Our Friday News Analysis | What the World Reads Now!

You’ve brought to the world stage a disenfranchised America, a desperate silent majority, transcending race, gender, religion, and socioeconomic status. A single male earning $133,000 annually can barely make it in New York City. Even in rural America, a bag of groceries now costs a small fortune—America’s middle-class clocks in more hours than earlier generations to put less bread on the table.

Starting in January 2017, Americans want results and instant gratification. Can you perform? Will you deliver?

 

You can, together with a Republican Congress, repeal and ‘replace’ Obama Care. But can you overhaul the American healthcare system? Will you guarantee optimum health so that Americans remain fit to work, work, work? How will you renovate and rebuild America’s infrastructure, America’s hidden deficit – highways, airports, mass transit – to enable Americans to go and come home from work? What about education and retraining to make and keep America competitive? How can you motivate the American job creators to invest in America’s own, to improve and fortify the factors of production, to provide jobs – good paying jobs – for all Americans, especially for those on the bottom of the social ladder?

 

And finally, can you build bridges to bring America back together again?

 

With every good wish to you, Mr. Trump, and to members of your families and all the good people in America, I remain,

 

Sincerely,
BUILDING THE BRIDGE FOUNDATION, THE HAGUE

 

Abraham A. van Kempen

Sr. Editor

 

 

What is the Side of the Story that is Not Yet Decisive? Edited by Abraham A. van Kempen

 

 

EDITORIAL | The Pendulum Swings … Too Slow for Some, Too Fast for Others

 

I want to share a few thoughts I received from a handful of Democrats – Good Democrats.

 

               “It is time to focus locally, on our community, and show by example that the values we mourn still exist and have not been totally extinguished.”

 

I received these uplifting words:

 

               And,
               When you see me,
               Do not ask me
               “What do we do now?
               How do we get through the next four years?”

 

               Some of my Ancestors dealt with at least 400 years of this under worse conditions.

 

               Continue to do the good work.
               Continue to build bridges, not walls.
               Continue to lead with compassion.
               Continue the demanding work of liberation for all.
               Continue to dismantle broken systems, large and small.
               Continue to set the best example for the children.
               Continue to be a vessel of nourishing joy,

 

               Continue right where you are.
               Right where you live into your days.

 

               Do so in the name of the Creator, who Expects nothing less from each of us.

 

One of my friends – a Democrat, a Good Democrat – quoted Coretta Scott King: “Struggle is a never-ending process. Freedom is never really won. You earn it and win it in every generation.”

 

Another wrote: “The division in this country is disheartening. I feel defeated this morning, but I’m trying to find the silver lining. I haven’t seen it yet.”

 

I replied:

 

               When in a storm and the captain orders you to climb up the mast to untangle the ropes obstructing the sails, LOOK UP.

 

               Don’t look down. You might fall and drown.

 

               To quote President Lincoln: “Destroy your enemies by becoming friends.”

 

               The Sacred Texts suggest: “Dignify the other the way God dignifies you.”

 

               How do you love your enemies? Have NONE!

 

               I’m excited. Happy Days are here again.

 

               Why? There is more convergence than divergence – resilience – in this bright, colorful tapestry called America.

 

               We must all change for the better.

 

And now, back to work, catching up where I left off in 2017:

 

So, I wrote the letter above to the President-Elect on 9 November 2017. It was simultaneously published in the Times of Israel and on www.Buildingthebridgefoundation.com. On 26 January 2017, I wrote the President another letter excerpted below:

 

OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

 

The Hague, January 26, 2017

 

President Donald J. Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20500
The United States of America

Please Listen to the Good People of Israel – Palestine, Too

 

Open letter from Abraham A. van Kempen to Mr. Donald Trump, President of the USA

 

Dear Mr President,

Is Israel – Palestine worth a World War III? How would you respond, Mr President, to another East Aleppo, but this time in West Jerusalem or Tel Aviv? Would you have risked an Apocalypse, a world war, to rescue the people of East Aleppo, Tel Aviv?

 

Would you want a nuclear crater in your backyard for Aleppo, Tel Aviv?

 

Isn’t there a better approach to liberate all the people – the ‘good’ Jews, the ‘good’ Palestinians (32% Christian), the ‘good’ Arabs, and the ‘good but lost’ Evangelical Christian Right – from the claws of the Neo-Zionists? Though ‘cultural Jews’, many Neo-Zionists are atheists, not Jewish. Their godless faith is in canons of deception, destruction, and decadence. They sing the praises of greed and self-indulgence. Neo-Zionism (hell on earth) is not the same as biblical Zionism (heaven on earth).

 

Because they have been outcasts for millennia as socio-economic underdogs, Neo-Zionists surpass their former oppressors by perpetrating an ideology of ethnic cleansing and external expansion by abandoning democratic norms in pursuit of redemptive violence against anyone who stands in their way without ethical or legal restraints, equipped with lethal modern warfare; under the pretense of defense. Is Neo-Zionism worthy of another world war? They have already lost the war in the World Court of Public Opinion.

 

The Russian Federation in Concert with the European Union and NATO …

Mr. Trump, this might work. I know it’s like pulling teeth, getting the European Union and the Russian Federation to work with each other. Yes, I have asked President Putin if he would consider joining the European Union and NATO in a Consortium to support the Arab League in bolstering the dialogue between the people of Israel and Palestine to orchestrate reconciliation. And are you ready for this? I want Iran to work together with Saudi Arabia as well. Why not?

 

Why shouldn’t we try to kill three birds with one stone? 1) Peace between the Israelis – and Palestinians! 2) Peace between Saudi Arabia and Iran (and everyone else in the greater region)! 3) Peace, once and for all, between the Russian Federation and the European Union! I’d rather do something great and fail than succeed in doing nothing.

…

Revealed as a dark side of Judaism, Neo-Zionism rules and dominates the Israeli zeitgeist, beguiling and chaining many Jews into believing in something they are not. This aberration ruptures civility in Israel-Palestine. Neo-Zionism has split many Jewish families apart. Worse, Neo-Zionists, while waving the banner of Holy Goodness in the glare of world television, torment and inter the indigenous Palestinian Arabs into concentrated encampments to live a hell on earth. Without the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there would be an internal Israeli conflict that inevitably could unglue their social fabric, now fragilely held intact by the fear-mongering against a common enemy. Peace could bust the socio-cultural seams between the secular, the national-religious, and the Orthodox; between the old Ashkenazi community, the Oriental Jews, and the Sephardic Community; between the immigrants from the former Soviet Union and Ethiopia; between the Neo-Zionists (hell on earth) and the actual ‘Zionists’ (heaven on earth); and could further alienate the Israeli-Arab citizens, whose separation from the rest is increasing. Socially, Israel is unstable. It is even worse economically. In Israel, the disparity between rich and poor, so underreported, is reprehensible.

…

The question is: Are you waiting on God to make peace, or is God waiting on you and the rest of humanity?

 

Continue Reading …

 

 

TRUMP’S 2024 VICTORY AND THE DECLINE OF LIBERAL HEGEMONY: “UNBURDENED BY WHAT HAS BEEN”

 

Trump is a wild card, and the world is undergoing immense transformation.

 

 

By Professor Glenn Diesen
University of South-Eastern Norway (USN)
Substack.com
7 November 2024

 

Trump's election victory should not have been a surprise. The era of liberal hegemony has already ended, and a correction is long overdue. Liberal hegemony is no longer liberal, and it is exhausted. Trump is often denounced for being transactional, yet the de-ideologization of America and return to pragmatism are precisely what the country needs.

 

Change or Preserve the Unsustainable Status-Quo?

 

The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, which placed incumbent Harris in an unfavorable position. As Vice President, Harris could not effectively distance herself from President Biden’s policies, which meant that she had to own the failures of the past four years. The message of “turning the page” did not resonate, and the empty – though well-intended – slogan of “joy” only underpinned her detachment from Americans' growing concerns.

 

The borders have been wide open. Media freedom is in decline. The government’s overreach is growing; US industries are no longer competitive, the national debt is out of control, social problems and culture wars are going from bad to worse, the political climate becomes increasingly divisive, the US military is overstretched, the global majority rejects Washington’s simplistic and dangerous heuristics of dividing the world into liberal democracy versus authoritarianism; the US is complicit in genocide in Palestine and is heading towards nuclear war with Russia.

 

Who would vote for four more years when the status quo entails driving off a cliff? It is an excellent time to be in opposition and offer change. Being a populist with a bombastic demeanor, seemingly immune to consequences from breaking social norms, is a good feature when breaking free from decades-old ideological dogmas that constrain necessary pragmatism.

 

Neoliberalism Exhausted the US

 

“Make America Great Again” is likely a reference to 1973, when the US peaked and has since declined. Under the neoliberal consensus, society became an appendage to the market, and politicians became impotent in delivering the change demanded by the public. The political Left could not redistribute wealth, and the political Right could not defend traditional values and communities. Globalization gave birth to a political class loyal to international capital without national loyalties, and accountability to the public disappeared. Globalization often contradicts democracy, and there is a growing division between illiberal democracy and undemocratic liberalism.

 

A key lesson from the American System in the early 19th century was that industrialization and subsequent economic sovereignty are necessary for national sovereignty. Tariffs and temporary subsidies are essential for infant industries to develop maturity, and fair trade is thus often preferable to free trade. Trump’s tariffs to re-industrialize and advance technological sovereignty are noble ambitions that even the Biden administration attempted to emulate. However, Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and the economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it undermines the US economy. The excesses of Trump’s tariffs and economic coercion derive from the effort to break China and restore US global primacy. If the US can accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, it could embrace a more moderate economic nationalism that would have a more fantastic prospect of succeeding.

 

Trump’s Vice President, J.D. Vance, correctly noted the US's self-defeating moralizing:

 

               “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring, moralizing, and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people.”

 

It is a good time for pragmatism to triumph over ideology.

 

Critics of Trump are correct to point out the paradox of a billionaire claiming to represent the people against a detached globalized elite. Sitting in flashy buildings with his name on the side in large golden letters, Trump has nonetheless represented the American workers by calling for re-industrialization. Raised in the excesses and hedonism of America’s cultural elites, Trump calls for preserving America’s traditional values and culture. Is Trump a savior? Probably not. But policies are more important than personalities, and Trump is kicking open a door that was seemingly closed by liberal ideology.

 

An End to Liberal Crusades – Including Ending the Ukraine Proxy War

 

Trump’s appeal to end the forever wars resulted in invaluable support from former democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy, and Elon Musk. The liberal crusades over the past three decades fuel unsustainable debt. They finance the deep state (the blob), alienate the US across the world, and incentivize the other great powers to balance the US collectively. The forever wars are costly mistakes that never end well. However, the US could absorb these costs during the unipolar era without real opponents. The US must scale back its military adventurism in a multipolar system and learn how to prioritize foreign policy objectives.

 

It is not unreasonable to argue that preserving the empire in its current format could cost the US its republic. Trump is not in favor of dismantling the empire, but as a transactional pragmatist, he would like a better return on investment. He believes allies should pay for protection, regional arrangements such as the former NAFTA and TPP that transfer productive power to allies are rejected, and adversaries should be engaged to the extent it serves US national interests. Trump is condemned for befriending dictators, yet this is surely preferable to the so-called “liberal” diplomats who no longer believe in diplomacy as it is feared to “legitimize” adversaries.

 

Trump would like to put an end to the proxy war in Ukraine as it is very costly in terms of both blood and treasure. Besides, the war has already been lost. The liberal crusaders never defined a victory against the world’s most eminent nuclear power that believes it is fighting for its survival. Washington’s elites have repeatedly stated it is a good war as Ukrainian soldiers are dying rather than American soldiers. Thus, it is difficult to morally shame Trump when his main argument is that the killing must stop.

 

The liberal crusaders in Washington also frequently argue that the strategic objective of the proxy war was to knock out Russia from the ranks of great powers so the US could focus its resources on containing China. Instead, the war has strengthened Russia and pushed it further into the arms of China. A humanitarian disaster is taking place, and the world is pushed to the brink of nuclear war. The economic coercion, including the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds, has triggered the global majority to de-dollarize and develop alternative payment systems. Trump is hardly innocent, as he started the economic war against China. However, without ideological constraints, there may be room for course correction as he noted that the weaponization of the dollar threatens the foundation of US superpower status. Yet again, pragmatism can triumph over ideology.

 

Will Trump be successful? He will certainly not end the war in 24 hours. Trump has the tools to influence Ukraine as the US is financing the war and arming Ukraine. However, Trump’s maximum pressure is unlikely to work against Russia as it considers this to be a war of survival, and the political West has broken nearly all agreements. Trump withdrew from strategic arms control treaties and armed Ukraine, which contributed to triggering the war.

 

Russia will demand an end to NATO expansion under the Istanbul agreement, plus territorial concessions as a result of almost three years of war. Trump has previously signaled the willingness to end NATO expansionism, which could lay the foundation for a broader European security agreement. The conflicts between the West and Russia derive from the failure to establish a mutually acceptable settlement after the Cold War. The West instead began expanding NATO and thus revived the zero-sum bloc politics of the Cold War, and there have ever since been conflicts with Russia over where to draw the new militarized dividing lines.

 

Concerning Israel, there is an obvious exception to Trump’s aversion to war. Trump, Vance, Musk, Gabbard, and Kennedy are all reluctant to take a hard line against the genocide in Palestine or even criticize Israel. Trump will likely continue to offer unconditional support for Israel and take a hostile stance against Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen, and Iran. Pragmatism and “America First” will likely be lacking in this part of the world.

 

Panic Across the Liberal Empire

 

The opponents of Trump demonstrate a remarkable difficulty in articulating the case for Trump. Even if they knew why people voted for him, they would feel morally compelled to refrain from articulating the reasons for fear of “legitimizing” his policies with understanding. The inability to communicate an adversary's position is a good indication of being propagandized. Have we been exposed to propaganda? There is a tendency for ideological fundamentalists to present the world as a struggle between good and evil, in which mutual understanding and pragmatism are demonized as a betrayal of sacred values.

 

Unscrupulous – unprincipled – media also cause panic and confusion. The media broadcast almost exclusively negative coverage of Trump, while Harris can do no wrong. Trump did not win despite the blinkered media coverage but because of it. Populists claim to be the actual representatives of the people who will defend them against a detached and corrupt elite. Therefore, the animosity towards Trump and his supporters was worn as a badge of honor. The political media elites used the judiciary system against the political opposition during the election cycle. They impeached Trump twice and tried him as a private citizen, and they attempted to remove Trump from 16 state ballots.

 

Trust in the media is not an advantage when it is not trustworthy. The Russiagate hoax from the 2016 election has been exposed as a fraud, and the media censored the Hunter Biden laptop story from the 2020 election under the false pretense of being “Russian propaganda.” During the 2024 election, the removal of Biden was essentially a non-issue. The undemocratic selection of Harris was ignored, and the media instead staged her as a rockstar, sidelining her failures of the previous four years. The first assassination attempt against Trump went down the memory hole with remarkable haste, while most people are likely unaware that there was a second assassination attempt. Media stories, such as Trump threatening Liz Cheney with a firing squad, were so desperate and dishonest that they had the opposite effect. The liberal machine, represented by an obedient media and Hollywood elites, ran out of steam.

 

Europe was in a panic as it lost its ally in the White House and thus feared the future of the liberal international order. Yet, the liberal international order is already gone, and an ideological Europe is suffering from Stockholm syndrome. Biden is complicit in genocide in Palestine. He attacked Europe’s critical energy infrastructure, lured European industries to relocate to the US under the Inflation Reduction Act, brought major war to Europe by provoking a proxy war in Ukraine and sabotaging the peace negotiations in Istanbul, and intensified censorship around the world, and pressures the Europeans to reduce economic connectivity with China. After years of aspiring for strategic autonomy and de-vassalisation, the Europeans have subordinated themselves and accepted diminishing relevance in the world. The European political-media elites present Trump as the new Hitler, yet are in a great hurry to subordinate themselves economically, militarily, and politically to the US. The Europeans also worry that a similar leadership crisis has come to their continent. Political elites committed to liberal hegemony have neglected national interests and will be swept away in the years to come.

 

How will it all end?

 

The second Trump presidency will be different from the first term. The first Trump presidency was constrained as the Democrats essentially contested the election results in 2016 by denouncing him as an illegitimate leader who had been placed in the White House by the Kremlin. The RussiaGate hoax has since been exposed, and Trump even won the popular vote by five million votes, giving him a decisive mandate to pursue his agenda. Furthermore, Trump, the first Trump government, was infiltrated by neocons as he was dismissed as too radical. Over the past eight years, a powerful MAGA movement has emerged that also consists of former Democrats.

 

One should look into the crystal ball carefully and make predictions, especially with Trump. Professor Richard Rorty predicted in 1998 that the excesses of liberalism and globalization would eventually be met with a fierce correction:

 

               “Members of labor unions, and unorganized and unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not trying to prevent wages from sinking or jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—will not let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack.

 

               The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots…

 

               Once the strongman takes office, no one can predict what will happen”.^[1]

 

Trump has identified many problems plaguing the US and the world, although he may still need the answers. He will make many mistakes, and his maximum pressure approach from business is not transferrable to international politics. After decades of criminalizing opposition to liberal hegemony, it should not have been a surprise that a “strongman” would be elected to break it.

 

Trump is a wild card, and the world is undergoing immense transformation. To quote Rorty, “No one can predict what will happen.”

________________________________________

 

[1] Rorty, R 1998. Achieving our country: Leftist thought in twentieth-century America, Harvard University Press.

 

 

AFTER BIDEN

 

Will Trump break with the president's disastrous foreign policy?

 

The New York Post displayed in the window of a newsstand inside of Trump Tower in New York City this morning. / Photo by David Dee Delgado/AFP via Getty Images.

 

By Seymour Hersh

Substack.com
6 November 2024

 

It wasn’t close.

 

Americans once again rejected a flawed female Democratic candidate in favor of Donald Trump, who comes to office with grievances and revenge on his mind, along with a welcome determination to end the war in Ukraine and a far less welcome commitment to continue the Biden policy of unfettered support for the murderous Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

 

Here are some day-after thoughts about an election I thought in my dotage that Trump would not win, mainly because his campaign gave no sign of any regrets for his abysmal response to his defeat by Joe Biden four years ago.

 

There are lots of lessons here. First, Barack Obama continued a lousy precedent by picking a weak vice president after winning the primaries in 2008. Biden was considered by some of his peers in the Senate as a vain and lazy second-rater: a weak vice presidential choice who was publicly loyal but increasingly resentful of what he saw as Obama’s dismissive attitude toward him. Once elected to the presidency in 2020, he replayed the Obama mantra by selecting a vice president who posed no political threat. Kamala Harris, in turn, did the same by picking a political novice who added little to her campaign and, if elected, would be, at best, a White House liaison to high school football and America’s heartland.

 

Harris, in turn, could not separate from an increasingly impaired Biden during her campaign. In a perfect world, the press would have been raising questions for months about Biden’s obvious growing impairment and what was a long-standing cover-up by senior presidential aides, including Harris, until his floundering debate with Trump last June.

 

I have consistently criticized Biden’s foreign policy, as articulated by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan. All three shared a Cold War-style hostility toward Vladimir Putin, the autocratic leader of Russia who made it clear after Biden’s election that he would go to war if the United States supported Ukraine’s entry into NATO. As all in the West know, that was not on the table, essentially because of the staggering level of corruption in the government now run by President Volodymyr Zelensky.

 

Instead of assuring Putin that Ukraine was not going to be invited into NATO—it still has not been—Biden had his national security minions play hardball. To his discredit, Putin took the bait and invaded. It is a murderous war now in its third year. It has become apox on all sides.

 

There has been nothing in Trump’s public comments that suggests he will deviate from Joe Biden’s consistent support of Israel and Netanyahu’s bloody war in Gaza. Given many chances to separate herself from the president’s policy, Harris spoke lamely about a need for a ceasefire that, as it has increasingly become clear, has never been in the cards with Netanyahu in office.

 

One factor in Harris’s reluctance to take a stand against the slaughter in Gaza was the flow of Jewish campaign funds: her campaign raised far more cash than Trump, perhaps more than any presidential candidate in history. It also was evident that she had no real point of view—or compassion—about the morality of Israel’s continuing slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.

 

Trump does have a point of view, and it is an alarming one to those who care about bringing an end to the bloodshed in Gaza and eventually reaching peace in the Middle East. He has said little about Gaza in the campaign and ignored the recent Israeli bombing attacks in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. In his debate with Biden in June, Trump gave a chaotic and uniform answer when asked about that war. “As far as Israel and Hamas,” he said, “Israel’s the one that wants to go. He [Biden] said the only ones who want to keep going is Hamas. Israel is the one. And it would be best if you let [them] go and let them finish the job. He doesn’t want to do it. He’s become like a Palestinian. But they [the Palestinians] don’t like him because he’s an evil Palestinian. He’s a weak man.”

 

The level of discourse did not improve in the September 10 debate Trump had with Harris. “She hates Israel,” he said of his opponent when the moderators brought up the ongoing Gaza war. “She wouldn’t even meet with Netanyahu when he went to Congress [in July] to make a critical speech. She refused to be there because she was at a sorority party. She wanted to go to the sorority party. She hates Israel. If she’s president, I believe Israel will not exist within two years from now. And I’ve been pretty good with predictions.”

 

 

WILL THE COMING ELECTION MAKE OR BREAK AMERICA?

 

The 2024 presidential contest carries apocalyptic potential for the US, as tensions threaten to split the nation.

 

FILE PHOTO. Pro-Trump (R) and anti-Trump demonstrators argue at the Michigan state capitol in Lansing, Michigan. © John Moore/Getty Images

 

By Constantin von Hoffmeister, a political and cultural commenter from Germany, author of the book ‘Esoteric Trumpism,’ and editor-in-chief of Arktos Publishing

HomeWorld News
3 November 2024

 

As the 2024 US election nears, tension is rising across the nation, fueling fears that the American republic is at stake.

 

For some, this election presents the risk of a final fracture, where states weary of federal overreach might assert their autonomy and challenge Washington’s hold. Supporters of a more decentralized America argue that a return to local governance could strengthen the republic. At the same time, critics warn it may signal the beginning of a dissolution of that which once bound the states by family ties and shared purpose. With the world watching, the election's outcome may determine whether America endures as a unified power or breaks into a mosaic of rival territories, each proclaiming its justice.

 

Many foresee an era of upheaval that may bring the nation closer to collapse than ever before. The election, many argue, could serve as a sword dividing the states, slashing the bonds of unity that held them through trials and bloodshed. With each campaign promise and counterattack, a wave of mistrust washes ashore, feeding a monster lurking since the nation’s founding. Dread grows that strong states like Texas may finally cast off the federal chains, carving paths as sovereign lands should they sense betrayal from a distant capital.

 

Some voices call for the wisdom of disaggregated administration, suggesting that strength lies not in a vast, singular realm but in federated regions, united only by a loose pact. For these, the nation’s greatness could thrive in a non-monolithic structure that allows each area to wield its power and champion its distinct traditions. They see this as a way to preserve the land’s beauty, avoiding the stain of forced conformity and letting each region flourish like a proud kingdom. But others see this as the beginning of the end, a shattering of the once-mighty republic, a descent into fractious states wary of neighbors and embittered by ancient rivalries.

 

Across the oceans, foes of the republic watch with a glint in their eyes, sensing the scent of weakness. Once ordered by America’s hand, the world could see new realms emerge as pillars of a power shift. With America splintered, vast civilizations unshackled from Western influence could grow bold, forging a world of their design. In the tumultuous aftermath of this election, new alliances could take shape, established on ancient principles that defy the siren song of democracy. It is a prophecy of an order led not by one people but by many, each distinct, each following the call of its land and heritage.

 

Read more
Why Donald Trump is a mystical figure of historic proportions

 

Trump’s significance lies not in the man but in the archetype he embodies. The rise of such Caesarian leaders does not promise material success; their triumph is symbolic, not in policies but in their rebellion against a senile and rabid world order. Trumpism, even as Trump’s influence fades, will persist as a movement that channels the existential fears of civilization in freefall, longing for a return to integrity and self-expression. The power of the archetype lies in its resonance with people alienated by the deep state – Trump articulates their despair, even though his achievements remain modest. His role is to act as the last expression of Western vitality, not to reverse the downward spiral but to embody the final brave spirit of a people grasping for survival in a world disintegrating into frenzied insanity. Spengler leaves no room for optimism about the material success of such figures. Yet, the archetype persists, drawing strength from the same impulses that heralded the end of the West’s historical cycle.
_________________________

 

For the republic itself, dark forebodings abound. Some warn that unchecked discord could rend the union asunder, casting the states as enemies sworn to conquer one another, much as old kingdoms clashed on blood-soaked fields. Political battles, once confined to speeches and votes, may soon take the form of steel and fire, with regions seeking dominance or defense of their way of life. In such a landscape, the banners of free states could be raised high, each upholding its own “God-given” reign, even as they march against one another.

 

Some say that liberal values, driven to extremes, have weakened the vigor of the republic, depleting the core with the illusion of individualism over communal dignity. They argue that when men forget the tribe and the people and live only for themselves, they are lone wolves, vulnerable to the claws of more ferocious beasts. These arguments paint a grim future where tested ideals have decayed, leaving citizens as shadows of the proud warriors who built the land with iron will. Should this election accelerate such decomposition, it may be the final blow to a society weakened by division and abandoned traditions.

 

To some, the only salvation lies in dialogue, a rare form of peace wrought not by force but by mutual respect among the states. If the republic can harness this path, honestly bringing every voice to the table, it might survive. Without it, a hollow republic could become prey to darker powers as citizens grow weary of leaders and whisper, in longing, the names of past heroes who once held honor above ambition. They foresee a world where democracy becomes a fleeting memory, like a dying star once bright in the sky, now receding from view.

In the heart of this storm, some claim that if bonds are not reforged, each faction will see the other as a foe to defeat. They remember tales of ancient kings and emperors, warriors whose realms fell not to the might of foreign swords but to the poison of betrayal and brotherhood turned bitter. This vision warns that as factions fortify against each other, the spirit of the republic might die long before the final blow, leaving behind only the empty shell of a once-great land.

 

Should such a schism be realized, new powers may take the helm, casting the people into a hierarchy led by the prestige of one’s birthright. Each state and faction would gain in strength, bound not by ideals of freedom but by ancestral pride and the desire for dominion. In this world, the republic would be forgotten, its former glories dust beneath the boots of those who know no allegiance but to their blood and soil.

 

Thus, the republic stands at the edge of an active volcano. The 2024 election looms as the next swing of fate’s blade, one that may either sever its fragile ties or bind them anew through struggle and ordeal. For some, the days ahead promise the dawn of a new configuration, where each region’s strength is respected and honored; for others, it spells the doom of all they hold dear, the end of a union born in blood and bound by oaths spoken over ancient, hallowed ground. Whether it is peace or war, the coming era promises a reckoning that will shape the land as undoubtedly as any conqueror’s sword.

 

 

THE U.S. IS AT A CROSSROADS AFTER TRUMP’S RETURN

 

The 2024 presidential election was more than just a setback for the Democrats. It exposed the entrenched racism of the country's myopic political elite, which features bipartisan moral blindness toward injustice abroad, notably the genocide in Gaza.

 

President Donald J. Trump Addresses His Remarks During a D-Day National Commemorative Event Wednesday, June 5, 2019, at the Southsea Common in Portsmouth, England. (Official White House Photo By Shealah Craighead)

 

By Ziyad Motala
Mondoweiss.org
November 6, 2024

 

The aftermath of the 2024 presidential election—marked by Donald Trump’s second-term victory over Kamala Harris—reveals more than a setback for the Democratic Party. It exposes a deep-seated failure within American political culture, shattering the enduring myth of the United States as a “shining city on a hill.” This electoral outcome underscores America’s entrenched racism, the myopia of its political elite, and a bipartisan moral blindness that tolerates unspeakable injustices abroad, notably the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Any pretense of enlightened democratic values now flickers dimly, suffocated by hypocrisy and decay.

 

The Democratic Party’s inability to present a credible alternative to Trump is nothing short of catastrophic. For too long, they relied on Joe Biden, whose visible cognitive decline and age created unease, even among his supporters. When faced with a former president whose tenure was marked by division and authoritarian impulses, one might expect a formidable challenger. Instead, the party clung to an uninspired succession plan, elevating Kamala Harris by default rather than by popular appeal or genuine momentum. This failure highlights the increasing influence of moneyed interests in the party, where policy innovation and moral leadership are too often sacrificed for campaign dollars and corporate endorsements. The result? A party that views voter loyalty as a given rather than something earned through bold and meaningful leadership.

 

Harris’s campaign lacked resonance for many Americans, offering little beyond a continuation of the Biden administration and a reliance on identity politics rather than a transformative vision. Her historic status as a woman of color on a major ticket was significant, but it was never sufficient to inspire confidence. Without the charisma or policy depth to engage an electorate disillusioned by an economy that failed to meet their needs, Harris became symbolic of the Democratic Party’s growing detachment from the American public. Where was the decisive leadership required to counter Trump’s populist momentum? Instead of energizing voters with new ideas, the party delivered a predictable, cautious platform that failed to connect with an electorate burdened by economic anxiety and cultural disillusionment.

 

Adding to this disillusionment is the Democratic Party’s tacit acceptance of endless military spending, which many Americans see as emblematic of a system that prioritizes global conflicts over domestic needs. There are growing numbers in the U.S. who are disillusioned by the trillions of dollars spent in endless wars—whether in Ukraine, Palestine or maintaining military bases around the world—enriching the military-industrial complex. At the same time, millions experience poverty, homelessness, inflation, student debt, and collapsing infrastructure. Money is readily available to fund the war in Ukraine and to aid Israel, yet securing funds to assist people experiencing poverty or repair America’s decaying infrastructure remains a near impossibility. This disconnect between spending priorities and the pressing needs of American citizens only deepened the distrust and alienation even though Trump offered no solutions to these pressing problems.

 

Trump’s re-election is not an outlier but a searing indictment of the American electorate. His return to office demonstrates an America willing to endorse the ugliest aspects of its character—resurgent nativism, casual xenophobia, and an appeal to authoritarianism that flouts democratic principles. Trump’s victory is not just a political statement but a cultural one, affirming the darkest impulses in American society, rooted in a longstanding cultural and racial rot that has plagued unchecked.

 

This decay is partly fueled by an education system and socialization that extol a false consciousness of American exceptionalism. Generations of Americans have been taught to view the U.S. as a model democracy while remaining insulated from the truth of its historical and ongoing injustices. This myth has bred a form of willful ignorance that blinds voters to the deeper issues plaguing the nation and primes them to support leaders like Trump—figures who offer no real solutions to pressing problems but skillfully exploit this distorted patriotism.

 

An even more profound moral crisis overshadows Trump’s victory: the bipartisan collaboration in supporting Israel’s actions in Gaza. This stance has alienated progressives and severely damaged America’s moral standing worldwide.

 

For decades, leaders from both major parties have perpetuated the myth of Israel as a democratic ally, even as it enacts policies that systematically dispossess and oppress Palestinians. Here lies a glaring contradiction: the United States, self-styled as the global defender of human rights, remains complicit in actions that blatantly violate these very principles, cloaking its endorsement in the guise of “democratic solidarity.”

 

This hypocrisy is as brazen as it is corrosive, exposing the rot at the heart of U.S. foreign policy. By championing a rhetoric of freedom while enabling the subjugation of an entire people, American leaders have chosen political expediency over moral integrity. Those few voices within the Democratic Party who dared to challenge this stance were marginalized, leaving progressives and ordinary citizens alike disillusioned and disheartened.

 

Trump’s re-election exposes the hollowness of the American mythos as a “shining city on a hill.” This image, cherished in American rhetoric, has always been more illusion than reality—now shattered by historical injustices, deepening racial divides, and a foreign policy marred by contradiction. How can a country that elects a leader with contempt for democratic norms and a taste for autocratic allies claim moral leadership on the global stage?

 

Trump’s second term should compel the liberal establishment to confront its hypocrisy: a nation that professes democratic ideals yet discards them when they prove inconvenient, both at home and abroad. The rhetoric of freedom now rings hollow against the backdrop of stark inequities, deep-seated racial biases, and a bipartisan disregard for international law. The illusion of American moral superiority no longer withstands global scrutiny; instead, the U.S. must face an uncomfortable truth—it has repeatedly fallen short of its supposed principles, nurturing authoritarian impulses domestically while supporting oppression overseas.

 

The Democratic Party’s failures are not merely tactical; they reveal a profound disconnect from the electorate. Cloistered in the corridors of Washington, D.C., Democratic leaders presumed that moral posturing and progressive rhetoric would suffice. They failed to grasp that many Americans felt abandoned by a party more committed to platitudes than addressing genuine grievances.

 

While the party’s platform superficially addressed social justice issues, it neglected to tackle economic anxiety and social instability—leaving a void Trump readily exploited. Identity politics, though valuable, cannot substitute for a vision of structural change, especially in a nation as divided as the U.S. Yet even more egregious is the party’s implicit support of Israel’s abuses. This stance has alienated progressives and deepened the Democratic Party’s moral crisis.

 

Progressive voters were left politically adrift, feeling abandoned by a Democratic Party that sidelined transformative policies under Harris's candidacy to favor a tepid, centrist approach—a disastrously ineffective strategy. Many progressives grew disillusioned with a platform devoid of bold commitments on healthcare, climate change, and economic justice. The absence of genuine vision led some voters to either abstain from the election or turn toward third-party alternatives, underscoring the chasm between the party’s establishment and the priorities of its grassroots.

 

The Democratic establishment’s lack of moral courage on Israel’s human rights violations further estranged the left, leaving many progressives unable to support a platform they saw as morally compromised. In clinging to the status quo, the party undermined the coalition that could have secured its victory.

 

Trump’s victory represents more than a political comeback; it is a sobering warning. America has chosen a leader who embodies some of its most troubling traits—a figurehead of racial hatred, disregard for democratic norms, and populist anti-intellectualism. Yet beyond Trump’s allure, this election reveals a nation struggling with its unaddressed failings and an elite dangerously out of touch with the widening chasm between its rhetoric and the lived realities of ordinary citizens. Domestically and on the world stage, this disconnect signals an urgent need to reconcile American ideals with its actions, especially in foreign policy, where America’s image as a moral leader has eroded.

 

The unrestrained influence of money in politics, coupled with a deficient education system that perpetuates myths of American exceptionalism, has stymied critical engagement with these deep-seated issues. The political elites seem incapable of confronting these domestic and international hypocrisies. Acknowledging and rectifying the complicity in Israel’s treatment of Palestinians would be a start. Only by aligning its actions with its professed values can the U.S. hope to achieve some semblance of integrity. Until then, the myth of the “shining city on a hill” will continue to erode, leaving a more accurate image: a nation ensnared in moral contradictions, searching for its proper role on the world stage.

 

 

CAN TRUMP END THE UKRAINE CONFLICT ‘IN 24 HOURS’?

 

It’s hard to see how anybody could square such a complicated circle in such a short amount of time.

 

FILE PHOTO. © AP Photo/Julia Demaree Nikhinson

 

By Mikhail Khodarenok, military commentator and retired colonel who served as an officer at the main operational directorate of the Russian Armed Forces' general staff.

HomeRussia & FSU
7 November 2024

 

The US presidential election is over, and the final results are being tallied. Republican Donald Trump has already been declared the winner. From a Russian point of view, the main questions are how Ukraine’s military-technical cooperation with the new White House administration will develop and what Trump’s victory will mean for Moscow and Kyiv.

 

Campaign promises

 

During the election campaign, the president-elect repeatedly stated that if he won, he would be able to end the conflict in Ukraine before his official inauguration on January 20, promising to do so in just 24 hours.

 

Such statements can most likely be attributed to pre-election rhetoric, but Trump has been known to make unorthodox statements.

 

In February 2019, for example, he loudly promised to ‘solve the problem’ with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un. However, the overall outcome of the meeting between Trump and Kim in Hanoi was that the parties could not agree. This means that the Republican has no successful experience resolving complicated geopolitical issues.

 

As for the promise to end the conflict in Ukraine before he officially takes office, details still need to be given on how he will implement his plan.

 

Read more
Here’s why Trump won the election and what he may do now.

 

It also needs to be clarified how it could be implemented shortly. After all, until noon on January 20, Trump will have no power, especially in foreign policy. Until then, Joe Biden will remain president.

 

The 47th president will have to take office and officially form a team. Only then can he begin to implement his plans. There cannot be two governments in Washington with directly opposing views. And there is no danger of dual power in the US in this respect.

 

Under what conditions could the Ukraine conflict end?

 

Now, we will look at the prospects for ending the armed conflict in Ukraine. It is possible to end it. The question is under what conditions and who will be declared the winner. At this stage, the collective West (and Trump is an unconditional and organic part of it) is not at all comfortable with concluding the hostilities on the terms of Russian President Vladimir Putin: for example, Kyiv’s non-aligned status, Russia’s retention of control over our new regions, and the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine.

 

This would mean, at the very least, a political defeat for the US and its allies in the Ukraine conflict. In other words, everything Washington and Brussels have done so far has been in vain and has yet to have a military-political effect. There is no reason to believe the new US administration will follow this path. The humiliation in Afghanistan could damage Washington’s prestige in foreign policy.

 

If Trump wants to end the conflict in Ukraine, then (this is, of course, an assumption) he must frame the situation so that Russia has not won the conflict (despite Moscow’s undoubted territorial gains). Ukraine has not lost—it has defended its independence and sovereignty.

 

Read more
Trump’s win is a victory for the non-brainwashed Americans.

 

In this matter, it is essential for the West that Kyiv be the first to declare its desire to end the armed conflict on such terms so that it is not a purely Western initiative. The near future will show whether Trump can resolve these existing contradictions in such an efficient way. Thus, the West has not lost, Russia has not won, and Ukraine has not been defeated. Of course, it will not happen in 24 hours, even with the most incredible imagination.

 

The future president of the US undoubtedly has economic and military leverage over the situation. The new White House administration can put pressure on Moscow (by further increasing the pressure of sanctions; there is still room for such measures) and can make Kyiv almost hopeless by sharply reducing the volume of weapons and military equipment supplies.

 

In other words, the White House has options (not a complete list) to increase the pain for the parties to the conflict.

 

The main question is whether Moscow will agree to such proposals and whether, in the time remaining before January 20, the Kremlin will not stick to the policy of fait accompli, i.e., direct victories on the battlefield, to orientate the situation even more in its favor.

 

This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team.

 

 

BUILDING THE BRIDGE! | A WAY TO GET TO KNOW THE OTHER AND ONE ANOTHER

 

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

 

Photo Credit: Abraham A. van Kempen, our home away from home on the Dead Sea

 

By Abraham A. van Kempen
Senior Editor
Updated 19 January 2024

Those who commit to 'healing our broken humanity' build intercultural bridges to learn to know and understand one another and others. Readers who thumb through the Building the Bridge (BTB) pages are not mindless sheep following other mindless sheep. They THINK. They want to be at the forefront of making a difference. They're in search of the bigger picture to expand their horizons. They don't need BTB or anyone else to confirm their biases.

Making a Difference – The Means, Methods, and Mechanism for Many to Move Mountains

Accurate knowledge promotes understanding, dispels prejudice, and awakens the desire to learn more. Words have an extraordinary power to bring people together, divide them, forge bonds of friendship, or provoke hostility. Modern technology offers unprecedented possibilities for good, fostering harmony and reconciliation. Yet its misuse can do untold harm, leading to misunderstanding, prejudice, and conflict.

 

Continue reading

 

A Free Trial for Life – SUBSCRIBE NOW!

• It's quick and straightforward.

• We won’t ask for your credit card number.

• Just enter your e-mail address to receive your complimentary free-for-life subscription to our newsletter.

• Please include your First and Last Name.

• We won’t share or sell your e-mail address.

_________________________

 

Related Articles Recently Posted on www.buildingthebridgefoundation.com:

 

OUR FRIDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR WEDNESDAY NEWS ANALYSIS

OUR MONDAY EDITION

________________________

 

The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of the Building the Bridge Foun