemptuous than they appear to be in response to Trump’s latest démarche to Russia.

“We’ve grown so inured to Trump’s outrages,” he writes, “that his alliance with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime hasn’t yet stoked the level of horror and rage it deserves.”

Putin’s neo–Tsarist imperialist regime. We’re back to this, are we?

We’re also back to the good old Trump–Putin “bromance” bit, it seems, as in “Trump’s man-crush on the Russian dictator has been well documented and need not be recounted in all its unctuous detail.”

This bizarre suggestion of homophilia repeats a tiresome trope from the Russiagate years — never in the slightest documented, for the record — and this time comes from Tom Nichols, a neoliberal hack of long standing. Writing Oct. 18 in The Atlantic, Nichols wants us to see matters this way:

“Donald Trump has now abandoned pretense and is openly aiding the Kremlin in its war against a friend and partner of the U.S. The American commander in chief has abandoned the Western order, the most successful — and powerful — security arrangement in human history.”

Are we clear on all this? The corrupt, Nazi-infested regime in Kiev is America’s friend and partner, simple as that.

The Western order as we have it is the finest thing humanity has ever managed, and Donald J. Trump has forsaken this finest-ever order.

All because the Trumpster signed an agreement whereby the United States will purchase, all in, about two weeks’ worth of Russian diesel fuel.

Paranoia strikes deep, as should be plain to all as the imperium proceeds into its self-inflicted decline. Into the pages of The Atlantic it will creep whenever the topic is “Putin’s Russia” (as against “Russia”).

Trump’s ‘Simple’ Decision

How to account for this outpouring of nitwittery from all these pseuds? Why so suddenly does the world seem to be coming to an end? These are our questions.

Trump II has proven disastrously worse than Trump I, to state the obvious. He had a few good ideas the first time around: end the wars of adventure, bring the soldiers home, decommission NATO, a new détente with Moscow.

This time — and you have to credit the Trumpster for this, strange as it is to credit him with anything — he has only one. He still wants to restore relations with Russia to a working order of some kind, and this must begin with ending the war the Biden regime provoked very quickly after Trump was voted out of office.

Trump is a Manhattan property man for whom everything is transactional, we have to remember. Exploring “deals” does not figure at the higher end of statecraft — certainly not given all that is at issue between Russia and the West — but this is a question of method, not purpose. Let us not get lost in the former while losing sight of the latter.

Peaceful, constructive relations with Russia, based on an enduring settlement of benefit to all sides, are a good thing altogether to be welcomed, however often Americans and West Europeans are told any such eventuality would amount to the horror of horrors.

As everyone thinking about this has remarked, Trump’s immediate intent in striking his diesel deal is to get prices down as best he can before the midterm elections and to pretend the price crisis has causes other than the U.S.–Israeli assault on Iran.

I’m for setting the politics aside. A few days’ worth of diesel — all that can possibly arrive from Russian refineries before Nov. 3 — won’t make any difference, and Trump cannot but know this.

My mind goes to a remark Trump made on Truth Social, his digital bullhorn, at the beginning of this week in response to all the shrieking and shouting that followed his Oct. 9 announcement:

“My decision on Russia is a very simple one. I am in the process of negotiating Peace in the war between Russia and Ukraine, and don’t want to do anything that will drive, foolishly, Russia away from the bargaining table.”

It is important to read this together with other things the Trump regime has got up to lately. While the United States is in plausible-denial mode, Kiev reports that it has disrupted some of the early-warning satellite intelligence vital to Ukraine’s defenses.

Elon Musk, apparently after consultation with the White House, has restricted Ukraine’s use of Starshield, the military-grade version of the Starlink communications system.

These are day-to-day lifelines. So is the Prioritized Ukraine Requirement List, the arrangement whereby the United States sells arms to the Europeans, who send them on to Ukraine. To date the volume of shipments through the P.U.R.L. channel has come to $7 billion. Trump is reportedly threatening to end the program.

Atop all this he has suspended implementation of a sanctions bill he signed into law only a month ago. Concurrently, the Witkoff–Kushner duo presented Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian dictator, with a new settlement proposal that reads to me like a condensed version of the very creditable 28–point plan they presented a year ago next month.

Something is afoot, it seems to me. I see a thought-through strategy in all this. I see renewed determination on Trump’s part.

Trump is out of the closet at last — and perfectly accurate — as he asserts that Zelensky is the principal impediment to a settlement accord and, so, should be either removed from office or forced to accept defeat and recognize Russia’s legitimate interests.

Trump’s new push to bring the Ukraine crisis to a close, to be clear on this point, is not a betrayal of the Ukrainian people. It is just the opposite.

There are a lot of reasons to question how far Trump will get either in ending the war or restoring relations with Russia to a livable détente. But if he maintains the present momentum, we may be watching the beginning of the endgame in Ukraine.

This is a “may,” conditional verb required. But it is this prospect that has all the warmongers in the MICIMATT complex in a dither.

Strange it will be if a president so wrong about so much manages to achieve the peace he is after. But maybe the Tom Friedmans and the Tom Nichols and the rest of their kind are useful as a mirror.

Maybe the extent of their panic is a measure of the Trumpster’s chances of success this time around.

Trump Jr.’s apparent opposition to his father’s foreign policy moves reflects wider divisions within the MAGA movement.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In a peek behind the curtain of the White House, it has been revealed that Donald Trump Jr. has privately opposed his father’s war with Iran from the very start, even personally confronting President Donald Trump with his objections, according to The Atlantic.

The president’s eldest son has continually expressed his reservations to the off-again, on-again nearly eight-month conflict behind closed doors, despite going to extra lengths to avoid any public criticism of his father.

Two anonymous sources who reportedly spoke directly with Trump Jr. said the MAGA leader has repeatedly questioned the military campaign, a position in line with his longstanding opposition to U.S. involvement in foreign wars.

The father-son fallout reportedly dates back to the beginning of the war, when Trump Jr. vocalized his objections directly to the president.

“Don has kept his views on the subject private, as he would never publicly break with his dad on an issue like this, but I can’t imagine anyone who knows Don would be surprised by his personal views on the subject,” a person supposedly close to Trump Jr. told the progressive magazine.

Trump Jr. has continuously propped up his father as a leader who would keep America out of costly foreign entanglements, particularly in the Middle East.

Trump Jr.’s apparent opposition to his father’s foreign policy moves also reflects wider divisions within the MAGA movement, where prominent conservative voices have questioned whether the conflict is consistent with the president’s states campaign pledges.

Meanwhile, the war has become an increasingly vexing political issue for Republicans ahead of November’s midterm elections.

Exploding gasoline prices and mounting economic pressures have fueled public frustration, while a Pew Research Center poll found that 65% of Americans disapprove of the administration’s handling of the conflict.

A spokesman for Trump Jr. refused to comment on the report.

En cette année 2026, véritable *annus horribilis* où l’impérialisme a fait arrêter des présidents légitimes comme Maduro au Venezuela et massacré des guides spirituels et religieux tels que Khamenei, l’Occident collectif continue de se poser en juge des « droits de l’homme ». La situation semblerait grotesque si elle n’était tragique. Toutefois, une analyse approfondie révèle toutes les ramifications de l’affaire, lesquelles s’inscrivent pleinement dans la vision colonialiste que l’Occident entretient à l’égard du reste du monde ; ce dernier est perçu comme une simple entité indistincte, vouée à être jugée, traduite en justice et soumise afin d’en extraire de la valeur. Dans cette optique suprémaciste, les peuples ne sauraient nourrir la moindre ambition de souveraineté ni prétendre à une quelconque représentation, car ils ne sont pas considérés comme des peuples capables d’accéder au statut de nations, mais simplement comme des multitudes vouées à la domination.

par Paolo HAMIDOUCHE

Peu importe que l’Occident soit en faillite face au Sud global. L’idéologie suprémaciste qui imprègne la rhétorique colonialiste des droits de l’homme continue d’agir, alimentée par de bonnes intentions. De bonnes intentions seulement, car les actes restent marqués par la violence et l’oppression. Ainsi, lors de la Troisième Commission de la 81e Assemblée générale de l’ONU, l’Occident — emmené par l’empire britannique déchu — a de nouveau attaqué la République populaire de Chine sur la question des « droits de l’homme ». Dans sa réponse, le représentant permanent adjoint de la Chine auprès des Nations unies, Sun Lei, a souligné le deux poids, deux mesures à l’œuvre, d’autant plus que ces normes — que les « maîtres » voudraient voir respectées à l’étranger — ne sont absolument pas appliquées en Occident même. Quelques jours plus tard, la porte-parole du ministère russe des Affaires étrangères, Maria Zakharova, a elle aussi remué le couteau dans la plaie en demandant à l’Élysée des nouvelles du « jardin enchanté » (référence à Josep Borrell) où les droits de l’homme sont suspendus à l’égard de « ses propres enfants » manifestant dans la rue. Enfin, l’Iran n’a évidemment pas manqué de souligner, par la voix de M. Baqaei, le changement de ton brutal opéré en quelques mois sur la question des droits de l’homme selon la zone géographique, avertissant : « Si les droits de l’homme et le droit de manifester sont des principes universels, leur définition ne devrait pas varier en fonction de la situation géographique du manifestant. »

Désormais, même la conception libérale des « droits formels » est remise en question en Europe sous prétexte de « guerre hybride » et de pressions géopolitiques. Il suffit de songer à Macron lui-même, en proie à la paranoïa face aux infiltrations prorusses, lui qui a fait part aux chefs de parti de ses craintes de déstabilisation il y a à peine quelques semaines. En Amérique, en revanche, la situation est peut-être pire encore : avec Maduro, on a agi de manière autoritaire, sans le moindre artifice rhétorique pour tenter de justifier le coup d’État. Et aujourd’hui, dix mois plus tard, on en rajoute.

Le FBI a en effet fait savoir qu’il retenait un nouveau chef d’accusation contre le prisonnier Maduro et son épouse Flores : « complot en vue de commettre des actes de torture ». Les procès politiques — lorsqu’ils ont lieu, contrairement au sort réservé à Khamenei, exterminé avec une partie de sa progéniture — visent la famille pour « complicité » et se fondent, de toute évidence, sur des chefs d’accusation variables. Le caractère personnel de la responsabilité pénale devient aléatoire, tout comme le chef d’accusation est fluctuant, lorsqu’une inculpation politique est engagée par un régime ; ainsi, le « complot en vue de commettre des actes de torture » devient une infraction où l’intention délictueuse et la faute s’étendent à tout l’entourage de l’accusé. Appelons donc les choses par leur nom : il s’agit d’un procès politique, et non judiciaire. Or, l’Occident, qui en cette année 2026 s’est adonné aux procès politiques sommaires, a l’audace de se poser en « maître » — pour ne pas dire en « juge » — et de pointer du doigt la République populaire de Chine pour son mépris de la vie humaine. C’est curieux, ne serait-ce que parce que le respect de la vie humaine exigerait la reconnaissance et le respect de la diversité des formes d’organisation des populations, de l’autodétermination des peuples et de tous ces principes dont l’Occident continue de se moquer au nom de la primauté du modèle de gouvernement libéral-démocrate. Un modèle qui, plus que jamais en 2026, s’avère n’être qu’une forme au sens littéral du terme, c’est-à-dire une simple « apparence extérieure ». En effet, cette démocratie libérale recèle en son sein des failles qui en compromettent désormais la survie même. Prenons pour exemple ce qui se passe en Roumanie où, après la victoire du candidat souverainiste indépendant C. Georgescu, les élections ont été purement et simplement annulées au motif d’une « manipulation des suffrages ». Aucun « juge » des sacro-saints « droits de l’homme » occidentaux n’a trouvé à redire au fait qu’une instance constitutionnelle puisse décréter quel suffrage est « manipulé » et lequel est « intègre ». La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a même avalisé cette décision en déclarant irrecevable le recours de Georgescu. Par ailleurs, ces « juges » qui aiment discourir sur la situation politique d’autrui n’ont rien vu des conditions liberticides — dignes d’un réfugié — imposées à Julian Assange pour le « crime » de journalisme, avant qu’il ne soit contraint de faire amende honorable et de se retirer de la vie publique. C’est ce qu’a dû faire le président Georgescu en Roumanie, mais cela n’a pas suffi dans son cas. Le délit politique pèse manifestement plus lourd ; rappelons qu’un philosophe soulignait déjà auprès de ses pairs que l’enjeu, aujourd’hui, n’est plus d’interpréter le monde, mais de transformer l’état de choses existant. Pour celui qui s’engage directement en politique, il ne suffit pas de renier ses convictions et de se retirer de la vie publique, car son passé et ses relations continuent d’influer sur le présent.

En effet, la répression visant l’idéologie souverainiste en Roumanie s’est concentrée sur le dirigeant Călin Georgescu, au point de lui valoir diverses inculpations, interpellations et placements en détention provisoire (sic !), mesures qui ne se sont arrêtées ni devant son annonce de retrait de la vie publique ni devant sa personne. Comme je le rappelais précédemment, la caractéristique d’un procès politique est la disparition du principe de responsabilité pénale individuelle, car l’on a affaire à un régime politique qui s’attaque à une idée. Et comme le soulignait curieusement Medgar Evers — militant des droits civiques abattu d’un coup de fusil dans le dos par un suprémaciste dans la cour de sa propre maison, au sein de la patrie des « droits civiques » —, les idées ne s’arrêtent pas avec l’arrestation d’un homme, car « on peut tuer un homme, mais on ne peut pas tuer une idée ». On procède donc directement à l’arrestation et à l’inculpation de l’entourage immédiat, voire de toute personne professant la même idée. Ce n’est pas un hasard si le principal candidat de l’opposition roumaine, George Simion — qui porte l’idéal souverainiste dans ce pays —, a tiré la sonnette d’alarme ces derniers jours, se disant menacé d’arrestation après avoir perdu de manière inattendue le second tour des élections en mai 2025. Tout cela survient alors que C. Georgescu a de nouveau été inculpé et arrêté dans le cadre d’une enquête récente pour une fraude présumée. Alors que la Roumanie est privée de gouvernement depuis maintenant cinq mois — une impasse institutionnelle révélatrice d’une incapacité à gouverner, après l’annulation d’élections qui avaient pourtant conféré une légitimité claire à une formation politique, laquelle a été évincée une fois la victoire acquise —, l’acharnement de la justice roumaine à l’encontre de l’ancien homme politique a suscité des protestations populaires dans tout le pays ainsi qu’au sein de la communauté roumaine à l’étranger, déclenchant un élan de solidarité envers celui que l’on désigne comme « le président en exercice ». En somme, des événements singuliers se produisent au sein d’un Occident qui aime se poser en champion des droits de l’homme et de la démocratie libérale, mais uniquement chez les autres.

Publié à l’origine par Divergence Politique

Italy’s diesel protests reveal class contradictions: productive petty bourgeoisie crushed by costs, metropolitan subproletariat exploding in rage.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Diesel fuel as an indicator of class struggle

Over the past three weeks, Italy has laid bare—all at once and unfiltered—its fundamental social reality. On one side are truck drivers, farmers, fishermen, steelworkers, and a mass of young people who cannot even put a name to their own anger. On the other is an institutional apparatus that, instead of asking why the real people of the country have taken to the streets, convenes high-level meetings on public order and prepares yet another decree. Anyone familiar with the principles of historical materialism knows that situations like these should not be interpreted through the lens of crime reporting. They should be seen as moments when class contradictions—suppressed for years beneath the surface of managed consensus—become visible to the naked eye.

This article does not intend to provide a chronicle of the clashes, which have already been extensively covered. Instead, it aims to lay out the facts and ask what they reveal about the nature of the Italian state at this stage, about the social composition of those protesting, and about the structural inability of the ruling bloc to offer a response that is not repressive.

It all begins, as is often the case, with a budget item. Decree-Law No. 162 of September 17, 2026, had provided for a temporary reduction in the excise tax on diesel fuel until October 5; once that deadline passed, the government did not extend it. The average price has returned to nearly 2.50 euros per liter. For a small Calabrian truck owner who owns just one truck and works as a subcontractor for large retailers, that figure determines whether the month ends in the black or in the red.

The first spontaneous protests broke out in Calabria in early October. Then came Puglia, starting October 11, followed by Basilicata, Sicily, Campania, Molise, and finally Lazio, with picket lines at ports and blockades on the main thoroughfares. Truck drivers were joined by farmers, then by fishing communities. In front of the fish market in Termoli, a banner appeared featuring a skeleton and the words “You’ve reduced us to the bone”; in San Benedetto del Tronto, fishing boats remained in port. In supermarkets across Abruzzo, Molise, Puglia, Campania, and Calabria, the shelves emptied, and people rushed to stock up as they hadn’t since the COVID-19 pandemic.

Let’s pause to consider who these people are, because the sociology of the protest matters more than the slogans. We are not dealing with the classic industrial proletariat, the one found in large Fordist concentrations. We are dealing with a productive petty bourgeoisie in the process of proletarianization: the small business owner, the independent farmer, the fisherman with his own boat. Marx had precisely described—in Chapter 1 of the Manifesto—the fate of these intermediate strata, crushed between big capital, which absorbs them, and the wage-labor condition into which they ultimately plunge. The trucker blocking the highway today is formally an entrepreneur. In substance, his business is a disguised wage: the client dictates his rates, energy costs dictate his expenses, the state levies the excise tax, and he bears the risk. He is self-employed only in the sense that no one guarantees him anything.

In this sense, diesel fuel is more than just a fuel. It is the point where global oil rent—now spiraling out of control due to the Hormuz crisis—travels down the logistics chain until it is offloaded onto those at the very end. Financial capital speculating on futures, large retailers who refuse to renegotiate transport contracts, and the state collecting excise taxes: three forms of appropriation of value produced by others, all converging on the same social body.

The Second Front: The metropolitan subproletariat

On October 17, the protest changed in nature and geography. A hashtag that appeared out of nowhere on social media, “Italia in piazza,” called for demonstrations against the high cost of living, gas prices, and the tax burden. In Milan, Piazza Duomo became a battlefield; in Turin, a Feltrinelli bookstore was ransacked; in Bologna, clashes broke out in front of the train station involving water cannons and tear gas; the following day, in Milan alone, 271 people were taken to the police station, and as many as 220 were minors—among those detained were 12-year-olds, most of whom were second-generation Italians.

On the same day, in Rome, the CGIL’s national march and two other demonstrations against the high cost of living brought some 25,000 people into the streets without any incidents. This contrast must be kept in mind, because it disproves the government’s favorite myth of a single, violent protest. There are at least two distinct movements: one organized, with union roots and specific demands, and one disorganized, very young, urban, and lacking political leadership.

The second movement is the most interesting from a theoretical standpoint, and the most dangerous from a political standpoint. Marx had a term for the uprooted masses lacking class consciousness who, in times of crisis, can be mobilized by anyone who offers them a role: Lumpenproletariat. Using that word today does not mean insulting those young people. It means recognizing their objective position: children of the suburbs of Milan and Turin, often from immigrant families, excluded from the labor market even before entering it, raised in a world of conspicuous consumption that is never within their reach. It is a cognitive dissonance between imagination and reality, and the risk that this violence will be co-opted for reactionary purposes, as happened with the masses of unemployed and war veterans in the 1920s and 1930s.

The lesson of the 18th Brumaire also holds true in reverse. The underclass has no program of its own, and precisely for this reason it can become raw material for any project: that of those who want to set things ablaze, but also that of those who need an internal enemy to justify austerity measures. It is no coincidence that the government has chosen to speak almost exclusively about them, and almost never about the truck drivers in Gioia Tauro or the workers of the former Ilva plant who, in those same weeks, were striking in Taranto and Genoa to find out if they would still have a factory.

The state as a business committee

Il Manifesto defines modern state power as the committee that administers the common affairs of the bourgeois class. This formulation has often been dismissed as overly simplistic. The last two weeks offer an almost textbook-like illustration of it.

On October 18, following the clashes, the Prime Minister convened a summit on public order to evaluate further measures against those who exploit legitimate demonstrations. The October 19 summit resulted in the announcement of a decree-law that preempts measures from the security bill stalled in the Senate: deferred arrest for group vandalism, harsher penalties for roadblocks, and the strengthening of the “Strade Sicure” initiative in Milan with more military personnel. The League has called for the inclusion of preventive detention for minors as well. This would mark the eighth security package in four years.

Consider the sequence of events. A government that could not find the resources to extend the excise tax discount managed, in forty-eight hours, to find the resources to send the military onto the streets of Milan. An administration that, since March, has been issuing fuel decrees with two- or three-week deadlines—renewed only when the industry threatens a strike—is instead enacting emergency and permanent legislation on repression. Even the 300-million tax credit for the trucking industry, approved in May, still lacked an implementing decree by the end of June, to the point that industry associations were asking for it to be released. Social support arrives late, just in time, and in dribs and drabs; criminal legislation arrives immediately, and is designed to stay.

This does not stem from the malice of individual ministers, and those who think in terms of class need not demonize anyone. It stems from the role the state plays in a peripheral Western social formation, caught between European budget constraints and Atlantic rearmament commitments. We have military spending that will approach 45 billion in 2026 and austerity measures totaling approximately 23 billion. Caught in this vise, the state cannot redistribute wealth without breaking with its external guarantors, and so it does the only thing left to it: it manages the conflict as a matter of public order. Engels wrote this in The Origin of the Family: the state arises where class antagonisms become irreconcilable, as a power that claims to stand above society and that distances itself from it more and more.

The farce of contradictions

While the substance of the institutional response is consistent, its surface is a catalog of absurdities. It is worth listing them, because that is where the crisis of hegemony is most clearly visible.

The first concerns the diagnosis. Justice Minister Nordio spoke of probable criminal infiltration within the truckers’ blockades. Interior Minister Piantedosi, when questioned about the young people in Milan, admitted that there was still no evidence they were being manipulated. Two ministers from the same government: one sees organized crime behind the trucks, the other finds no orchestration behind the looting. Each chooses the interpretation that serves to delegitimize the crowd before them, and neither of them asks how much a full tank of gas costs.

The second issue concerns the passing of the buck. Milan Mayor Sala complained about an inadequate number of officers on the streets; Piantedosi responded by accusing him of being a representative of a “radical chic” left unable to condemn the violent protesters without exception. A group of mayors observed, with unintentional clarity, that pointing fingers at one another won’t lower gas prices. It is a perfect snapshot of a political class in which the majority and the opposition argue over the number of police needed, without either side questioning the system that fuels the anger.

The third issue concerns language. Meloni wrote that protesting against the high cost of living is a civil right, while sending a police officer to the hospital is the work of hooligans. Tajani called it unacceptable for the opposition to fan the flames. On October 22, Tajani himself welcomed the lifting of the strikes by the major trucking organizations, explaining that strikes do not lower diesel prices and only harm citizens and businesses. The right to protest is thus recognized in the abstract but denied in any concrete form that might produce results. You can protest, as long as the protest doesn’t disturb anyone; but a protest that doesn’t disturb anyone is a protest that no one hears. It is the old paradox of formal democracy that Marxist criticism has always denounced: equal freedoms on paper, unequal power relations in reality.

The fourth contradiction is the most serious. The government invokes the rule of law while drafting regulations—such as the preventive detention of 12-year-olds—that even its own commentators deem at risk of being unconstitutional. The state that demands that young people in the suburbs respect the rules is the same one that, to defend itself against them, is willing to violate its own.

The crisis is systemic

Gramsci, in his Quaderni, offered the most frequently cited definition of crisis: the old is dying and the new cannot be born, and during this interregnum the most varied pathological phenomena occur (readers are invited to consult Quaderni, Q. 3, 34). It is difficult to find a more accurate image for Italy in October 2026. The old social contract, founded on household savings, small businesses, and family-centered welfare, no longer holds. There is no new historical bloc. In between lie the pathological phenomena: youth gangs filming themselves as they ransack a jewelry store, ministers accusing one another, and a barrage of decrees.

Lenin, in the second chapter of The Failure of the Second International, way back in 1915, added that a crisis becomes revolutionary when those at the bottom no longer want to live as before and those at the top can no longer govern as before. The first condition is beginning to manifest itself in Italy. The second is evident in the paralysis of an executive branch that oscillates between last-minute extensions and punitive measures. The third element—the decisive one—is missing: a political force capable of transforming discontent into a program. The mass parties have been reduced to opinion-making groups and personal fiefdoms; the parliamentary left is demanding more police officers in Milan; the confederal unions have called for a general strike on November 20—five weeks after the clashes—and tend to meekly comply with government diktats just to keep their now-entrenched privileges intact. Meanwhile, in Milan, an “October 17 Movement” has emerged thatannounces demonstrations every Saturday until the government falls. Without roots, without organization, without theory, it is unlikely to go far. But its very emergence shows just how vast the void left behind is.

Herein lies the crux of the matter. I have argued elsewhere that the struggle today is not horizontal—between the right and the left—but vertical, between the people and the elites, and that those who reduce the conflict to a horizontal plane do so because they do not want people to understand where the problem lies. The events of October confirm this. The government has done everything in its power to transform a vertical conflict—over the cost of living and income distribution—into a horizontal one: Italians versus second-generation immigrants, law-abiding citizens versus hooligans, the productive North versus the South that blocks the roads. The slogan that appeared on the roadblocks, “The South Is Italy Too,” is the simplest response to this maneuver.

A class analysis that stops at national borders would be incomplete. The price of diesel in Cosenza depends on the Strait of Hormuz, and the Strait of Hormuz is closed or choked off because of a war that Italy did not decide on but supported as part of its Atlantic alignment. As early as March, the first fuel decree was justified by the international crisis linked to the war in Iran. Since then, the government has tried to keep up with rising prices through temporary discounts, while continuing to commit to rearmament goals and European austerity.

It is the old Leninist thesis on imperialism, updated to a condition of subordination. A country that does not control its own energy policy or its own foreign policy ends up passing on the costs of other people’s wars to the working classes. Sanctions against Russia have already driven up utility bills; the war in the Gulf is now driving up fuel prices. The bill always lands at the same address: the truck driver, the fisherman, the suburban family watching their grocery cart empty. While defense industry stocks rise, the real country grinds to a halt.

This is why Italy’s social crisis cannot be resolved with yet another extension of the fuel tax. It can be resolved—if at all—by breaking the constraints that make redistribution impossible: the European budget constraint in its current form, the military spending target, and the automatic alignment with wars that Italy endures without having any interest in them. Peace, energy sovereignty, and social justice are not three separate demands. They are the same demand viewed from three angles.

Who is asking for mercy, and from whom?

There is one image that stands out from these past weeks, and it is the skeleton on the banner in Termoli. It is not an image of revolt. It is an image of supplication: a people exposing their emaciated bodies and asking to be seen. The institutions have responded to this plea with the language of the criminal code, with mutual accusations between ministers and mayors, and with a tally of those arrested.

It must be stated clearly, because clarity is a duty of analysis: the devastation of a bookstore or the looting of a jewelry store is not class struggle. They are a symptom of a society that has ceased to offer its young people any sense of belonging, and the left, by romanticizing them, commits the same error as the right, which merely criminalizes them. Both fail to ask themselves how to transform that anger into consciousness. But it is equally clear that a state capable of responding to need only through force has lost its function as a social organism and has been reduced to an apparatus for defending those in power.

Italian history is all too familiar with these developments. Major social crises without political direction have always ended up shifting to the right, with an order imposed from above on the ruins of a fragmented movement. The alternative exists only if someone resumes the patient work that Gramsci called the “construction of hegemony”: organizing truck drivers and young people in the suburbs, fishermen and workers in Taranto, within a single vision that addresses wages, energy, peace, and sovereignty. This is not a task for talk shows or executive orders.

It is a political task in the oldest sense of the term, and institutional Italy, for now, has shown that it does not even want to acknowledge it.

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has found a novel way of solving Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. By bombing Yemen.

Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has found a novel way of solving Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. By bombing Yemen.

Yes, you read that correctly. This week, Burnham authorized the deployment of British Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia for its war with Yemen.

Downing Street assured the British public that the deployment was for “defensive” operations only. The BBC and other British media outlets indulged this fantasy by repeating over and over that the Royal Air Force was being deployed for “defensive actions”. The RAF would not be engaging in attacking Yemen, it was claimed, and the British fighter jets were being sent to “protect” Saudi Arabia from “escalating” Houthi aggression.

Britain’s Minister of Defense Wes Streeting (a former health minister, please note) framed the RAF mission as necessary to counter instability in the Middle East and soaring energy prices. As if Britain was not the cause of instability and higher fuel costs by backing Trump’s aggression on Iran.

The Guardian reported: “The [British] military intervention [in Yemen] was partly justified because instability in the Middle East was driving up energy prices and affecting the cost of living.”

This logic is as absurd as it is gross deception.

Recall that Burnham was ushered into Downing Street in July to replace the hapless Keir Starmer as Labour prime minister. Burnham, formerly the Mayor of Manchester and posing with his working-class credentials, made a big public pitch that he would prioritize easing the cost-of-living crisis ravaging Britain.

However, since entering office, his most notable forays have been in foreign policy. For example, he has received the Ukrainian dictator Vladimir Zelensky in Downing Street with promises of more military aid in addition to the $20 billion that Britain has already provided (the second largest source of aid in Europe after Germany). Burnham has pledged to provide Ukraine with British blueprints for manufacturing cruise missiles.

Last month, Burnham announced that Britain was deploying an RAF in-air refuelling plane to “help” Saudi Arabia’s air strikes on Yemen. To allay public concerns about that move, Downing Street and the British media assured that the deployment was “defensive only” and for a limited period.

Ironically, Burnham made that announcement while travelling to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he hailed Britain for offering world leadership for peace and security.

Now, again this week, the RAF deployment is extended to sending Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. London is also providing a RAF A400M transport plane for troops and up to 100 military advisers.

This sounds like classic mission creep. Downing Street is aware of the exposure to public criticism. The prime minister’s office denied Britain was being dragged into the conflict. It said: “Our support for Saudi Arabia is considered, proportionate and focused on helping them defend themselves from relentless Houthi attacks.”

The British government and media are distorting the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen as one of “aggression” by the Yemeni forces of Ansar Allah, referred to as “the Iran-backed Houthis”. That description makes the Yemenis sound like crazy terrorists who are being directed by Iran.

Here’s the BBC’s creative reporting:  “The UK will deploy RAF Typhoon jets to defend Saudi Arabia in response to escalating Houthi missile and drone attacks, the government has said.”

The BBC goes on: “The defensive mission will help defend Saudi cities and infrastructure – a move authorised by Prime Minister Andy Burnham – against aerial attacks by the Iran-backed group… Since September, Saudi Arabia has been struggling to defend its skies from Houthi attacks after a ceasefire of sorts in Yemen broke down.”

This is reality inversion by the British state-owned media outlet.

The ceasefire in Yemen was violated in mid-July when Saudi Arabia launched air strikes on the international airport in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, to target a delegation attending the state funeral of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, who was murdered in a U.S.-Israeli air strike on his family home in Tehran on February 28.

That ceasefire was called in 2022 to end a seven-year war of aggression by Saudi Arabia against Yemen. The war began in 2015 to reinstate a Saudi puppet regime that the Ansar Allah-led Yemenis ousted in 2014. The Saudis bombed Yemen relentlessly for seven years with support of the United States, Britain, and France. An estimated 20,000 Yemenis were killed in air strikes, and around 300,000 died from a humanitarian blockade that the Western-backed Saudi coalition imposed on the country.

Britain’s military minister Wes Streeting referred to recent Yemeni strikes on Saudi Arabia as “despicable”. He mentioned a ballistic missile attack on October 10 on King Khalid international airport in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. At least 13 people were killed in the strike, and over 300 were injured.

The Ansar Allah-led Yemeni Armed Forces have also hit several other Saudi airports and key oil industry installations. The number of Saudi civilians killed in these attacks is relatively small, around 20, whereas Saudi warplanes have killed hundreds of Yemeni civilians since it broke the ceasefire in July. This week, eight Yemeni fishermen were killed in Saudi strikes. What Yemen is doing to Saudi Arabia is self-defense, not aggression.

London and its media propaganda are making out that Britain is “defending” Saudi Arabia. The reality is London is assisting Saudi aggression and war crimes.

Significantly, Streeting flew to Washington, DC, last week, where he met the war secretary, Pete Hegseth. Their agenda was about how to respond to “Houthi escalation.” Obviously, the junior partner got the memo: send warplanes to Yemen; we’re too busy with Iran.

Meanwhile, in Britain, an unprecedented social crisis is unfolding from poverty and a crippling cost of living. Charities report that four million families are having to go without adequate food or home heating because of soaring bills. Oxfam estimates that 13.5 million Britons, or a fifth of the population, are suffering from poverty. More than six million people rely on food charities for a modicum of sustenance.

It tells you everything about a state whose government does nothing about its own people’s dire needs but finds the resources to send warplanes to distant countries to bomb other poor people.

Andy Burnham is just another puppet who is assigned to put on a show in Downing Street for public appeasement. The imperial deep state has its hand up his rear. That’s mission creep in Downing Street.

Milano assurge così a paradigma di un Occidente che esclude ed emargina, privo di prospettive, privo di un’autentica volontà di invertire la rotta, votato più o meno consapevolmente all’autodistruzione.

Segue nostro Telegram.

Martedì 13 ottobre 2026 – mattina

Salone di rappresentanza del Comune di Milano, tra stucchi e affreschi, una composita schiera degli anziani più abbienti della città premia dei loro pari grado per età e per reddito, in mezzo a un effluvio di parole tanto vuote quanto altisonanti, un imbarazzante racconto di una città immaginaria, che esiste solo nelle chiacchiere dei loro ristretti circoli di amici e conoscenti, è tutta una narrazione di frizzi e lazzi, scoppiettanti meraviglie, luminose eccellenze, immancabili successi, se la suonano e se la cantano tra di loro, in mezzo a un tonitruante profluvio di aggettivi tutti superlativi, anzi, ultra – superlativi, un coretto autoreferenziale parossistico ed entusiastico in cui scambiano –  forse inconsapevolmente – lo specchio dentro cui si rimirano felici e beati per una finestra sulla città.

D’altronde si frequentano abitualmente e assolutamente solo tra loro nell’ora dell’aperitivo e della cena e non riescono a vedere null’altro che loro stessi, anche la cameriera che porta i piatti in tavola è una specie di fantasmatica presenza a suo modo sconosciuta ed evanescente, di cui a mala pena ricordano l’esotico nome peruviano o filippino. Sono i campioni della società neo – schiavile[1], inventata con maestria palazzinara dai maggiorenti politici della città, ogni vagonata di cemento, riversatasi su Milano nell’ultimo decennio in quantità impressionanti, ha avuto effetti sociali dirompenti e deflagranti aumentando il divario sociale, costruendo schiere di poveri, lavoratori a basso reddito e pensionati, con i primi spesso a servizio del sempre più ristretto, ma pur considerevole, cerchio dei benestanti.

Domenica 18 ottobre 2026 – pomeriggio

Come non fosse bastata la guerriglia urbana scatenatasi in piazza Duomo e tutto attorno, a margine della manifestazione di sabato 17 ottobre contro il caro – vita, il caro – carburanti, il prezzo sempre più proibitivo dei prodotti alimentari, le bollette aumentate di un terzo e per ciò stesso sempre più intollerabili, almeno per quella metà di milanesi che a fatica arriva alla terza settimana del mese, ecco che ragazzini a mala pena quattordicenni si danno appuntamento in branco per la domenica.

È rabbia pura, scriteriata e distruttrice, è odio per tutto quello che vedono e da cui sono esclusi. Spaccano e rubano, è un esproprio proletario compiuto da masse di ragazzini che non hanno nessuna consapevolezza di essere proletari, ma che in ogni caso si comportano in questo modo perché non vogliono essere proletari, ovvero l’ultimo gradino di una società pesantemente ingiusta, diseguale, escludente, hanno un istintuale desiderio di uguaglianza, ma non la sanno declinare in nessun modo, anche perché tanto è impossibile, il divario sociale non è colmabile, l’ammissione al ristretto circolo dei possidenti che possono permettersi di comprare e possedere quello che vogliono non li riguarda, purtroppo non tocca neppure tutte e tutti quei milanesi che son scesi in piazza pacificamente il giorno precedente.

Questi ragazzini sono fuori da tutto, vittime di una città e di una società in cui gli abbienti organizzano convegni sull’inclusività, in cui volano paroloni e discorsoni pieni di propositi, i quali terminano appunto all’ora dell’aperitivo.

Sono ragazzine e ragazzini cresciuti nelle periferie invisibili, povere, quelle in cui non arriva la metropolitana e gli autobus e i tram sono stati dimezzati negli ultimi anni, non credono in niente e in nessuno. Si muovono in branco, perché solo dentro il branco dei loro pari riconoscono quel minimo di uguaglianza che non trovano da nessuna altra parte.

Odiano la scuola, perché è vuota, perché non offre prospettive, perché usa parole antiche e a volte incomprensibili, perché i professori sono vecchi e hanno l’età dei loro nonni che stanno a Lima, al Cairo, a Manila, perché studiare molto difficilmente potrà permettere loro di emanciparsi dalla povertà, anzi è certamente inutile, perché tanto sanno già benissimo a dodici anni che i loro genitori non avranno mai i soldi per mandarli all’università.

Disprezzano i loro genitori, li disprezzano profondamente, con una rabbia che spesso cancella ogni affetto. Li guardano consumarsi di fatica per portare a casa il pane della sopravvivenza, donne e uomini italiani e più spesso di tutto il mondo che si alzano alle quattro del mattino, il papà per andare a pulire gli uffici degli abbienti, la mamma per sbrigare fino alle sei del mattino le questioni di casa propria e poi prendere anche lei quel bus che non arriva mai per andare a pulire le case di quegli stessi abbienti, per portare a passeggio i loro cani, per stirare le loro camicie e per preparare la loro cena. Gli uomini lavorano anche nell’edilizia, ogni cantiere è una babele di lingue, nell’urbanistica, là dove si rifanno marciapiedi e strade asfaltate si sente solo parlare arabo, chissà se per appalto diretto o subappalto, o purtroppo, come accade non di rado, per subappalto di un altro subappalto, fanno i custodi dei palazzi in cui gli abbienti a mala pena passando la mattina biascicano loro un annoiato “buongiorno”.

Lo schianto tra la città immaginaria, o per meglio dire reale per una ristrettissima minoranza, e quella reale, o per meglio dire dura e povera per la stragrande maggioranza, ha la violenza delle vetrine mandate in frantumi, così la società, come quei vetri sfondati, collassa senza lasciare margine alcuno di ricomposizione.

Un mondo peggiorato dall’individualismo, un universo  che ha perso ogni spazio sociale e collettivo in cui ritrovarsi e confrontarsi, in cui la fatica e il sacrificio sono visti come la condizione dello sfruttato neo – schiavile, non del lavoratore, anche perché il lavoratore riceve sempre meno diritti e meno rispetto e dunque ha sempre meno dignità.

Una società che coltiva il culto della ricchezza e che (auto)premia e (auto)celebra chi l’esibisce, che marginalizza e giudica negativamente chi da quella ricchezza è escluso.

Una società senza pietà, piena di un’arroganza diffusa e cattiva, che ha elevato l’esibizionismo della ricchezza e il disprezzo per chi non la possiede a massima espressione di giudizio verso le altre e gli altri.

Le ragazzine e i ragazzini delle periferie respirano questo clima tossico in cui l’avere è tutto e l’essere gli è totalmente subordinato.

Respirano la violenza del disprezzo che li marginalizza e a loro volta – come detto – hanno fatto proprio quel disprezzo al punto da riversarlo sui loro genitori, li osservano senza capirli, guardandoli schiacciati dalla fatica quotidiana, inginocchiati davanti all’arroganza e alla prepotenza degli abbienti.

I genitori tristi e sconfortati si interrogano mestamente su una società, quella occidentale, così violenta da aver distrutto qualsiasi valore, qualsiasi rispetto, qualsiasi affetto. Amano i loro figli, cercano di mostrare con il loro impegno quell’amore, ma appunto non sono capiti e non sono ricambiati, maturando indicibile interiore dolore.

È una società divaricata, del tutto frammentata e atomizzata, non vi è assolutamente alcun progetto per la costruzione di una città partecipata e condivisa, non esiste alcuna autentica volontà di una ricomposizione comunitaria.

È la deriva finale di una società priva di autentica empatia, di sincero interesse per il prossimo.

Ora il governo italiano vara leggi per la punibilità dei minorenni, aumenteranno i carcerati dei penitenziari minorili, un muro con le sbarre che terrà nascosta per un po’ una minuscola porzione del disagio sociale e giovanile.

Nulla più.

Milano assurge così a paradigma di un Occidente che esclude ed emargina, privo di prospettive, privo di un’autentica volontà di invertire la rotta, votato più o meno consapevolmente all’autodistruzione.

____

^[1]      Leggasi quanto già dettagliatamente spiegato in https://strategic-culture.su/news/2025/07/27/beppe-sala-sindaco-di-milano-inventore-della-post-modernita-neo-schiavile/

Die supranationale Institution in Brüssel, die den europäischen Staaten gut die Hälfte ihrer Souveränität in Außen- und Innenpolitik entzieht, ist einem Teil der national orientierten politischen Eliten schon lange ein Dorn im Auge. Insbesondere in den Geberländern, die gezwungen sind, mit ihren Beiträgen die maroden Volkswirtschaften im Süden und Osten Europas zu finanzieren – im Grunde riesige schwarze Löcher für das Geld der europäischen Steuerzahler.

Allerdings gelten anti-europäische, zentrifugale politische Strömungen in der Welt der siegreichen liberalen Demokratie längst als marginal. Einige Kritiker in Brüssel betrachten sie sogar als von außen inspirierte, von Feinde eines vereinten Europas – «Autokraten» wie Wladimir Putin, Xi Jinping und Donald Trump, der aktiv danach strebt, in ihren «antidemokratischen Kreis» aufgenommen zu werden.

Am vergangenen Mittwoch, dem 21. Oktober, stellte die Partei «Alternative für Deutschland» (AfD) Vorschläge für eine radikale Reform der Europäischen Union vor.

«Für mich ist die Europäische Union kein Zusammenschluss souveräner Staaten mehr», erklärte die Parteivorsitzende Alice Weidel auf Englisch während einer Pressekonferenz im Europäischen Parlament in Straßburg. Sie kritisierte, dass die nicht direkt gewählte Europäische Kommission die einzige Institution sei, die Gesetze vorschlagen könne, die in ganz Europa gelten.

Dies stelle einen «schwerwiegenden Verstoß gegen das System der gegenseitigen Kontrolle und den demokratischen Entscheidungsprozess» dar, so Weidel.

«Deshalb erklären wir, dass wir die Europäische Union umgestalten müssen, dass wir die Befugnisse an die nationalen Parlamente und Regierungen zurückgeben müssen», so Weidel.

Derzeit gilt in der EU folgender Grundsatz: Das zwischen den 27 Staaten abgestimmte EU-Recht hat Vorrang vor nationalem Recht.

Im Konzept der AfD heißt es: «Der Europäische Rat wird zum zentralen Entscheidungsgremium; die Staats- und Regierungschefs werden Fragen direkt erörtern und Entscheidungen treffen.»

Auf Forderung der AfD sollen die Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament abgeschafft werden, da dieses sich stattdessen aus Abgeordneten der nationalen Parlamente zusammensetzen soll. Der Europäische Gerichtshof soll lediglich als Schiedsgericht fungieren und nationales Recht soll Vorrang vor EU-Recht haben. Asylverfahren sollen in Drittländer verlagert werden und eine solidarische Verteilung von Asylsuchenden innerhalb der EU soll es nicht geben. Zudem wird betont, dass jegliche «LGBTQ+-Propaganda» aus Bildungseinrichtungen verbannt werden soll.

Als weiteren Kernpunkt der europäischen Politik der AfD nannte Weidel die Möglichkeit, aus europaweiten Abkommen auszutreten. Wenn der Schengen-Raum beispielsweise nicht funktioniere, müsse Deutschland aus ihm austreten und seine Grenzen schützen. Der Schengen-Raum ist ein Gebiet in Europa, in dem sich Menschen grundsätzlich ohne Grenzkontrollen bewegen können.

Dennoch hat Deutschland wieder Binnengrenzkontrollen eingeführt und auch andere Länder haben den Schengen-Raum eingeschränkt. Weidel kritisierte zudem den Kauf von Staatsanleihen durch die Europäische Zentralbank.

Zu den weiteren Vorschlägen der AfD gehören die Abschaffung des «Green Deal»“ und des Emissionshandels. Zur Energieerzeugung sollen wieder verstärkt Atomkraft, Gas und Kohle zum Einsatz kommen. In dem Dokument ist darüber hinaus von einer «grundlegenden Umgestaltung» des Euro-Systems aufgrund «struktureller Mängel» die Rede. So solle sich die Europäische Zentralbank (EZB) «strikt auf ihr ursprüngliches Mandat zur Gewährleistung der Preisstabilität beschränken» und Deutschlands Stimme im EZB-Rat solle mehr Gewicht erhalten.

Bereits im August hatte Weidel die Absicht ihrer Partei bekräftigt, im Falle eines Regierungsantritts aus der Eurozone auszutreten. Als Journalisten sie fragten, ob sie die im Parteiprogramm dargelegte Absicht bekräftige, in der EU und in der Eurozone zu bleiben, antwortete Weidel, dass in der Partei «offen darüber diskutiert und sogar gestritten wird, wie die beste Lösung für die Europäische Union aussehen sollte und welche Rolle Deutschland in der Europäischen Union spielen soll».

Um diese verschiedenen Initiativen voranzutreiben, müsse Deutschland bei der Verabschiedung des EU-Haushalts sein Vetorecht nutzen. Sollte die Umstrukturierung der EU nicht nach den Vorstellungen der Partei verlaufen, beabsichtigen die Politiker der AfD, ein Referendum über die EU-Mitgliedschaft Deutschlands abzuhalten. Dabei wird betont, dass die AfD die gesamteuropäischen Strukturen lediglich reformieren und ihre Arbeitsweise transparenter gestalten will, aber keineswegs zerstören will.

«Wir sind eine pro-europäische Partei. Wir sind auf Zusammenarbeit und einen konstruktiven Dialog ausgerichtet», betonte René Aust, Fraktionsvorsitzender der AfD im Europäischen Parlament. «Wir setzen uns für die Europäische Union ein, für ein Europa der Vaterländer, in dem die europäischen Staaten gleichberechtigt sind.»

Zwei Tage zuvor hatte sich Alice Weidel auf dem AfD-Parteitag in Leverkusen jedoch radikaler geäußert. Sie erklärte, das Konzept der AfD sei notwendig, um Europa zu «dekonstruieren», damit es nicht zu einem «unbeherrschbaren Monster im Stil der Sowjetunion» werde. Zu den weiteren radikalen Ideen Weidels, die in Brüssel nicht zur Sprache kamen, gehört ein massiver Personalabbau in den europäischen Verwaltungsstrukturen.

«Man könnte einfach 30.000 Beamte entlassen, und das würde niemandem auffallen», sagte Weidel.

Die gesamte Europäische Kommission zählt etwa 30.000 Beamte, in der gesamten EU sind es etwa 60.000. Die Initiative AfD entstand, nachdem die französische Präsidentschaftskandidatin Marine Le Pen erst kürzlich in Brüssel eine Pressekonferenz abgehalten und ähnliche Pläne verkündet hatte.

Dort erklärte sie, «Europa der Nationen» bedeute vor allem, dass die Europäische Kommission, die heute ständig ihre Befugnisse überschreite, wieder die Rolle eines «Sekretariats» im Dienste der Nationen übernehmen müsse und ihre Befugnisse an die Staats- und Regierungschefs zu übertragen seien. Le Pen fordert zudem, über den Haushalt Druck auf die europäischen Institutionen auszuüben, und beabsichtigt, den Beitrag Frankreichs zum EU-Haushalt auf €5 Milliarden zu senken.

Le Pens «Rassemblement National» und die AfD haben sich zerstritten und gehören nicht mehr derselben Fraktion im Europäischen Parlament an. In programmatischen Fragen haben sie jedoch nach wie vor viel gemeinsam.

Im Europäischen Parlament gehört die Partei «Alternative für Deutschland» der Fraktion «Europäische Souveräne Nationen» (ESN) an. Mit 27 von 719 Abgeordneten ist sie die kleinste Fraktion.