Monday 31 August 2020

Russia fuelling Portland & Kenosha violence? CNN turns to Russiagate tsar Schiff with bizarre take on US race tensions

31 Aug, 2020 12:15 / Updated 2 hours ago

Russia fuelling Portland & Kenosha violence? CNN turns to Russiagate tsar Schiff with bizarre take on US race tensions
Russia may be responsible for the deadly unrest in American cities, CNN host Dana Bash has implied during an interview with Democrats’ top Russiagate figure, Adam Schiff, proving that red-baiting never goes out of vogue.
Schiff, the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, came to CNN for a round of Trump-bashing over the President’s remarks on how Director of National Intelligence (DNI) John Ratcliffe “got tired of” classified information being leaking from Congress. The DNI wrote last week to the California representative and his Senate counterpart, Marco Rubio, that his office will be informing lawmakers on election security through written reports rather than in-person briefings.
During the interview Schiff took time to denounce the President for what he described as an attempt to hide “the fact that the Russians are helping Donald Trump again” and declared that US intel “belongs to the American people”. With the election-meddling Ruskie bad guys introduced into the conversation, host Dana Bash mused on what other evil deeds they may be up to.
There were shooting deaths in Kenosha, Wisconsin and Portland, Oregon amid continued race protests in those cities, she said. “Do you have any reason to believe that Russia is trying to fuel some of the civil unrest in these cities via social media or other methods?” she wondered.
Schiff, who played a leading role in peddling the theory that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to win the 2016 election, obliged to confirm that yes, the Russians “are once again doing their best in social media, in the overt media and other means to grow this division again.”
Blaming Russia for racial problems in the US is a time-honored tradition, so the CNN-Schiff duet hardly discovered new territory there. And the fact that the collusion theory crumbled after the Robert Mueller investigation failed to find evidence of it doesn’t seem to hurt his credibility with the sympathetic media.
Interestingly however CNN apparently didn’t find this last part of Russia scaremongering good enough to post it on its own website, cutting the interview short.
The channel’s coverage of the latest disturbances in the US has shown a lot of mental gymnastics. Last week’s caption on screen described the situation in Kenosha as “fiery, but mostly peaceful protests”, clashing spectacularly with the image of a reporter standing in front of burning cars and explaining how the night riots in the city differed from peaceful demonstrations during the day.
On Sunday, CNN analyst Chris Cillizza posted a piece explaining how Trump was disingenuous in calling the events in Kenosha and Portland riots rather than protests. A photo of riot police officers standing in front of a major blaze was chosen as a cover picture.
ALSO ON RT.COM‘The new Babylon Bee?’ CNN commentator mocked after downplaying riots in Kenosha, Portland as ‘protests’ with a FIERY cover photo
If the interview with Schiff is any indicator, people on CNN have found a way to explain away the inconvenient violence: Russia did it with memes.

America’s Fake Civil War

31.08.2020 Author: Gordon Duff

Column: Society


PORT111


The United States, in the fourth year of the Trump presidency, is in near anarchy.

On April 29, 2020, a 600-car caravan, mostly trucks, from the ‘suburbs’ of Portland, Oregon, drove through town on what was ostensibly a Trump political rally.

Demonstrating in town, and at this time no one is sure exactly what is being demonstrated for or against, were a few hundred “stragglers.”  The real demonstrations had ended some time ago, moved on elsewhere.

Activists fighting racism had been superseded by others, the bored, the unemployed and those with broader issues against America’s love affair with fascism, under the guise of neoconservatism.

Those driving through town were not really what one would consider suburban.  One typically thinks of suburbs as affluent, educated, mostly “white” middle management, small business owners and skilled factory labor.

What came into town was not so much suburban but rural.  Rural America is largely the permanently unemployed, those suffering from substance abuse issues, the uneducated but, as with typical inner cities, rural Americans are “white.”

Rural America is, in fact, the ghetto for white people.

In Portland, one person was killed, no one yet knows who or why, as those out on the streets, the car caravan, the stragglers, all pretty much marginalized members of society, and if one would check, an equal smattering of felony convictions, weapons charges and failed lives.

But what constitutes a failed life in the United States?  Depending on the standard and one’s values and sense of clarity, everyone but Donald Trump is a failure, which Donald Trump reminds all of us of every single day.

Not everyone can be a “super genius,” who (according to Trump’s own sister) hired someone to take his college entrance exams and, most probably, do all his work as well.
America is about privilege, not so obvious as Britain where the scoundrels of yesteryear leave titles and properties and the inherent privileges therein ensconced to their miserable progeny.

To be a success in the US, it is necessary for one to adhere one’s self to privilege, giving up any and all pretense of individuality or conscience.  One must become ruthlessly aggressive, on behalf of overlords initially and as one gains the skill and trust of the Deep State, use position to move others aside.

Success in America is based on psychopathy, wile, and deceit.  With it comes military rank, seats in congress, seats in boardrooms, and the other perks, private golf memberships, large boats, and membership in other organizations.

The scandals that have rocked America over recent months have made one thing clear above all, that sexual immaturity and envy, often racially driven, lack of moral center and physical prowess now defines America’s elites.

The “self-made” men and women are few and far between.

Thus, to understand what a civil war in America is like and why it could only be fake, one must understand who Americans are.  This will also explain why America has become so irrelevant in today’s world, why America is known for its fat people, for its ignorance and for its national policies that do nothing for America and yet victimize the world on behalf of some unseen force.

This explains the addiction, seemingly coming to an end, for using the term Deep State, a form of intellectual laziness and, moreover deflection-disinformation as well.  I think we all know who we are really talking about when we use that very convenient term that the mainstream media has told us is allowable.

Nothing anti-Semitic about “Deep State.”  It is not an attack on “elites” or the “Perfumed Princes of the Pentagon” or the “Banksters.”  In fact, any real group culpable of bringing the world to its knees can and does stand up and cheer at the use of “Deep State.”

The real enemy has now become a phantom from a graphic novel.

Truth is a dangerous thing.  People are weak, easily influenced and, at heart, lost and fearful.  Not all people are equal with many, too many, incapable of the level of discernment required to live in a state where a psychological war scripted by Nobel Prize winners was declared, decades ago, against the American people, among others.

Sewing fear, distrust and hate is their product and total control of institutions, once few in number, now all, is their power and majesty.

Google and Facebook, this is where the civil war starts.  The two names, Brin, and Zuckerberg, look to them above all.  These are the real centers of power.

It is for Brin and Zuckerberg to deflect and disinform, to send the blind masses after George Soros and Bill Gates.  Soros, known for his fanatic hatred of all things Bolshevik is an easy target, a huge critic of Israel’s policies against the Palestinians.

Opposing Israel’s policies is dangerous in the US.  Few in the US are aware that Israel itself is near civil war as demonstrations go on week after week in that country against the dictatorial rule of Netanyahu who faces prison for corruption and holds onto power through orchestrating political unrest in the region.

This is why Israel is under investigation related to what Donald Trump has coined the “attack” on Beirut.  Trump says it was a bomb, quoting experts at the Pentagon.

The media says everything but that and investigations will say nothing or make something up.  Truth no longer exists, not for the general public but then why should the general public care when, in the US at least 40 percent of them are unemployed with half that number facing homelessness and nearly 200,000 of them dead already from COVID?

So, who is going to fight this civil war?

First of all, you need the disaffected.  Those are people who hate themselves and, thus, feel envy toward others and are likely to look to violence and populism.  Hitler was good at managing this kind of person as the world very well knows.

Were one to look at the realignment of wealth inside the US since Reagan took office, perhaps before, it might become clear.  In 1970, a family with an income of $20,000 per year was considered lower income, just above the poverty level depending on how many children in the family.

Today, that figure, unadjusted for inflation, is $28,000.

An automobile that cost $3000 in 1970 costs $30,000 today.  A home that would cost $25,000 in 1970 costs $175,000 today.  A can of soup that cost 10 cents in 1970 costs one 
dollar today.\

In 1970, most Americans had fully paid health insurance. 80%, while today only 4% have fully paid insurance.  Most Americans are subject to lowered levels of care, often life threatening, due to public health policies written by insurance company lobbyists.

In fact, under Trump certainly but Reagan and in both Bush presidencies, public policy has raised costs manifold for public utilities, for health and all other insurances while weakening protections against poisoned air, food, water and, most telling of all, predatory business practices.

Creating fear is a way of engineering social unrest.  Poverty is a great source of fear.

Let us look at wages.  In 1963, a 16-year-old retail worker going to school made around $1.25 per hour while a unionized industrial worker made around $2.00.

The good thing is that industrial workers had fully paid benefits and worked significant overtime and the things they needed to buy cost very little by today’s standards.

Oh, there was also 60 million of them.

Today only 4 percent of workers belong to unions.  The minimum wage, then $1.25 is now $7.25.  As the minimum wage, then mostly for part time student workers, has increased nearly 600 percent in 60 years, the cost of living has increased 800% according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The problem there is that while minimum wage workers 60 years ago were very few, in the then poverty stricken Southern United States and migrant agricultural workers only, today minimum wage jobs or near minimum wage is the “gold standard” and work without benefits is the norm as well.

The result is fear.

The US now has, officially, the highest level of single parent homes, at 23%, according to Pew Research, the highest of any nation in the world.

The US also has the highest level of illegal drug use in the world as well with just under 10% using serious drugs on a regular basis, not counting cannabis, alcohol, or cigarettes.

Other areas are more subjective and though it is always dangerous to generalize, it can safely be said that the quality of public education in the US is poor in relationship to other first and second world nations, with the US now hovering near “second world” status in many key areas.

The US can no longer be compared to Norway or Germany, genuine first world nations.

To look at the framing as to why a population could be turned on itself in a civil war, one needs only to see the level of fear and ignorance and gullibility.

A discussion of politicized religion in suburban and rural areas certainly applies, where traditional Christian values, accepting that the United States is a largely Christian nation or chooses to see itself as such, can easily point to religious leaders who are deeply corrupt yet massively powerful.

We then return to the idea of failure.  People who see themselves as failures are potential fodder for extremism, expressed after 9/11 as xenophobic rage against Islam, certainly engineered by criminal elements, something no one doubts or questions anymore.

Today it is American against American, based on race and educational level.

The social lubricant is ignorance, fear, and poverty.  The leverage is applied through Google and Facebook, through controlled, even scripted media and serves, whom?

There are other issues but one important one is regional traditions.

The US went through a massive migration at both the end of the Civil War, after 1865 and during the Second World War.  The Southern and Border States, the rural South and Appalachia, emptied of both African Americans and whites as well.

African Americans went North, largely, eventually “landing” in cities, defining the struggles we see today.

The rural whites at first moved West, escaping persecution by the Northern victors in the Civil War and then during World War II, the remainder who did not serve in the military, both men and women, sought employment in war plants in the north.

These settled in cities that also were home to rural African American populations as well and decades of social unrest ensued as these two opposing groups from the South came to blows, fighting over the lowest economic sector in the affluent North.

The North settled very differently than the South.  With industrialization, waves of immigrants, Norway, Sweden and Finland to the Midwest rural areas, lumber, and farming while Germany, Hungary and Poland became the staple for industrial workers.  Irish and Italian settlers were prominent in the Northeast.

Southern immigrants who moved north brought their traditions, religious practices which included “speaking in tongues” and handling poisonous snakes, but those who were less religious, and this differentiation is key to understanding the South, brought a tradition of violence, of race hatred and of extreme ignorance.

Frighteningly, it is this sector that has migrated into such areas as law enforcement, people who were unfit for skilled industrial work.  This is, in reality, the explanation for the bizarre and primitive nature of the police violence seen in parts of the US.

As time moved on, the Irish Catholics and poor Italians, the Greeks as well, advanced socially and economically.  The Germans and Hungarians prospered as did Southern whites, but to a lesser degree than others.

Similarly African Americans faced the challenges of injustice and racism and a breakdown of social norms, not unlike that of resettled Southern whites, with high degrees of drug use and inherent criminality, mostly in urban African American communities but, as poverty reemerged in post Reagan America, suburban and rural poor began to suffer social degeneration.

These are some of the factors, all that we can easily discuss today, that has led the US to the divisions that make a form of civil war possible, if only one orchestrated by political operatives, social media and blown out of proportion by the mainstream media.

Each region of the US has a different mix and history, each with a narrative that, when exploited, can draw on old feuds to fuel racial and social discord.

This is the new politics of America and will, also frighteningly, decide the 2020 election which may well decide the fate of the world for generations.



Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of  Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Biden’s Chances Rest on a John Podesta-Planned Military Coup, Ballot Harvesting, Police Shootings, and a False Flag


Our early August prognosis published by SCF on August 23rd, that Joe Biden would not concede the election even if Trump wins, was confirmed by Hillary Clinton herself on August 25th .
This piece will follow up on the strategy involved in that piece, and develop these in light of John Podesta’s election war-game and the situation in Kenosha, Wisconsin. In the Kenosha situation, we have armed groups on both sides, creating a volatile situation in what increasingly looks like a pre-civil war scenario. All together, we can now see the following is evident:
Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential bid now depends on a combination of a.) severe social media and search engine censorship of book-burning proportions, b.) signs from the military that they will back Biden (per John Podesta ) on the heels of c.) an inconclusive election (mailed-out blank ballots), and d.) (the Soros wing of) BLM’s ability engage in rioting and to pose as Trump-like supporters (QAnon and adjacent, such as ‘Save The Children’) in order to e.) conduct a dangerous or illegal public stunt (false flag).
Trump’s deep campaign has revolved around Christian, Gnostic, and New Age themes, which (with regard to the latter two) intersect themes of spirituality previously in the domain of the coastal left. These will form the substrate of a focus on this election being a contest of Good vs. Evil, of Light vs. Dark, of the champions of children against sexual predators, as well as anti-war and anti-vax themes; wherein ‘war mongers’ like ‘Hillary Clinton’, alleged child abusers like ‘John Podesta’, and regulatory capturers of healthcare like ‘Bill Gates’, serve as anthropomorphic reifications of unadulterated evil.
This is a novel phenomenon, and does not represent pre-Trump Republican tropes and organizing issues. Mainstream Republican tropes were represented at the RNC convention, and work to establish a continuity – even if ill fitted – between traditional conservatism (previously opposed to Trump) and Trump’s hardcore base.

[Image – Alleged Soros-BLM posing as a pro-Trump ‘Save the Children’ demonstration in what some fear foreshadows a false flag]
The Coup – Color Revolution and Arab Spring
Past political contests after the assassination of Kennedy appear to be based upon a consensus on key issues on international relations among elected officials, because the permanent administration had consensus on these themselves. But the rise of Trump, and the great lengths a part of the permanent administration has gone to frustrate his efforts, strongly indicate that there is now a political crisis and division so great, at the level of leadership, that all the soft-power and coup methods (used by the CIA abroad) are now being used within the U.S. against the executive branch.
A part of this permanent administration appears to back Trump, or rather Trump appears to be ‘their candidate’, and this may well in part explain his electoral success in 2016 despite what appeared as overwhelming odds to the contrary.
Perhaps the most visible permutation of this division and crisis were events in the deserts of Syria and Iraq, where Pentagon backed Kurdish YPG forces fought against CIA backed ISIS forces, with Americans in the employ of these institutions embedded on either side, firing at each other and taking losses. It would make sense that to military intelligence, such an incoherent and openly corrosive dynamic would need to be finally headed off.
Therefore, all of the lessons drawn from the Color Revolution, Fourth Generational Warfare (4GW), counter-insurgency and hybrid warfare, learned in our study of the events of Yugoslavia, Occupy Wall Street, BLM, Libya, Syria, Egypt, Ukraine, Brazil, Venezuela and lately Belarus, all become necessary reading in order to understand the absolutely destabilized position that the U.S. finds itself in as we approach the 2020 election.
We should expect, in line with the color-springs tactic, that police will engage in the killings of black men, orchestrated by police secret societies operating on behest of the permanent administration (known colloquially and hereafter as the ‘deep state’). These will be timed in such a way for maximum utility with regard to high/low points in the campaigns of the two candidates.
Kenosha On Fire
Such an incident just occurred on August 23rd in Kenosha, Wisconsin, in the shooting of a black man, Jacob Blake. Standard and divisive motifs followed: the event was not clear cut, and definitive aspects of the case are open to interpretation and subject to confirmation bias in the public’s eye. This will provoke reaction and polarization, with the nuances and facts of the situation and its context often traded in for political expedience. Pro law enforcement types more closely associated with conservative politics will say the shooting was justified prior to a hearing of the facts, and will include biographical information about Blake which demonstrates his past criminal offenses, while ignoring that these past offenses do not form the basis for legitimizing a ‘summary execution’. Likewise, anti-police liberals will condemn the shooting as racist and unjustified, without regard to the views on race of the police involved, and without a review of the actual facts that anti-Trump corporate media was reluctant to expose but which were contained in the police report. At the same time, there is a long history of police falsifying evidence and statements to justify shootings such as these.
Note that the governor of Wisconsin, the Democrat Tony Evers, is the one who declared a state of emergency for Covid-19 and an unpopular lockdown. He is a career government bureaucrat, and was met by a mobilization of armed citizens against those diktats. Yet the fall-out and riots in the aftermath of the Blake shooting, of which the Evers-mandated high unemployment (per lockdown) forms the substrate but yet expressed through BLM/Antifa riots, will be blamed on Trump, whose years in public service can be counted on a single hand, and whose general efforts have been to end the lockdown and ‘re-open the economy’. Evers will not call on rioters to observe social distancing, and will call the armed detachments involved in arson and looting, ‘protesters’, and the constitutionalist militias who deployed to protect the rights of both protestors (from police excess) and civilians (from protestor-arsonists) as ‘right wing’.
The increasing emergence of ‘armed peaceful protestors’, an Orwellian oxymoron as a phrase in itself, first appeared in the Syrian conflict, where American corporate media and fake-left publications like Counterpunch regularly referred to armed Al Qaeda/ISIS/FSA groups engaged in shootings and killings as ‘peaceful protesters’.

[Video, Photo – an ‘armed peaceful protestor’ stands off with an armored Sheriff vehicle.]
In our past pieces, we have explored the mechanisms that the DNC and the permanent administration will use to nullify or falsify the outcome of the 2020 U.S. presidential election in November. This included the use of Democrat governors in certain states, as we previously wrote, to declare a state winner so that its electors go to Biden, in manufactured cases where the desired vote by state citizens could not be determined. It included the use of NGO employees, Labor/BLM/Antifa activists alongside contact tracers to use the coronavirus and social upheaval around manufactured racial justice issues to interfere with voters’ access to polls, and voters’ use of mailed-out ballots and ballot harvesting schemes.
In our last piece we disclosed that the DNC plans to have Biden declare himself the winner of the election, whatever the pending (inconclusive, tampered, stolen, etc.) outcome may be.
In a separate piece published on FRN, this author explained that for the Trump strategy against the riots to work, would require a plan that involved the co-opting of the BLM hashtag by his supporters. This would mean a separation of the BLM from Antifa, the latter being a designated terrorist group.
We explained there that this approach would be similar to that taken by Russia and Syria in the Syrian war, where certain Free Syrian Army (FSA) units had to be separated from ISIS, so that these FSA units could be considered ‘legitimate opposition’ (a change of tact in itself, previously all armed opposition were considered illegitimate by the Syrian government), and even incorporated into joint attacks with the Syrian Arab Army (SAA – Assad’s forces) against ISIS.
Of particular interest will be how the public and courts view the actions of Kenosha Guard militia member Kyle Rittenhouse. These two videos, the news commentary dubbed over and to the contrary, show Rittenhouse acting in self-defense. It also shows that those with him provided first responder assistance to the man who pulled a gun on Rittenhouse and who was subsequently shot in the arm.


Censorship
We now know, per the New York Times, that Facebook execs have been meeting to implement a strategy to censor information that Donald Trump has won the 2020 election, because of the working contingency plan (which appears to still be in operation) that Biden will declare victory regardless of a determinable outcome, as we previously wrote. This, however as we explained, would result in a vote in the Congress and Senate where it is likely that Nancy Pelosi may assume the presidency.
Simultaneously, Facebook execs have had a difficult time pushing against a terrified DNC which has been making irrational demands to further censorship.
Why are the DNC’s Censorship demands on Facebook irrational?
The DNC demands are fear-based and reactionary, and while Facebook execs have been happy to do the bidding of the DNC and pro-deep state Republicans (still a majority), they know the requests to further censor pro-Trump twitter accounts are known to produce the opposite effect. This is confirmed by the known science on the subject.
Studies of social revolutions and regime legitimacy show that further censorship in an environment where citizens have access to alternate informational lines, only erodes the legitimacy of the regime. Such a study was conducted on how the DDR tried to cover up the mass exodus of citizens into West Germany some thirty years ago [Sometimes Less Is More: Censorship, News Falsification, and Disapproval in 1989 East Germany . Christian Gläßel Katrin Paula , 2019].
Facebook execs called upon MIT to conduct a study to help establish their case, and a layman’s version of these conclusions were published in MIT’s online magazine ‘Technology Review’ in a piece titled, It’s Too Late to Stop QAnon with Fact Checks and Account Bans.
In this article by MIT, it is reported that: “Friedberg, who has studied the movement deeply, says he believes it is “absolutely” too late for mainstream social-media platforms to stop QAnon, although there are some things they could do to, say, limit its adherents’ ability to evangelize on Twitter.
Like the study of the DDR and regime legitimacy, the DNC finds that the more they push for censorship, the more popular the pro-Trump conspiracy theories grow.
What appears to be a work-around for this conundrum the deep state faces, is a new development, where the Soros wing of BLM has been instructed to stage at least one rally (so far) in Chicago that took place during the week of August 17th. In this, a group wearing what looked like Soros wing BLM uniforms actually carried placards associated with QAnon – such as WWG1WGA, #SaveTheChildren, #EndHumanTrafficking, and were replete with signs calling for ‘ending the pedophile Satanic cabal’.
Podesta’s Simulation Sees Public Looking to Military for a Sign
Of particular interest is that John Podesta recently ran a simulation on the DNC’s approach and response to election 2020, where he played the role of Biden. This war-game exercise was covered by David Frum for the Atlantic. Despite its counter-factual ‘facts’ and erroneous presumptions (poll based, etc.), the findings were startling.
Neither side would concede, courts would be too slow to act, Antifa and QAnon groups would clash in the streets, and the actions of the military, in either direction, or as with the National Guard – as deployed by the Justice Department under AG Barr, would be the deciding factor.
In that simulation there were a total of 67 players who met on Zoom in the first week of June 2020. This was composed of high-profile critics of President Donald Trump, including law professors, retired military officers, former senior U.S. officials, political strategists, attorneys, and cable news room editors.
We have to reiterate that Podesta, playing the role of Biden, understands that the real outcome of the election will therefore be the position that the military takes.
A wing of Trump’s supporters – Qanon – are adamant that military intelligence, or at least an operation within the NSA, will not only back Trump, but have been backing Trump since before the 2016 election. They believe this partly explains Trump’s victory despite what they see as an election ‘rigged’ by Clinton – thereby explaining Clinton’s otherwise unfounded confidence that she would win by a landslide in that fateful election now four years ago.
On the other side have been several notable members of the deep state, such as Colin Powell and former CIA chief John Brennan.
This all gels with the insider information that we have written about from SEIU, which as explained previously, forms the nexus between the Biden ground campaign and its GOTV, Bernie’s ‘Our Revolution’ and ‘Working Families Party’, Antifa, and BLM.
Conclusion
The likelihood that the 2020 election will not produce an agreed winner, barring effective active measures from Trump, is nearly certain. Based on the Northop/Standard model, Trump has an over 90% chance at winning an election if following the rules in place in the past dozen election cycles. This explains why the DNC has introduced as many X factors as possible – a politicized Covid-19 response, slanted news which riles up reliable protest movement assets towards rioting and looting, and a mailed-out ballots scheme which is indistinguishable in effect from known problem vote riggings techniques like ballot harvesting.
It is clear that the DNC wants to produce no clear winner, and use some combination of article XX, XII, and provisions as reinforced by related constitutional provisions for the continuation of government, and NSDP 51.
Because there are so many variables, possible counter measures, and new ‘X factors’ that can be introduced, this is a developing story with no clear outcome now estimable. If it is true that the NSA is backing Trump, then this provides strong reason to believe that this candidate will emerge the winner out of the fray. In either event, future X factors are almost certain.

The Dissolution of Liberal Universalism

For a long time, the towns and cities of Europe (and the rest of the world) grew organically around the social, economic and political needs of the people. The result was the well-known, and much-loved, forms of ancient city, town and village, built from wood, brick or stone. This pattern remained unchanged for centuries. Then came two ‘World Wars’.
In their wake arose the initial, liberal-globalist push, and concomitantly, the bland, de-cultured “internationalist style” of architecture (the forerunner to today’s identity-and-gender-blurring politics). The two impulses were connected: They both arose out from the (understandable) ‘Never Again (war)’ popular sentiment.
Liberals from the 19th century onwards had thought that once the great European imperial regimes; once nationalism; once cultural ‘belonging’ were all erased, we would live peacefully together, and realise our destiny in a productive and utopian manner.
West European liberalism had become, as it were, both the world’s rhetorical – and literal – ‘currency’ (i.e. the dollar), and internationalist architecture assumed a sort of appropriate, universalist blandness and homogeneity that seemed to underwrite liberalism’s claims to human convergence and cosmopolitanism. It was, however, explicitly conceived as a tool to expunge culture – as a set of customs, a way of being, that is of value solely because it is its own – from the world.
Airports, the world over, looked the same. Hotels and city-centres became so ‘universal’ – that it was hard to recall in which city one was situated. Everywhere accepted the dollar. These were the ‘goods’ which a global currency and global ‘narrative’ brought with it. It gave a sense that the Enlightenment ‘ethos’ contained the germ of something truly universal.
Well, it was illusory – all that being globally anywhere, rather than somewhere, gave a false signal. It was not universalism at all – as it has turned out – but a momentary flaring of eurocentrism.
Today, with America’s soft power collapsed, and American society racked by internal fissures, not even the illusion of universalism can be sustained. Liberalism’s grimy ‘secret’ is exposed: Its core tenets were able to be projected as a universal project, only so long as it was underpinned by power. In J.S. Mill’s day, the civilisational claim served Europe’s need for colonial validation. And Mill tacitly acknowledged this when he validated the clearing of the indigenous American populations – as a category of non-productive populace.
Now, with liberalism widely understood as The God that Failed, other states are coming forward, offering themselves as separate, equally compelling ‘civilisational’ states. They reject the western nation-state model. And as civilization-states, they are organized around culture rather than politics. Linked to a civilization, the state has the paramount task of protecting a specific cultural tradition. Its reach encompasses all the regions where that culture is dominant.
What is the point here? Many things which had seemed solid, and separate, were in fact, all interlinked through universalism (held together through the great illusion): the Dollar, the ‘Davos’ Great Reset, the monetary system – and yes – even our ghastly contemporary architecture and interior design – all exhibits of a de-cultured world.
The salient point is that western liberalism now is non-fungible (appropriate only to certain states in America and to some European circles). A powerful centrifugal dynamic is at work. And liberalism’s loss of its pillar of power (U.S. power), and consequently its fungibility, leaves Europe naked.
Digital currencies simply will accelerate the centrifugal force – splitting apart our familiar currencies and monetary systems. The Fed is examining a digital currency; China has a Central Bank digital currency (CBDC), and Russia, Iran, the UK and Italy are amongst those planning their own CBDCs. ‘Davos’, of course, too wants digital for their explicitly illiberal technocracy project.
At a gathering of France’s ambassadors last year, President Macron mused that China, Russia and India were not merely economic rivals but “genuine civilisation states … which have not just disrupted our international order; and assumed a key role in the economic order, but they also have very forcefully reshaped the political order, and the political thinking that goes with it, with a great deal more inspiration than we have”.
Warning his audience that, “We know that civilisations are disappearing; countries as well. Europe will disappear”, Macron lauded the civilisational projects of Russia and Hungary, which “have a cultural, civilisational vitality that is inspiring”, and declared that France’s mission – its historic destiny – was to guide Europe into a civilisational renewal, forging a “collective narrative and a collective imagination. That is why I believe very deeply that this is our project, and must be undertaken as a project of European civilisation”.
The ‘old liberal illusion’ cannot be extended – not just because U.S. power is eroding, but rather, because its core values are being radicalised, stood on their head, and turned into the swords with which to impale classic American and European liberals (and U.S. Christian Conservatives). It is now the younger generation of American woke liberals who are asserting vociferously not merely that the old liberal paradigm is illusory, but that it was never more than ‘a cover’ hiding oppression – whether domestic, or colonial, racist or imperial; a moral stain that only redemption can cleanse.
In a way, these woke generations are paraphrasing Samuel Huntington, who writing in his Clash of Civilizationsasserted that “the concept of a universal civilization helps justify Western cultural dominance of other societies and the need for those societies to ape Western practices and institutions.” Universalism is the ideology of the West for confronting other cultures. Naturally, everyone outside the West, Huntington argued, should see the idea of one world as a threat.
With the ‘great illusion exploded’, and nothing substantive to put in its place, a new European Order cannot coherently be formulated. Macron however, is trying to rally Europe for the coming ‘age of empires’. Yet, it is not viable now for Europe any longer to trade off America’s post-war construct: America’s post-war imperium was under-girded by military and financial power. But Europe deliberately eschewed hard power, seeking instead a ‘new liberal imperialism’ (in Robert Cooper’s analysis).
The European project once may have sheltered under the wing of U.S. hard-power as an adjunct to America’s civilization mission, but that too is over: Trump has called Europe an enemy of America, on a par with China. The U.S. is no more Europe’s benevolent ‘uncle’ to deploy its hard power whenever Europe gets in a tangle.
And simply to speak of a European claim to universal values (tolerance, freedom of lifestyle, human rights, etc.,) essentially is to stand for the negation of the civilization-state, as Huntington argued. These values affirm rather, the freedom to experiment with different ways of life that will surely run counter to the grain of old tapestries of moral narratives and cultural practice that underwrites the course of human life experienced within a living community.
For example, the Chinese expressly prioritise Confucian values, and an emphasis on stability and social harmony over western ‘liberty’ and individual autonomy.
These ‘Euro-values’ as such offer no definition for the ‘good’ of the community, which almost every civilisational-state does do. They may be seen loosely to serve as an operating system, but liberalism in its (admittedly distorted contemporary form) does not amount to a civilisational system. At most, it has become a menu of lifestyle options to be juxtaposed against non-western lifestyles and choices.
Macron tells Europeans to root their belonging in the Enlightenment – yet as Portugal’s former foreign minister Bruno Macaes observed in a recent essay, it is precisely the global aspirations of liberalism that have severed the West, and Europe particularly, from its own cultural roots.
Unlike other European states (such as Russia), Macron inserts a glass ceiling to its prospective cultural ‘reach-back’: Why should it be limited to the Enlightenment? Why expunge the early Renaissance? Why does Europe extol so much the Frankish Charlemagne, and decline to reach back further? There were European values well before the Franks mounted their ‘cultural war’ to systematically expunge Europe’s old values. To limit the search to the Enlightenment is no reach-back at all.
No, the European leadership is so severed from Europe’s earlier cultural traditions that these are almost certainly irrecoverable. Political leaders do not appear to have answers to the dilemma posed by Macron of the rise of the civilisational-states (other than rallying to a European imperium stripped down to some soft-totalitarian technocracy à la Davos). Indeed, they do not even seem to realise – even now – the wider ramifications to universal liberalism’s implosion down to a few scattered ‘islands’ of adherents amidst a sovereigntist background.
Does Europe exist now as a coherent, bounded entity? Neither the Greeks nor sixteenth-century Europeans regarded themselves as ‘western’, a term which dates back only to the late eighteenth century. There was no such ‘thing’ as humankind in the ancient world: There were Assyrians, Greeks, Egyptians, Persians and so on, but no ‘humanity’ until – guess when – the Enlightenment, of course.
“Western societies have sacrificed their specific cultures for the sake of a universal project”, Macaes notes. “One can no longer find the old tapestry of traditions and customs or a vision of the good life in these societies”. Our naive faith that liberalism, derived from the political and cultural traditions of Northern Europe, would conquer the world has now been shattered for good. Instead, it is the defiantly non-liberal civilisation-states of Eurasia that threaten to swallow us whole.
Where then does that leave Europe, and what are we to do with liberalism? “Now that we have sacrificed our own cultural traditions to create a universal framework for the whole planet,” Macaes asks, “are we now supposed to be the only ones to adopt it?”.

The UAE and Israel: A dangerous liaison

Why are the UAE and Israel in such a hurry to normalise relations?

by
Israeli and United Arab Emirates flags line a road in the Israeli coastal city of Netanya on August 16, 2020 [AFP/Jack Guez]
Israeli and United Arab Emirates flags line a road in the Israeli coastal city of Netanya on August 16, 2020 [AFP/Jack Guez]
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has been so enamoured with Israel that even before formalising their new bilateral agreement, they had started normalising relations on many levels, including communications, transportation, and security among others.
What appeared to be a "marriage of convenience" has been in fact a full-fledged love affair. Unlike traditional marriages, the two fell in love and secretly consummated their relationship well before officially announcing the wedding date.
Indeed, the announcement had been a long time coming, considering the many hints and winks from both sides, but it was the Trump administration that was eager to break the news with much fanfare ahead of the US elections.
The Emirati attempt to spin its appeasement as a strategic calculation to stop Israel's illegal annexation of Palestinian lands and promote Middle East peace was laughed at in Palestine and throughout the region.
As I wrote the morning after the announcement, the record shows the UAE has harboured more hostility than sympathy towards the Palestinians. If anything, the deal will further empower Israel and weaken the Palestinian struggle for freedom.
Moreover, the UAE was never at war, let alone a religious war, with Israel, to have to conclude a "peace agreement" dubbed rather dubiously the "Abraham Agreement".
If anything, this is more of an alliance than an agreement - an alliance directed at the regional powers, Iran and Turkey; an alliance that threatens to further destabilise the region if US President Donald Trump is re-elected for four more years.
But what if the Democratic nominee Joe Biden is elected president? Surely, the Emirati leaders are reading the US press and know all too well the former vice president is ahead in the polls and remains committed to the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran.

Geopolitical partners

Since its birth out of sin - colonial sin - Israel has been all too eager for recognition and acceptance by its Arab and Muslim hinterland. To break out of its regional isolation, it is happy to normalise relations with any nation, regardless of size, rule, or geography.
And when a rich country like the UAE volunteers to normalise relations without any real conditions, it is normal that Israel would jump at the opportunity and try to speed up the process as much as possible.
Indeed, Israel considers Abu Dhabi and Dubai the gateway to Saudi Arabia, the way Hong Kong was the gateway to China.
But why has Abu Dhabi been so eager and in a rush to dash forward with the new relationship in these uncertain times?
Well, perhaps because it reckons the new relationship with Israel is particularly instrumental in times of uncertainty, no less if Biden wins.
After all, it believes Israel's political clout in Washington will protect it, come what may.
Indeed, the UAE and Israel began their secret contacts in Washington in the chaotic years following the 2003 invasion of Iraq and elevated them to strategic coordination during the turbulent years of the Obama administration. (For full disclosure, I was senior political analyst for Abu Dhabi TV for three years during and after the Gulf war, where I was received graciously and was able to comment freely.)
Their leaders, along with those of Saudi Arabia, felt betrayed by then-President Barack Obama's initial support for the Arab Spring and his pressure on Arab autocrats to embrace democratic reforms, i.e. step aside or step down.
All three regimes went into a state of panic during the Arab upheavals, railing against Obama for his recognition of the victory of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 2012 Egyptian elections.
These regimes consider democracy and Arab freedom of expression to be their number one enemy.
Obama did a full U-turn on Egypt, refusing to condemn or even acknowledge the 2013 military coup d'etat engineered by General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, but Emirati, Israeli and Saudi leaders decided that Washington is no longer dependable, and instead had to rely on each other to keep democracy out of the region.
This perception was reinforced two years later when, in 2015, the Obama administration reached a nuclear deal with Iran (the JCPOA), against the wishes of all three parties.
It did not help much that the Obama administration was committed to their military superiority and security and armed them, despite their war crimes in Palestine and Yemen.
Instead, the UAE took the relationship with Israel to a new strategic, security and intelligence level, later encouraged and supported by the Trump administration.
The first fruits of their covert intelligence cooperation allowed Abu Dhabi to use Israeli software to spy on its neighbours and on political and human rights activists throughout the region.

Neo-liberal bedfellows

Israel and the UAE may be two different countries, the former a "colonial ethnocracy" and the latter a repressive autocracy, but their close alliance with the West in general, and the US in particular, has allowed them to successfully liberalise, privatise and globalise their economies, albeit to different degrees.
Both have successfully transformed into security states and market states, becoming models for neoliberal development in the developing world.
Both created efficient bureaucracies dictated by business and commercial needs and effective security apparatuses dictated by unstable regional conditions.
Their capacity to integrate newcomers into their economies - Israel mainly from Jewish immigration and the UAE mainly from expat labour - has allowed them to expand and diversify their economies like no other.
Moreover, their cooperation in security and intelligence-gathering has solidified their clientelism as bedrocks of American influence in the region, regardless of who resides at the White House.
Their capacity to launch wars and project commercial and strategic power beyond their borders renders them important Western assets in a turbulent region.

Reckless ambition

An attraction has developed between the extroverted and rather articulate Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the introverted and inarticulate Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed (MBZ), the de facto leader of the UAE.
Bibi is envious of the Emirati wealth and its projection of power throughout the region from Tunisia to Syria through Libya and Sudan, and MBZ is envious of Israel's advanced economy and technology and its influence in Washington.
Netanyahu is also envious of MBZ's authoritarian rule; he would never have to face trial for corruption, the way the Israeli prime minister is now.
Both are exploiting their status as American strategic assets in order to advance their national interests, regardless of the consequences to their neighbours.
In that way, the US sale of advanced fighter jets F-35 to the UAE will most certainly go through once Israel gets something in return from Washington. And it will be the people of the region who will suffer from Emirati aerial superiority, as they do from Israel's.
The new bedfellows will try to expand their alliance with the likes of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in order to mount a united front against any new initiative from the US, the European Union or the region that is not to their liking.
They may be able to defeat the Palestinians and Yemenis militarily, and may weaken the Lebanese and the Libyans politically. But Iran and Turkey will prove hard, indeed dangerous, to contain or confront through strategic leverage.
And the same goes for their attempts at stifling democratisation anywhere in the region, which will lead to greater instability and violence.
In short, betting on the new "peace agreement" to advance the cause of peace and stability in the region will prove wishful if not outright cynical.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR