Trump wants US troops out of northern Syria: RFK Jr
Press TV – November 7, 2024
President-elect Donald Trump wants to withdraw US troops from northern Syria rather than leave them as “cannon fodder” if fighting breaks out between Turkey and Kurdish militants, his ally Robert F Kennedy Jr has said.
Kennedy, who is expected to play a major role in the new US government, said during a live broadcast that Trump had expressed his intentions for northern Syria during a plane journey.
“We were talking about the Middle East, and he took a piece of paper and drew on it a map of the Middle East with all the nations on it, which most Americans couldn’t do.
“He was he was particularly looking at the border between Syria and Turkey, and he said, ‘We have 500 men on the border of Syria and Turkey and a little encampment that was bombed,’” Kennedy said.
Trump had told him there were 750,000 troops in Turkey and 250,000 militants in Syria. “If they go up against each other, we’re in the middle,” Trump told him, according to Kennedy.
Trump was told by the “generals” that the US troops would be “cannon fodder” if Turkey and the Kurdish forces came to blows. “And he said, ‘Get them out!'” Kennedy said.
Trump was re-elected president on Wednesday after easily beating his rival Kamala Harris.
The US military has for long stationed its forces and equipment in northeastern Syria, with the Pentagon claiming that the deployment is aimed at preventing the oilfields in the area from falling into the hands of Daesh terrorists.
Damascus maintains the deployment is meant to plunder the country’s natural resources. Trump admitted on several occasions that American forces were in the Arab country for its oil wealth.
Turkey has also deployed forces in Syria in violation of the Arab country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Ankara views US-backed YPG Kurdish militants as a terrorist organization tied to the homegrown Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which has been seeking an autonomous region in Turkey since 1984.
Nukes, NATO and New World Order: Putin Highlights Global Challenges Facing World in Coming Decades
By Ilya Tsukanov – Sputnik – 07.11.2024
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said that the coming decades could prove even more difficult than the first quarter of the 21st century owing to the birth pangs of the formation of a new, multipolar world order.
“Looking back over the past 20 years and considering the scale of changes, then projecting such changes onto the coming years, one could assume that the next two decades will be at least as challenging, if not more so,” Putin said at the plenary session of the Valdai International Discussion Club on Thursday, pointing to the “era of cardinal, essentially revolutionary changes” and the complex processes facing the world today.
“The imposition and transformation of totalitarian ideologies into the norm is a threat. We see in the example of today’s Western liberalism, which has resulted in extreme intolerance and aggression toward any alternative, toward any sovereign and independent thought, and today justifies neo-Nazism, terrorism, racism and even the mass genocide of civilian populations,” Putin said.
Today, Putin said, “democracy is increasingly being interpreted” by some “as the power of the minority rather than the majority,” contrasting “traditional democracy and people’s rule with some abstract freedom, for the sake of which democratic procedures, majority opinion, freedom of speech and non-partisanship in the media can be neglected and even sacrificed.”
“There must not be a situation where the model of one country or a relatively small part of humanity is taken as something that’s universal and imposed on everyone else,” Putin said.
Dangers Emanating From Deadly New Weapons
“International conflicts and clashes are fraught with mutually assured destruction. After all, weapons capable of doing so exist and are constantly being improved, acquiring new forms as technology develops. And the club of those who possess such weapons is expanding. No one can guarantee that they will not be used in the event of an avalanche-like increase in threats and the total destruction of legal and moral norms,” the Russian president warned.
“Calls in the West to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, a country possessing the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons, demonstrate the extreme recklessness of Western politicians, at least some of them. Such blind faith in their own impunity and sense of exceptionalism can turn into a global tragedy,” Putin said.
“There is only one military bloc left in the world today, held together by…rigid ideological dogmas and cliches – and that is the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which, without stopping its expansion to the east of Europe, is now trying to extend its approaches to other spaces of the world, violating its own statutory documents,” Putin said, highlighting the alliance’s broken promises not to expand eastward, and absolute disregard for Russia’s interests.
“Ultimately, this all began to look like a creeping intervention, which, without any exaggeration, would be aimed at some kind of humiliation, or better still [for NATO, ed.] the destruction of the country either from the inside or from the outside,” the president added.
Birth Pangs of a New World Order
In this environment, “a serious, irreconcilable struggle is unfolding” to form a new world order, according to Putin – “irreconcilable first and foremost because this is not even a fight for power or geopolitical influence,” but “a clash regarding the very principles on which relations between countries and peoples will be built in the next stage of history. Its outcome will determine whether we can build a world that will allow everyone to develop and resolve emerging contradictions on the basis of mutual respect for cultures and civilizations, without coercion and the use of force.”
“In a sense, a moment of truth is coming. The old world order is going away forever, one might say it is already gone,” Putin said.
“Under threat is the monopoly of the West, arising after the collapse of the Soviet Union, acquired at the end of the 20th century. Any monopoly, as we know from history, ends sooner or later. There are no illusions here that monopolies are always a harmful thing – even for the monopolists themselves,” Putin said, pointing to the “chaos and systemic crises growing in the countries trying to pursue such policies.”
As the Cold War ended, instead of seeing “a chance to rebuild the world on new fair principles, [the West] saw it as their triumph, victory, as our country’s capitulation to the West, and therefore an opportunity, by the rights of the winner, to establish complete dominance,” Putin said.
“Again, some people had the idea that the world would be better off without Russia, and they tried to finish her off, to destroy everything that was left after the USSR’s collapse, and now, it seems, someone is dreaming about this, thinking that the world will be more obedient, better managed. But Russia has more than once stopped those striving for world domination. And a world without Russia would not be better, and those trying to accomplish this must finally understand this,” Putin said.
The Russian president said that the emerging multipolar world order must be one that’s without hegemons, without any “losing countries or peoples. No one should feel disadvantaged or humiliated. Only then will we be able to ensure truly long-term conditions for universal fair and safe development.”
“There can be no talk of any hegemony in the new international environment. When this irrefutable and immutable fact is recognized, for example, in Washington and other Western capitals, the process of building a world system that meets the challenges of the future will finally enter a phase of its genuine creation. God willing, this will happen as soon as possible,” Putin said.
“We are confident that BRICS provides everyone with a good example of truly constructive cooperation in the new international environment,” Putin said, pointing out that “even among NATO members there are those, as you know, who are interested in working closely with BRICS.”
“In the meantime, those interested in creating a just and lasting peace have to spend too much effort on overcoming the destructive actions our adversaries take for the sake of their monopolies. It’s obvious that this is happening – everyone sees it, in the West itself, in the East, in the South, they all see it,” Putin said.
Russia does not see Western civilization as an enemy, does not pose the question of “us or them,” nor does it seek to impose its will on anyone, Putin said. This is the policy of the United States and its allies in recent years, and is a formula for disaster, he suggested.
“Acute, fundamental, emotionally charged conflicts do of course significantly complicate global development, but do not interrupt it. In place of chains of interaction destroyed by political decisions and even military means, others arise. Yes, much more complex, sometimes confusing, but ones which preserve economic and social ties. We have seen this in recent years,” Putin said, highlighting the collective West’s failure to “exclude Russia from the world system, both economically and politically.”
The Valdai International Discussion Club is an organization bringing together leading foreign and Russian experts in political science, economics, history, and international relations.
The club was established in 2004 through the initiative of Russia’s RIA Novosti News Agency, the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, and the journals Russia in Global Affairs and Russia Profile. The club takes its name from the location of its first conference, held in Veliky Novgorod near Lake Valdai.
The Trump mandate
By Daniel MCCARTHY | Strategic Culture Foundation | November 7, 2024
Donald Trump has won a victory even more stunning than his upset defeat of Hillary Clinton eight years ago. Two impeachments, relentless lawfare and innumerable criminal charges, two assassination attempts, and an unceasing chorus of the nation’s most powerful media calling him a “fascist” could not stop Trump. In the teeth of all that adversity, Trump has only grown stronger. And now he has the symbolic yet potent mandate of a popular-vote majority.
That majority adds psychological force that makes the Trump revolution cultural as well as political. Before, it was easy for Trump’s critics to believe his 2016 victory was a fluke. They might have to deal with its consequences, including the impetus his election gave to a populist turn within the institutions of the conservative movement. But once Trump was out of office, those institutions would sooner or later revert to their former character. After all, populism didn’t have money behind it. If it didn’t have people, either, it wouldn’t be around for long.
Trump has shattered the laws of political physics. Realignments that had already begun as a result of Trump’s earlier success are accelerating. To appreciate the magnitude of what Trump achieved in this election, look beyond the states he won—in blue state after blue state, Trump made enormous, often double-digit gains. He made deep inroads into the Hispanic vote, particularly among men. Meanwhile, neoconservatives who held out hope of retaking the commanding heights of the Republican party if Trump was defeated have little choice now but to accept a place in the Democratic coalition. But they may not be comfortable there, either, as Democrats crack up over Israel’s war with Hamas.
This does not mean that four years from now the Republican nominee will be competitive in every blue state or will win a majority of Hispanics, and it certainly doesn’t mean that the GOP will be without a hawkish wing and some ostensibly pro-Trump neoconservative influences. The changes that Trump brings about are not necessarily linear. But they will afford opportunities hardly imaginable before this point. And J.D. Vance is well-equipped to make the most of them in 2028.
Although foreign policy was not voters’ top priority either this year or when Trump first won the presidency, war and the way leaders in both parties respond to it—or fail to respond—establishes conditions conducive to ideological mutation. How Trump handles the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East that he inherits from President Biden will be a watershed. Democrats who were reluctant to criticize U.S. support for Israel while that support was coming from the Biden-Harris administration will now hammer Trump over Israel’s actions. Can Trump make good on the faith placed in him both by Arab-American voters in Michigan and by ardent supporters of Israel? Can the green shoots of a return to realism in Republican foreign policy survive the burdens of responsibility that the wars in the Middle East and Ukraine impose? The wars themselves may not be America’s responsibility, but the administration will face tough choices about what not to do as well as what to do.
The possibility of wide-ranging new tariffs exists alongside the possibility that the Federal Reserve may be audited and compelled to answer to the public by the new administration. Moves in either of these directions would send shockwaves through Wall Street. Could the Trump administration be skillful enough to remake the fiscal and monetary systems without causing panic? If not, what milder measures could the administration undertake that would still address trade imbalances and inflation? Trump is open to considering a much wider range of possibilities than conventional politicians would dare to imagine, and even if his administration doesn’t avail itself of those possibilities, the mere fact the president would consider them will redraw the boundaries of policy discourse in Washington and beyond.
The president will be confronted by stiff opposition within the federal bureaucracy as well as from Democrats in Congress. He should not flinch from forcing reform on the administrative state and dismantling entire departments of the federal government. In this, too, Trump can be transformative. His experiences during his first term with leaks and policy sabotage originating from the bureaucracy should inform his handling of the civil service this time. It has been a power unto itself for far too long, and it has pursued not a disinterested agenda in the service of the public but a partisan agenda in the service of liberal elites.
New electoral maps, new issue coalitions, a new balance of power within the executive branch—all of these are just some of the domestic effects of Trump’s triumph. It also has the potential to inspire, or amplify, such changes all around the world. The precedent Trump has set is not only one that populist parties in Europe and elsewhere will take to heart. Mainstream parties that until now had looked to elite liberal opinion in the United States for guidance and guidelines will henceforth have to do some new thinking of their own, incorporating something of Trumpism into their dealings with America and perhaps into their politics at home. Emmanuel Macron joined Benjamin Netanyahu as the first of the world’s leaders to congratulate Trump on X last night.
The political and cultural aftershocks of Trump’s victory will not by themselves be enough to make the new administration a success—much hard work and resilience in the face of inevitable setbacks will be necessary, as in more pedestrian administrations. There is also a need for conservatives outside of government to answer the call, the moment presents to be both creative and disciplined. The right needs renovation, including in the way it approaches art and literature. Just as Trump has shown that a new majority can be forged in battles no one else would dare fight, the right may be capable of achieving greater things in the realm of culture and philosophy than it has so far been brave enough to imagine. What’s needed is not just a Trumpist or populist cultural program—though Hulk Hogan certainly has his place in America’s affections—but a cultural program as bold as Trump’s political challenge to the obsolete elite.
Trump should reawaken conservatives’ spirit of endeavor. Because he has dared greatly and succeeded.
Germany is a ‘banana republic’ – Zakharova

RT | November 7, 2024
The collapse of Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s government just hours after Donald Trump was elected US president is a sign that Germany has become a “banana republic,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said on Thursday.
The coalition collapsed on Wednesday, prompted by disagreements over the budget deficit and further aid to Ukraine.
“The … coalition breakdown has exposed the main problem of Germany’s political system: it is a classic ‘banana republic’,” the spokeswoman wrote in her Telegram channel. According to Zakharova, Berlin failed to maintain good economic relations with Russia, the supplier of cheap natural gas, which was “vitally important for its citizens and industry.”
Scholz’s government also could not keep the national economy afloat and allowed its industries to “emigrate” to the US, the spokeswoman stated, adding that it was all apparently done to “please Washington.”
Last month, the newspaper Sueddeutsche Zeitung reported that the German economy is expected to contract for a second year in a row as it struggles to keep up with soaring energy costs after cutting itself off from Russian gas. The nation’s industrial output dropped by 4.6% in September year-on-year as orders for domestic-made goods have also plummeted, according to official data released this week.
“Berlin stopped even pretending that the German government had any sovereignty and … was not just proxies for the American neoliberals in the EU,” Zakharova added.
Scholz fired Finance Minister Christian Lindner, the head of the business-friendly Free Democratic Party (FDP), late on Wednesday. The FDP was one of three parties comprising the German government coalition together with the chancellor’s Social Democrats and the Greens.
In response to the dismissal, the FDP announced its withdrawal from the government and formally ended the three-way coalition. The development left Scholz with a minority government consisting only of his own party and the Greens.
On Thursday, Scholz admitted that aid to Ukraine had become a major point of contention during talks the previous day during which the coalition members failed to find common ground.
According to the chancellor, he put forward a four-point plan that included “increasing our support for Ukraine” among other things. Lindner rejected the proposal and reportedly suggested calling for snap elections instead.
Earlier, Lindner had reportedly asked the Defense Ministry to limit military assistance to Kiev, citing budgetary difficulties. The government is still seeking a way to plug a multibillion-euro hole in next year’s budget and to revive the struggling economy.
Trump’s Victory & the Decline of Liberal Hegemony: “Unburdened By What Has Been”
By Professor Glenn Diesen | November 7, 2024
The election victory of Trump should not have been a surprise. The era of liberal hegemony has already come to an end, and a correction is long overdue. The liberal hegemony is no longer liberal, and the hegemony is exhausted. Trump is often denounced for being transactional, yet the de-ideologization of America and return to pragmatism is exactly what the country needs.
Change or Preserve the Unsustainble Status-Quo?
The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the country is heading in the wrong direction, which placed Harris as the incumbent in an unfavourable position. Harris as the Vice President could not distance herself sufficiently from President Biden’s policies, which meant that she had to own the failures of the past four years. The message of “turning the page” did not resonate, and she was left with the meaningless slogan of “joy” – which only demonstrated her detachment from the growing concerns of Americans.
The borders have been wide open, media freedom is in decline, the government’s overreach is growing, US industries are no longer competitive, the national debt is out of control, social problems and culture wars are going from bad to worse, the political climate becomes increasingly divisive, the US military is overstretched, the global majority rejects Washington’s simplistic and dangerous heuristics of dividing the world into liberal democracy versus authoritarianism, the US is complicit in a genocide in Palestine and is heading towards nuclear war with Russia.
Who would vote for four more years when the status quo entails driving off a cliff? It is a good time to be in opposition and offer change. Being a populist with a bombastic demeanour, seemingly immune to consequences from breaking social norms, is a good feature when breaking free from decades-old ideological dogmas that constrain necessary pragmatism.
Neoliberalism Exhausted the US
“Make America Great Again” is likely a reference to 1973, when the US peaked and has since been in decline. Under the neoliberal consensus, society became an appendage to the market and politicians became impotent to deliver the change demanded by the public. The political Left could not redistribute wealth, and the political Right could not defend traditional values and communities. Globalisation gave birth to a political class loyal to international capital without national loyalties, and accountability to the public disappeared. Globalisation often contradicts democracy, and there is a growing division between illiberal democracy versus undemocratic liberalism.
A key lesson from the American System in the early 19th century was that industrialisation and subequent economic sovereignty is a necessity for national sovereignty. Tariffs and temporary subsidies are important tools for infant industries to develop maturity, and fair trade is thus often preferable to free trade. Trump’s tariffs to re-industrialise and advance technological sovereignty are noble ambitions that even the Biden administration attempted to emulate. However, Trump’s flaw is that excessive tariffs and the economic war on China will severely disrupt supply chains to the extent it undermines the US economy. The excesses of Trump’s tariffs and economic coercion derive from the effort to break China and restore US global primacy. If the US can accept a more modest role in the international system as one among many great powers, he could embrace a more moderate economic nationalism that would have greater prospect of succeeding.
Trump’s Vice President J.D. Vance correctly noted the self-defeating moralising of the US: “We have built a foreign policy of hectoring and moralising and lecturing countries that don’t want anything to do with it. The Chinese have a foreign policy of building roads and bridges and feeding poor people”. It is a good time for pragmatism to triumph over ideology.
Critics of Trump are correct to point out the paradox of a billionaire claiming to represent the people against a detached globalised elite. Sitting in flashy buildings with his name on the side in large golden letters, Trump has nonetheless taken the role of representing the American workers by calling for re-industrialisation. Raised in the excesses and hedonism of America’s cultural elites, Trump calls for preserving America’s traditional values and culture. Is Trump a saviour? Probably not. But policies are more important than personalities, and Trump is kicking open a door that was seemingly closed by liberal ideology.
An End to Liberal Crusades – Including Ending the Ukraine Proxy War
Trump’s appeal to end the forever wars resulted in invaluable support from former democrats such as Tulsi Gabbard, Robert F. Kennedy and Elon Musk. The liberal crusades over the past three decades fuel unsustainable debt, they finance the deep state (the blob), they alienate the US across the world, and incentivise the other great powers to collectively balance the US. The forever wars are costly mistakes that never end well, yet the US could absorb these costs during the unipolar era in the absence of any real opponents. In a multipolar system, the US must scale back its military adventurism and learn how to prioritise foreign policy objectives.
It is not unreasonable to argue that preserving the empire in its current format could cost the US its republic. Trump is not in favour of dismantling the empire, but being a transactional pragmatist, he would like a better return on investment. He believes allies should pay for protection, regional arrangements such as the former NAFTA and TPP that transfer productive power to allies are rejected, and adversaries should be engaged to the extent it serves US national interests. Trump is condemned for befriending dictators, yet this is surely preferable to the so-called “liberal” diplomats who no longer believe in diplomacy as it is feared to’ “legitimise” adversaries.
Trump would like to put an end to the proxy war in Ukraine as it is very costly in terms of both blood and treasure, and the war has already been lost. The liberal crusaders never defined a victory against the world’s largest nuclear power that believes it is fighting for its survival. Washington’s elites have repeatedly stated it is a good war as Ukrainian soldiers are dying rather than American soldiers, thus it is difficult to morally shame Trump when his main argument is that the killing must stop.
The liberal crusaders in Washington also frequently argue that the strategic objective of the proxy war was to knock out Russia from the ranks of great powers so the US could focus its resources on containing China. Instead, the war has strengthened Russia and pushed it further into the arms of China. A humanitarian disaster is taking place and the world is pushed to the brink of nuclear war. The economic coercion, including the theft of Russia’s sovereign funds, has triggered the global majority to de-dollarise and develop alternative payment systems. Trump is hardly innocent as he started the economic war against China. However, without ideological constraints, there may be room for course correction as he noted that the weaponisation of the dollar threatens the foundation of US superpower status. Yet again, pragmatism can triumph over ideology.
Will Trump be successful? He will certainly not end the war in 24 hours. Trump has the tools to influence Ukraine as the US is financing the war and arming Ukraine. However, Trump’s maximum pressure is unlikely to work against Russia as it considers this to be a war of survival, and the political West has broken nearly all agreements. Trump withdrew from strategic arms control treaties and armed Ukraine, which contributed to triggering the war. Russia will demand an end to NATO expansion in accordance with the Istanbul agreement, plus territorial concessions as a result of almost three years of war. Trump has previously signalled the willingness to offer an end to NATO expansionism, which could lay the foundation for a wider European security agreement. The conflicts between the West and Russia derive from the failure to establish a mutually acceptable settlement after the Cold War. The West instead began expanding NATO and thus revived the zero-sum bloc politics of the Cold War, and there has ever since been conflicts with Russia over where to draw the new militarised dividing lines.
Concerning Israel, there is an obvious exception to Trump’s aversion to war. Trump, Vance, Musk, Gabbard and Kennedy are all reluctant to take a hard line against the genocide in Palestine or even criticise Israel. Trump will likely continue to offer unconditional support for Israel and take a hostile stance against Palestine, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran. Pragmatism and “America First” will likely be lacking in this part of the world.
Panic Across the Liberal Empire
The opponents of Trump demonstrate a remarkable difficulty in articulating the case for Trump. Even if they know why people voted for him, they would feel morally compelled to refrain from articulating the reasons in fear of “legitimising” his policies with understanding. The inability to articulate the position of an adversary is a good indication of being propagandised. Have we been exposed to propaganda? There is clearly a tendency for ideological fundamentalists to present the world as a struggle between good and evil, in which mutual understanding and pragmatism are demonised as a betrayal of sacred values.
The panic and confusion is also caused by a dishonest media. The media has almost exclusively negative coverage of Trump, while Harris can do no wrong. Trump did not win despite the bad media coverage but because of it. A populist claims to be the real representative of the people, who will defend them against a detached and corrupt elite. The animosity towards Trump and his supporters was therefore worn as a badge of honour. The political-media elites used the judiciary system against the political opposition during the election cycle, they impeached Trump twice and tried him as a private citizen, and they attempted to remove Trump from 16 state ballots.
Trust to the media is not an advantage when it is not trustworthy. The Russiagate hoax from the 2016 election has been exposed as a fraud, and the Hunter Biden laptop story from the 2020 election was censored by the media under the false pretence of being “Russian propaganda”. During the 2024 election, the removal of Biden was largely a non-issue. The undemocratic selection of Harris was ignored, and the media instead converted her into a rockstar after ignoring her due to her failures over the past four years. The first assassination attempt against Trump went down the memory hole with remarkable haste, while most people are likely unaware that there was a second assassination attempt. Desperate media stories, such as Trump threatening Liz Cheney with a firing squad, were so desperate and dishonest that they had the opposite effect. The liberal machine, represented by an obedient media and Hollywood elites, has run out of steam.
Europe is in panic as they lost their ally in the White House and thus fear for the future of the liberal international order. Yet, the liberal international order is already gone and an ideological Europe is suffering from Stockholm Sydrome. Biden is complicit in genocide in Palestine, he attacked Europe’s critical energy infrastructure, lured European industries to relocate to to the US under the Inflation Reduction Act, brought major war to Europe by provoking a proxy war in Ukraine and sabotaging the peace negotiations in Istanbul, he intensified censorship around the world, and pressures the Europeans to reduce economic connectivity with China. After years of aspiring for strategic autonomy and de-vassalisation, the Europeans have subordinated themselves and accepted diminishing relevance in the world. The European political-media elites present Trump as the new Hitler, yet are in a great hurry to subordinate themselves economically, militarily and politically to the US. The Europeans are also worried that a similar leadership crisis has come to their own continent. Political elites committed to liberal hegemony have neglected national interests, and will be swept away in the years to come.
How will it all end?
The second Trump presidency will not be like the first term. The first Trump presidency was constrained as the Democrats largely contested the election results in 2016 by denouncing him as an illegitimate leader who had been placed in the White House by the Kremlin. The RussiaGate hoax has since been exposed and Trump even won the popular vote by 5 million votes, giving him a powerful mandate to pursue his agenda. Furthermore, Trump the first Trump government was infiltrated by neocons as he was dismissed as too radical. Over the past 8 years, a powerful MAGA movement has emerged that also consists of former Democrats.
One should be careful looking into the crystal ball and make predictions, and this is especially true with Trump. Professor Richard Rorty predicted in 1998 that the excesses of liberalism and globalisation would eventually be met with a fierce correction:
“Members of labor unions, and unorganized and unskilled workers, will sooner or later realize that their government is not even trying to prevent wages from sinking or to prevent jobs from being exported. Around the same time, they will realize that suburban white-collar workers—themselves desperately afraid of being downsized—are not going to let themselves be taxed to provide social benefits for anyone else. At that point, something will crack. The nonsuburban electorate will decide that the system has failed and start looking around for a strongman to vote for—someone willing to assure them that, once he is elected, the smug bureaucrats, tricky lawyers, overpaid bond salesmen, and postmodernist professors will no longer be calling the shots… Once the strongman takes office, no one can predict what will happen”.[1]
Trump has identified many of the problems plaguing the US and the world, although he may not have the answers. He will make many mistakes and his maximum pressure approach from business is not always transferrable to international politics. After decades of criminalising opposition to liberal hegemony, it should not have been a surprise that a “strongman” would be elected to throw a wrench into machinery. Trump is a wild card and the world is undergoing immense transformation, so to quote Rorty: “no one can predict what will happen.”
[1] Rorty, R 1998. Achieving our country: Leftist thought in twentieth-century America, Harvard University Press.
Kremlin responds to claim of ‘secret’ Trump congratulations
RT | November 7, 2024
The Kremlin has denied reports suggesting that Russian President Vladimir Putin has secretly congratulated Donald Trump on his US election win, describing the claim as unreliable and inaccurate.
Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told journalists on Thursday that he had “no knowledge” of any congratulatory message from Putin to Trump.
Peskov’s statement follows a report from an anonymous Western-funded media outlet alleging that Moscow had already sent a private congratulatory message to the US President-elect.
The Kremlin spokesman was firm in dismissing the claim, adding “we are talking about an unfriendly country that is directly and indirectly involved in the war against us.”
The US is currently viewed as a hostile state by Russia due to Washington’s backing for Ukraine in what the Kremlin sees as a proxy war.
Peskov did not rule out the possibility of a direct conversation between Trump and Putin before the US President-elect takes office in January. “He [Trump] said he would call Putin before the inauguration. Here are his words, we have nothing else to say yet,” Peskov explained to reporters.
While no specific meeting or agenda has been arranged, the Kremlin press secretary noted that such a call is “not excluded.”
Russia’s Foreign Ministry has also weighed in on the US election results, describing Trump’s win as reflective of widespread dissatisfaction with the direction taken by President Biden’s administration. Nevertheless, the ministry tempered expectations of a major shift in relations, stating “the ruling political elite in the United States, regardless of party affiliation, adheres to anti-Russian attitudes.”
Moscow “has no illusions” about Trump’s ability to significantly alter this stance, but Putin, according to Peskov, remains open to “constructive dialogue” on principles of “justice, equality, and a readiness to consider each other’s concerns.”
As to whether Russia would be represented at Trump’s inauguration, Peskov said that it remains undecided, dismissing any idea of Kremlin communication with Trump’s team, stating simply “No, why should we get in touch?”
Trump’s first term was dogged by conspiracy theories – heavily amplified by US corporate media – alleging Russian interference in the 2016 election. Some observers think lingering memories have made both sides more cautious about interactions now.
Hungary’s anti-Orbán opposition party may implode following Trump victory
Remix News | November 7, 2024
While Donald Trump’s victory in the United States and the Hungarian opposition to Viktor Orbán may seem like two totally unrelated events, they are actually quite intertwined. The Tisza party, led by Péter Magyar, is tightly connected to the Biden administration and the U.S. foreign policy establishment, including through financing. With Trump in office, the party’s fortunes may change for the worse.
In fact, the Tisza party is already breaking out into panic following the results of the election, according to Hungarian news outlet Magyar Nemzet.
An online chat group of the Tisza Party refers to the “Western help” that the party receives drying up.
On Wednesday, Magyar congratulated Trump on his victory on his Facebook page, claiming he is ready to work together with Trump and his new administration.
However, in reality, there is no chance of that. Orbán is a well-known loyalist to Trump, and Trump has referenced Orbán throughout his campaign.
Furthermore, Tisza appears to be aware of this fact. Magyar Nemzet reports that in the Discord chats leaked involving party operatives, Márk Porpáczi, a Zala county organizer, said the party’s “biggest trump card is Western aid,” because nobody is interested in party programs but “Facebook is very popular.” He said that the party’s page is being boosted due to “external help.” He also noted it was not just Facebook but also “research, know-how, expertise and other soft power support. Tisza received a lot of help.”
Magyar Nemzet writes that “up until now, it could have been guessed that the Tisza Party received significant contributions from abroad, but no one in the party’s vicinity has talked about it so openly. When Porpáczi talks about ‘sharing research,’ the question can rightly be asked, ‘What exactly can these materials contain, financed by whom, for what purpose and from what source?’”
While Facebook support is one thing, intelligence activities, including clandestine eavesdropping, wiretapping, and theft of chats are also possible.
Regarding Facebook, outside actors may be helping with ad spend, but it also can refer to bot networks run by clandestine groups, including intelligence services like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or third-party groups connected to intelligence, but other factors may be at play. Notably, Magyar’s page receives huge reach on the platform, but like much of social media reach, much is influenced by bot networks and the whims of the people running these social media platforms.
According to Magyar Nemzet, “there is also a direct connection between the Hungarian party and Facebook’s parent company, Meta: Dóra Dávid, Meta’s legal advisor, became Tisza’s EP representative in the summer European Parliament elections.”
The U.S. Ambassador to Hungary, David Pressman, was known for his constant attacks against the Orbán government. He also funneled money to anti-Orbán publications. A new ambassador to Hungary appointed by Trump may entirely reset not only Hungarian relations, but it will likely lead to a complete cut in funding and support to Tisza.
Magyar Nemzet writes “soft power support can be extremely diverse: it can typically mean economic, cultural or even media support from abroad for Péter Magyar. And Donald Trump’s victory could mean that these subsidies will completely or partially disappear.”
In the chat, Tisza members also mocked Trump voters, with Porpáczi writing that “it is meaningless to deny that Trump is campaigning for dumber strata.”
Following Trump’s victory, another wrote about U.S. voters: “What about the people? Are they completely out of their minds?”
While Magyar represents the biggest threat to Orbán in some time, it is still at least two years until elections, and Orbán still remains an incredibly popular politician in his country.
West must face reality on Ukraine – Shoigu
RT | November 7, 2024
Western nations can either keep pouring money into Kiev or acknowledge Moscow’s advantage on the battlefield and seek an off-ramp in the Ukraine conflict, Sergey Shoigu, the secretary of the Russian Security Council, has said.
The senior official was commenting on the current state of what Moscow calls a US-led proxy war against Russia during a meeting with his counterparts from post-Soviet states in Moscow on Thursday.
”Now, as the situation in the war theater is not going well for the Kiev regime, the West has a choice to make: Keep financing the regime and the destruction of the Ukrainian people or acknowledge the reality and start negotiating a deal,” Shoigu said.
Russian forces have been pushing back Ukrainian troops in multiple parts of the lengthy front line. The progress made in October was the largest for Moscow in months, according to media estimates.
According to Shoigu, the leadership in Kiev has caused great damage to country by aligning with American interests, arguing that the West failed to let the country develop peacefully. Instead, the country was “robbed with no shame” and “forcefully transformed into a weapon to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia,” he said.
“Their plan has failed,” he added. Kiev has become “a remotely controlled dangerous terrorist that, unlike international terrorist networks, has its own industry and territory it controls.”
Ukraine’s fate is typical for nations where the US has supported uprisings in the past, Shoigu argued. They all experienced a “decrease in living standards, weakening of economic capacity, uncontrolled siphoning of capital and resources,” he said, adding that in the worst cases, these nations became mere tools for Western elites.
The 2014 armed coup in Kiev, which the US and its allies supported, was a turning point in Russia-Ukraine relations. The new government in Kiev declared NATO membership as a key foreign policy goal, which Moscow perceives as a major security threat. They also adopted policies targeting the Russian ethnic minority in Ukraine, which Moscow says amounted to an attempt to eradicate Russian culture.
Trump’s victory seals the coffin of “Bush-Clinton era” which lasted three decades
By Uriel Araujo | November 7, 2024
So much is being written now about Donald Trump’s victory in the United States’ presidential election. Few analyses however, if any, are paying attention to a remarkable development, namely the end of the Bush-Clinton era. You might have not paid much attention to it (in all likelihood, you never heard of it), but it started in the 1980’s, and lasted all the way to 2016. Let us go back in time, then.
This is how it worked: starting in 1981, either a Bush or a Clinton was in the White House (as a powerful Vice President or as the President himself) for years onwards. Or, later, in charge of foreign policy. If one recalls, from 1981 to 1898, Republican George H. W. Bush, also known as George Bush Senior, served as Vice President under Ronald Reagan. Being a former Director of the mighty Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), it is only fair to describe Bush Senior as a powerful Vice President. As the founding father of an era, he deserves a closer look.
Those were the Cold War years, and the CIA was quite a big deal (it still is, of course). The Agency is well known for teaching torture technices to foreign groups, as well as promoting “regime changes” (code for coup d’état) false flag terrorist attacks, assassinations of foreign leaders, and the like. During the Reagan years, keeping up with such a record, Bush admittedly played a role in the so-called Iran–Contra scandal which was about the illegal sale of arms to Iran and then clandestinely using the arms sale to fund the Nicaragua anti-communist rebel group known as the Contras. The Contras were involved in death squads, cocaine dealing, terrorism and torture. To make matters worse, the CIA was accused of getting involved in the Contras narcotraffic operations.
According to diplomat Peter Dale Scott, historian Alfred McCoy, and journalists Gary Webb and Alexander Cockburn, this is in line with a long record of CIA involvement in the dope trade. Back to the Iran-Contra affair: at the time, CIA agent Barry Seal took part in bringing at least three billion dollars worth of cocaine through Mena Airport (Arkansas). This is where Bush and Clinton meet: while Bush was part of the administration running the Iran-Contra, Bill Clinton, who later became President, was the then governor of Arkansas and was accused of being complicit in this operation. That is not the only alleged connection Clinton has to the organized crime world, by the way: his brother Roger Clinton had ties to the Gambino crime family and even served time for cocaine dealing – only to be later pardoned by President Bill Clinton.
Back to Bush Senior, he was so powerful a vice that when former American Nazi Party member John Hinckley Jr. shot and injured President Reagan in March 30, 1981, in an attempted murder, rumors and conspiracy theories were spread about Bush being involved in the deed so as to rise to the Presidency. The fact the Hinckley family had connections with the Bush family did not help much in that regard: for one thing, the shooter’s brother (Scott Hinckley, Vice President of the family’s Vanderbilt Energy Corp) was friends with George Bush’s son (Neil Bush). Scott Hinckley was in fact going to attend a dinner party at the Neil Bush home before the incident. It’s a small world.
George Bush Senior did not become President in March 1981, but he did in 1989, thereby succeeding Reagan. One of his greatest legacies, so to speak, is the first Gulf War. As President, he did not make it to reelection and was then succeeded in 1993 by someone very dear to him, someone whom he considered as a son, the aforementioned Democrat Bill Clinton. Again, a small world. Such was the rise of the New Democrats. For Clinton, I highlight two major achievements: pushing NATO expansion and having NATO bomb an European country which then ceased to be (the former state of Yugoslavia). The region is a ticking bomb to this day.
The family connection has remained strong – there are a number of Clinton-Bush initiatives, such as the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund, and the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. It is no wonder Bushes and Clintons are so close – they took turns running the country for decades. President Clinton, preceded by Bush Senior (whom he called “dad”), was then succeeded, in 2001, by none other than Republican George W. Bush, that is, the son of Bush Senior. George W. Bush would often call Clinton his “brother”. Those were the neocon years. Bush legacies include turning the country into a de facto dictatorship with the Patriot Act, and the two-decades long occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, the former being a clear neocolonial enterprise, plus yet more NATO enlargement.
So there you have it with the Bush-Clinton era. That state of affairs lasted at least 28 years, that is, until 2009, when Hillary Clinton (none other than the former President’s wife) could not make it within the Democrat Party and, in a vicious internal struggle, Barack Obama instead was nominated and won in 2009. That’s not the end of the Bush-Clinton era yet. Obama still kept a Clinton (Hillary) in charge of foreign policy, as Secretary of State until 2013. She resigned after some scandals, and was replaced by John Kerry.
Kerry, if one recalls, is George W. Bush’s fellow bonesmen (both are members of the same elite secret society) who was defeated by him in the 2004 election – small world, once again. So much for American “anyone can become President” democracy. Even though Obama was then said to be “the least Atlanticist” President, Obama-Clinton-Kerry legacy includes the empowering of terrorist group ISIS/Daesh, adding fuel to the fire in the Syrian civil war, supporting the Maidan in Ukraine, the destruction of Libya by NATO bombing – and, again, further NATO expansion.
Then Clinton lost the presidential race to Republican Donald Trump in 2016. This ends the Bush-Clinton era. Trump was then defeated by Democrat Joe Biden in 2020 and was thought to be done with. Instead, he took control of the Republican Party, sidelining the Bushes and neocons. The Clintons did not make a comeback under Biden for a number of reasons. Biden-Harris’ administration legacy in any case includes being complicit with Israeli genocide in Palestine and playing with world war by increasing tensions with both Russia and China (over Taiwan). So much for Biden’s “America is back” motto.
Now Trump is back, which seals the coffin of the Bush-Clinton era – and this time with full control of the Republican party, with a Senate majority and much more. Trump, as I wrote, is by no means a “peacemaker” and it is not quite true that his 2016-2020 presidency was marked by “no wars”. He assassinated Iranian General Soleimani for one thing and did facilitate the Abraham Accords, which lie at the root of today’s crisis in the Middle East in a lot of ways.
In any case, Trump’s previous administration certainly was no match for his Bush-Clinton predecessors in terms of war-mongering, genocide and nation-destruction – and no match for Biden, for that matter. In all likelihood this time too he will not exceed the aforementioned legacy of his precursors. If such turns out to be the case, and if the slightest restraint is exercised, this in itself should already be good news for the world. The Bush-Clinton era is over, amen to that.
What Comes Next for the Palestinians?
Trump unlikely to oppose Netanyahu’s genocide
By Philip Giraldi • Unz Review • November 6, 2024
Well, it’s over… or is it? Donald Trump will be the next president of the United States backed by a GOP controlled Senate and possibly even a majority in the House of Representatives. And one should not discount the advantage derived from having a largely conservative Supreme Court, but much depends on who Trump appoints to key cabinet positions, a weakness in the first Trump presidency as he tended to select ideologues rather than candidates with relevant knowledge or experience. One hopes, for example, that neither the usual claque of neocons nor establishment characters like Mike Pompeo or Tom Cotton, who have been mentioned as possible candidates for Secretary of Defense, will appear on anyone’s list for high office.
During the lead-up to the presidential campaign, Trump sometimes referred to himself as the most popular politician in Israel, including a conceit that if he were able to run for office in that country he would be able to get elected to the highest offices without any problem. That was, at least in Donald’s mind, an expression of gratitude for how he had done so much for Israel in 2016-2020, including moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, accepting the annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights, providing political cover for Israeli actions, and a declaration that the US would not do anything to interfere with military and police actions connected to Israeli settlement expansion on the nominally Palestinian West Bank. Israel also appreciated Trump’s appointment of his lawyer David Friedman as US Ambassador. Friedman proved to be a full time apologist for Israel, not representing or defending American interests. In the recent presidential campaign, Trump spoke frequently to Jewish Republican groups and declared himself to be Israel’s best friend and supporter among US politicians.
The Israeli media has also reported that the present Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu much preferred Trump over Kamala Harris, possibly because the PM has developed what is reported to be a close personal relationship with the Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has apparently served often as a conduit to Donald. Netanyahu in fact was the first foreign head of state to telephone personally to congratulate Trump on his repeat victory at 2 a.m. on Wednesday. Netanyahu declared that Trump’s win was “historic” and said it “offers a new beginning for America and a powerful recommitment to the great alliance between Israel and America. This is a huge victory!”
It is generally believed that Netanyahu also apparently harbors some deep suspicion of the Democratic Party in spite of the Biden Administration’s generosity in arms and cash transfers, presumably in part because the Democrats harbor a small but active progressive wing which has been vocal about blocking arms sales to Israel due to its genocide of the Palestinians. The Republicans have no such tendencies apart from a persistent Tom Massie in the House and Rand Paul occasionally saying the right thing from the Senate. And key Republicans like current House speaker Mike Johnson are so in bed with Israel and all its works that he should perhaps consider moving there permanently as the average American gets nothing from the expensive and exceedingly bloody relationship apart from opprobrium from nearly the entire world for complicity in the extermination of the Palestinians. In other words, if one is expecting a return to sanity over what is going on in the Middle East, don’t expect it to come from Donald Trump.
And Netanyahu should be very pleased with the Trump victory for one other important reason, which is how he will be able to deal with an American president. The Wall Street Journal is already reporting from Israeli sources that Netanyahu is definitely expecting a “freer hand” from the new administration to do whatever he wants politically and militarily. Trump’s ego and his personal and spontaneous manner of governing is exactly the kind of relationship Bibi feels most comfortable dealing with. Netanyahu believes he can manipulate Trump and cultivate his personal relationship with the president to include dealing with him directly without worrying about any other players. Netanyahu will be in position to personally flatter, mollify, or confuse Trump even if the president were to surprisingly decide that it would be better if Israel backed off on its aggression. Netanyahu and his allies in the US Congress will be united in convincing Trump that this would be a bad idea.
Bearing in mind that Joe Biden will continue to be president for the next two months and he has demonstrated an infinite capacity to screw things up through his clueless proxies Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin plus the comic interlude provided by State Department spokesman Matt Miller, who cracked a joke and laughed about the clearly demonstrated Israeli attempt to starve the Gazans to death. But possible Biden missteps notwithstanding, Israel should be on balance very pleased with the election result. Trump is, of course, fully supportive of the slaughter of the Palestinians and is quite willing to deal similarly with the Iranians if they should “spill one drop of American blood” by “spilling gallons of theirs.” His advice to the Israeli government has been that they should “finish the job” on dealing with the Pals not for either humane or political reasons but rather because Israel is getting a bad reputation for its openly espoused massacring of civilians, including in excess of 13,000 children. In a phone call with Netanyahu in October, Trump praised escalation of Israeli military actions in Lebanon. Senator Lindsay Graham, who was on the call, described how “He didn’t tell him what to do militarily, but he expressed that he was impressed by the pagers [and] he expressed his awe for their military operations and what they have done. He told them, do what you have to do to defend yourself.”
Trump is also appreciative of the millions of dollars that went his way during the presidential campaign from Israel’s best friends in the US. The reported $100 million that came from a single donor, casino billionaire Israeli Miriam Adelson, was allegedly in exchange for a Trump agreement to permit Israel’s annexation of what remains of the Palestinian West Bank. The multi-ethnic Arab country called Palestine in 1948 would thereby become the Jewish state of Israel de jure as well as de facto. And the expansion and warmaking with Israel’s neighbors as Netanyahu seeks to establish his country’s military dominance over the entire region will go on, with US garrisons illegally based in Syria and Iraq playing supporting roles. Trump could have removed them as well as carrying out a withdrawal from Afghanistan when he was last in office, but for reasons unknown chose not to, possibly due to pressure from the Israelis.
In short, based on the record in 2016-2020 and recent campaign rhetoric, there is no possibility that President Trump will put any pressure on Israel to cease and desist from what it has been doing in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. This is potentially bad news for the Palestinians and Lebanese but it also is not welcomed by the likely majority of Americans who now oppose arming and funding Israeli genocide. It comes on top of Trump’s frequent denunciation of “useless wars” though he most often cites Ukraine in that context, promising to end that conflict “in one day” by virtue of his sheer star power, personal intervention and diplomacy. One hopes that is true, and, of course, Kiev has no powerful domestic lobby apart from the arms industry to object and continue to want to feed the fighting, so it is possible that Russia-Ukraine is actually moving towards some kind of end. Maybe if that fighting ends and sets a good example, someone in Washington will wake up and seek the same type of agreement to calm the Middle East.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is inform@cnionline.org.

