Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Liberal democratici. I rantoli di superba rabbia impotente. – Cnn.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-26.

Durer Albrecht. Quattro cavallieri dell'Apocalisse. 1498.

«Nullo martiro, fuor che la tua rabbia, Sarebbe al tuo furor dolor compìto» (Dante)

Se per i credenti il termine ‘inferno‘ significa la privazione di Dio, per tutti gli esseri umani, credenti o meno, si riduce ad una situazione nella quale la propria volontà è negata ed impotente.

Questo è substrato di un odio viscerale, di un’ira furibonda che rode mente e cuore, nella constatazione della propria inadeguatezza a mutare le cose.

Dal punto di vista umano, molte persone sperimentano già su questa terra quello che poi sarà il loro inferno definitivo.

Pensate ad un essere superbo.

La superbia è una esagerata stima di sé e dei proprî meriti (reali o presunti), che si manifesta esteriormente con un atteggiamento altezzoso e sprezzante e con un ostentato senso di superiorità nei confronti degli altri. Ma questa condizione degenera quasi invariabilmente in un qualcosa di molto peggio. Si dilata in una considerazione talmente alta di sé stessi da giungere al punto di stimarsi come principio e fine del proprio essere: l’uomo si crede di essere dio.

Successo e denaro sono ottimi concimi della superbia, e la serva piaggeria adulatrice dei clientes porta a perdere completamente la percezione del reale.

Ma non ci si illuda che il superbo sia felice. Tutt’altro.

La sua vita è un continuo rodersi cuore, mente e fegato perché gli altri non riconoscono la sua immensità: lo contraddicono, lo ostacolano, tramano contro di lui. In altri termini, gli altri non si sottomettono ai suoi voleri, contrastano la sua volontà.

Se è vero che il superbo si percepisce onnipotente, sarebbe altrettanto vero che gli altri gli negano codesto attributo: di qui l’odio mortale verso gli altri, rei di non riconoscere l’immensa superiorità.

Ma sono ira, rabbia, odio impotenti, perché non aiutano ad imporre il proprio volere, anzi, si rivelano per quello che sono. Sono i tormenti caratteristici dei superbi. Ed iniziano già in questa vita terrea, che il superbo fa di tutto per rendersela più odiosa il possibile.

* * * * * * *

I liberal democratici sono tutto tranne che umili: sono la quintessenza della superbia incarnata negli esseri umani. Non paghi di essersi saziati dei frutti dell’Albero del bene e del male hanno infatti tentato l’attacco all’Albero della Vita: già, nel giardino dell’Eden c’erano entrambi.

È stata proprio la loro superbia a condurli alla disfatta elettorale del 2016, impostando la propria campagna elettorale su di una candidata boriosamente piena di sé stessa, che aveva proposto, imposto, un programma che ben poco aveva di politico o di economico. Era in buona sostanza un’etica di vita, l’etica liberal.

Come tutti i superbi, dopo la confitta addossarono agli ‘altri‘ la colpa della disfatta e presero in odio quello che era stato il vincitore della competizione, scatenandogli contro una campagna mediatica personale mai vista nella storia.

La maggiore conseguenza di quella débâcle fu la perdita del controllo della Corte Suprema.

Fino a quando la Suprema Corte sentenziava 5 a 4 a favore delle tesi giuridiche liberal la osannavano come l’apice della giustizia. Adesso che la Suprema Corte sentenzia 5 a 4 a favore delle tesi giuridiche repubblicane la odiono, la deridono, cercano i ogni modo di affossarla, anche vagheggiando di aumentare il numero dei giudici immettendovi gente di provata fede liberal.

Calunniano sottilmente i giudici che non si sono asserviti ai loro voleri.

* * * * * * *

L’accluso articolo è un capolavoro di volontà contrariata, di odio globale ribollente di ira e rabbia malcelate: è un pezzo degno di un trattato di psichiatria, ove il delirio di onnipotenza si associa ed alimenta il delirio di persecuzione.

Non ci si stupisca se, nel caso, in America ci saranno brutti fatti di sangue: l’odio è violento per sua natura.

*


In Supreme Court census case, chief justice’s priorities are colliding

Two of Chief Justice John Roberts’ top priorities are on a collision course as the Supreme Court nears a pivotal decision this week on the Trump administration’s design for the 2020 census.

Roberts has repeatedly declared that he wants the public to see the court as a nonpartisan institution, even though polarizing cases have often divided it between the five justices appointed by Republican presidents and the four appointed by Democrats.

Roberts over the years has shown he’s uneasy with decisions on big cases that routinely align the court, in effect, along those party lines — an instinct that was most notably evident when he joined with the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices to mostly preserve the Affordable Care Act in 2012. “We do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle, we do not caucus in separate rooms, we do not serve one party or one interest, we serve one nation,” Roberts insisted in a speech last October.

But on cases affecting the core electoral interests of the two parties — like the decision impending this week on whether the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the 2020 census — Roberts has conspicuously deviated from that pattern. He has repeatedly joined in 5-4 Supreme Court decisions that align all the Republican-appointed justices against all the Democratic-appointed ones on cases that set the underlying rules of political competition, from campaign finance to voting rights. And on those cases, critics say, he has consistently voted with the other GOP-appointed justices to produce rulings that benefit the Republican Party’s electoral interests.

“One thing Roberts has been consistent about is his willingness to take extreme stances to undermine long-standing rules of democracy,” says Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, a group that advocates for expanded voting rights. “We all are impressed by his institutionalism and his deftness at steering the Supreme Court away from making it such a central partisan topic, such as in the ACA case. The democracy issues are where the court has been most aggressive, and he has not been a temporizing swing vote but an ardent activist.”

The census case, Department of Commerce v. New York, crystallizes these issues even more than the earlier electoral decisions in Roberts’ tenure because his role on the court has changed. With the retirement of Anthony Kennedy, a President Ronald Reagan appointee who often functioned as the court’s swing vote, and his contentious replacement last year by the more reliably conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Roberts has become the closest thing to a swing vote on the court, legal analysts agree. That means a party-line decision supporting the Trump administration on the census case would more clearly bear his stamp — and thus more directly undercut his attempts to portray the court as nonpartisan.

Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine who specializes in election law, says that “historically … it has been mostly true” that Roberts has consistently voted to uphold the GOP’s core interests in cases that affect the rules of politics. But, Hasen says, “He’s in a different position now. He’s been the chief justice for a decade but only now is he a swing justice and only now is he on a court when all the conservatives are Republicans and all the liberals are Democrats.”

Citing the formulation in the recent biography of Roberts by CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic, Hasen says the census case “will be a great test … of which Roberts is going to show up: the movement conservative Roberts or the pragmatic instituitionalist Roberts.”

Roberts has spoken very little in public about specific court decisions, but in his appearance at the University of Minnesota last October, he suggested that the focus on 5-4 decisions that split the court along partisan lines was misplaced. The press, he said, portrays such decisions “more in a political way somebody must think is more readily understandable. From the court perspective, I would like to see the sentence that causes people to split this way (so) a reasonable person could see why there’s two sides to that story.”

Roberts also said he tries to ignore criticism of his decisions (“the good thing about life tenure is that it doesn’t really bother you much”) and doesn’t look back wondering whether he decided cases incorrectly. “I will give the same answer because it’s the true one, and I always worry it will sound harsh or something, but the answer is no,” he said.

1.1.1           A ruling of huge consequence

The census decision due this week has potentially huge implications for the partisan — and racial — balance of political power over the next decade. The Trump administration is seeking to add a question that would, for the first time, ask all Americans whether they are American citizens. A wide variety of experts, including within the Census Bureau itself, have warned that the question could discourage minority groups, particularly Hispanics, from responding to the census.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute recently noted that changes in how the census is administered — particularly an increased reliance on internet responses and reduced emphasis on home visits — could swell the undercount of minorities. Adding a citizenship question to those changes, especially in an atmosphere of intense political tension over immigration, could produce “an undercount of a magnitude we haven’t seen in a decade or two or more,” says Diana Elliott, a senior research associate at the institute.

Specifically, the Urban Institute projected that a census including the citizenship question could undercount Hispanics nationwide by 3.5%, while slightly overcounting whites and also significantly undercounting African Americans and more modestly missing Asian Americans.

That could undercount the population in heavily diverse states including California, Texas, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Florida and Georgia while leading to overcounts in mostly white states including Vermont, West Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire and Montana, the group calculated.

In the 2020 reapportionment that will be based on the census results, such an undercount could shift congressional seats — and Electoral College votes — from diverse states mostly within the Sun Belt (particularly California, Texas, Arizona and Florida) toward more predominantly white states mostly across the Rust Belt (Ohio, Minnesota and Montana are among the states that have been projected as possible winners).

Just as important, an undercount of minorities could shift the balance of political power within states. With less recorded population, heavily minority areas would lose representation when states draw new districts after 2020 for state legislative and congressional seats.

In several states, Republicans are discussing proposals to draw legislative and congressional districts based not on total population but the number of citizens in each area. That approach — if ultimately passed in states and upheld by the Supreme Court — would tilt power even more dramatically away from areas with large Hispanic populations toward mostly white communities. Recently discovered hard drives from a deceased GOP redistricting specialist, Thomas Hofeller, showed that obtaining the data required to implement such a citizen-based redistricting system was one reason he urged the Trump administration to include a citizenship question in the census.

For all these reasons, experts such as Waldman believe the census case could rival the long-term impact of the other two landmark Roberts-era cases affecting the ground rules of politics: the 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision eviscerating campaign finance restrictions, and the Shelby County v. Holder decision, decided six years ago Tuesday, which severely retrenched the Voting Rights Act.

“The census case ranks up there with Citizens United and Shelby County in tilting the rules of American politics,” he says.

Both of those earlier landmark cases were decided on 5-4 votes, with Roberts voting with an all-Republican majority each time. At the time Citizens United was decided, the court’s partisan and ideological balance was less regimented than today. That decision featured Roberts and four other Republican-appointed justices outvoting three justices appointed by Democrats and John Paul Stevens, a Gerald Ford appointee, who often voted with the court’s liberal bloc.

By the time of the Shelby County decision in 2013, Elena Kagan, appointed by President Barack Obama, had replaced Stevens and the court had settled into its current ideological and partisan alignment, though with different members. On that decision, Roberts joined four other Republican appointees to outvote the four Democratic appointees.

Each of these rulings brought huge changes to American politics.

Citizens United, which defined political spending as speech, opened the door to a rapid expansion in “dark money” super PAC spending.

Shelby County had an even more seismic effect. That decision, written by Roberts, effectively invalidated the provisions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act that required states with histories of discrimination to receive federal approval (“preclearance”) for changes in their election laws. With that provision stripped away, Republican-controlled states across the country have stampeded to impose new restrictions on voting, such as limiting early and absentee voting and requiring more stringent proof of identity to cast a ballot.

1.1.2           Other 5-4 election decisions

Roberts has joined 5-4 court decisions that have produced outcomes mostly favored by Republicans on an array of other election-related topics. “If he’s got fears of seeming partisan, he’s managed to compartmentalize,” says Waldman. “He seems to always have a benefit for one party over another.”

Last June, the court upheld an Ohio law that aggressively purged voters from the rolls if they had not participated in recent elections, again on a 5-4 vote that pit all of the GOP-appointed justices against all of the Democratic-appointed ones.

That same month the same alignment rejected a challenge of Republican-drawn Texas redistricting maps for the state Legislature and Congress made on the grounds that they discriminated against Hispanics.

In yet another 5-4 split, the court’s four Democratic-appointed justices last June signaled openness to establishing rules to limit partisan gerrymandering but were unable to attract a fifth vote from any of the court’s Republican-appointed justices. The court is due to decide a new round of gerrymandering cases this week.

Back in 2011, Roberts likewise wrote an opinion in which the five GOP-appointed justices outvoted the four Democratic appointees to invalidate an Arizona election law that provided extra funds to candidates who accepted public financing and faced big-spending opponents.

In 2014, Roberts wrote an opinion for the other four GOP-appointed justices invalidating federal limits on total contributions from individuals in an election cycle.

In 2015, Roberts and three other GOP-appointed justices voted to strike down an Arizona law establishing an independent commission to draw congressional district lines, but the court’s liberals prevailed when Kennedy joined them to uphold the law. With Kennedy now replaced by Kavanaugh, legal experts say it’s less certain that this court will continue to allow independent redistricting commissions, which nearly 20 states have now adopted.

Underscoring the partisan stakes, the case against the citizenship question was brought by a coalition of 17 Democratic-controlled states, the District of Columbia, more than a dozen cities and the US Conference of Mayors; 17 Republican-controlled states have filed legal briefs supporting the administration.

So far, three federal district courts have decided against the Trump administration’s decision to add the citizenship question, ruling that the Commerce Department choice to include it violated federal procedures for reaching such a decision. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross initially said he sought to add the citizenship question at the request of the Justice Department — ostensibly to improve enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. But court testimony has shown that he asked the department to make that request, and consulted with anti-immigration hard-liners in the administration in his decision.

“In the census case it’s really hard to come up with a straight-faced argument in the face of evidence that while the Trump administration said they were doing this to protect Hispanic voters they were actually doing it to hurt Hispanic voters,” says Hasen. “If they are going to turn a blind eye to that … that’s a sign that this is a very partisan court. This should be a 9-0 decision (against the question).”

With the disclosure of the Hofeller memos, the court could punt on the decision and send it back to lower courts to consider the new evidence — though most observers consider that unlikely since the Trump administration has insisted it must prepare the census forms by this summer.

Beyond its immediate partisan implications, the census case stands at the forward edge of a racial dynamic that may increasingly embroil the court over the coming decade. As I’ve written, the five-member Republican-appointed majority was confirmed by GOP senators — who represent the parts of America least touched by the demographic changes that are hurtling the US toward a future in which minorities will constitute most of the under-18 population as soon as 2020 and a majority of the overall population around 2043, according to census projections.

If the five GOP-appointed justices authorize a census question that dilutes the political clout of minorities, it would be only one of many decisions that could pit them against the interests of America’s growingly diverse population. Those same justices have displayed much skepticism about other programs, such as affirmative action in education or constraints on law enforcement’s use of race in decision-making, that most minority leaders consider essential to their communities.

Waldman says the census case illustrates how the five Republican-appointed justices could set rules for politics in the years ahead — on issues from redistricting to voting rights — that constrain the influence of the growing minority population, which mostly supports Democrats, and thus help Republicans retain power.

“What it means is the Supreme Court will have an even bigger thumb on the scale for the rules of politics, and it becomes a perpetual motion machine … changing the rules of politics to help elect more Republican officials, who appoint more Republican judges,” Waldman says.

Roberts has left no doubt that one of his greatest fears is that the court he leads will be perceived as nothing more than exactly that kind of cog in the Republican political machine. The explosive decision due this week will test whether that fear is enough to dissuade him from adding Department of Commerce v. New York to Citizens United and Shelby County in his legacy of landmark 5-4 party-line court rulings that have rewritten the rules of competition between Republicans and Democrats.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti

Supreme Court sentenzia sul caso del Maryland. Giudici liberal disintegrati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-22.

2019-06-22__Suprema_Corte__001

Con una sentenza 7 – 2 la Suprema Corte degli Stati Uniti ha posto la parola fine su di un contenzioso significativo della mentalità corrente dei liberal democratici.

American Legion et Al. v. American Humanist Assn. et Al.

«In 1918, residents of Prince George’s County, Maryland, formed a committee for the purpose of erecting a memorial for the county’s soldiers who fell in World War I. The committee decided that the memorial should be a cross, which was not surprising since the plain Latin cross had become a central symbol of the war. The image of row after row of plain white crosses marking the overseas graves of soldiers was emblazoned on the minds of Americans at home.»

Riassumendo ed ampliando:

«The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital.

– The opinion of the court is authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who says the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context, and cautions against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

– Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking.»

*

«The court’s five conservatives as well as Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed that the cross should remain on public land, while liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented»

Il parere espresso da Sua Giustizia Ginsburg è significativo della mentalità liberal democratica.

«For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized»

«By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion»

*

Il punto centrale consiste nell’ideologia liberal democratica, ben presente anche in Europa, che della non-religiosità — ‘nonreligion‘ – fa un dogma fideistico. E questo sarebbe il meno, perché costoro vogliono anche imporlo a tutti, anche a coloro che la pensassero diversamente.

Ma se la rimozione di qualsiasi simbolo religioso soddisfa i liberal democratici, nel contempo introduce la simbologia dello spoglio eretta a sistema, fatto questo non gradito a moltissime altre persone.

Nella sua globalità questa causa è giù costata ai Contribuenti oltre quaranta milioni di dollari. Aveva prosperato fino a quando è stata che era stata discussa nelle corti inferiori, tutte con giudici liberal, che hanno sentenziato di conseguenza.

I giudizi emessi dalla Suprema Corte sul comportamento dei giudici di livello inferiore sono tranchant.

A seguito, proponiamo il razionale e taluni commenti.

* * * * * * *

La sentenza riporta anche un corposo Syllabus, Certiorari e le opinioni di ben cinque giudici.

«The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed that the memorial is unconstitutional and remanded for a determination of the proper remedy. We now reverse. ….

Applying these principles, we conclude that the Bladensburg Cross does not violate the Establishment Clause.»

Sia Giustizia Thomas aggiunge nella Opinione da Lui espressa anche un solido substrato giuridico.

«The Establishment Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. The text and history of this Clause suggest that it should not be incorporated against the States. Even if the Clause expresses an individual right enforceable against the States, it is limited by its text to “law[s]” enacted by a legislature, so it is unclear whether the Bladensburg Cross would implicate any incorporated right. And even if it did, this religious display does not involve the type of actual legal coercion that was a hall-mark of historical establishments of religion. Therefore, the Cross is clearly constitutional»

Sua Giustizia Gorsuch aggiunge nella Sua Opinione un tratto quasi umoristico.

«The American Humanist Association wants a federal court to order the destruction of a 94 year-old war memo-rial because its members are offended. Today, the Court explains that the plaintiffs are not entitled to demand the destruction of longstanding monuments, and I find much of its opinion compelling. In my judgment, however, it follows from the Court’s analysis that suits like this one should be dismissed for lack of standing. Accordingly, while I concur in the judgment to reverse and remand the court of appeals’ decision, I would do so with additional instructions to dismiss the case. »

* * * * * *

Significativa è invece l’opinione di Sua Giustizia Ginsburg.

«An immense Latin cross stands on a traffic island at the center of a busy three-way intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland.1 “[M]onumental, clear, and bold” by day, App. 914, the cross looms even larger illuminated against the night-time sky. Known as the Peace Cross, the monument was erected by private citizens in 1925 to honor local soldiers who lost their lives in World War I. “[T]he town’s most prominent symbol” was rededicated in 1985 and is now said to honor “the sacrifices made [in] all wars,” id., at 868 (internal quotation marks omitted), by “all veterans,” id., at 195. Both the Peace Cross and the traffic island are owned and maintained by the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (Commission), an agency of the State of Maryland. ….

The Latin cross is the foremost symbol of the Christian faith, embodying the “central theological claim of Christi-anity: that the son of God died on the cross, that he rose from the dead, and that his death and resurrection offer the possibility of eternal life.” ….

For the same reason, using the cross as a war memorial does not transform it into a secular symbol, as the Courts of Appeals have uniformly recognized ….

By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion. Memorializing the service of American soldiers is an “admirable and unquestionably secular” objective. ….

The First Amendment commands that the government “shall make no law” either “respecting an establishment of religion” or “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” ….

union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion ….

when a cross is displayed on public property, the government may be presumed to endorse its religious content. ….

Holding the Commission’s display of the Peace Cross unconstitutional would not, as the Commission fears, “inevitably require the destruction of other cross-shaped memorials throughout the country. ….

By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion»

* * * * * * *


Cnbc. 2019-06-21. Supreme Court rules that WWI cross on Maryland public land can remain, does not violate Constitution

– The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital.

– The opinion of the court is authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who says the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context, and cautions against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

– Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking.

*

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a 40-foot cross commemorating fallen World War I soldiers can remain on public ground because it does not violate the Constitution’s establishment clause that bars favoring one religion over others.

The case concerned a giant, early 20th century Latin cross, known as the Bladensburg Peace Cross, that stands in a Maryland intersection in the suburbs of the nation’s capital. It was erected in 1925.

The cross was conceived as a memorial by mothers of men killed in World War I and is now maintained by a municipal agency that has spent just over $100,000 on the monument since the 1980s. That expenditure has raised questions about whether the cross violates the legal prohibition against excessive entanglement between religion and government, a murky area of constitutional law.

The challenge to the cross came from the American Humanist Association, an advocacy group that promotes secular governance. 

The opinion of the court was authored by Justice Samuel Alito, who said the meaning of the cross was not limited to its religious context. The court’s five conservatives as well as Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer agreed that the cross should remain on public land, while liberal Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

“That the cross originated as a Christian symbol and retains that meaning in many contexts does not change the fact that the symbol took on an added secular meaning when used in World War I memorials,” Alito wrote. “Not only did the Bladensburg Cross begin with this meaning, but with the passage of time, it has acquired historical importance.”

And Alito cautioned against a government that “roams the land, tearing down monuments with religious symbolism.”

In contrast, Ginsburg called the cross “the foremost symbol of the Christian faith.”

“By maintaining the Peace Cross on a public highway, the Commission elevates Christianity over other faiths, and religion over nonreligion,” Ginsburg wrote in a dissent that was joined by Sotomayor.

Though the ultimate vote was 7-2, the case produced a smattering of opinions, with five justices writing separate concurrences to explain their thinking. Breyer, in a concurring opinion joined by Kagan, wrote that the case would be different if the cross had been erected recently.

“I see no reason to order this cross torn down simply because other crosses would raise constitutional concerns,” Breyer wrote.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Trump

Trump e le previsioni elettorali smentite dai fatti. La storia si ripete.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-19.

Tricoteuse 002

Alle elezioni presidenziali del 2016 Mr Trump seppe conquistarsi 304 grandi elettori contro i 227 di Mrs Hillary Clinton.

Fu una vittoria strepitosa, anche se ragionando in termini percentuali lui aveva ottenuto il 46.1% dei suffragi contro il 48.2% della sua avversaria.

Sembrerebbe quasi che nessuno sappia come negli Stati Uniti si voti da due secoli e mezzo.

Tutti i media lo avevano deriso, quasi fosse stato un mero velleitario. Tutte le proiezioni elettorali lo davano concordemente per sonoramente sconfitto. Non ci fu un commentatore politico, di quelli da un milione di dollari al mese, che avesse parlato bene di Mr Trump. Si sviluppò anche una campagna elettorale anomala: più che concentrarsi sui problemi politici ed economici, i liberal democratici iniziarono ad attaccarlo in prima persona, dal colore dei capelli a sua moglie Melania, alla sua famiglia, arrivando al punto di denigrare il figlio allora di otto anni.

Eppure Mr Trump vinse, ed alla grande.

Mr Trump aveva impostato la campagna elettorale sui problemi politici ed economici della gente comune ed aveva anche promesso l’abbattimento delle tasse. Mrs Clinton, invece, aveva impostato la propria campagna sui problemi etici e morali, proposti nella visione dell’ideologia liberal democratica. Il giudizio lo dettero gli Elettori.

*

I risultati di quelle elezioni presidenziali portarono in primo piano un problema che affligge adesso tutto l’occidente.

Sia la base degli iscritti ai partiti, quelli che poi ne votano la dirigenza, sia gli eletti e la dirigenza in senso lato, sembrerebbero essere del tutto avulsi dalla realtà dei propri Elettori, che alla fine voltano loro le spalle. Casi lampanti son quello di Mrs May e del partito conservatore inglese, dei socialisti francesi ridotti al 6%, della disintegrazione della cdu e della spd in Germania, delle continue débâcle elettorali del partito democratico in Italia, per non parlare poi della cesura che corre tra attivisti ed Elettorato per il M5S.

Tratto caratteristico è che nessuna di quelle formazioni politiche sembrerebbe essere in grado di imparare dai propri errori.

I partiti politici si trovano ad un bivio senza alternative: o propongono le proprie ideologie essendo ben consci di perdere gran parte dei consensi, scelta coerente e comprensibile, oppure devono ritornare a sentire cosa dicono e vogliono gli Elettori, mettendo a tacere o allontanando gli iscritti che non la hanno ancora capita.

*

La Bbc pubblica ora un articolo che cerca di ricostruire gli eventi dell’epoca in cui Mr Trump si era presentato come candidato.

Sembrerebbe essere di grande interesse attuale, perché sembrerebbe proprio che i democratici stiano rifacendo gli errori passati, che li portarono al disastro.

«When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win»

«The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.»

«If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation»

«Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border»

* * * * * * *

Poniamo quindi una domanda.

Perché si dovrebbe continuare a fidarsi di ambienti e società di sondaggi elettorali che da quattro anni a questa parte non ne azzeccano una nemmeno per sbaglio?


Bbc. 2019-06-15. The day Trump ran for president (and what people predicted)

When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win.

It was on this day four years ago – at the exact same stage of the last US presidential cycle – that Mr Trump made his announcement: he would, for real this time, run for the highest office in the land.

The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.

If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation.

Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border.

What did commentators that day fail to understand about the man who would be president? And what did they get right?

——-

When Donald Trump descended the golden escalator to announce his run for president, none in the sceptical media pack below could have imagined he would win.

It was on this day four years ago – at the exact same stage of the last US presidential cycle – that Mr Trump made his announcement: he would, for real this time, run for the highest office in the land.

The property mogul and TV host was the 12th candidate to come forward to try to claim the Republican Party’s nomination.

If the Washington establishment was sceptical, it was because this was not the first time he had floated a run for the White House, only not to follow up on his own speculation.

Many of the reports that day reflected those doubts. Many of them, employing a degree of mockery rarely used in news, denigrated his performance at the podium inside the gilded Trump Tower. Some of them, though only some, focused on his claim Mexico was sending “rapists” over the border.

What did commentators that day fail to understand about the man who would be president? And what did they get right?

How does that view look now?

“Donald Trump got people to take notice all right, but I never thought someone with negative ratings as high as his could capture the nomination,” Anthony writes in 2019. “I figured the Republican establishment would coalesce around an alternative – and it never really did.

“There’s a theory that Trump’s presidential campaign was a publicity stunt gone awry, a real-life version of The Producers, where an enterprise designed to fail became an accidental success.

“Only Mr Trump knows the truth, but his pugilistic brand of politics capitalised on a moment in American history when just enough voters were fed up with the status quo to take a chance on an unlikely outsider.”

——-

‘Much-needed seriousness’ – Democrats

What they said in 2015

“Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days,” Democratic National Committee (DNC) spokeswoman Holly Shulman said in a statement that proceeded to lay on the sarcasm in spades.

“He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward to hearing more about his ideas for the nation.”

How does that view look now?

Neither the DNC nor Holly Shulman responded when asked how they viewed those comments now.

——-

Trump may have an opening – Washington Examiner

What they said in 2015

Days before Mr Trump’s announcement, Byron York wrote in the conservative Washington Examiner that the mogul could appeal to Republican voters tired with the direction the party was taking.

“It’s been clear for quite a while that some conservative voters are so disgusted with the GOP that they would entertain the notion of a third party,” he wrote.

“If he pursues a race seriously, Trump could win the support of those I’ve-had-it-up-to-my-eyeballs voters. Their concerns aren’t a joke. If Trump doesn’t address them, somebody else will.”

How does that view look now?

The fact Mr Trump was not an establishment politician, and could shake up the system, was a factor his supporters went on to regularly cite for why they loved him.

Here’s what some of his supporters told us in summer 2016:

Four years on, there is no question that the Republican Party has been shaped in the image of the man who led it to the White House: more hardline and more aggressive.

Former Ohio governor John Kasich, who was the last Republican candidate standing alongside Mr Trump in 2016, said in May that it was now the Trump party. “Ninety percent of the Republican Party supports him,” he told CNN.

——-

All eyes on the primaries – New York Times

What they said in 2015

Correspondent Maggie Haberman predicted Mr Trump’s campaign would end with him not winning the nomination (and instead earning a nice fat cheque for the next season of The Apprentice).

But she also anticipated intriguing times ahead in the crucial early states in the Republican primary race.

“He would likely have to somehow outperform both Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio in Florida, where he is a part-time resident,” she wrote. “If Mr Trump could buy a state with an early nominating contest, like New Hampshire, and brand it with his name, it might help.”

Anyone suggesting Mr Trump could win a primary at this stage was… a lone voice, shall we say.

How does that view look now?

Well, The Apprentice did return, but Mr Trump was a bit too busy to host it by that point.

As far as the primary race was concerned, Maggie Haberman was right – his win in New Hampshire in the second primary gave him a critical boost.

After that, he didn’t look back. And by the time of the Florida primary in March 2016, his momentum did help him outperform Marco Rubio and Jeb Bush (who had by that point withdrawn from the race) – Mr Trump won 45.7% of the vote there.

——-

Trump could dominate debate – Washington Post

What they said in 2015

Trump the performer could take up all the oxygen of the other candidates, predicted Chris Cillizza, now of CNN.

He will interrupt, bully and seek to dominate the debate in ways that will make it impossible to get a word in edge-wise,” he wrote. “And, if past is prologue, the sorts of things he does say when he gains control of the debate floor will be stuff that appeals heavily to the Republican base and turns off, well, almost everyone else…

“While it’s possible Trump’s poll numbers collapse between now and August, that doesn’t seem very likely since much of how you perform in national polling at this point is a function of pure name recognition, and Trump has plenty of that.”

How does that view look now?

Even though the Trump campaign didn’t launch until mid-June, analysis shows his campaign was the second-most covered news story of the year on US television networks in 2015. No other candidate – apart from the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton – was anywhere close.

When the first Republican debate rolled around in August 2015, all the headlines were about him and what he said (in this case, he refused to withdraw comments he had made denigrating women). He would continue to dominate the news agenda all the way through to the election.

——-

How does that view look now?

Even though the Trump campaign didn’t launch until mid-June, analysis shows his campaign was the second-most covered news story of the year on US television networks in 2015. No other candidate – apart from the Democrats’ Hillary Clinton – was anywhere close.

When the first Republican debate rolled around in August 2015, all the headlines were about him and what he said (in this case, he refused to withdraw comments he had made denigrating women). He would continue to dominate the news agenda all the way through to the election.

Trump’s ‘pretty sexy’ message – Fox News

What he said in 2015

Republican media strategist Adam Goodman predicted Mr Trump’s status as an outsider billionaire who was “unashamed” about his wealth could prove attractive to voters.

Appearing on conservative channel Fox News on the day of Mr Trump’s announcement, he told broadcaster Gregg Jarrett that Mr Trump was “talking to the disaffected” American.

In prescient comments, he discussed how Mr Trump’s “America First” platform would appeal to those voters.

“In a way he’s sending a signal to a lot of Americans who are not making it, which is: ‘Put me in place, and I will make sure America’s brand is back on top again’. ‘I will make sure that when I am president of the United States, I will do everything I can to put you first, and allow you the opportunities I had to make it and fulfil the American dream.’

“That’s a pretty sexy message for anyone to hear.”

How does that view look now?

Four years on, Mr Goodman maintains he “felt something” when watching Mr Trump declare his candidacy for the Republican ticket. He tells the BBC he stands by the comments he made on Fox News.

Mr Trump’s “America First” message, Mr Goodman says, was “code” to disenfranchised Americans who felt the system had “let them down”.

The “sexy message” he described on Fox News gave Americans “something to feel good about in a pro-America way”.

“Donald Trump, for all of his faults, certainly brought that message. Unashamedly and unedited,” Mr Goodman says. “Trump reflected what was in people.”

Has Trump delivered on his promises?

Neither Mr Trump nor his nationalistic platform have changed since then, Mr Goodman says.

“Trump today is the same as candidate Trump in 2015,” he says. In the 2020 presidential election, Mr Goodman predicts Mr Trump will leave a “lot of people scratching their heads again”.

——-

Jeb Bush would win the nomination – Polls

What they said in 2015

On the day Mr Trump entered the race, polling data painted a fairly bleak picture for him. He was languishing towards the bottom of the pack with 3.6% of support, according to a RealClearPolitics average of polls.

Leading the field on 10.8% was former Florida governor Jeb Bush, ahead of Wisconsin’s then-governor Scott Walker (yes, really).

Mr Trump’s average in the polls would dip to 3.2% on 22 June 2015, but that would prove to be his lowest ebb. From that point onwards, his rise was meteoric.

His approval rating spiked on 12 July 2015, when he accused Mexicans of “killing us at the border” at a mass rally in Phoenix.

Eight days later, he overtook Mr Bush, his polling average climbing to 16.8%. After that, only Ben Carson would surpass him – once on 5 November 2015 – until his nomination was confirmed.

What do the polls say now?

It’s only the Democrats picking a candidate this time around and so far, their race has been dominated by one name: former US Vice-President Joe Biden.

He has been the runaway leader for the nomination, even before entering the race on 25 April this year. As of 12 June, his polling average, according to RealClearPolitics, puts him top at 32.8%.

Vermont senator Bernie Sanders is his closest competitor on 17.3%, while the rest of the pack – including Elizabeth Warren (9.2%), Pete Buttigieg (7.2%) and Kamala Harris (7.2%) – trail in single digits.

Those ratings are likely to fluctuate as candidates lock horns in Democratic primary debates starting on 26 June. As Mr Trump’s unexpected ascendancy in the 2016 race shows though, it’s still too early to make any sensible predictions…

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal

Puntuale come la morte, Facebook blocca sotto elezioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-09.

2019-06-08__Facebook__001

A corto di argomenti, Facebook blocca per un post di tre anni fa.

Poi blocca la richiesta di chiarimenti.

2019-06-09_Facebook__002

«1°. È un post di tre anni fa, quando vigevano regole differenti.
2° Sembrerebbe più una motivazione politica che etica.
3° Casualmente, oggi si tengono le elezioni.
4° Ad essere logici, bloccate allora anche i vostri funzionari che per tre anni non si erano accorti del fatto.
Buon lavoro.
gsm»

Si è liberi di postare solo argomeni inneggianti i liberal e le loro idee depravate.

Alimentano odio esclusivamente i post che non condividano l’ideologia liberal.

Il Grande Fratello era solo un povero dilettante.

Pubblicato in: Ideologia liberal, Medicina e Biologia

Italia. Morire perché trattati con l’omeopatia è triste realtà.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-08.

Crisantemo 001

Questa è una storia che avrebbe dovuto essere assurda, che non avrebbe mai dovuto succedere.

Invece è accaduta.

*

Morì per otite dopo cura omeopatica, condannati i genitori

Condannati a tre mesi di carcere, pena sospesa, i genitori di Francesco, il bambino di 7 anni di Cagli (Pesaro Urbino) morto il 27 maggio 2017 per una otite batterica bilaterale curata con l’omeopatia. Lo ha deciso con giudizio abbreviato il gup di Ancona Paola Moscaroli per l’accusa di concorso in omicidio colposo aggravato.

I genitori del piccolo si erano affidati alle cure del medico pesarese Massimiliano Mecozzi, anche lui imputato, specializzato in omeopatia, che aveva consigliato prodotti omeopatici invece degli antibiotici per lenire l’otite del bambino poi degenerata in una encefalite. Il gup ha rinviato a giudizio il medico per il quale si procederà con rito ordinario poiché non ha fatto richieste di riti alternativi. Il processo si aprirà il 24 settembre. I difensori hanno preannunciato che ricorreranno in appello contro la condanna dopo aver letto le motivazioni della sentenza che verranno depositate entro 90 giorni.

* * * * * * *

Treccani ben definisce cosa sia l’omeopatia.

«Dottrina medica elaborata da S.F.C. Hahnemann, agli inizi dell’Ottocento, basata sul concetto che la condizione di salute è dovuta a una ‘energia vitale immateriale’ che controlla armonicamente le interazioni tra le varie parti del corpo. L’omeopatia rivolge l’attenzione diagnostica e le strategie terapeutiche essenzialmente sulla sintomatologia, come, del resto, in gran parte avveniva anche in seno alla medicina tradizionale del tempo, da Hahnemann chiamata allopatia. Ma, mentre questa mirava, in base al principio dei contrari, di derivazione galenica, a combattere i fenomeni morbosi con i rimedi rivolti a sopprimerli (contraria contrariis curantur), Hahnemann elaborò una strategia terapeutica opposta, basata sul principio dei simili, sintetizzato nell’aforisma similia similibus curantur

*

Cosa sia la «energia vitale immateriale» nessuno si è mai peritato di appurare: sono solo parole che colpiscono la fantasia, non certo una mente strutturata.

Energia, per definizione, altro non è che la grandezza fisica che misura la capacità di un corpo o di un sistema fisico di compiere lavoro, a prescindere dal fatto che tale lavoro sia o possa essere effettivamente svolto.

È in realtà una definizione che lascia alquanto la bocca amara. L’energia non ha alcuna realtà materiale ma è piuttosto un concetto matematico astratto che esprime un vincolo rispetto ai processi possibili. Feynman dovette ammettere francamente che «nella fisica odierna, non abbiamo alcuna conoscenza di cosa sia l’energia».

Come nota storica, spesso usato quasi per confondere la gente, Leibniz aveva usato il termine ‘energia viva‘ per intendere ciò che ora è denominato ‘energia cinetica‘.

*

Una conseguenza di tale teoria era che le malattie avrebbero dovuto poter essere trattate con dosi infinitesimali di prodotti in grado di indurre, quando assunte in dosi consistenti, gli stessi sintomi della malattia che si intende guarire.

Era codesta frase un mero enunciato, senza alcuna base scientificamente dimostrata.

*

L’unica eccezione, ma che pur sempre eccezione rimane, è il consolidato uso del placebo, ossia una sostanza inerte somministrata come se avesse grandi virtù medicinali in pazienti con sindromi psicosomatiche di grado modesto. Ma il beneficio è puramente soggettivo ed incerto.

* * * * * * *

Molte persone hanno un disperato bisogno di credere che sia vero ciò che vorrebbero lo fosse. Di norma vi credono in modo così radicato che il creduto diventa una idea dominante, un delirio (letteralmente ‘uscita dal solco‘) ove il pensato non è sottoposto a revisione critica: è assunto come se fosse verità assoluta.

Né si pensi che sia faccenda rara: tutt’altro.

Si pensi soltanto a come molte persone intendono il tifo per la propria squadra, oppure a come interpretano e sostengono le proprie idee politiche ed economiche, il cosiddetto ‘clima’, le conflittuali teorie sui vaccini, sulle diete, e così via. Arrivano fino al punto di denominare ‘negazionisti‘ quei poveracci che ragionano ancora.

Sono l’esatto opposto dell’uomo di scienza, che è lucidamente conscio di quanto approssimati siano i propri dati sperimentali e di quanto provvisoria sia la teoria che li interpreta. Il grande Einstein insegnava a ‘dedicare un’ora al giorno a costruire la propria teoria e le restanti undici a demolirla‘. Ma Einstein era Einstain, e la gente comune non lo emula in nulla. Semplicemente lo ignora.

Tratto caratteristico degli scienziati è il dubbio, l’incertezza: uno scienziato mette tutto in discussione, nulla escluso.

* * * * * * *

La condanna dei quei genitori dovrebbe ben dare da pensare. Più che al carcere avrebbero dovuto essere affidati allo psichiatra. Il dramma che hanno coinvolto la vita del proprio figlio sacrificato sull’altare del proprio delirio.

Ci ha pensato la morte a smentire le loro credenza apodittiche.

Per il ‘medico omeopata‘ il discorso è ben differente.

Un medico che non sappia riconoscere un’otite purulenta dovrebbe essere radiato dall’albo dei medici. Se poi si ostinasse a curare detta patologia con l’acqua schietta, ebbene, allora è un criminale. Lasciare che una otite degeneri in un’encefalite purulenta è un crimine sadico.

E quel medico è anche un criminale presuntuoso: quando si vede che il paziente non migliora, anzi, peggiora, si richieda un consulto ovvero lo si indirizzi per tempo in un ospedale.

Un medico che non sia umile sarebbe meglio si dedicasse ad altro mestiere.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Germania. La rivoluzione è in atto. Grüne primo partito al 27%.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-02.

2019-06-02__Forsa__001

Premettiamo alcune infromazini sulla Docietà di Sondaggi Forsa.

Ma cosa è mai Forsa ed a chi appartiene?

Ce ne siamo già dovuti occupare:

Dopo gli spogli ‘alla austriaca’ ecco in Germania i poll alla ‘Forsa’.

Questa è la presentazione che Forsa fa di sè stessa ne proprio sito.

Senza gran sforzo di fantasia ecco cosa dice di sé stessa in Wikipedia.

«forsa was accused on the political website NachDenkSeiten of becoming involved through manipulation of a survey in a campaign by the organization Initiative Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft (Initiative for a New Social Market Economy) for the introduction of private health insurance»

Germania. Società di sondaggi ‘Forsa’ è dell’Spd. Fate voi.

*

Forsa è nota per aver usato i propri sondaggi come arma impropria, pubblicando risultati di alta risonanza che poi non sono stati corroborati né da altri sondaggi né dal responso delle urne. Tuttavia quello che segue è riportato, data l’enormità del fatto che, se fosse vero, muterebbe il proscenio politico tedesco, e con esso anche quello europeo.

*

La Cdu sarebbe proiettata al 26%, la Spd al 12% ed i Grüne al 27%, diventando così il primo partito tedesco.

Nessun si stupisce che la Cdu sia scesa al 26%, né che la Spd sia crollata al 12% ma che i Grüne abbiano guadagnato otto punti percentuali in pochi giorni sarebbe dato che, per diventare credibile, necessiterebbe di essere corroborato da altri sondaggi.

Se però il dato fosse reale, alle prossime elezioni il cancelliere sarebbe appannaggio dei verdi.

*

Vi sono però molte situazioni al contorno che potrebbero suggerire anche altre possibilità

Domani si riunirà la direzione della Cdu, convocata di urgenza da una Frau Akk dimezzata dopo la pesante prsa di posizione di Frau Merkel, che la ritiene inidonea al posto che occupa e, quindi, ad una eventuale cancelleria.

Germania. Brandenburg. AfD primo partito del Land (+11.4 pp).

Germania. La fanteria scopa-trasportata attacca Akk.

Germania. Duisburg-Marxloh. Un gran bel campanello di allarme.

Germania. La grande malata di Europa. Cdu -7.4, Spd -11.5. Tutti vecchietti.

Germania, Merkel silura Akk. Die Zerstörung der CDU.

*

Ma a qualche giorno di distanza si terrà la direzione della Spd, altra formzione politica in via di estinzione.

Germania. Chieste le dimissioni di Ms Andrea Nahles, boss della Spd.

Elezioni Europee. Bremen. La Spd si è disintegrata. Große Koalition in bilico.

* * * * * * *

L’entità del crollo del PPE e del PSE sarà il metro della vittoria dei sovranisti.

La Große Koalition si sta disintegrando, per morte naturale.

I due partiti tradizionali che la formano non hanno un programma politico che goda della caratteristica di essere fattibile, coperto finanziariamente, e la gente percepisce  la loro dirigenza come un insieme di cariatidi messe lì, come le mummie esposte nei musei egizi.

Per darsi almeno uno straccetto dietro cui correre, hanno riesumato ‘clima’ ed energie alternative, ma nella pratica nulla hanno fatto. ‘Clima’ ed energie alternative richiederebbero fondi giganteschi, che nessuno al mondo può concedersi.


Die Zerstörung der CDU [Youtube]. 14,128,170 visualizzazioni.

Questo j’accuse fatto da un ragazzino, un certo Rexo, che è costato ben caro a Frau Merkel e sodali.

‘perché votare Cdu oppure Spd

che parlano e non fanno?’

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

Merkel va ad Harvard ma non alla White House.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-31.

Merkel Trump G7

Zuhörer in Harvard feiern Merkel für emotionale Rede

«Harvard hat der Kanzlerin die Ehrendoktorwürde verliehen und vor allem den Satz “Wir schaffen das” gewürdigt. In ihrer Rede beschwor sie den freien Welthandel.»

Il padrino regalava sempre un Rolex d’oro  a quelli che aveva ordinato di uccidere.



«We have to take our destiny much more into our own hands in the future if we want to be strong»

A giudicare dai risultati elettorali ed economici Frau Merkel si sarà sicuramente presa in mano il suo destino, e con esso quello della Germania, ma sembrerebbe arduo vederne buoni risultati.

*

È antica costumanza diplomatica che quando un capo di stato vada in visita come tale in un altro stato sia ricevuto dal suo pari, e con tutti gli onori. Diverso è il caso di una visita privata, che però buon garbo suggerirebbe di notificare  con un congruo lasso di tempo.

«Merkel visits Harvard Thursday but is skipping the White House»

«Merkel has faced a barrage of attacks since Trump took office — over German luxury cars, defense spending, Iran, Russian gas, and doing business with China’s Huawei Technologies Co. But it was the rupture after last June’s G-7 meeting that made up her mind: Trump is not a partner that Germany can rely on.»

«Almost 12 months on, the situation has only gotten worse. There’s a mix of anguish and frustration in Berlin and officials are asking themselves whether the relationship has already crossed the point of no return.»

«When the chancellor visits the U.S. Thursday, she’ll give a commencement speech at Harvard University, but she won’t bother visiting the White House as she has the past two years.»

«U.S. officials insist that Trump respects Merkel. But they also give a sense of the misunderstanding at the heart of their relationship.»

«U.S. officials insist that Trump respects Merkel. But they also give a sense of the misunderstanding at the heart of their relationship.»

* * * * * * *

Se il fatto non fosse una farsa, sarebbe da considerarlo una tragedia.

Il cuore del problema risiede nel fatto che le divergenze in essere tra due stati non dovrebbero mai debordare in un fatto personale tra i capi dei medesimi. Si possono avere esigenze e visioni divergenti, anche opposte, ma ciò non dovrebbe inficiare il rapporto umano. Tanto, alla fine, ci si deve pur sempre sedere attorno ad un tavolo e trattare: al massimo cambiano le persone. Tenere il broncio, farsi i dispettucci dovrebbe essere roba da donnicciole, da lavandaie ai trogoli, ed in questo Frau Merkel è un ottimo esempio.

A nostro personale ed ovviamente opinabile punto di vista, le rigidità in diplomazia gettano solo sabbia negli ingranaggi, rendendo sempre più difficile la possibilità di arrivare ad un accordo gradito ad ambo le parti.

A novembre l’attuale dirigenza dell’Unione Europea scadrà, lasciando il posto ad altre figure politiche.

Queste avranno sicuramente le proprie idee politiche ed economiche, ma sarebbe auspicabile che avessero un briciolino in più di arte diplomatica o, quanto meno, di buona educazione.

Consoliamoci con il fatto che Frau Merkel non è eterna, anche se lei se lo crede.


Bloomberg. 2019-05-30. The Moment Merkel Realized Trump Changes Everything for Germany

– Merkel visits Harvard Thursday but is skipping the White House

– Trump has hammered Merkel on trade, China, Nord Stream, cars

*

For Angela Merkel, the wakeup call came in the middle of the night.

The German chancellor was asleep in her government plane somewhere over the Atlantic in June last year when Donald Trump scuttled the fragile settlement she’d built with other Group of Seven leaders in Canada, according to a person familiar with the events.

Before turning in for the night, she’d been in a buoyant mood due to the concessions she secured from the U.S. president for a common statement on trade. When he went back on his word, she was stunned.

Merkel has faced a barrage of attacks since Trump took office — over German luxury cars, defense spending, Iran, Russian gas, and doing business with China’s Huawei Technologies Co. But it was the rupture after last June’s G-7 meeting that made up her mind: Trump is not a partner that Germany can rely on.

Almost 12 months on, the situation has only gotten worse. There’s a mix of anguish and frustration in Berlin and officials are asking themselves whether the relationship has already crossed the point of no return.

Even if Trump loses in 2020, they say the trust that underpinned the transatlantic friendship for seven decades may be gone for good. Germany has already started building new alliances that will safeguard its interests in a world where the U.S. won’t. And some of them are not to Washington’s liking.

“We have to take our destiny much more into our own hands in the future if we want to be strong,” Merkel told a political rally on Friday in Munich.

Trump’s Beef

When the chancellor visits the U.S. Thursday, she’ll give a commencement speech at Harvard University, but she won’t bother visiting the White House as she has the past two years.

U.S. officials insist that Trump respects Merkel. But they also give a sense of the misunderstanding at the heart of their relationship.

Trump’s main beef with Merkel is Germany’s trade surplus, one senior administration official said. But the U.S. administration has little patience with the fact that Germany, like all other European Union members, has handed control of trade negotiations to Brussels. Trump argues that Germany should be able to use its leverage as Europe’s largest economy to sway the talks.

In private meetings, the president has implored Merkel to engage personally in trade talks, the official said. But the chancellor insists he has to speak to the European Commission.

The official insists there is no animosity, but nor is there any rapport.

“The president has his opinions, and I have mine,” Merkel said in an interview with CNN aired Tuesday. “Very often we also find common ground. If not, then we have to keep on talking and negotiating.”

It’s a far cry from Barack Obama, or even George W. Bush. She embraced Obama when he visited the chancellery in April and in 2007 she was delighted to visit Bush’s Texas ranch.

White House Tour

It’s not that Trump and Merkel haven’t tried.

On her second visit to the Trump White House in April 2018, the president gave Merkel a tour of the residence, including the Lincoln Bedroom, as he sought to impress her.

But Trump acts as if his charm offensives can work even when he’s attacking Germany on policy issues. For Merkel, it all adds up and the result is a president she can’t trust.

Weeks after that White House visit, he claimed, — falsely — that crime in Germany was “way up” because of Merkel’s immigration policy. A month later he labeled her a “captive of Russia” for planning a new gas link. In December, U.S. officials threatened to shut Germany out of shared intelligence networks if Huawei was allowed to supply equipment for the country’s fifth-generation data networks.

Merkel’s Fears

All this is part of a broader assault on the multilateral world order that has kept Germany safe and made it rich. As Trump steps up his attacks, Merkel’s warnings about the dangers that poses are growing darker.

After that last White House visit, the chancellor began to ruminate on the Thirty Years War which devastated Europe in the 17th century. Then, as now, Europe had enjoyed some 70 years of stability. And then, as now, leaders began to disregard the constraints that underpinned that peace.

“In one fell swoop, the whole order went in the trash,” Merkel said at a religious conference a few days after returning from Washington.

That’s increasingly how decision-makers in Germany view the transatlantic relationship. Even as they muddle through in areas where cooperation is possible, the toughest issues are getting tougher.

Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran has left German officials struggling to hold together the accord that restricted the regime’s ability to produce weapons-grade uranium after the U.S. pulled out. German officials are bewildered at what they see as a lack of strategic direction.

With German businesses angry at being forced to bow to threats from the White House, one senior official said Iran could be the issue that triggers a broader rupture between the U.S. and Germany.

New Ties to Russia

As Trump turns the screws, he’s forcing Germany into the arms of rival powers like China and Russia, a move that serves in turn to deepen the frustration in Washington.

Perhaps the most significant example is the Nord Stream 2 pipeline which will pump 55 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year under the Baltic Sea from Russia to Germany.

Officials in Merkel’s chancellery were taken aback in February at coordinated American diplomatic maneuvers to scuttle the project and now the U.S. is threatening sanctions against companies involved.

“We always have had powers that were trying to change the rules of the game,” Niels Annen, Germany’s deputy foreign minister, told a conference in Berlin this month. “What is new is the country that was really at the beginning, that was at the creation of that set of rules, is now trying to question this.”

Trump’s Envoy

At the center of the Trump diplomacy in Berlin is Ambassador Richard Grenell, a Trump loyalist and one-time Fox News contributor with a penchant for lighting political brush fires and a direct line to the president. Grenell’s sharp elbows might be a deliberate tactic for Trump, but at least in the short term, they damage his cause.

Trump has potential allies in Berlin who agree that Germany should raise defense spending and take a harder line on Russia. But Grenell’s scorched-earth approach is alienating the German public and making it difficult for them to offer him support, according to several officials.

“The way in which at least the American administration makes policy in general at the moment, with a lot of sanctions, with the fact that international agreements are scrapped, is not a good way to cooperate,” Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer, who replaced Merkel as leader of the governing Christian Democrats last year, told Bloomberg Television in Davos, Switzerland, in January.

And so Merkel is edging toward a world in which Germany no longer relies on the U.S. In November last year she raised the prospect of a European army. Merkel called Trump’s bluff over Huawei, refusing to ban the company from German networks. And the Russian gas pipeline is going ahead.

But it’s not a world that Merkel has sought and it’s not one that she welcomes.

When she realized it would fall to her to build it on that flight back from Quebec she was shocked. She avoided the reporters on her plane until they landed again in Berlin. Then she got straight into her car, and drove off.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Ungheria. Aiuti alle famiglie prolifiche.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-17.

Ungheria 001

Gli ultimi sondaggi disponibili evidenziano un Fidesz con percentuali oscillanti tra il 52% ed il 57%, con uno stacco di quasi trenta punti percentuali sul secondo partito ungherese. Sono proiezioni che confermano completamente i risultati delle ultime elezioni.

*

L’Ungheria è uscita trenta anni or sono dal giogo comunista che la aveva asservita e dominata per un cinquantennio. Imploso il comunismo è rimasto un cumulo di macerie morali, etiche, ed economiche. La ricostruzione è stata ben lunga e difficile e l’Unione Europea ben poco ha fatto per quel paese, anche se l’ingresso dell’Ungheria nella Nato era stato condizionato anche ad aiuti non soltanto militari.

Non ci si dimentichi che il 23 ottobre 1956 gli ungheresi trovarono il coraggio di ribellarsi, e che per questo versarono il loro contributo di sangue. La repressione fu severa.

Senza avere presente la storia ungherese resterebbe quasi impossibile comprendere quanto siano abbarbicati alle loro radici religiose, storiche, culturali, sociali, politiche ed anche artistiche. Sono sopravvissuti grazie alla venerazione per le loro tradizioni, unica fonte di speranza nel futuro.

Ma la tradizione non alberga nelle tombe degli avi: la tradizione di incarna e vive nella prole.

Negli ultimi decenni l’Ungheria ha subito una forte emigrazione costituita principalmente da persone giovani, cui è conseguito un calo delle nascite, avendo come concausa la situazione economica sinistrata. Il rapporto vecchi / giovani è molto elevato.

Al momento attuale, il tasso di fertilità ungherese si attesta a1.397 figli per donna.

Nel 2018 il Fondo Monetario Internazionale stimava il pil ppa procapite ungherese a 31,903 dollari americani.

Il momento della miseria e della povertà sembrerebbe essere alle spalle. Il basso tasso di fertilità sembrerebbe da ascriversi ad altri moventi.

*

Nell’ultimo lustro l’Unione Europea e l’Ungheria hanno avuto diatribe, legate al fatto che la attuale dirigenza europea, che sta per uscire di carica, si riconosce nell’idealismo socialista di stretta osservanza, Weltanschauung opposta a quella ungherese.

Uno dei tanti nodi è costituito dalla visione della famiglia degli ungheresi, che di recente hanno legiferato introducendo numerosi aiuti economici alle famiglie che prolificavano.

L’articolo che alleghiamo è l’enunciazione del credo liberal in materia.

Sarebbero molte le considerazioni da fare, ma una sembrerebbe essere della massima importanza.

Mr Orban ed il suo partito, il Fidesz, ottengono una propensione al voto ben sopra il 50%, confermando come ricordato i risultati elettorali.

L’articolo cita invece le ngo, ong, come se fossero la reale espressione della coralità ungherese, arrivando fino a definirle ‘società civile’.

La società civile è quella costituita dai Cittadini Elettori, che si esprimono nelle urne.

È clamorosamente falso proporre realtà non elettive e rappresentate da ben poche persone come si fossero la espressione della volontà popolare. I liberal socialisti lo vorrebbero, ma non è proprio così.

Ricordiamo come di quell’articolo non siano condivisi nemmeno i diacritici.

Il 26 maggio si sta avvicinando, ed in quel giorno ci si conterà.

Forse, con un centinaio di eurodeputati in meno, i liberal deporranno almeno in parte l’antica alterigia.


Corriere. 2019-05-13. Madri sovrane nell’Ungheria di Orbán

Ai tempi del socialismo qui si scavava carbone e le fabbriche producevano alluminio. Oggi a Várpalota, ventimila abitanti 90 km a sud-ovest di Budapest, le miniere sono chiuse, il lavoro viene dall’industria chimica e dal turismo. Edina e Daniel si sono trasferiti nel 2017. Quattro camere più soggiorno vista ciminiere, 92 metri quadrati al secondo piano di una palazzina bianca in un complesso per venti famiglie. Nell’area verde la domenica si fa il barbecue e i bambini giocano sull’altalena. In casa sfrecciano Eszter di 9 anni, Sara di 5 e Patrik di 3.

Edina e Daniel aspettano il quarto figlio. Lei ha 38 anni, lavorava come operaia ma ora con tre figli può restare in maternità finché il più piccolo avrà otto anni, con uno stipendio fisso di 25 mila fiorini, circa 80 euro. Lui, 36 anni, trasporta rifiuti pericolosi in un’azienda 40 km più a nord per 330 mila fiorini al mese e nel tempo libero arrotonda facendo l’imbianchino. La famiglia Nagy è entrata nel programma di punta del governo nazionalista di Viktor Orbán per sostenere le nascite contro il tracollo demografico. La seconda fase, annunciata a gennaio, estende la legislazione in vigore dal 2015: ogni donna sotto i 40 anni che decida di sposarsi ha diritto a un mutuo agevolato, come pure i nuclei con almeno 2 figli (prima il prestito scattava al terzo e riguardava solo case di nuova costruzione).

Le madri con almeno 4 figli non pagheranno tasse per il resto della vita; dai 3 figli in su arriva l’assegno per un’auto a 7 posti; previsti un contributo per i nonni che badano ai nipoti e la creazione di 21 mila asili nido. In 4 anni accolte 85 mila domande su 100 mila, per un costo di 220 milioni. Solo 500 famiglie hanno chiesto il sussidio senza avere ancora 3 figli: lo schema Csok ammette una semplice promessa, se però il terzogenito non arriva si restituisce il prestito.

È la «legge del bimbo in attesa». La casa di Edina e Daniel è costata 22 milioni di fiorini, 68.750 euro. Dopo un’analisi capillare di consumi e stile di vita hanno ottenuto in totale venti milioni, dieci da ripagare in vent’anni a zero interessi con rate inferiori al 50% del reddito familiare.

«Ha deciso lui, io avevo il terrore di non superare l’esame e perdere anche l’anticipo — ricorda Edina —. Devi pianificare ogni cosa, essere in regola con le bollette e dimostrare di poter pagare le rate. Se non ce la fai in tre mesi ti tolgono tutto. Eravamo sul punto di divorziare ogni settimana». «Mi sono venuti i capelli grigi — aggiunge lui — ma ne è valsa la pena. Nella vecchia casa c’erano infiltrazioni di umidità, qui abbiamo tutto, persino il garage». Edina, pensa mai di tornare al lavoro? Risponde lui: «La madre deve seguire i bambini, anche senza il quarto non gliel’avrei permesso». «Per i figli devi pur rinunciare a qualcosa» sorride lei.

Il terrore dell’annichilimento

Nel Centro-Est dei confini ridefiniti da guerre e alleanze, la demografia è da sempre arma politica. Il filosofo tedesco Johann Herder nel ’700 predisse che lingua e nazione magiare sarebbero state assimilate dai vicini popoli slavi fino a scomparire. Il terrore dell’annichilimento attraversa la storia ungherese e nel nono anno dell’era Orbán fare figli diventa una questione di sicurezza nazionale che si unisce all’altra grande emergenza populista: l’immigrazione.

 Blindare i confini significa anche dover contare solo sulle forze interne per spingere le nascite. Dal picco di 10,7 milioni del 1980 la popolazione è scesa a 9,7. Mentre nel resto dell’ex blocco sovietico la transizione democratica ha significato anche libertà di non avere bambini ma poi il tasso di fertilità è risalito, in Ungheria nel 2017 nascevano ancora 1,54 figli per donna. Nelle vie di Budapest manifesti con giovani coppie, nonni amorevoli e bimbi sorridenti hanno sostituito i poster contro il presidente della Commissione Ue Jean-Claude Juncker e il filantropo George Soros: quella campagna ha fatto saltare la pace fredda tra i Popolari europei e determinato la sospensione del partito di Orbán, Fidesz.

«Non siamo stati sospesi, abbiamo congelato la nostra partecipazione perché non siamo più certi di riconoscerci nel Ppe che apre all’immigrazione e tradisce l’identità cristiana. Decideremo cosa fare dopo il voto» dice al Corriere Zoltán Kovács, segretario di Stato.

Orbán valuta alleanze con Lega e sovranisti ma per l’Italia resta prioritaria la collaborazione sui migranti che Budapest rifiuta… «Matteo Salvini, definito dallo stesso Orbán un eroe, ha dimostrato che è possibile fermare l’immigrazione illegale se c’è volontà politica. La nostra linea non cambia, non condivideremo scelte irresponsabili di altri». La democrazia illiberale cerca nemici pubblici e lacera la società, non è pericolosa? «La democrazia non ha bisogno di definizioni ed è legittimata dalla volontà popolare. Non escludiamo nessuno ma sappiamo in cosa crediamo. La verità non è pericolosa, perché temerla?».

E la verità è ovunque. Una verità dogmatica e artificiale in piena luce che non ammette ombre né obiezioni. Il racconto ufficiale domina i mezzi d’informazione. Nel progetto di rifondazione identitaria al motto «Dio, patria, famiglia» il governo non esita a utilizzare la Storia alimentando la retorica della potenza mutilata dal Trattato del Trianon o rivendicando il ruolo di baluardo contro l’avanzata ottomana, la lotta dell’indomito spirito magiaro per l’indipendenza dall’Austria e la rivoluzione antisovietica del 1956. «Tutti i tiranni ricreano il passato e tutti i governi mentono, c’è una parte di verità in ogni menzogna». Ágnes Heller siede sul divano di velluto verde nella sua casa che guarda il Danubio. La grande filosofa ebrea sopravvissuta all’Olocausto, allieva di György Lukács e interprete del marxismo in chiave etica, fuggita dall’Ungheria poi tornata nel 2009, di contraddizioni ne ha superate.

Questa campagna per la famiglia, dice, si fonda su un calo demografico incontestabile «ma come risponde il potere, che ha a cuore solo la propria sopravvivenza? Con un piano destinato a moltiplicare le famiglie indebitate e che poggia su presupposti antropologici pericolosi, poiché legittima l’idea che si stia insieme per interesse riportando le donne a una divisione di ruoli che le ingabbia: madre a casa, padre al lavoro. Questo quadro valoriale però non attrae le classi bianche agiate alle quali erano rivolti gli incentivi e che sono più corteggiate dagli etno-nazionalisti. La bio-politica fondata sull’ethnos è quanto di più vicino al razzismo possa produrre la società ed è un rischio per tutti».

Anima e corpo

Éva Koppányi, 47 anni, prega nella chiesa dei Santi angeli da dove Apostol Televízió trasmette la messa. «Oggi le persone inseguono i beni materiali e cercano risposte nel New Age. Dobbiamo aiutarle a incontrare Dio e a costruire famiglie che crescano nella fede». La battaglia per la spiritualità coinvolge direttamente la famiglia del premier, calvinista con moglie cattolica e 5 figli. Il secondo, Gáspár, ha in comune con il padre passione per il calcio, talento oratorio e una nazione da salvare: nel 2015 ha fondato una chiesa pentecostale per avvicinare i giovani a Cristo, Felház, Casa.

Nel 2011, atto istitutivo dell’era Fidesz contro il verbo universalista dell’Europa senza radici fu l’adozione della prima Costituzione democratica scritta: la nuova Legge fondamentale introduce nel preambolo l’orgoglio dell’Ungheria cristiana nata con il primo re, Santo Stefano, e tutela la vita «dal momento del concepimento». L’emancipazione femminile non è mai stata una priorità per i governi post-1989, che hanno ereditato una società sessista malgrado l’esaltazione socialista della parità uomo-donna: nel quotidiano ruoli e gerarchie del patriarcato restavano immobili.

«Tutti i regimi oppressivi sono patriarcali — dice Györgyi Tóth di Nane, associazione per i diritti delle donne —. Due fattori possono spingere le nascite: percorsi di rientro al lavoro per le madri e condivisione dei compiti con i compagni. Nulla di tutto questo accade oggi in Ungheria. La politica, con una retorica compiacente scambiata per rispetto, promuove vecchi stereotipi sulle brave amministratrici dalla lacrima facile. Così non si affrontano i veri problemi come la voragine che ci separa dagli uomini per stipendi e prospettive di carriera. Chi può, va via».

In seconda classe

«Tutto è propaganda, le campagne governative sono finanziate con miliardi pubblici ma nessuno scandalo — spiega Eszter Farkas, 31 anni, ricercatrice alla Ceu, l’università finanziata da Soros e costretta a trasferire parte dei corsi a Vienna —. Per mantenere la polarizzazione sociale chi sta al potere non bada a spese, tanto il denaro fa sempre gli stessi giri».

 «Viviamo in una bella favola che non è per tutti — dice Attila, 37 anni, marketing manager e attivista gay per la prevenzione dell’Hiv —. Se non appartieni alla tribù giusta sei fuori, non in modo ufficiale ma poco a poco diventi un intruso nella tua città, ti guardano quando tieni per mano il tuo compagno, le associazioni Lgbt non trovano spazio per i progetti nelle scuole e il Gay Pride sfila dietro le transenne».

Una visione sociale che produce surreali blocchi burocratici, come per la piccola tribù di Zoe Maria (sei mesi), mamma Veronika (30 anni) e papà Janos, che lavora in banca e a 36 anni fa i conti: un divorzio, 2 famiglie, 4 figli. «Il sistema non ha collegato il mio nome a due donne e il sussidio per Zoe è rimasto congelato».

Vera Somfai, 36 anni, manager di risorse del personale, è single. «Non per scelta, non ho trovato quel tipo di stabilità. Oggi mi definisco una nomade digitale, la mia vita mi piace, ho i miei spazi e i miei silenzi. Ma qui non si costruisce il futuro. Se non ti allinei finisci in seconda classe, hanno persino proposto di tagliare del 40% la pensione a chi non ha figli. Il sistema sanitario è a pezzi, in provincia ho visto bruciare plastica e rifiuti per riscaldare le case. In città i problemi si rimuovono e le persone sono sempre più aggressive. C’è chi protesta ma la maggior parte non si oppone all’odio che monta, per 50 anni questa gente non ha potuto parlare e adesso tace. Quasi tutti i miei amici sono andati via, io resto».

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Mondiale, Ideologia liberal, Ong - Ngo

Ngo (Ong) e le guerre ibride.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-16.

Macbeth__011

von Clausewitz aveva argutamente detto come la guerra altro non sia che la prosecuzione dell’attività politica con metodi cruenti. Nella sua ottica, guerra e pace altro non sarebbero che due aspetti complementari di una stessa realtà.

Il postulato implicito sarebbe che tutta la realtà diviene nel tempo, muta sé stessa e le sue intercorrelazioni, determina la formazione di nuovi equilibri sottominando quelli vecchi. Quasi invariabilmente è in gioco l’acceso e la gestione del potere. Talora il vecchio potere collassa, e quello nuovo ne prende il posto quasi senza colpo ferire, almeno senza troppo spargimento di sangue, ma ciò non è la norma: queste evenienze sono storicamente rare.

Usualmente sono le armi a rimuovere il vecchio ed instaurare il nuovo.

In fondo, a ben pensarci, la guerra altro non sarebbe che il mezzo per addivenire ad una nuova pace ragionevolmente stabile, che sancisca i nuovi equilibri.

In questa ottica, le Coalizioni Europee anti-napoleoniche altro non sarebbero state che lo strumento bellico per lasciare una Francia grande, ma non immensa, in una Europa abbastanza equilibrata. Tranne poche guerra locali, questa realtà restò in piedi fino alla fine dell’ottocento. Servirono poi due guerre mondiali per affermare la nascita di nuovi equilibri.

*

Ma adesso lo scenario mondiale sembrerebbe essere mutato.

Se negli anni sessanta l’Occidente rendeva ragione di quasi il novanta percento del pil mondiale, nelle proiezioni dell’IMF al 2023 i paesi del G7 renderanno conto del 27.06% del pil ppa mondiale, mentre i Brics garantiranno il 35.90% dello stesso.

Governare l’Occidente non significa più governare il mondo, ed il mondo inizia a manifestare ampi segni di intolleranza verso l’Occidente.

Ma sarebbe severo errore estinguere il confronto nel mero comparto economico: la contrapposizione è invece tra due differenti Weltanschauung, tra due tradizioni di civiltà.

I paesi dell’est e del sud asiatico, e non solo loro, non condividono, ed avversano, i valori classici dell’Occidente. Non ne condividono etica e morale, e rigettano, perché alieno dalla loro tradizione culturale, il concetto di ‘democrazia’ che si estingua in un suffragio universale. La Cina è diventata un grande impero proprio perché non ha adottato questo sistema.

*

Cercando di andare alla radice, non sono tanto in discussione le radici religiose, culturali, sociali, artistiche e politiche dell’Occidente, quando piuttosto la sua deriva illuministica, sfociata quindi nel giacobinismo, nell’idealismo dialettico e storico, ed infine, attraverso molte tappe, nel’attuale ideologia liberal. È questa ultima che sta crollando e che cerca disperatamente di sopravvivere.

Impero Romano. Analogie con l’attuale Occidente.

Tramonto non dell’Occidente ma della dottrina illuminista.

Davvero Autori quali Dostoevskij, Solov’ëv, Benson, Spengler ed Orwell avevano saputo guardare ben lontano.

*

Le ngo, ogn, non sono dei fini, bensì dei mezzi, e come tale possono essere usate in situazioni pacifiche così come in situazioni belliche. Hanno il grande vantaggio che le loro azioni non coinvolgono in orima persona gli stati che le finanziano, potendo quindi svolgere guerre per procura.

Soros George. Uno stato negli stati. Ecco i suoi principali voivodati.

Soros, ngo e debito studentesco. 50 milioni di americani resi schiavi.

Guerra civile americana. Si avvicina lo scontro finale.

Trump vs Liberal. Ultima battaglia per la vita o la morte nel generale silenzio.

*

Ciò premesso, riproponiamo alla lettura questo articolo datato tre anni or sono: molti dei suoi contenuti si sono dimostrati essere fatti reali.

«Foreign-linked NGOs all across the world play an irreplaceable role in fomenting Hybrid Wars»

Siamo chiari.

Al momento attuale, per moltissimi ambienti e persone, le guerre, ancorché pudicamente denominate ‘ibride’, sono di grande utilità, e quindi le attizzano e le fomentano con la massima cura possibile. Non potendo o volendo farle in prima persona, utilizzano l’esercito delle ngo.

Tuttavia la guerra è l’ultima ratio: non si sa mai come possa finire, ed il destino è spesso beffardo.

È una realtà della quale occorrerebbe prenderne atto.


Oriental Review. 2016-09-29. NGOs And The Mechanics Of Hybrid War

Foreign-linked NGOs all across the world play an irreplaceable role in fomenting Hybrid Wars. The Law of Hybrid War states that these sorts of conflicts are manufactured identity clashes predicated on disrupting, controlling, or influencing multipolar transnational connective infrastructure projects in key transit states by means of enacting Regime Tweaking, Regime Change, or Regime Rebooting (R-TCR). These three tactics could also be described as political concessions, a ‘peaceful’ or violent leadership transition, or a fundamentally altering of the state through such means as its pressured devolution into an easily manipulatable Identity Federation.

As for the sorts of identity conflicts that are expected to comprise Hybrid Wars, they can be categorized as being historical, ethnic, religious, socio-economic, and geographical (both in terms of political administrative and regional belonging). The catalyst for Hybrid War could be premeditated or happenstance, but in both instances, conflict scenarios are driven forward by the crucial public or discrete participation of foreign-linked (as in funded, managed, allied, etc.) NGOs, thereby justifying the reason why they’re being studied in this analysis alongside the latest trends in warfare.

Preconditioning

Just about all foreign-linked NGOs (hereby referred to simply as NGOs) aside from those engaged purely in humanitarian work with the explicit permission and supervision of the host state engage in preconditioning the target population to accept constructed political narratives. These mostly focus on historical, social, and/or political themes which aim to shape the mindset of the audience and contribute to the formation of absolutely new identities (e.g. “Kosovars”) or reformat existing ones (e.g. from patriotism to nationalism, or inclusive citizenship to exclusive separatist longings).

NGOs work alongside new and traditional media outlets in disseminating these ideas and multiplying the effect that they have in altering their audience’s consciousness so as to promote the organization and its patrons’ predetermined objectives in fostering weaponized identity separateness. False, disreputable, and/or questionable “facts” are usually circulated among the information-media-academia triangle of communities and sympathetic operatives in order to spread new mythologies that resultantly socio-engineer the targeted demographics’ mentalities through the crafted illusion that “authoritative voices” are endorsing them.

The seeds of new and/or historically debunked ideologies such as Liberalism and Nazism are planted in the minds of the audience and watered with a steady stream of supportive information designed to increase their appeal and build the foundation for the forthcoming anti-government gambit. After becoming indoctrinated with Liberalism, for example, one might become more susceptible to playing the role of a “useful idiot” and aggressively demonstrating against their government, while believers in Nazism and World War II-era “nationalism” might become emboldened to carry out hateful provocations against their historical ‘enemies’.

Both categories of ideological imprinting are thus equally useful in promoting set political objectives within the targeted state, with the promoted foundation being dependent on what the exact end game conflict is envisioned to be. Liberalism is more amenable to the formation of new identities for separatist purposes, whereas Nazism (or “extreme nationalism” to generalize) has a role to play in generating furious anti-government hate and provoking interstate conflict (e.g. Croatian Ustasha obsessively trying to destabilize Bosnia and the Serbian Province of Vojvodina).

Funding

NGOs must receive their money somehow, and aside from panhandling (or “canvassing for donations” as they term it) in the streets for some extra pocket cash, most of them receive the bulk of their funding from one of three main sources:

Governments:

The US government funds organizations such as the “National Endowment For Democracy” (self-described in 1991 as openly doing what the CIA used to covertly pull off 25 years before then) in order to behave as public-private intelligence fronts abroad, blending professional operative experience with a civilian “plausible deniability”.

Corporations:

Certain companies may have an interest in independently deploying their own NGOs, whether to lobby on behalf of their commercial interests or to agitate against their opponents, with this potentially escalating to the level of putting R-TCR (Regime – Tweaking, Change, Reboot) pressure on one or another government for these purposes.

“Philanthropies”:

“Private” donors such as George Soros and the Saudi Princes operate the Soros Foundation and “Islamic charities” respectively (the latter being the first large-scale weaponized worldwide NGO network during the 1980s Afghan War period), with their organizations having spread all across the globe by this point and sometimes working to promote their shadowy interests hand-in-hand with selected government clients.

Each of these three different sources provide seed funding and training to their on-the-ground proxies, with the desire being that they’ll succeed in cultivating a community of fifth and sixth columnists to aid with their goals. Organizational training and organizing techniques are pivotal because of how strongly they influence a group’s effectiveness, since at the end of the day, it’s usually just the small core membership that truly counts since their affiliated cohorts and civilians are either volunteers or low-cost temporary expenses.

NGOs are also very useful to their patrons because they function as middlemen facilitators in giving bribes and conveying blackmail to different private individuals (e.g. journalists) and political figures, and if they operate in a ‘laissez faire’ environment, then they could also valuably partake in different scales of money laundering activities to these ends or in support of their backers’ pecuniary interests. Even if they get caught, the single degree of separation that they “plausibly” enjoy from their sponsors due to their allegedly “independent” status is enough to insulate their supporters from any “official” blame.

Figureheads

NGOs have learned to employ local faces and personnel for staffing their foreign offices, understanding that this helps to deflect any immediate criticism of their foreign ties as well as confuse naïve ‘investigative reporters’ who only superficially look at the passports of the people working there in drawing their determinations. In reality though, this policy is actually less about obscuring the said NGOs links to abroad than it is about duping the populace that they plan on interacting with, since dedicated sleuths are usually successful at uncovering the financial, communication, and personal connections that link an investigated organization to a foreign entity.

Regular individuals on the street, however, might not have any idea that their fellow citizen passing out anti-government fliers and encouraging them to join a protest might be in the employ of foreign entities, even if some of the group’s staff themselves aren’t even aware of this. The disingenuity that comes with tricking people into joining an activity or organization due to the fact that the foreign ties behind it are deliberately obscured proves that the initiative’s backers knowingly accept that locals would likely shy away from these sorts of things if they knew that they were sponsored from abroad. Because many of them otherwise have no idea about this, however, they’re more susceptible to being misled into participating.

Along the lines of NGO figureheads, it should relatedly be mentioned that the leaders of the eventual anti-government government are sometimes pastors (Zimbabwe), monks (Myanmar, the Tibet Autonomous Region), or students (‘traditional’ Color Revolutions), all of which have an international reputation as being seemingly innocuous and harmless. No matter if this was actually true before The Event (the specifics of which will be described soon) or not, the fact is that the moment that these purportedly peaceful actors begin aggressively demonstrating against the government, provoking conflict with the police and military, and sometimes even attacking law enforcement officers and public & private property, they’ve forfeited their right to be responded to in a non-violent fashion, thus justifying the authorities’ decisive (and sometimes heavy-handed) crowd control techniques.

These figureheads also play another complementary role as well, and it’s to promote their presumably peaceful reputations through collusive media channels that have an interest in portraying these individuals as “calm pro-democracy protesters” so as to selectively edit and deliberately misreport their provoked clashes with the authorities as being the result of an “unpopular and power-hungry dictatorship killing its own people”. Never mind that none of this is factually true, but it’s the purposeful misperception that counts because of the ease with which such manufactured narratives can quickly blow a local, regional, or national event completely out of proportion in order to rapidly turn it into an “international crisis” that prompts foreign governments to put much-publicized pressure on the targeted state.

Demanding “Democracy”

The one tactic that all politically affiliated NGOs (whether openly stated or secretly of this disposition) end up pursuing is to eventually put pressure on their host government in a bid to make it more “democratic”. The reason why “democracy” is such an obsession for these organizations and their backers doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with its inherent ‘normative’ qualities (most often of the Western iteration of this ideology), but with its convenient structure in regularly phasing out leadership cycles. Western-influenced ‘democracies’ have predictable election cycles which are understood in the Theory of Hybrid War as representing nothing more than ‘peaceful’ opportunities for regime change, ergo the frantic activity that NGOs engage in before, during, and immediately after this time. Western ‘democracy’ is also marked by the inseparable political culture of lobbyists (legal bribers) and commercially driven mainstream media outlets, which makes it all the much easier for foreign actors and their local NGO pawns to interfere with the ‘democratic’ process and hijack it in the direction of their aims.

If elections don’t result in the desired outcome that the NGOs and their international backers are seeking, or if the next electoral cycle isn’t for a few years and these actors grow impatient and/or believe that the window for achieving their political ends might close by that time, then they’ll conspire to engineer an Event that puts pressure on the government to embark on R-TCR under the omnipresent threat of Hybrid War. Examples of the type of pressure that could be brought to bear against the authorities are election-related drama, corruption scandals (possibly sparked by NSA-‘leaked’ wiretaps and/or documents like Brazil’s ‘Constitutional Coup’ and the failed Macedonian Hybrid War attempt), disruptive ‘civil society’ movements (e.g. Armenia’s “Electric Yerevan”), and the politicization of controversial deals (e.g. Ukraine’s EU Association Agreement) that attempt to force a new or early round of elections.

If the government doesn’t tweak, change, or reboot after experiencing the ‘peaceful’ Color Revolution coercion that the foreign interests and their NGO foot soldiers try to ‘democratically’ force upon it, then the foreign government(s) behind the charade might take the decision to commence Hybrid War by transitioning the Color Revolution to an Unconventional War. It’s not always guaranteed that this will be the case, since sometimes certain Color Revolution disturbances aren’t fully backed up by their foreign sponsors and NGO network and are instead test probes for assessing structural vulnerabilities, responses, and other sorts of valuable intelligence that could come in handy in a future R-TCR scenario that’s more determinately supported for these purposes. After all, if the state is strong enough to defend against this asymmetrical attack using Democratic Security measures and/or the future insurgency lacks the long-term viability to sustain a successful R-TCR Hybrid War campaign (perhaps if an effective “Lead From Behind” regional arrangement can’t be constructed in time), then the foreign backers might pull out their support for the unrest and wait until another future opportunity could be engineered at a more decisive moment.

Making The Leap

When the Color Revolution undergoes the phased transition into Hybrid War by evolving into an Unconventional War, there’s a lot of the former behind-the-scenes structural arrangement that simply stays the same but under a different name. Many of the NGO networks and their personnel transition into armed insurgents or provide the fighters with informational, organizational, logistical, and/or material support.

Although the tactics of R-TCR have changed, the principle still remains the same, though with a noticeable and less covert influx of foreign assistance (insurgents, weapons) in pursuit of these ends.

Not all foreign-linked NGOs and their workers might partake in these openly seditious activities, but it’s a fair bet that many of them will to some extent or another, since after all, the only difference between the Color Revolutionaries and their Unconventional Warfare counterparts are the means which they’re willing to employ in achieving their shared goal, with ‘each hand washing the other’ in carrying out complementary tasks to this end.

Concluding Thoughts

Hybrid War is the latest form of aggression being waged by unipolar forces against the emerging Multipolar World Order, and the indirect way in which it’s practiced shields the perpetrator from immediate repercussions and thus increases the attractiveness of this stratagem. Seeing as how the reliance on Hybrid War as a foreign policy instrument shows no signs of realistically abating for the foreseeable future due to the novel and cost-effective nature in which it’s applied, there’s a pressing urgency to understand every facet in which it’s fought, ergo the pertinence in exposing the pivotal role that NGOs play in this process.

Remembering that Hybrid Wars are premised on the outside instigation and subsequent manipulation of identity conflict in a targeted transit state along the route of a prominent multipolar transnational connective infrastructure project, then it’s much easier to conceptualize the function that hostile foreign-linked NGOs have in putting this sequence of ‘controlled chaos’ into motion. These groups are tasked with provoking a sense of identity separateness among the population, a socially engineered sentiment which the organizers envision will eventually turn patriotic citizens into anti-government sympathizers.

The NGO networks and local personnel that participate in this foreign-assisted scheme and aspire to disrupt, control, or influence these aforementioned infrastructure projects through varying degrees of R-TCR pressure against the authorities usually transition into insurgents and other forms of asymmetrical threats when their failed Color Revolution tactics begin phasing into an enhanced Unconventional Warfare form. Since foreign-linked NGOs are the vanguard forces spearheading the latest iteration of Hybrid War all across the world, it’s in the best interests of every responsible government to place supervisory checks and operative restrictions on these groups in order to neuter their offensive capabilities and ensure national security.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Senza categoria

Germania. Spd giovanile propone di nazionalizzare la Bmw.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-16.

2019-05-15__Spd_Bmw__001

Assieme alla Cdu di Frau Merkel, la Spd da circa trenta anni accusa una continua perdita di elettori.

La percentuale dei voti conseguiti è scesa dal 40.8% del 1979, al 32.2% del 1994, al 21.5% del 2004.

Secondo le ultime prospezioni raccoglierebbe tra il 15% ed il 17% delle propensioni al voto.

Se questa devoluzione dell’ideologia socialista non stupisce nel aspetto globale, questo inarrestabile declino comporta consistenti sommovimenti del quadro politico tedesco.

Forse l’aspetto principale consisterebbe nella futura impossibilità di formare altre Große Koalition con la Cdu.

La Germania sembrerebbe avviarsi verso un periodo in cui sarà governata da coalizioni molto variegate, ove ogni azione di governo dovrebbe essere ampiamente negoziata tra gli alleati.

Per la Spd, invece, il problema si prospetta semplice da esser enunciato e molto difficile da essere risolto: non ha più alcuna linea politica né da seguire né da proporre.

Una piccola quota proporrebbe un ritorno al vero e proprio socialismo: Jusos, la sua formazione giovanile, ha proposto un piano di nazionalizzazioni, ad iniziare da quella della Bmw.

Un’altra piccola quota proporrebbe di ridurre ulteriormente la propensione allo statalismo.

Ma la massa degli Elettori continua a votare Spd per l’abitudine contratta: non desidererebbe cambiamenti.

* * *

Se il ritorno alla discussione politica sia sicuramente salutare all’interno di un partito politico, unica via per cercare nuove risposte alle nuove problematiche emergenti, d’altra parte il parlarne troppo a voce alta correrebbe il serio rischio di generare ancor più confusione.

«Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) are becoming unelectable after the head of their youth wing JUSOS called for companies such as BMW to be collectively owned, works council chiefs have warned»

*

«SPD leader Andrea Nahles told the paper:»

*

«Workers can feel assured: The SPD is not demanding nationalization.»

*

«Every day, we pursue policies for good work, high collective wage agreements and secure pensions – all in line with the works councils»

* * * * * * *

“Siçut Silo erit domus hæc: et urbs ista desolabitur


Reuters. 2019-05-04. Germany’s SPD becoming unelectable, works council chiefs say

Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) are becoming unelectable after the head of their youth wing JUSOS called for companies such as BMW to be collectively owned, works council chiefs have warned.

*

BERLIN (Reuters) – Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD) are becoming unelectable after the head of their youth wing JUSOS called for companies such as BMW to be collectively owned, works council chiefs have warned.

JUSOS chief Kevin Kuehnert, 29, unleashed a storm of protest, including from party allies, this week when he said that “without collectivization, overcoming capitalism is not thinkable”, citing BMW specifically.

The uproar took on a new dimension with the publication on Saturday of comments from works council chiefs, traditionally among the party’s biggest supporters, who said the SPD was alienating itself from workers.

“For workers at German companies, this SPD is no longer electable,” Manfred Schoch, head of the general works council at BMW, told WirtschaftsWoche magazine.

Works councils are elected bodies dealing with management on issues such as working conditions and are a particular feature of Germany’s post-war economic success. Kuehnert’s vision for some evokes memories of Communist East Germany.

The backlash threatens to further erode support for the SPD, junior partner in conservative Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition. The SPD is languishing in polls and risks heavy losses in European and regional elections later this month.

The party may even lose power in Bremen, a city state they have ruled for 73 years, in a May 26 vote. Kuehnert, who opposed going into coalition with Merkel’s conservatives, appeals to those on the left of the party but less so to the centrists and floating voters it needs to increase its overall vote share.

Mass-selling daily Bild splashed the backlash on page one of its Saturday edition and quoted the head of Daimler’s works council Michael Brecht as saying: “I share the view that it is becoming ever hard for workers to vote for the SPD.”

Brecht pressed the SPD to work out quickly what it wants to stand for: “For secure jobs and a sustainable industry policy, or for fantasies far from reality that in the end only cost jobs and increase social inequality.”

Bild also quoted the former head of Porsche’s works council, Uwe Hueck, an SPD member since 1982, as saying the party was still electable but adding that Kuehnert’s comments were absolute nonsense that could be excused by his age.

“If he had witnessed the GDR himself, then he would not say something like that,” Hueck said with reference to former Communist East Germany.

SPD leader Andrea Nahles told the paper: “Workers can feel assured: The SPD is not demanding nationalization. Every day, we pursue policies for good work, high collective wage agreements and secure pensions – all in line with the works councils.”