Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via OilPrice.com,

Mexico’s Senate approved amendments in the constitution that give preference to state electricity firm CFE over other companies in dispatching electricity to the system.

The constitutional amendment was passed in the Senate with 86 votes in favor to 39 against. This met the requirement of a two-thirds majority of votes in favor of amending the constitution.

Mexico’s new President Claudia Sheinbaum continues the policies of her predecessor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador to support and favor the state energy majors, including oil firm Pemex and the state-owned power company Comision Federal de Electricidad (CFE).

The constitutional amendments favoring CFE will come into force after it passes a majority of state legislatures and is published in the official gazette.

Under the change, national grid operator Cenace will be required to take first and prioritize electricity from the power plants owned and operated by the state company CFE regardless of the price and whether it is more expensive than the electricity generated from private power producers.

The new Mexican Parliament is also moving to give the president more control over Pemex and CFE.

Despite the reclassification that would give the government a greater say in Pemex operations, the new government is in favor of the company working with private companies to develop the country’s oil and gas resources.

Mexico currently produces around 1.5 million barrels per day (bpd) of oil, down from a peak of 3.4 million bpd some 20 years ago.

Underinvestment has plagued the industry for years, which was the motivation for the Pena Nieto administration’s reforms that invited foreign players into the local industry.

When former president Lopez Obrador came into power, he did away with the reform, launching reviews of existing contracts with foreign entities on allegations of corruption.

As a result, Pemex has failed to increase oil production as planned by the government. In August, the latest month with available data, production dipped below 1.5 million bpd.

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Politico cited a senior Senate aid and two sources in the Biden Administration to report on Wednesday that the US is much more afraid of an uncontrollable escalation sequence with Russia than with Iran due to the first’s nuclear capabilities.

As proof of this, the US has no qualms about shooting down Iranian missiles launched against Israel but won’t consider shooting down Russian ones launched against Ukraine, which has upset Zelensky and some of his compatriots who thus feel like second-class allies.

The difference between Russia/Ukraine and Iran/Israel in this regard accounts for the US’ different approach towards each pair.

As was explained last month in this analysis about why “Putin Explicitly Confirmed What Was Already Self-Evident About Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine”, the comparatively more pragmatic policymakers who still have the final say in Russia and the US have thus far managed to avoid the uncontrollable escalation sequence that their respective hawkish rivals want.

Here’s how they did it:

“[The US hawks’] comparatively more pragmatic rivals who still call the shots always signal their escalatory intentions far in advance so that Russia could prepare itself and thus be less likely to ‘overreact’ in some way that risks World War III. Likewise, Russia continues restraining itself from replicating the US’ ‘shock-and-awe’ campaign in order to reduce the likelihood of the West ‘overreacting’ by directly intervening in the conflict to salvage their geopolitical project and thus risking World War III.

It can only be speculated whether this interplay is due to each’s permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (‘deep state’) behaving responsibly on their own considering the enormity of what’s at stake or if it’s the result of a ‘gentlemen’s agreement’. Whatever the truth may be, the aforesaid model accounts for the unexpected moves or lack thereof from each, which are the US correspondingly telegraphing its escalatory intentions and Russia never seriously escalating in kind.”

There’s no equivalent balance of nuclear power between the US and Iran, with the most that Iran can do is launch saturation strikes against American bases in the region, not existentially threaten it like Russia can.

If Iran’s potential retaliation to Israel’s expected strike harms or kills some of the nearly 100-member team operating the US’ THAAD in the self-professed Jewish State, then the US could either take the hit, retaliate against Iranian-aligned Resistance groups in the region, or strike the Islamic Republic.

Regardless of whatever might happen, non-nuclear Iran is incapable of existentially threatening the US like nuclear-armed Russia could if the latter retaliated to the interception of its missiles by hitting targets inside of NATO, which could easily catalyze a possibly apocalyptic escalation sequence.

To be sure, there are indeed some US hawks who want to risk that scenario and the abovementioned comparatively less consequential one in West Asia, but their more pragmatic rivals are still able to stop them for now.

Authored by Kgatlhiso Darius Leshaba via The Mises Institute,

In the year 1949, the first issue of the socialist publication Monthly Review was released. Within the collection of essays, one stood out in particular. Notably, its author was none other than Albert Einstein. Somewhat misleadingly titled “Why Socialism?” the essay reads more like a critique of capitalism than a justification of socialism. In it, the brilliant physicist lays out his reasons for rejecting private property and briefly sketches out his vision for a moral and just society.

Now, 75 years after the first appearance of the essay, I believe a critical analysis is in order.

Einstein begins his essay by justifying his (and other non-economists) right to chime in on the debate about socialism. While I agree with the broad sentiment, the specific points strike me as worryingly naive. The first is that, due to the fact that since the history of most states is one of violence and coercion, conventional economic theory, as a product of the past “predatory phase” of human development, is ill-equipped to “throw…light on the socialist society of the future.”

This seems to imply that not only should non-economists’ opinions be considered just as valid as professional economists, but that the opinions of economists are tainted by the context of their formation, and thus not adequate to comment on the nature of the future socialist paradise. At some point or another, socialists must come to realize that the nature of their envisioned society must be investigated if they are going to avoid repeating the catastrophes of the 20th-century experiments. An analysis of the incentives of such a system is crucial for evaluating if such a system would indeed serve as an improvement to the current state of affairs. The only field of study with the tools for this is economics, in all its depth and breadth.

The second point made is one I wholly agree with, that economics as a science cannot choose ends, but can only inform the means for the attainment of desired ends. Thus, the question of what ends should be chosen lies outside the field of economic analysis, but the analysis of the means chosen for the attainment of desired ends is fair game.

Einstein then goes on to lay out a brief theory of the relationship between the individual and her society. The main point in what he terms the “crisis of our time” is that the willful dissociation of individuals from their group identities leads to a nihilistic isolation for which capitalist societies are to be blamed. Einstein seems to fail in recognizing society as an abstract concept representing numerous individuals and their various interactions, direct and indirect, across time.

Einstein then goes on to state that the modern individual depends wholly on “society,” however, this isn’t the entire picture. Since society is an abstract sum of individuals, it’s better to (at least partially) disaggregate the concept of society and understand that an individual’s interaction with society is ultimately just an interaction between individuals. One is not in a parasitic relationship with the society they belong to, the relationship is mutualistic. Man does not simply receive “food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language,” man must also provide something of value to society. It may, therefore, be true that the dependence of the individual on other people’s efforts is a fact of nature, but the opposite—that the relative success of other people’s efforts relies on the efforts of the individual—is true as well.

Einstein fails to realize that the pushback against the desires of the group often arises from coercive attempts to enforce those desires, rather than from a rejection of interdependence altogether. Einstein even makes the claim that the way people find meaning is by serving the desires of the group. There is an important qualification that is missing here—that if they do decide to serve the desires of the group, it must be voluntary and not coerced.

Here is where we begin to run into Einstein’s “Marxist” critiques of capitalism.

We start off with the Marxist exploitation theory, built on the back of the labor theory of value. Einstein says, “…what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces…”

The first problem we run into is the concept of value. It has been firmly established that economic value isn’t intrinsic, that, “The measure of value is entirely subjective in nature.” Value is not transferred somehow from labor to product. In fact, the direction of the imputation of value is exactly the other way around. The economic value of labor is determined by the value of the final product it aids in producing. Therefore, I agree with Einstein, worker pay isn’t determined by the “real value” of what they produce but only because it cannot be determined by something that doesn’t exist. Einstein also seems to believe in the outdated subsistence theory of wages which had long since been disproven by the time Einstein’s essay was published. 

Einstein then goes on to cite wealth inequality and the resulting distortion of the political landscape by private special interests. He is correct in that the market economy does not make people equal as there is no reason to expect it to do so. People are different, masters of different skills and trades (trades that are valued differently by consumers), leaving little reason to expect remuneration for their various services to be remotely equal. Rent-seeking doesn’t stop, however, just because resources are centrally controlled. Inequality isn’t unique to capitalism.

Einstein voices displeasure with the fact that most sources of information (media, education, etc.) are privately owned and sees this a limiting factor in individuals’ ability to make objective decisions and their ability to make effective use of their political rights. One would think that, having had to flee from a state which had taken total control of the media, Einstein would know that the criticisms he levies against private ownership of media and education are more effective against these institutions being centrally controlled. Absent a monopoly, private ownership of the media and schools allows for a pluralistic society, where people are more likely to encounter competing viewpoints, and thus does better in the quest for mitigating misinformation. This makes coming to objective conclusions more likely than if there was a single, centrally-owned and -controlled source of information.

Einstein then goes on to criticize the profit motive. “Production is carried on for profit, not for use” he says, not understanding the emptiness of his statement. Entrepreneurs produce goods that they believe consumers will find useful in satisfying their desires. If consumers judge the goods produced as useful, they patronize the business and the entrepreneur enjoys a profit. Thus, profit represents the entrepreneur’s success in providing goods and services that consumers find useful and valuable. Saying “production is carried on for profit” is just another way of saying production is carried on for the use of the consumers. I prefer not to comment on the faults of the Marxist theory of business cycles and simply let the record of history prove that there isn’t much of a relationship between the passage of time and the severity of depressions.

Einstein ends by saying that the only way he sees for eliminating these “evils” is through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an education system that is oriented towards “social goals.” With little discussion of the mechanisms of such a system, one gets the idea that Einstein hasn’t thought this matter through much. The ownership of the factors of production by “society” and their utilization in a “planned fashion” isn’t even demonstrated to be plausible. We are to take him by his word that such a system would improve our standard of living without any critical analysis. Einstein relegates the possibility of repression at the hands of the state to the final few sentences of his essay, ending with sentiments which echo the claim that state ownership of the means of production is not “real socialism.” Although he raises some pertinent questions, he provides no answers.

It is telling that many of these same arguments raised by Einstein are raised by disgruntled Zoomers with socialist sympathies.

It would almost seem as though, as brilliant a thinker as Albert Einstein was, he was unfamiliar with economic theory and evidence that ran counter to the Marxist narrative, much like modern-day naive college socialists. Even where we agree, such as the hand inequality plays in distorting politics, he fails to show that it’s uniquely under capitalism that power dynamics can be skewed.

This is because none of the criticisms levied can be laid down at the feet of capitalism, merely removing the market economy will not solve the great “evils” but only change the way these evils manifest themselves in society.

Authored by Liz Heflin via Remix News,

Germany continues to sell industrial goods to Russia, including machines for manufacturing vehicle and aircraft parts and ammunition, according to the Tagesschau news portal, which reported on an investigation conducted by broadcaster SWR.

Putin needs a constant supply of military equipment, and due to the sanctions imposed on Russia blocking imports, large parts of Russian industry have been transformed to cater to a war economy, producing military equipment, ammunition and spare parts as required. 

However, products from German mechanical engineering companies also continue to help out, with more than 300 machine deliveries for manufacturing everything from vehicle parts to ammunition made in Russia in 2023, often via Turkey, SWR research indicates. 

SWR was able to identify more than 30 German manufacturers whose machines were imported to Russia last year, many of them based in Baden-Württemberg, a traditional location for mechanical engineering.

In around two-thirds of the cases, the machines were imported to Russia via Turkey. Some Turkish middlemen involved have direct connections to Russia, while other companies there facilitating the shipments were founded by Russian entrepreneurs.

Videos and photos obtained by SWR prove just how extensively German machines are used by Russian military suppliers, including by Russian companies Parsek, Kamaz, NIR and Industrial Solutions. 

Most of the deliveries involved large industrial machines or so-called CNC machines, computer-controlled equipment that enables automated manufacturing.

These machines can cut steel, weld parts, and perform other functions for the production of defense equipment, such as vehicle/aircraft parts and ammunition.

Olena Yurchenko ,from the Economic Security Council of Ukraine, claims that 80 percent of CNC machines in Russia are now used in military production:

“With computer-aided CNC machines, they can produce much faster and more precisely, which is extremely important, especially in the weapons sector. This ultimately enables them to produce even more deadly weapons. And Germany is the market leader in the production of these machines, with a share of up to 30 percent in Russia,” she told the portal.

Read more here…

Authored by Peter Hanseler via VoiceFromRussia.ch,

Introduction

In less than two weeks, the 2024 BRICS Summit will take place in Kazan from 22-24 October. Our team will be there to follow and report on what is likely to be the most important geopolitical event of the year.

We are using the summit as an opportunity to publish several articles on this issue of the century. In this first article, we describe the adverse geopolitical environment in which this organisation is developing.

I would like to preface this with the following: Reliable geopolitical statements are based on facts. As the geopolitical facts change almost daily, this fact makes it difficult or impossible to produce analyses that will stand the test of time.

Several key geopolitical parameters are either completely in flux or will not have been decided at the time of the BRICS summit. I consider the following parameters to be crucial for medium-term geopolitical developments: (1) war in the Middle East; (2) war in Ukraine; (3) interest rate developments and the behaviour of the Fed until the end of this year as an indicator of the instability of Western financial markets with the inevitable consequences for the global economy; (4) US presidential elections.

For China and Russia, which play a leading role in BRICS – Russia currently holds the chair – the following questions arise: Should BRICS accept few, no or many new members? Candidates are lining up, but some are under enormous pressure from the US to avoid joining BRICS. Should a new payment mechanism independent of the US dollar be introduced now, further upsetting the balance in already unstable financial markets? Such decisions, or even the mere communication of them, have the potential to significantly alter the entire geopolitical situation within hours – positively or negatively, depending on the observer’s point of view.

This article can therefore be no more than a transcription of thoughts on significant geopolitical developments that are currently taking place simultaneously and unpredictably. A full assessment is impossible. Many factors cannot be reliably assessed – such as developments in Africa, Asia and South America.

The feigned disinterest of the West

For a long time, the Western media maintained an ironclad silence on the subject of BRICS. A glimmer of interest appeared when Turkey expressed interest in joining BRICS. Now there is radio silence again. Alternative media are outdoing each other with predictions that BRICS will change the world tomorrow. The Russian media are holding back in this fireworks of jubilation. But to interpret the silence of the Western media as a lack of interest in BRICS would be more than naive.

The Mainstream Media in the West as Hate Mongers and Warmongers

In retrospect, people are always amazed at how people allowed their leaders to behave so foolishly and against the interests of their own nations on the road to world wars.

The answer is banal: the mainstream media regularly play a devastating role, both on the road to war and during war. The mainstream media allow themselves to be used and wring their hands when those media that report honestly are destroyed. Without journalists who sell their souls and trample on the interests of their own country, there would be no such catastrophes.

A few gallows should be kept ready for the ladies and gentlemen responsible. That would be nothing new, by the way. Julius Streicher, publisher of the Nazi hate newspaper “Der Sturmer”, was hanged in Nuremberg.

Hate propaganda can lead to a broken neck – Julius Streicher, former publisher of the newspaper “Der Stürmer”

This picture is intended to be a visual lesson in how it can end when you throw all journalistic principles overboard for evil.

The population in the West is already powerless

Since the brainwashing is not yet absolute, significant parts of the European population are still far from believing and supporting the madness spread by the media. The closed front of hatred – for example, against Russia – takes place primarily in the media, which are in complete lockstep throughout the West, with a few exceptions.

Significant parts of the population – in France, Germany and Austria, for example – have expressed their disgust with their leaders at the polls, and in a functioning democracy this should have led to political change. The political elites in France and Germany – and recently also in Austria – have used illegal means to prevent the political participation of those parties that advocate peace, for example in Ukraine, accompanied by the media labeling those who advocate peace as “Nazis” or at least “right-wing extremists. I have never heard of Adolf Hitler advocating peace.

There are certainly parallels with those dark times. The actions of the Nazi regime after it seized power in 1933 are virtually identical to those of today’s elites in Europe against dissenters in terms of restricting freedom of expression: inciting the masses against those sections of the population who question the policies of the powerful; bringing the media into line; and – especially in Germany – violating the law beyond recognition. For example, denying the winner of the regional elections in Thuringia the right to participate in the government or to have a blocking minority.

Freedom of expression in the midst of agony

Representative of the trend that freedom of expression in the West is hanging by a thread, here is a quote from John Kerry, on the occasion of a WEF meeting that took place between September 23 and 27.

“Our First Amendment stands as a major block to the ability to be able to hammer [disinformation] out of existence.

What we need is to win…the right to govern by hopefully winning enough votes that you’re free to be able to implement change.

In other words, Kerry qualifies freedom of expression as a problem and announces that this “problem” would be solved by the state if Kamala Harris wins. We leave this thought in the air and refer to our article: “US elections decide on war or peace”.

If it weren’t for the internet and blogs, the powerful would have already achieved their goal, because fortunately it seems practically impossible to silence all voices of reason.

BRICS: From an economic project to a geopolitical force

When representatives from Brazil, Russia, China and India first met formally on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York in 2006, the world looked very different. Even in 2009, when the first formal BRIC summit was held in Yekaterinburg in June 2009, without South Africa – hence “BRIC” instead of “BRICS” – the world was different. The original goals of the BRIC countries were to achieve better economic cooperation between countries that had not yet been openly declared enemies or even sanctioned by the West. There seemed to be no rush (yet).

From 2014, pressure on Russia increased as a result of Maidan and Crimea. Russia was portrayed as the villain and sanctions were imposed. President Putin continued to seek diplomatic solutions for another eight years, welcomed Minsk I and II, but was again deceived. The artillery shelling of civilians in Donetsk by the “peaceful” Ukrainians did not stop, and NATO was building up the Ukrainian army for an attack on Russia.

Russia began to prepare for the foreseeable, especially economically, because militarily it had been doing so with great energy and creativity since the attack on Georgia in 2008. When the situation escalated in February 2022, Russia had apparently done its economic homework and could count on the loyalty of its partners in BRICS and SCO. The US miscalculation can be explained by the fact that Americans are unfamiliar with the concept of loyalty, while the EU miscalculation can be explained by the fact that most of its members are ruled by leaders whose stupidity borders on idiocy.

Russia has weathered the economic war unleashed by the West, despite a storm of sanctions unprecedented in world history. The losers are to be found in the West, with Germany being hit the hardest – also due to a senseless economic policy.

The U.S. did not limit its economic war to Russia, but also began to sanction China in 2014, as always with flimsy arguments. The EU – as a vassal of the US – has willingly gone along with this, and is currently doing so out of its own self-interest, since the industrial pearl that is Germany has already lost out due to misguided economic policies, bad decisions by its automotive industry and suicidal sanctions against Russia. Auto industry experts are speechless and wringing their hands: Since Covid, Mercedes has not managed to get its factories above 50% capacity – a complete collapse is becoming apparent across the board.

Next came the freezing of the reserves of the Russian Central Bank and the expropriation not only of Russians, but of anyone with a “Russian connection”, a term that is not legal in nature and has opened the door for governments and banks in the West to stage a raid.

China, which is only a few steps behind Russia in terms of sanctions, has become a target for the West because of its industrial superiority. It is the great new enemy of the US and Europe.

It would be naive to neglect the South China Sea and Taiwan, which are hot spots along with Ukraine and the Middle East, because what is at stake is nothing less than military domination of the Pacific, which the Americans have held since 1945, and control of one of the world’s most important transportation routes. Once the Americans are somewhere, you can’t get rid of them – even 80 years after a conflict. In Germany, for example, the US still operates 40 military bases. This alone makes it clear that Germany is not even nominally sovereign, but a mere vassal of the US. What “interests” the US “protects” for others around the globe remains in the dark.

Although most people consider military conflicts to be more important than economic wars because they are more bloody and evoke more emotion, history teaches us that the economically stronger ultimately prevails. As a consequence of this thought, it can be argued that the economic war as the decisive part of the 3rd World War is already in full swing.

In addition to many small military conflicts – such as in Africa – two increasingly escalating wars are currently raging: the conflict in Ukraine has been going on for two and a half years, and the latest conflict in the Middle East has been raging for a year.

Military escalation in Ukraine

Since last September, it has been clear who will prevail militarily in Ukraine. The advance of Russian troops across the entire front is accelerating steadily. We regularly recommend a YouTube channel that provides an unemotional daily report in English (“Military Summary”) and Russian (“Военныe сводки”) of events at the front and has not made any mistakes: only facts.

Ukraine’s Kursk adventure will end as it was bound to end; the last elite Ukrainian troops that (President) Selenski assembled for this suicide mission and equipped with modern equipment will leave Kursk as prisoners or in body bags. My sources speak of more than 21,000 casualties on the Ukrainian side.

Since the military outcome of the matter was decided – that is, since September 2023 – (President) Selenski, on behalf of his masters in Washington, has been wasting his men – young and old – at an ever-increasing rate. The death rate on the Ukrainian side has doubled from last year to June 2024: 60,000 to 80,000 men lost – per month. The number of Ukrainian prisoners of war is also increasing daily due to military encirclement. The fresh soldiers who have been thrown to the front since the beginning of the year do so after a 10-day quick fix, following a veritable hunt by recruiting troops throughout the territory of western Ukraine. These men do not want to go to the front and flee at the first opportunity. They know the war is lost, and they are not willing to give their lives for a country whose leadership they do not respect and whose fight is hopeless. Even CNN and the New York Times are reporting this.

The latest attempt by the U.S. and Britain to escalate the situation by using NATO’s long-range weapons against Russia failed because of President Putin’s clear response that in this case NATO countries, the U.S. and Europe would be directly involved in the war in Ukraine and that Russia would therefore make appropriate decisions based on the threat, given the changed nature of this conflict. This statement caused President Biden to backtrack within hours. Russia then further tightened its doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons, making it clear that the concept of proxy wars would no longer be tolerated in the future.

It is not possible to say how long these two statements by President Putin will prevent the escalation. On October 3, another attack was carried out against the Kursk nuclear power plant – it is not known whether long-range weapons were used. It was rumored that at the next Ramstein meeting, Germany would authorize the use of long-range weapons despite the warning from the Kremlin. However, President Biden has now announced that he would not be attending this meeting due to the hurricane situation in the US. Shortly afterwards, Anthony Blinken also canceled. Meanwhile, the meeting has been canceled for the time being. Believing in victory looks different.

On October 8, Foreign Minister Lavrov reaffirmed the new doctrine and its automatic application in the event of the use of long-range weapons.

“As soon as this decision is taken [by the West to allow Ukraine to use long-range missiles], if it is taken, we will learn that, and the contingency mentioned by Vladimir Putin will already be in action,”

Sergei Lawrow – 8 Oktober 2024

Selenski’s ‘victory plan’ was rejected in Washington anyway and testifies to the president’s complete loss of touch with reality. Even Czech President Petr Pavel has pointed this out. Although he is a vocal supporter of Ukraine and a former NATO general, he nevertheless expressed the view that parts of Ukraine would probably end up belonging to Russia. He softened this statement by describing this Russian occupation as ‘temporary’. Slovakia’s prime minister, Robert Fico, has also come out strongly against Ukraine joining NATO. Fico has long been a thorn in the side of the hawks, and they will regret that the attempt on his life did not bear fruit. I would not be surprised if a second attempt is made, as has already happened with Donald Trump.

The interim conclusion is that Russia has already won militarily against Ukraine, but the dying goes on without changing the outcome. The only thing left for NATO to do is to use long-range weapons against Russia in order to extend the war to the whole of NATO.

Escalation in the Middle East

The situation in the Middle East is even worse. After the events of 7 October 2023 were portrayed as a massacre of Palestinians, Prime Minister Netanyahu used this event, referred to as the “9/11 moment”, as an opportunity to massacre the population of Gaza. In January 2024, the International Court of Justice ruled unequivocally that this was genocide. To no avail, because since its creation in 1948, Israel has only respected the law that benefits it.

In the months following October 7, it emerged that the vast majority of the deaths that day were at the hands of the Israeli Defense Forces and that the alleged mass rapes and beheadings of children were pure invention. These clear denials of Israeli propaganda were, incidentally, not made by obscure blogs, but by the Israeli daily newspaper “Haaretz”.

The entire Western public has been subjected to an unprecedented brainwashing, which in Germany, for example, has gone so far as to issue a memo to the staff of public television stations dictating the wording and adjectives they should use in their reporting. See our article “ARD–Glossary justifies genocide – Dr. Goebbels would be proud“.

Apart from a few courageous students, who were labeled anti-Semites for protesting against this genocide, no one in the West seems to be bothered by the fact that genocide is becoming fashionable again as a war tactic. After the Israeli military expanded the slaughter to the West Bank, Israel turned its attention to Lebanon. The leader of Hezbollah was eliminated by dropping 86 massive bombs on a residential neighborhood consisting of six buildings. Hundreds of civilians died. Israel uses such barbaric methods to eliminate a few officers of Hezbollah and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. The attacks in Pager are also acts of terrorism and war crimes. Western media celebrate them as ingenious moves by Mossad.

Genocide and terror are “legal” for the US and the entire West. The Holocaust was also legal, as was the slaughter of over 15 million Russian civilians. The Nazi regime provided these “actions” with a “legal basis”. We have thus returned to a time when the terms “legal basis”, “law” and “law” have degenerated into empty phrases to assuage the consciences of those who actually commit these atrocities.

Since 1979, Iran has been described by the West as the epitome of evil and a terrorist state, even though it has not attacked another country in 150 years. That may be about to change. When the political leader of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, was liquidated by the Israelis in Tehran on July 31, 2024, Iran held back. Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, was apparently persuaded by the U.S. not to respond militarily as a cease-fire was being worked out in Gaza. Iran showed its goodwill.

This was followed shortly afterwards by the pager attack, the assassination of Hassan Nasrrallah and the invasion of Lebanon. The Americans have once again pulled the wool over Iran’s eyes and set a trap. The response from Tehran last week was a missile attack with almost 200 missiles. The US and Israel are calling it a failure, but Israel has banned the dissemination of information about the damage. Film footage shows that over 80% of the missiles hit their target and the damage to military infrastructure is considerable. Iran only attacked military targets, not civilian ones. This distinguishes Iran from the real terrorist state, which has probably systematically killed over 100,000 civilians since last October.

Israel and the US should think carefully about whether this is a good idea before launching further attacks on Iran: Russia has equipped Iran with S-400 air defense systems and fighter jets – probably including pilots; at the same time, Moscow is clearly distancing itself from Israel and calling on Russian citizens to leave the country.

The risk of a conflict in which the US and Russia face each other directly in the Middle East has therefore increased noticeably. Neither China nor Russia have the slightest interest in Iran being forced into a war. As a member of the SCO and BRICS, Iran has become an ally of these two major powers and they would therefore have to respond militarily, which would make a direct confrontation between the US and Russia/China de facto inevitable.

I rule out a military victory for Israel and the US over Iran for the following reasons: Firstly, due to its military successes in the 1960s and 1970s, Israel lives from a myth as a military superpower in the Middle East, which is based on conflicts that lasted a few days or weeks against opponents who were inferior to the Israelis in every respect.

In 2006, however, Israel clearly lost against Hezbollah and the ineffectual Israelis had to call off their offensive against Lebanon after a month. The Israelis were also unable to achieve their loudly proclaimed goals against a significantly less powerful Hamas despite their genocidal approach.

Iran is a huge country with an area of 1.6 million square kilometers and a population of 90 million, with an army of just under one million men including reservists. Moreover, Iran is over 1,700 km away from Israel, which rules out a land war. Even the Americans, who cannot even prevail against the Houthis, will have no chance here. Attacking Iran is therefore complete nonsense and madness.

If you listen to experts, even air strikes seem practically impossible and extremely risky for aircraft due to the Russian S-400 defense systems. Iran has hundreds of thousands of state-of-the-art missiles at its disposal and could cover Israel with hundreds of missiles every day for months. The Israelis’ miraculous Iron Dome may be suitable against old Quds missiles, but they are practically ineffective against modern Iranian missiles, as the last attack showed.

Unless the Americans have completely lost their minds, they will not comply with the wishes of the Israeli Mini-Hitler. That would probably also be worse for the Biden-Harris government. If the conflict escalates, Iran will multiply the price of oil through attacks on oil infrastructure and a possible blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which would mean the end of the Harris campaign.

The third major conflict for supremacy in the South China Sea and over Taiwan is not yet being waged kinetically, but it could just as well start tomorrow or in a year’s time.

The forces that control the USA are the cause of this evil

Overview

It sounds simplistic, but there is actually one party ultimately responsible for all the incidents described: The US. It is – rightly – afraid of losing its role as hegemon after 80 years.

The US’s problem is multifaceted. Firstly, the world’s most indebted country is economically in the doldrums: The published economic figures, which paint a slightly better picture, are sugarcoated. Secondly, society in the US is more divided than ever before: the election campaign between Harris and Trump is hate-filled and this is not about the choice between two people, but about the choice between the deep state and the anti-establishment, which we already described in detail a month ago (US elections decide war or peace) and therefore do not cover this aspect in this article. Thirdly, the strategy of destroying or dismembering Russia implemented after the fall of the Soviet Union has become a distant prospect by conventional means; the war against Russia in Ukraine has failed. Fourthly, over the last 45 years, the US has lost its formerly dominance in the Middle East. The last bastion is Israel, which is being led to its doom by a sociopath under the expert leadership of the US. Fifthly, in my opinion, the biggest problem for the US is the rise of BRICS, as the American empire cannot exist without the supremacy of the US dollar. With the rise of BRICS, this dominance will disappear. For this reason, the US is fighting BRICS with all means at its disposal, be it by exerting pressure on new or potential members (e.g. Saudi Arabia) or through military intervention (e.g. Russia and Iran).

US economy: The world’s richest country driven to the wall

The US took over as hegemon after the Second World War with 22,000 tons of gold, an economy that produced 70% of the world’s industrial goods and a monetary system (Bretton Woods) that was imposed on over forty members and made the US dollar the world currency. In addition, the US was practically spared from the Second World War – as it had been from the First World War. The country and the civilian population suffered no damage whatsoever and compared to the losses suffered by many other warring parties – first and foremost the Soviet Union – the American losses in both world wars can be described as homeopathic.

Despite this “starting capital”, the US as hegemon did not succeed in maintaining this strength over time. The list of coups, military conflicts and major wars launched by the US in the last 80 years is almost endless and has led to millions of civilian deaths, destroyed countries and complete military defeats for the US.

The image that the US paints of itself as a “friendly hegemon” is a complete farce. The US was not only brutal and ruthless towards enemies, but also towards friends. If a friend stepped out of line, it was destroyed militarily (Iraq, Libya), subjected to decades of sanctions (Cuba, Iran) or blackmailed by other means (Switzerland).

The biggest problem for the United States is the fact that it has always lived beyond its means and spent more money than it earned. This led to the collapse of the Bretton Woods system after just 26 years, when President Nixon was forced to close the gold window, which led to them ripping off their partners in the Bretton Woods system. Then the genius Henry Kissinger invented the Petrodollar, which turned the US dollar into the “King Dollar” and gave the US an instrument for unlimited debt, which the Americans also used as a weapon. Anyone who tried to break away and sell raw materials in currencies other than the US dollar was destroyed (Iraq, Libya).

The turning point came at the latest with the freezing of Russian central bank funds, an infringement of assets that was primarily started by the vassals in the EU in 2022, with even “neutral” Switzerland participating in this – until then – unthinkable breach of the law.

In my opinion, this action will go down in the history books as one of the greatest blunders, as it not only heralds the end of the Petrodollar, but also greatly accelerates the coming together of the Global South, which is characterized by the fact that the Chinese and Russians no longer conduct 60%, but only 15% of their transactions in US dollars and the BRICS countries – whenever possible – conduct their trade activities outside the US dollar. This trend is accelerating with each passing year and will sooner or later lead to the collapse of the US budget, as it is dependent on the world holding US dollars, or else the US will collapse.

The stock markets in the West are still close to their highs, but are a miserable measure of the economic health of the Collective West. Most of the countries in this group are effectively bankrupt and are keeping themselves alive by printing money and cutting interest rates. Interest rate cuts that are based on the lie that inflation has been defeated. Every European or American who has to watch their budget has tears in their eyes – from laughter or weeping – when they look at the official inflation figures.

The official figures have nothing in common with reality. It is the West’s last gasp before collapse. Here, too, history is repeating itself. In the 1970s, Americans were also led to believe that inflation was under control and the Fed Chairman at the time, Arthur F. Burns, lowered interest rates. An inflationary storm then broke out, which Burns’ successor, Paul Volcker, finally got under control again by raising the key interest rate to 19.1% (June 1981).

On October 4, ZeroHedge reported that global food prices have risen the most in 18 months. The parallels with the 1970s in terms of inflation are striking and worrying.

This drastic cure would no longer be feasible today. At today’s interest rates, the US is paying over one trillion US dollars in interest per year on its gigantic mountain of debt. That is more than the US spends on its gigantic military apparatus. Very few people can even imagine what a trillion actually means:

Here are some examples of what a trillion actually means:

• One million seconds equals 11.5 days – one trillion seconds equals: 32,000 years.

• If someone were to give away a million every day since the day Christ was born, they would still have enough money today to continue this process for another 715 years – until the year 2,739.

• One trillion grains of rice weigh approximately 30,000 tons.

It is only a matter of time before this house of cards collapses. Whether the catastrophe starts in Europe, the US or Japan is of secondary importance, as this will lead to a domino effect.

Bloodbaths accompany the loss of US supremacy in the Middle East

In our three-part series “Bloodbaths are changing the world”, we have meticulously detailed the rise of the military-industrial complex in the US (Part 1) as the basis for the US’s aggressive foreign policy.

Until the overthrow of the Shah of Persia in 1979, the US dominated the Middle East and thus also controlled a large part of the world’s oil reserves.

In the following maps, the influence of the US is colored red. The coloring in the following maps should not be considered absolute.

Influence of the US (red) in the Middle East until the fall of the Shah of Persia – Source: VoicefromRussia.com

In 2001, the situation looked much worse for the US – its influence was much smaller.

Situation on September 11, 2001 – Source: VoicefromRussia.com

In part 2 of our bloodbath series, we explained how the US used 9/11 as an excuse to plan a huge campaign to conquer Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iran. A plan that was in no way inferior to Hitler’s megalomania.

Influence US in September 2001: (red) – the plan: (yellow) – Source: VoicefromRussia.com

It turned out differently: all war campaigns led to disaster for the US. Nevertheless, the Americans destroyed the following countries either completely or significantly: Afghanistan (US withdrawal), Iraq (US withdrawal with a small contingent remaining against the will of the government), Libya (no [official] ground troops, country destroyed), Syria (lost, but to this day still some ground troops in the oil-rich part), Sudan (no control), Somalia (no control).

The situation today is as follows: A disaster for the US.

In addition, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and Egypt joined BRICS last summer (Saudi Arabia joined but has not yet signed up). The following countries in the Middle East have also submitted formal applications for membership: Kuwait, Bahrain and Turkey – more on these in our follow-up articles to this report.

The geopolitical reach of the US in the Middle East is therefore extremely limited. Furthermore, anyone who believes that Israel does not do exactly what the US orders is naive.

Israel would not be able to survive a month without US financial and military support. The US has once again found a sociopath (Prime Minister Netanyahu) to do the dirty work for the US, including genocide.

The power of the Zionists

Much more important, however, is the question of who is able to influence the US to such an extent and how this is done. The short answer: the Zionists.

What is Zionism? – “Zionism (from Zion) refers to a political ideology and associated movement aimed at the establishment, justification and preservation of a Jewish nation state in Palestine.”

The Zionists are in charge of the Israeli government today, although they only represent around 10% of the electorate. One of their most extreme representatives is the current Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich.

In our series on Israel, we mentioned the ultimate goal of the Zionists several times and proved this, among other things, with the help of an entry in Ben Gurion’s diary, namely the creation of a Greater Israel that included Israel, Jordan, Iraq, parts of Syria and areas of Saudi Arabia. This also proves that the term “river” in the Israeli saying “From the river to the sea” does not mean the Jordan, but the Euphrates. This ultimate goal is always dismissed in the West as a conspiracy theory, as well as an old hat, since Ben Gurion’s diary entry dates back to 1948. However, the following statement by Smotrich from October of this year confirms the unbelievable:

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich:

I want a Jewish state that includes Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. pic.twitter.com/k08V7wYNGU

— Globe Eye News (@GlobeEyeNews) October 10, 2024

It is no secret that the American government is riddled with Zionists – such as Blinken and Sullivan. Even Joe Biden describes himself as a Zionist.

The Zionist movement is organized worldwide. By far its most powerful lobbyist is the extremely wealthy AIPAC – The American Israel Public Affairs Committee; in essence a Zionist lobbying organization in the US.

In the US, all lobbying organizations must be registered as such, which is required by law under FARA – the Foreign Agents Registration Act. This has been in place since 1938 to prevent foreign influence on American politics. AIPAC is expressly excluded from this.

AIPAC has unlimited access to members of the US Congress and Senate at all times. There has never been a US president who has dared to go against the express will of AIPAC. And AIPAC is the organization that Netanyahu can fully rely on at all times in his religious war mania and to ensure the supply of weapons and money not only from the US.

This short paragraph should suffice to show that (1) Israel’s goal is not peace, but gigantic expansion at the expense of practically all its Arab neighbors; (2) the question of whether Israel dominates the US or the US dominates Israel is irrelevant: the Zionists are in decisive positions in many countries – including the US and Israel.

As long as the Zionists occupy these positions of power worldwide, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

Priority number 1 for the US: Prevent BRICS!

Whether the US can maintain its hegemony ultimately depends not on military successes, but on economic might, because the US has not won a war since 1945, but has still been able to maintain its world dominance.

Every hegemon that has ever lost its status has lost it because it went broke. Nevertheless, the US’s approach makes perfect sense from its perspective. The weakness of the US can no longer be hidden. They are now trying to weaken their opponents – at least to create a balance on a relative level – by causing wars that are waged by third parties who weaken each other in the process.

This is intended to prevent the “rest of the world” from realigning itself collectively. BRICS stands for precisely this realignment: a realignment through the creation of a multipolar world. If BRICS is successful, the US will disappear as a hegemon and will then be one of many players at the table, with defunct empires regularly acting as if they were playing a major role for centuries to come. Just like President Macron or Boris Johnson, for example, who from a rational point of view are just ridiculous loudmouths with countries that belong on the geopolitical dustbin.

The West’s cast-iron silence on BRICS should therefore by no means be interpreted as a lack of interest. The really important geopolitical developments are known to take place in the background. I personally believe that this organization poses the greatest threat to the US. Russia and China are the two countries that are leading the development of this organization. It therefore makes perfect sense from an American point of view to fight these two countries most aggressively.

The Russians and Chinese are aware of this and are reacting with the discretion and restraint typical of both countries. There have been 200 events on BRICS in Russia this year and not a lot has been heard.

It is a huge challenge for BRICS to develop in a well-structured way in this geopolitical turmoil. Some members are already at war with the Collective West (Russia, Iran), Saudi Arabia may not make up its mind as it is obviously under enormous pressure due to its huge investments in the UK and US. The formal signature for accession is still pending.

The war against Russia in Ukraine has completely failed and has considerably weakened Europe – especially Germany – and exposed NATO as a chatter club. The time will come when even the last naive person in Europe will realize that Europe is once again being used as a blunt and willing instrument of its masters in Washington against Russia. This is a betrayal of national interests. Bought morons in the service of Washington. But how Germany has managed to elect a government whose intellectual abilities are difficult to describe is down to the society that made a choice back in 1933, the consequences of which we all know. The Germans seem to have a special ability to regularly shoot themselves in their own feet – the left and the right.

To date, US efforts to bring down BRICS by weakening Russia and China have failed.

Nevertheless, the geopolitical turmoil that the US has caused in recent years is certainly influencing the development of BRICS – both negatively and positively.

Negatively, as potential members are being bullied, such as Saudi Arabia. Attempts are also being made to influence full BRICS members by luring and threatening them (India, Brazil). Other countries that would like to join BRICS are put under pressure, even if the general public is not aware of this, as this happens in the background or the pressure is exerted for other, pretextual reasons (e.g. Venezuela).

The positive effect of the US’s behavior is that many countries are becoming acutely aware of what could befall them if they are treated in the same way as Russia and China, although many countries in the Global South are mere microcosms compared to these two giants and therefore lack the resilience of Russia and China. Since BRICS sells multipolarity credibly and actually behaves in a spirit of partnership and not hegemonism, the prospect of living under the umbrella of this community is extremely attractive. This is evident from the long list of countries that would like to formally join or have expressed a strong interest.

Looking into the crystal ball

Now one has to ask what the best strategy for BRICS will be: Just grow fast? I do not hold this opinion. Based on conversations with my contacts, BRICS decision-makers seem to think along similar lines. It is possible that no new full members will be admitted at all this year and a status called “ Partner” will be introduced, because the big growth step of last August (increase from 5 to 9 members) must be consolidated and in the current geopolitical environment it is an advantage to be smaller and more flexible.

What can be considered certain: BRICS has evolved from an economic association to a geopolitical entity. In times of conflict, such an economic community must secure itself geopolitically. It is very possible that the SCO, a security policy organization, will move closer to BRICS or even merge with it.

From an economic perspective, the biggest challenge for BRICS is to create an efficient payment or settlement system independent of the US dollar. At present, most trade activities within BRICS are settled in local currencies, but no solution has yet been found for settling trade deficits among the members. A lot is being written and rumored, but the Russians and Chinese are keeping their cards close to their chests on this matter. We will hopefully be able to comment on this before the summit begins.

In the next part, we will provide the latest figures on BRICS. The fact that BRICS is the big economic magnet of the Global South can be anticipated. Over 50 countries want to join and this would create an organization that would outshine everything that has ever existed, because BRICS is already stronger than the G7 in terms of all important parameters.

Conclusion

What the death throes of a hegemon look like is currently being demonstrated to the global public in all its gruesome detail. An unbelievable number of people are dying, genocide is once again considered acceptable in the West, the media are becoming drivers of hatred, concealing objectively important developments and lying through their teeth. “Friends” (better: vassals) are sent into the fire for ‘the good cause’. Their own population is lied to and economically ruined. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the hard-hit empire to credibly convey the noble slogans of “freedom”, “democracy” and “prosperity” to its people.

Being able to develop in an orderly and free manner in such an adverse environment is a huge challenge for an organization like BRICS. This organization, which was launched as a purely economic association, was originally designed to assert itself in free competition. Today, hatred, sanctions and wars are being used as a means to put an end to this organization. A loose economic alliance is becoming a geopolitical alliance and, in the event of further escalation, has every chance of becoming a military alliance.

I am not an augur, but I would not be surprised if BRICS adopts a strategy of resilience rather than growth and flexibility rather than size. We will know more on October 24.