"U.S. omnipresent in all major EU defense and strategic projects" by Hugo Dionisio

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

U.S. omnipresent in all major EU defense and strategic projects

Hugo Dionísio

 November 6, 2024

Von der Leyen not only guarantees the continuation of the risks she feeds with his extremism. She also guarantees that these risks are the ideal pretext for denying the next European generations a future.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

And suddenly, the mainstream media seems to have woken up and finally realized that the European Commission, headed by Ursula von der Leyen, when it refers to the European “values”, is actually talking about the values it benevolently attributes to European billionaire families. The Guardian says that its “investigation” has revealed that 17 billionaires, listed by Forbes, are listed as the final beneficiaries of projects worth 3.3 billion euros.

It’s a mystery why it’s taken so long for The Guardian to see a reality that has been repeated uninterruptedly for dozens of years. A reality that is unfolding at the same time as homelessness, the housing, health and education crisis, war and social instability are on the increase. But even more inexplicable is the confinement of this “investigation” to the agricultural sector and projects linked to the Policy for European Agriculture. After all, while it’s bad, given that small farmers are going through an unprecedented crisis, we’re still talking about money to produce food. However, there are far more damaging and obvious cases to which, as we shall see, The Guardian and the mainstream media turn a blind eye.

In fact, the large corporations that own the mainstream media, social networks and financial resources, financing the electoral campaigns that follow one another within the framework of an absolutely fallacious democratic process, of which the upcoming elections in the U.S. are the latest paradigm, not only manage to get governments, which are always domesticated, to lower their taxes, but they also manage to obtain more tax breaks, tax exemptions and access to public funds for investment. A kind of “socialism of the rich”, in which the state socializes the costs and risks and privatizes the profits.

The European Investment Bank, in its latest “Investment Survey 2004”, shows how an important part of this transfer is taking place. Between the 1st quarter of 2020 and the 1st quarter of 2024, corporate investment only grew positively in one quarter (the 3rd quarter of 2023); in all the other quarters, there was only positive growth in the quarters in which investment by the state and households increased. Despite the hundreds of billions of euros that the EU allocates to private company projects, in the 1st quarter of 2024, corporate investment evolved negatively. In other words, the money we “invest” in these privileged beings is not leveraging investment, but rather accumulation.

And if you look at the accumulation side, you’ll find many of the answers, namely the way in which a foreign country sucks up many of the resources we produce. The war in Ukraine plays an absolutely fundamental role here, as a catalyst for the growth of public investment and the transfer of income to large corporations and, through them, to the richest families. That’s why the Western oligarchic elites feel a brutal desperation in the need to maintain the conflict in Ukraine. Even the U.S., as we see, will take their share, even in the case of the investment is supported by the EU.

Take, for example, the European Defense Fund, which is an invaluable source of money for the biggest corporations and multi-billionaires in the West. Take the case of Germany’s RHEINMETALL WAFFE MUNITION GMBH, which grew and grew fat during the Second World War at the expense of the destruction of Europe and the world, and is preparing to do the same again in the 21st century. But this time, it’s sharing the cake with the usual suspects.

RHEINMETALL WAFFE MUNITION GMBH is the coordinator and beneficiary of 6 major “investment” programs in installed military capacity (gunpowder, propellants, 155mm ammunition, camouflage, armored transport, infrastructure protection). In the project to increase production of 155mm cartridges alone, this company is guaranteeing €20,560,755.45). In other words, we Europeans pay for the machines and they get the profits from selling the ammunition. In the end, more Russians and Ukrainians die and we all become poorer and risk third world war.

A simple glance at RHEINMETALL’s capital structure reveals that Blackrock, UBS, Fidelity and Goldman Sachs all eat the cake, guaranteeing the political and financial conditions for leveraging profits and concentrating wealth. The conclusion can only be one: they are everywhere and the whole economy flows like a big siphon into the pockets of a handful of privileged people, for whom we all have to suffer.

Another of the great diners at this huge banquet of EU funds for companies is Germany’s OHB SYSTEM AG, which received €90,000,000.00 to build a missile attack warning system from space. If we can see why the never-confirmed warning was issued that Russia was developing missile systems in space, the truth is that the message was received by the right people and, not long afterwards, Ursula von der Leyen’s European Commission was doing what was expected of it, approving whatever needed to be approved.

One look at the shareholder structure of OHB, a multibillion-dollar aerospace company, and you can see why it’s so easy to hand over your money. For The Guardian, which was so concerned about funding for agriculture, it’s hard to understand how it missed this: 65.4% of OHB belongs to the Fuchs family, one of the richest families in Germany and the world. Once again, like a mafia organization, the usual friends get their share, through a fund based in Luxembourg (Orchid Lux HoldCo S.a. r.l.), but which turns out to be a front for North American interests, but with a contact address in New York.

As for Italy, Von Der Leyen’s commission has funded a project linked to “propulsion systems for the air domain”, awarding €56,202,596.26 to GE AVIO SRL, a private company, known as AVIO AERO, linked to the aerospace sector, but part of the General Electric Company group, in its aerospace division.

Even the mostly state-owned AIRBU.S. DEFENCE AND SPACE SAS is no exception. Another regular recipient of EU funds for war and research, it is developing 134 projects that speak for themselves, funded by billions of euros through EU investment. From research to digital, defense, atomic energy and space, the taxes of European workers are the main feeders of this corporate giant. A look at the EU Funding & Tenders portal is enough to disillusion many of the believers in the capacity for innovation of large Western corporations. Thank goodness it’s public and its profits are less tax than we pay. But, there’s always a “but”.

AIRBU.S., the public part of which is still considerable, nevertheless has private investors such as Vanguard, Goldman Sachs, Fidelity, UBS and a variety of trusts owned by American companies and others. In other words, AIRBU.S. remains public, by allowing the oligarchy, especially the U.S. oligarchy, to suck up the profits.

I know that these are investments to be made in the European area, creating jobs and skills for European workers. However, I can’t help but identify a set of standard circumstances that make the whole thing extremely suspicious.

Without doing an exhaustive search, in all the major projects I consulted, I found U.S. capital involved in some way, which begs the question: why do major European public investments always involve U.S. capital in some way, directly or indirectly?

Another question that arises as a result of this is the following: to what extent do the risks identified by the U.S. (the risk of a “Russian invasion”; the risk of an “attack in outer space by Russia”; the risk related to trade relations with the People’s Republic of China) influence: firstly, the creation of public investment needs and the creation of business structures to respond; secondly, the susceptibility of the European Commission to approve these projects.

Finally, if the answer to the presence of U.S. capital throughout the European Union’s defense industry – and strategic industry – is that the market is free and, as such, Wall Street capital has the right to enter the capital structures of European corporations, then, where is the independence and autonomy that Mario Draghi and Ursula von der Leyen advocated for Europe?

We can’t help but think that it will be very difficult for the European Union – and its member states – to achieve such strategic independence and autonomy, with its military-industrial complex and strategic industrial complex so supported or influenced by foreign capital.

What’s more, in a pure “deRisking” logic, so often used as a pretext for decoupling from the Chinese economy, von der Leyen’s EU doesn’t see any risk in the corporate characteristics of the European industrial complex, especially those that have to do with strategic aspects of defense, surveillance and response capacity.

In addition to the mafia-like smell that such influence brings with it, indicating the existence of a logic that points to the development of certain ventures in Europe only because the U.S. eats part of it, or indicating that the political benevolence of European funding is very much linked to this double characteristic, the presence of American capital and projects that respond to risks identified by the White House, this reality also demonstrates the lack of any trace of seriousness in the current power structure in the EU.

So, in the midst of so much risk, does the EU not see any risk for European companies in the use by the U.S. of laws such as the “Trade with the enemy act”, “Chps Act” or “Patriot Act”? Wouldn’t the case of ASML, a manufacturer of EUV and DUV semiconductor printers, which was prevented from selling a large part of its production to China, by order of the U.S., suffice? Therefore, creating serious problems for the Dutch economy? All because they have capital and industrial property relations with ASML, a company that is what it is today, essentially on the back of EU funds?

And that’s how you catch lies and fallacies. So, in this case, is there no longer a risk of dependence and strategic submission to foreign interests? In this case, does Ursula von Der Leyen already think that dependence is okay? Is that so, or is it because the responses that Ursula von Der Leyen is creating in Europe are aimed, not at responding to the needs of the European peoples, but to the needs of the U.S., in a total, dependent, strategic and criminal alignment with the policies of the White House?

Today, von der Leyen not only guarantees the continuation of the risks she feeds with his extremism. She also guarantees that these risks are the ideal pretext for denying the next European generations a future. Why hasn’t the mainstream press seen any of this?

Look at their capital structure, and then we’ll talk. Like any gangster, if you don’t pay well, someone will make you pay badly. Von der Leyen is here to guarantee it.

"The stench of the system: conspiracy" by Paul Cudenec

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims. Source: Paul Cudenec The stench of the system: conspiracy Paul Cudenec Nov 8   READ IN APP   Something is smelling decidedly ‘off’ in today’s world, with nauseating levels of corruption, mass murder, lies, hypocrisy and repression. These three essays are based on three books I happen to have recently read, each of which provides fascinating but necessarily limited insights into the reality of contemporary society. Placed alongside each other, however, they can help us to identify the source of the odour. The ruling group in our society uses its propaganda to inverse the truth of the moral relationship between itself and its opponents or victims, as we saw in the previous essay in this series. And its manipulation is particularly convoluted with regard to the notion of conspiracy. While the dominant group is constantly conspiring against the public in its own selfish interests, it likes nothing better than to accuse its enemies either of spreading false “conspiracy theories” about its own nefarious activities or of themselves being involved in criminal “conspiracies”. Joseph Heller (pictured), author of the iconic American satirical novel Catch-22, said in 1973: “What illegal conspiracies have been formed more likely exist between prosecutor, judge and policeman, who draw their paychecks from the same bank account and depend for promotion on the same political superiors. “Throughout the novel there are inquisitions, trials, sneaky undercover investigations, bullying interrogations, and numerous more cruel, unpunished acts of intimidation and persecution by people in positions of power, no matter how small, against others who are decent, innocent and harmless, or whose offences, if committed at all, are trivial. “Much of our national experience in recent years has been characterised by the same”. [1] There was a time, believe it or not, when exposing the conspiracies of the powerful was regarded as important by those who considered themselves to be “left-wing”, as Francis Wheen reminds us in his entertaining 2010 book about the 1970s, Strange Days Indeed: The Golden Age of Paranoia. “The fly-poster for a radical student seminar in 1975 lists some of the recurring themes: ‘From Dallas to Watergate: Official Violence and Cover-Up – a Campaign for Democratic Freedoms Conference. Films. Panels. Workshops on Assassinations. Intelligence. Community/Labor Repression”. [2] Thanks to the system’s efforts to smear any such analysis as “conspiracy theory”, fuelled by “paranoia” and “right-wing extremism”, it started to disappear from “respectable” view. The hidden machinations of power were now only of interest to “alienated activists on both the Left and the Right, united in a pathological mistrust of Them”, [3] as Wheen rather snarkily puts it. But, to the disappointment of those in power, the questioning outlook never completely went away. After the Oklahoma bombing of 1995, a New Yorker article complained about “views that have long been shared by both the far right and the far left, and that in recent years have come together, in a weird meeting of the minds, to become one, and to permeate the mainstream of American politics and popular culture. You could call it fusion paranoia”. [4] Of course, what was really happening was that people from different political backgrounds were becoming aware of the same reality regarding the identity, nature and activities of the ruling group. But that was something that would never be admitted by the system’s faithful journalists, hundreds of whom, in the USA, were connected to the CIA. [5] Instead, the response, from the 1970s onwards, was to go on the attack against the kind of unauthorised thinking labelled “sectarian” in both Nazi Germany and 2020s France. [6] Max Lerner raged in the Los Angeles Times in 1972: “It is a climate of paranoia, in which people feel surrounded by deceivers and betrayers, by false leaders… “This climate is not confined to the political Right or Left: it applies to both, has been fed by both, and men from both sides have been its victims and have been shot down. “Yet both are irrelevant to it in a deeper sense. For it goes beyond the political spectrum. It becomes an egomania – the delusion that because the time is out of joint it is one man’s role to set it right by his action. “It is part of the wider erosion of authority and legitimacy that has been taking place for a decade”. [7] How tellingly close this is to the official propaganda in France described by Eric Hazan, with its warning of threats to order and “the end of authority”! [8] Wheen (pictured) remarks: “Political rulers have a Masonic solidarity that can transcend ideological differences, such as that between authoritarian Communism and capitalist democracy, bonded by their common desire for obedience and loyalty – and, of course, the retention of power”. [9] But was it really just this sense of “solidarity” that led, for example, Richard Nixon, who was very close to Henry Kissinger, to become the first US president to visit both the Communist USSR and Communist China? [10] Or was author Gary Allen on to something when he declared at an August 1972 press conference: “There is a conspiracy to set up a one-world socialist government through which ‘they’ will control the world… “Since around 1960 or certainly 1962, Richard Nixon has knowingly been an agent of the Rockefeller family, which is the ruling force in the Council on Foreign Relations, which favours a one-world super-state, which they would control”? [11] Wheen notes: “Conspiratorial theories of both right and left often converged on the same suspects – the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and other well-connected outfits where the permanent government met to direct the world from behind closed doors”. [12] There is certainly good reason for that convergence of suspicion, as I can myself testify after researching the backgrounds of those involved in the UK counterpart of the Council on Foreign Relations, namely Chatham House – the Royal Institute of International Affairs. [13] Needless to say, the system does not just use propaganda and smears to stop people from exposing or challenging its monopoly on power. American dissidents had, since 1956, been targeted by Cointelpro, which went far beyond intelligence-gathering, with its aim being to “discredit, destabilise and demoralise” any group or individual considered a threat. [14] Political repression was also in the air in the UK in the 1970s – to the point of there nearly having been a military-backed coup d’état. The identity of some of those involved in the conspiracy is very interesting indeed. The “crisis” was sparked by the return to power of the Labour Party, later transformed into a neoliberal tool by Tony Blair and now Keir Starmer, but at the time headed by Harold Wilson, who was regarded by Sir Walter Walker (pictured), a former commander-in-chief of Nato’s Allied Forces Command, as a “proven Communist”. [15] Wheen explains that Walker was the chosen front man for “top people in boardrooms” [16] who had big plans to change the UK. “What the country needed, and now quite urgently, was a ‘businessman’s government’ led by – well, by businessmen such as themselves, along with a retired army general to impose order and discipline”. [17] After trying to enlist supporters for his “Civil Assistance”, an organisation regarded by many as a kind of militia, Walker “decided that private chats with grandees and money-men might be rather more productive than appeals for mass support in the correspondence columns of the Daily Telegraph, which had been his previous tactic”. [18] “The general was introduced to representatives of Consolidated Goldfields, Anglo-Eastern Bank, Lazard Brothers, M&G Unit Trusts, Cazenove and Cater Ryder & Co”, [19] explains Wheen. “The only politician present, the dry-as-dust right-winger Nicholas Ridley MP, was ‘talking in riddles’, according to Walker’s account. ‘It seemed to me that what he was trying to convey, but hadn’t the guts to say openly, was that the only hope for this country would be a military coup'”. [20] Another of these meetings was hosted by Sir Val Duncan, chairman of Rio Tinto Zinc [21] – Rio Tinto is, like the aforementioned Consolidated Goldfields, a longstanding Rothschild entity. [22] Duncan told leading journalists invited to the dinner: “When anarchy comes, we are going to provide a lot of essential generators to keep electricity going, and we invited you, the editors, to tell us if you can maintain communications to the people. Then the army will play its proper role”. [23] A few days later, a small item in the Daily Telegraph noted that “as well as supplying uranium, copper and other metals, Rio Tinto Zinc is also in a position to furnish a coalition government should one be required”. [24] What the conspirators had in mind, says Wheen, was “a junta on the South American model” [25] and they had been greatly enthused by recent events in Chile. “Conservatives in Europe and the US who had applauded the Chilean coup of 1973 watched with even greater admiration as General Pinochet gave his country a course of economic ‘shock treatment’ prescribed by the Chicago economist Milton Friedman as the cure for hyper-inflation – deregulation, privatisation, cuts in tax and in social spending. “It was what Margaret Thatcher later applied to the UK, and even before her election to the Tory leadership in 1975 some proto-Thatcherites decided that this was the remedy for the British disease: an unfettered free market combined with an authoritarian government…” [26] All sorts of outlandish detail about this coup conspiracy has subsequently come out – Cunard shipping line was asked by the army and secret services to lend them the QE2 liner “as a floating prison for the Cabinet” [27] and there was apparently an army-linked scheme to install the Queen’s husband Prince Philip as president of the UK. [28] MI5 agent Peter Wright (pictured), later author of Spycatcher, spread the rumour that the PM, Wilson, was a Soviet agent. Wheen explains that Wright initially had the idea of going public, revealing the existence of the MI5 file on Wilson, but had “second thoughts” following a conversation with “his friend Lord [Victor] Rothschild”. [29] A Plan B emerged, as Wright detailed in Spycatcher: “The plan was simple. MI5 would arrange for selective details of the intelligence about leading Labour Party figures, but especially Wilson, to be leaked to sympathetic pressmen. “Using our contacts in the press and among union officials, word of the material contained in MI5 files and the fact that Wilson was considered a security risk would be passed around”. [30] Wheen adds that although Wright was keen on this plan, “once again Lord Rothschild (pictured) persuaded him to reject it”. [30] Was this mere advice from a “friend” or something closer to the giving of orders? More generally, what exactly is behind this thing we call the system or the criminocracy? What are the connections between totalitarian regimes of the past and neoliberal states today? Is there an underlying continuity that we can identify? Somewhat surprisingly, the most lucid analysis in this particular book comes from German resistance fighters more plausibly given the “terrorist” label so widely applied to all kinds of dissidents. The Bewegung 2. Juni, who killed the president of West Berlin’s supreme court, Günter von Denkmann, in November 1974, “issued a communiqué pointing out that he had been a judge in the Nazi era”, [31] writes Wheen. Hanns Martin Schleyer, president of the German employers’ federation, who was kidnapped and murdered by the Rote Armee Fraktion (RAF) in 1977, had been a Hauptsturmführer in the SS. [32] Ulrike Meinhof of the RAF (pictured) said in 1972 that Nazism “was only the political and military precursor to the imperialist system of multinational corporations”. [33] Defending the killing of Israeli athletes at the Olympic Games in Munich by Palestinians from the Black September guerrilla group, she argued that the anti-imperialist nature of the attack was enhanced by the fact that it had happened in Germany. “The comrades of the Black September movement have brought their own Black September of 1970 – when the [Israeli-backed] Jordanian army slaughtered more than twenty thousand Palestinians – home to the place whence that massacre sprang: West Germany, formerly Nazi Germany, now the centre of imperialism. “The place from which Jews of Western and Eastern Europe were forced to emigrate to Israel, the place from which Israel derived its capital by way of restitution, and officially got its weapons until 1965”. [34] I am sure I do not need to remind people that Israel – which has been doing its best for the last year to become as reviled across the world as was Nazi Germany – came into existence thanks largely to the efforts of the Rothschild family. [35] [Audio version] See also: The stench of the system: sayanim The stench of the system: propaganda [1] Joseph Heller, ‘Catch-22 and Disorder in the Courts’, Crawdaddy, August 1973, cit. Francis Wheen, Strange Days Indeed: The Golden Age of Paranoia (London: Fourth Estate, 2010), p. 130. Thanks for the book, Martin! [2] Mark Harris, ‘Conspiracy to the Left of Us!’, New York Times magazine, 24 August 1975, p. 12, cit. Wheen, p. 284. [3] Ibid. [4] Michael Kelly, ‘The Road to Paranoia’, New Yorker, 19 June 1995, p. 67, cit. Wheen, p. 299. [5] Wheen, p. 280. [6] See ‘The stench of the system 2: propaganda’. [7] Max Lerner, ‘The Climate of Paranoia is the Culprit’, Los Angeles Times, 19 May 1972, p. C7, cit. Wheen, p. 299. [8] See ‘The stench of the system 2: propaganda‘. [9] Wheen, p. 162. [10] Wheen, p. 289. [11] Wheen, pp. 289-90. [12] Wheen, p. 300. [13] Paul Cudenec, ‘Power and corruption: the public-private imperial mafia’. https://winteroak.org.uk/2024/05/15/power-and-corruption-the-public-private-imperial-mafia/ [14] Allan M. Jalon, ‘A Break-in to End All Break-ins’, Los Angeles Times, 8 March 2006, cit. Wheen, p. 173. [15] Wheen, p. 252. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] Ibid. [19] Ibid. [20] Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsay, Smear! Wilson and the Secret State (London: Fourth Estate, 1991), p. 283, cit. Wheen, p. 252. [21] Wheen, p. 254. [22] See Niall Ferguson, The House of Rothschild: The World’s Greatest Banker 1849-1999 (New York: Penguin, 2000). [23] Wheen, p. 255. [24] Ibid. [24] Ibid. [25] Wheen, p. 255. [26] Wheen, p. 256. [27] Wheen, p. 255. [28] Wheen, p. 256. [29] Wheen, p. 262. [30] Peter Wright, Spycatcher (New York: Viking Penguin, 1987), p. 369, cit. Wheen p. 263. [30] Wheen, p. 263. [31] Wheen, p. 90. [32] Ibid. [33] Wheen, p. 91. [34] Stefan Aust, The Baader-Meinhof Complex, translated by Anthea Bell (London: Bodley Head, 2008), p. 182, cit. Wheen, p. 89. [35] https://www.thejc.com/news/features/a-family-that-helped-build-a-new-nation-kkakggbe PS. More evidence of very connections between Nazi Germany and the current globalist conspiracy can be seen in Ben Rubin’s reporting for UK Column News on October 21, 2024.

"Trump's Triumph and the Firing of Yoav Gallant

 

Click here for Exit the Cuckoo's Nest's posting standards and aims.

Source: The Unz Review

Trump's Triumph and the Firing of Yoav Gallant

Mike Whitney • November 6, 2024

 • 2,300 Words 

More

 RSS 

Share to Gab

Why was Trump Allowed to Win the Election?

We know what happens when the deep state does not get the outcome it wants. All hell breaks loose, just like did following the 2016 elections. Try to remember what that was like. Try to remember the legal challenges and the lawsuits, the hectoring and name-calling, the spurious allegations of voter fraud and Russian meddling, and the overall discrediting of the electoral process. Try to recall the street protests, the angry antifascist mobs scuffling with cops and the relentless outbursts of rage directed at the “new Hitler”.

Do you remember that?

That’s what happens when the deep state does not get its way.

Have you noticed that nothing similar to that display of manufactured rage has taken place in 2024? Have you noticed that the liberal media has been calling for calm and unity and that it is almost impossible to find a belligerent or hostile article aimed at Trump?

Isn’t this a case of the ‘dog that didn’t bark’; a case in which a skeptical person should assume foul play not from what he hears but from what he doesn’t hear?

Indeed, the reason the election results were “free and fair” is not because the intel community has stopped rigging elections, but because no rigging was required. They wanted Trump to win because Trump was ‘their man.’

Before I explain what I mean by that, allow me to share an email I send to a friend on Monday, the day before the election:

Trump’s gonna win…
The deep state needs a popular president to recruit red state teenagers to fight a war with Iran…
Harris doesn’t have that kind of appeal

Doesn’t this help to explain why the media hasn’t gone bonkers over the Trump victory and pilloried him as a racist, fascist homophobe as they typically do?

As it happens, the deep state –which unconditionally supports the state of Israel– needs Donald Trump. They need a charismatic, populist firebrand to boost recruitment and spearhead the rush to war. Harris can’t do that. Harris had trouble attracting even a hundred supporters to her rallies.

No, this is a task for a leader that is trusted, admired and loved. This is a task for a man who has credibility with the red state young men who traditionally fight our wars. This is a job for Trump.

That doesn’t mean that the deep state has abandoned its pro-censorship, pro-surveillance, anti-civil liberties agenda. (It hasn’t.) It just means that their overall priorities have shifted to more pressing issues like the Iranian ballistic missile attack on Israel which could happen at any time. Trump will not only be required to respond to that attack; he will also be asked to deploy US troops to counter the Iranian threat. And given Trump’s record of sycophancy to Israel (as well as the $100 million his campaign was gifted by Zionist donors) we expect he will comply. No president has ever demonstrated more unwavering loyalty to Israel than Donald J Trump.

Do you have any idea of how highly regarded Trump is in Israel?

Check out this extraordinary clip of two TV anchors downing shots of whisky on air in celebration of the Trump victory:

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if pundits in Moscow performed a similar toast on national TV?

Here’s another ‘must see’ display of emotion by an infantryman blasting a civilian enclave in Gaza while bellowing ‘God bless Israel and God bless the USA’

And here’s a TV game show host leading an audience in a traditional song of celebration to a large photo of Trump on a screen behind him.

It’s clear that Trump is regarded by many Israelis as an American messiah who will deploy his legions of young men to the Middle East to smite Israel’s enemies and help the Jewish state emerge as the regional hegemon. That’s the hope at least; the reality may be far different. But the point we’re trying to make is that Trump’s utility to Israel may have been a critical factor in the deep state’s approach to the 2024 presidential elections. Of course, that is just my own conspiratorial point of view.

Guess who else supports Donald Trump?

Now, onto Gallant…

The surprise sacking of Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant is significant for many reasons, none of which have been covered in the mainstream media. Netanyahu justified the action in a statement he delivered on Tuesday:

In the midst of a war, more than ever, full trust is required between the prime minister and the defense minister… Unfortunately, although in the first few months of the campaign there was such trust and very fruitful work, over the last few months, this trust has cracked between myself and the defense minister.

This is nonsense. There was no “crisis of trust” between Netanyahu and Gallant. The Defense Minister was fired because he objected to the improvisational (and idiotic) way the war was being conducted. As a military man, he wanted to see the implementation of a coherent strategy that clearly articulated the objectives of the mission and the manner in which those goals could be realistically achieved. But –as anyone who has watched this bloody fiasco unfold– it’s clear that there is no battleplan, no strategy, and no endgame. Netanyahu has been flying-by-the-seat-of-his-pants from the get-go while keeping the bulk of the population on his side with regular eye-popping tactical triumphs like the exploding pagers or the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah. Bibi operates on the theory that war is not a coercive way to achieve strategic objectives, but a series of oddball events aimed at garnering public support. Sacking Gallant merely confirms that Netanyahu intends to continue in this same suicidal vein, embroiling Israel in more and more conflicts for which there is no clear definition of victory and no plan for ending the hostilities. These are truly the “forever wars.”

Don’t get me wrong, Gallant is not a ‘good guy’ by any stretch of the imagination, he’s just slightly more rational than the loonies that are fast becoming the majority of Bibi’s war cabinet. This is an excerpt from an article at The Times of Israel:

An official close to the Prime Minister tells The Times of Israel that Defense Minister Yoav Gallant was fired for professional reasons, and not because of coalition politics.

The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, says that Gallant…. advocated a diplomatic solution in Lebanon six months ago that would not have diminished Hezbollah’s capabilities, and opposed the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah until the IDF backed the move.

On Gaza, claims the official, Gallant resisted the IDF going into Rafah because of American pressure, and fought against Netanyahu’s and most of the cabinet’s position on the need to remain on the Philadelphi corridor. Official close to Netanyahu claims Gallant fired for professional reasons, Times of Israel

Let’s summarize:

1. Gallant advocated a diplomatic solution in Lebanon six months ago
2. Opposed the killing of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah
3. Gallant resisted the IDF going into Rafah
4. And fought against Netanyahu’s ….position on the need to remain on the Philadelphi corridor.

On these issues, Gallant’s views closely align with the views of the majority of people around the world who oppose Israel’s provocations and escalation.

What does this tell us?

It tells us that Gallant opposed unnecessary, pointless bloodshed that achieved no strategic purpose and only served to undermine Israel’s security. It shows that the Defense Minister wanted Israel’s operations to comply with conventional military theory that acknowledged Israel’s diminishing ability to carry on a multi-front campaign. It shows that his views on warfare were fundamentally different that those of Netanyahu who believes that the primary objective of armed conflict is to inflict pain on one’s enemy. And it tells us that Gallant was increasingly concerned about the direction of the war and how Israel had grossly overestimated its military capability.

Once again, we are not saying Gallant is a virtuous person. Quite the contrary, the man is a viper. Even so, his approach made some sense from a military point of view. The fact that he has been replaced by another messianic lunatic who enthusiastically supports the blocking of food and medicine to starving Palestinians while never articulating a vision for ending the hostilities tells you that the Israeli leadership has no idea of the trouble they are in. Depending on the ferocity of Iran’s upcoming missile attack, Israel could be facing an existential crisis that the US will be unable to change. Here’s a short clip of John Mearsheimer explaining how Israel is presently mired in numerous wars it has no way of winning:

Let’s talk about the three conflicts: The one in Gaza, the conflict with Hezbollah, and the conflict with Iran. Israel has three goals in Gaza. 1– To decisively defeat Hamas 2– To get the hostages back 3– To ethnically cleanse Gaza. ….They have achieved none of these and, furthermore, they are stuck in Gaza. They left Gaza in 2005 because it was hornets nest and now they are back in there because haven’t defeated Hamas.
With regard to Hezbollah, they tried to decapitate the leadership, they were successful (but it made no difference) so they went on to kill huge numbers of civilians in Beirut; that didn’t work. So, they invaded on the ground… and they are getting clobbered in southern Lebanon…. And remember, the reason they invaded, was to stop the rocketfire into Israel. But they haven’t stopped the rocketfire, and they haven’t succeeded against Hezbollah, and they won’t succeed against Hezbollah. Perhaps, eventually some negotiated settlement might be worked out –who knows– but the idea that their military strategy has worked? It hasn’t worked against Hezbollah, and it hasn’t worked against Hamas.

And against Iran? Iran is still capable of sending large numbers of ballistic missiles into Israel… (Mearsheimer explains how Israel’s attack on Iran was a failure.) The Israelis do not have escalation dominance over Iran. (and) Israel does not have escalation dominance over Hezbollah. Hezbollah is still firing rockets and missiles into Israel. And, by the way, the Houthis are now firing missiles into Israel too….. The conventional wisdom in the west that “Israel is on a roll” or that Israel is ‘in the driver’s seat’ is simply wrong. And if you look at what is happening in Gaza, and what is happening with Hezbollah, and what is happening with Iran; Israel is in a lot of trouble. (Mearsheimer explains the revolution in missile technology that has rendered Israel’s air power obsolete. Netanyahu and his lieutenants fail to understand that Israel can no longer defend against Iranian ballistic missiles.) Interview with John Mearsheimer, Unherd

What is the connection between Mearsheimer’s analysis and Gallant’s firing?

Gallant’s dismissal is linked to “a harshly worded missive to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning that Israel’s war efforts had become aimless and needed to be refocused. According to the Times of Israel:

In the communique, Gallant argued that Israel was fighting according to an “outdated compass” and that Jerusalem needed to revise its official war aims initially set following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack…

“Significant developments in the war, especially Israel and Iran trading direct blows, raise the necessity of holding a discussion and updating the war’s goals with a comprehensive look” at the areas of fighting and the interconnections between them, Gallant reportedly wrote….

While Israel initially set its war goals as the destruction of the Hamas terror group and the return of hostages taken during the onslaught of southern Israel over a year ago, the fighting has since expanded significantly due to attacks by Iranian proxies and Iran itself, with Israel saying it is actually fighting a seven-front war.

Israel updated its goals to include the return of northern residents to their homes before sharply intensifying attacks on the Hezbollah terror group in Lebanon last month.

Gallant was said to advocate adding the following war aims: in the West Bank, “preventing an outbreak of violence by thwarting terrorism”; in Iran, “deterrence and keeping Iran out of the war”; and in Gaza, “establishing a reality with no military threat, preventing the growth of terror capabilities, return of all the hostages and promotion of an alternative to the Hamas government.”…

Gallant’s opposition to Israeli rule of Gaza, and his support for a hostage-ceasefire deal there, have put him at odds with the coalition’s far-right flank, further stressing already frayed ties within the cabinet. Gallant said to tell Netanyahu management of war directionless, goals need updating, Times of Israel

Can you see what’s going on? Can you understand how serious this is?

Gallant opposed a war with Iran, so he was sacked. Now the crazies are running the asylum and think that Uncle Sam is going to come to the rescue when they get their bu** kicked.

This may be the most dangerous situation humanity has ever faced. The future of life on the planet is being decided by fanatical messianic zealots whose grasp of reality is greatly in doubt and who believe that any act of violence they inflict on their neighbors is blessed by almighty God.

And now they want Trump to join their harebrained war on Iran so they can light up the entire region like a Roman Candle and bring on the End Times.

In the words of Nancy Reagan, Trump should “just say No”.