Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

(Click on the image to enlarge)

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Elizabeth Vos on the social-media suppression of information that could help U.S service people refuse to join the U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran as fears grow that Trump will send ground troops into the conflict.

As the U.S. and Israel’s deeply unpopular war with Iran enters its second week, social media platform X is censoring the accounts of people providing information to military servicemembers on how they can refuse to serve. This is particularly relevant as fears have grown that U.S. ground troops may enter the conflict.

The Center on Conscience & War, an 80-year-old nonprofit that, according to its website, “advocates for the rights of conscience, opposes military conscription, and serves all conscientious objectors to war,” was banned on X for 12 hours. The center’s executive director, Mike Prysner, shared a notice that the center received from X which labeled their posts as having “violated X rules” against “illegal and regulated behaviors.”

X has just suspended @CCW4COs for informing service members of their legal rights. pic.twitter.com/joNYvW9E2w

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

Prysner wrote: “This is the post @CCW4COs was suspended for, informing service members of their legal right under DoDI 1332.14 to report “failure to adapt” within first 365 days of service and receive an entry-level discharge.”

This is the post @CCW4COs was suspended for, informing service members of their legal right under DoDI 1332.14 to report “failure to adapt” within first 365 days of service and receive an entry-level discharge https://t.co/PLPQslEz6x

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

It remains legal to conscientiously object to military service. The only conceivable way that the post could be framed as encouraging illegal or irregular behavior would be to recast such objections as mutiny, which is exactly what pro-Israeli voices on social media have been frantically doing in the last few days.

In response to conservative commentator Candace Owens also encouraging those in the U.S. military to conscientiously object to serving in Iran, pro-Israel journalist Emily Schrader wrote on X:

“This is illegal. She is literally advocating mutiny. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2387 (Advocating overthrow or disloyalty in the armed forces). It is a crime for any person, including civilians, to willfully advocate or attempt to cause:
• insubordination in the armed forces
• disloyalty among service members
• mutiny or refusal of duty
It also criminalizes distributing materials intended to encourage those outcomes.
The penalty can be up to 10 years in prison and fines.”

Other pro-Israel voices like Bill Ackman, the billionaire hedge-fund manager, reposted Shrader’s sentiments.

The social media ban on the Center for Conscience and War came less than 24 hours after its executive director, Prysner, also wrote via social media regarding anecdotal evidence of troops being readied for combat:

“I just spoke with the mother of a service member in this unit. They were given one last call home before having to turn in their phones. He told his mom they were going ‘boots on the ground’ tonight.”

I just spoke with the mother of a service member in this unit. They were given one last call home before having to turn in their phones. He told his mom the were going “boots on the ground” tonight. pic.twitter.com/3OCupSfp9Q

— Mike Prysner (@MikePrysner) March 7, 2026

As noted by The Cradle,

“Mike Prysner … said in posts on X that his office has been overwhelmed with requests for guidance from service members seeking to dodge deployment…. ‘Phone has been ringing off the hook,’ he wrote … adding that many troops had not been told the mission involved combat until the last moment and were initially informed they were heading to training.”

As veteran Greg Stoker said via X: “Service members knowing their rights is a direct threat to both the secular imperialists who own these apps and the rapturous evangelicals trying to bring about Armageddon.”

Service members knowing their rights is a direct threat to both the secular imperialists who own these apps and the rapturous evangelicals trying to bring about Armageddon.

You don’t want to be fighting for either. https://t.co/hMzq96xSir

— Greg Stoker (@gregjstoker) March 7, 2026

Some X users have also been anecdotally reporting the apparent mobilization of troops:

“Spoke to a family member tonight — a Marine stationed in California. He said half\ the troops on base have disappeared in the past couple days and that the situation is chaos with those still remaining.”

Despite official denials that troops on the ground are part of the current plan, President Donald Trump has not ruled out the possibility. Democrats expressed alarm over the possibility following a March 4 classified briefing.

Democracy Now! noted that Sen. Richard Blumenthal said, “I just want to say I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren also stated after the briefing:

“I just left a classified briefing on Iran, and here’s what I can say. It is so much worse than you thought. You are right to be worried. The Trump administration has no plan in Iran. This illegal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation. Donald Trump still hasn’t given a single clear reason for this war, and he seems to have no plan for how to end it, either.”

The censorship of an account sharing information for troops regarding how to conscientiously object is particularly relevant now as thousands of U.S. troops are facing the potential for imminent deployment in the escalating conflict with Iran: a war largely unsupported on the home front.

Breaking news: The Army abruptly canceled a major training exercise, officials said, fueling speculation within the Defense Department that soldiers specializing in ground combat and a range of other missions may be sent to the Middle East. https://t.co/1nuTFn8acH

— The Washington Post (@washingtonpost) March 6, 2026

According to The New York Times, support for U.S. intervention in Iran is incredibly low, having “ranged from 27 percent in a Reuters/Ipsos poll to 41 percent in a CNN survey, far below the level of public backing that Mr. Trump’s predecessors initially enjoyed when they used force overseas.”

Many see the intervention as a war waged overwhelmingly for Israel, especially in light of broad daylight comments from figures like U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said:

“The president made the very wise decision: We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action, we knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces, and we knew that if we didn’t preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties.”

Other veteran activists have also been speaking out against the war, and urging servicemembers to refuse to serve. As reported by Breakthrough News, at a Chicago rally on Saturday, veteran Daniel Lakemacher urged U.S. soldiers to “refuse this illegal and immoral war” on Iran.

“To all those who are not yet deployed: Now is the time to resist.”

At a Chicago rally on Saturday, veteran Daniel Lakemacher urges U.S. soldiers to “refuse this illegal and immoral war” on Iran.

The rally was part of a “Stop the War on Iran!” national day of action. The… pic.twitter.com/ukeY6Sci3i

— BreakThrough News (@BTnewsroom) March 8, 2026

This negative sentiment was also voiced by former U.S. Marine Sgt Brian McGinnis, a Green Party candidate for U.S. Senate for North Carolina, who was dragged out of a recent congressional hearing after shouting that “America does not want to send its sons and daughters to war for Israel.”

Sen. Tim Sheehy and police officers reportedly broke McGinnis’s arm as they struggled to remove him from the room. McGinnis was then charged with multiple counts of assault.

Former US Marine Sgt Brian McGinnis as he’s dragged out of Congress:

“No one wants to fight for Israel!”

Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-AIPAC) can be seen helping cops manhandle the veteran

Expect to see much more of this as the Zionist war drags on pic.twitter.com/itHaOkexf2

— Max Blumenthal (@MaxBlumenthal) March 4, 2026

The violent repression of a former service member’s speech against U.S. intervention in Iran, like the social media suppression of information that might help military members use legal methods to refuse to serve in that war, demonstrates how desperate the government is to preserve its ability to force Americans to fight for Israel.

The president and his supporters seem increasingly confused when justifying the U.S. involvement to the press. When asked about U.S./Israeli strikes on Iran’s water desalination plants, Trump rambled about beheaded babies and referenced Oct. 7. This behavior is stoking public resistance to the war, including amongst members of the military.

At a time when a dangerous war of America’s own making is escalating dangerously out of control, it cannot be acceptable to censor or render it illegal for members of the U.S. military to have a conscience.

Original article:  consortiumnews.com

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

A “Uniting for Peace” resolution in the UN General Assembly can counter the Security Council’s failure to act.

Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.

Already 555 Iranians — including 180 students at a girls’ elementary school in Minab — have been reported dead in the war of aggression launched February 28 by President Donald Trump and his accomplice, accused war criminal Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, against Iran.

“Operation Epic Fury involves the largest regional concentration of American military firepower in a generation,” U.S. Central Command said in a statement.

This aggression has destabilized the region and triggered Iran’s legitimate exercise of self-defense.

The U.S.-Israeli aggression against Iran violates the United Nations Charter, which requires that all states settle their disputes peacefully and refrain from the use of armed force except in self-defense under Article 51 after an armed attack against a UN state by another state, or when the Security Council authorizes it.

Before February 28, Iran had not mounted an armed attack against any country, nor did it pose an imminent threat to the U.S., Israel, or another UN member state. And the Security Council had not authorized the use of military force against Iran.

The timing of the U.S.-Israeli attacks undermines the pretext that the U.S. and Israel had been engaging in good-faith negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program.

Netanyahu Convinced Trump to Withdraw From the Iran Nuclear Deal in 2017

Trump claimed he attacked Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.

The negotiations preceding the February 28 attack must be examined in the context of the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), that was negotiated by France, Britain, Russia, China, Germany, the U.S., and Iran during the Obama administration.

In the JCPOA, Iran agreed to restrict its uranium enrichment and other nuclear activities. In return, the U.S. unfroze billions of dollars in Iranian assets to provide relief from punishing sanctions. Until Trump pulled the U.S. out of the deal during his first administration, the JCPOA had been working to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

“Iran has gotten rid of all of its highly enriched uranium,” Jessica T. Mathews wrote in an 2017 article in The New York Review. “It has also eliminated 99 percent of its stockpile of low-enriched uranium…. All enrichment has been shut down at the once-secret, fortified, underground facility at Fordow.… Iran has disabled and poured concrete into the core of its plutonium reactor — thus shutting down the plutonium as well as the uranium route to nuclear weapons. It has provided adequate answers to the [International Atomic Energy Agency’s] long-standing list of questions regarding past weapons-related activities.”

Nevertheless, in 2017, Netanyahu convinced Trump to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran nuclear deal. “I asked [Trump] to leave the JCPOA,” Netanyahu bragged. “It was me who made him to depart from the deal.”

Had the JCPOA remained in force, the current U.S.-Israeli aggression would almost certainly not have happened.

Negotiations Were Bearing Fruit But U.S. and Israel Attacked Anyway

Before the February 28 U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran, the country of Oman had been brokering negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. The U.S. and Israel insisted that Iran stop enriching uranium, limit its ballistic missile program, and end support for its “proxies” Hezbollah and the Houthis.

On February 27, Oman’s foreign minister said on CBS News that the negotiations had made significant progress and Iran had agreed to more concessions than those contained in the JCPOA. A nuclear agreement was “within our reach,” he stated.

Nevertheless, Trump maintained that diplomacy had been exhausted. The U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran the next day.

In his videotaped announcement, Trump misleadingly stated that the Iranian government has “rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions.”

Citing no evidence, Trump declared that the Iranian regime “has built nuclear weapons.” This contradicted his declaration in June 2025 after his bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites that the U.S. had “obliterated” its nuclear program.

Israel erroneously stated that Iran is armed with nuclear weapons. For the past two decades, Israel has claimed that Iran was on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Trump said that in order to avoid a war, Iran would have had to say “those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’” But Iran has stated this several times. In fact, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa banning nuclear weapons in 2004.

The Trump administration has admitted it has no evidence Iran is weaponizing its uranium enrichment program, or even that it has restarted enriching uranium since last June. Iran has always maintained that it enriches uranium for peaceful purposes, as permitted by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

There is also no evidence that Iran is developing intercontinental ballistic missiles that could hit the United States.

The purpose of the joint U.S.-Israeli operation, Netanyahu said, was “to remove the existential threat posed by the terrorist regime in Iran.”

“Netanyahu’s agenda has always been to prevent a diplomatic solution, and he feared Trump was actually serious about getting a deal, so the start of this war in the middle of negotiations is a success for him, just like it was last June,” Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, told Al Jazeera.

U.S.-Israeli Aggression and Iran’s Self-Defense

The U.S.-Israeli use of force against Iran violates its sovereignty and territorial integrity and thus constitutes illegal aggression, which was considered the “supreme international crime” at Nuremberg.

Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter says that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Aggression is inconsistent with the purposes of the UN. An “act of aggression” is “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations,” under the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court. Aggression includes “the invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State.”

A “preemptive” strike (purportedly to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons) violates the UN Charter and constitutes aggression.

Professor Ben Saul, UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, posted on X: “I strongly condemn the Israeli & US aggression against Iran, in violation of the most fundamental rule of international law — the ban on the use of force. All responsible governments should condemn this lawlessness from two countries who excel in shredding the international order.”

Article 51 of the Charter says, “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.”

After the U.S. and Israel mounted these armed attacks, Iran was permitted to act in self-defense.

When the UN Security Council Drops the Ball, the General Assembly Can Act

The UN Security Council met on February 28 but it did not pass a resolution addressing the U.S.-Israeli bombing of Iran.

If the U.S. prevents the Security Council from acting to restore international peace and security, the General Assembly can convene under “Uniting for Peace,” a resolution passed by the General Assembly to bypass the Soviet Union’s veto during the Korean War.

The General Assembly can recommend that its member states impose arms and trade embargoes on the U.S. and Israel. The General Assembly could also suspend the U.S. and Israel from its ranks. These decisions would require a vote of two-thirds of the 193 General Assembly member states.

An Illegal Effort to Engineer Forcible Regime Change in Iran

Both Trump and Netanyahu have made it clear that they seek regime change in Iran, and their killing of Khamenei is consistent with that goal. Forcible regime change is illegal.

The UN Charter, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights all guarantee the right of peoples to self-determination. The two covenants have the same first sentence of Article 1: “All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”

This isn’t the first time the U.S. has engaged in forcible regime change in Iran.

In 1953, the CIA covertly orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iran’s oil industry, against British oil interests. The U.S. then installed the vicious Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, who ruled Iran with an iron fist for 25 years.

But the chickens came home to roost. The Shah was overthrown in the 1979 Iranian Revolution and replaced with the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s theocracy.

When Khomeini died in 1989, he was succeeded by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was assassinated on February 28 by U.S. and Israeli strikes. This time, U.S. regime change in Iran is overt.

“For decades, the United States has sought to destabilize Iran, a critical Asian power situated at the intersection of three major continents and multiple waterways,” the Committee of Anti-Imperialists in Solidarity with Iran (CASI) said in a statement.

Since 1953, “Iran has weathered both the direct and indirect effects of U.S. imperialism, culminating in a brutal devastating eight-year military aggression (1980-88) and a devastating sanctions regime that has denied Iranians’ access to basic medical supplies, infrastructure, foodstuffs, and led to astronomical inflation,” the CASI statement said. “Over the last few decades, Iran has suffered assassinations of its scientists and generals, bombings of critical infrastructure, and repeated violations of its sovereignty and attacks on its national development.”

Now the U.S. and Israel are touting U.S. resident Reza Pahlavi, son of the notorious Shah of Iran, as a puppet to run Iran’s government. Media outside Iran “has been used a lot to try to project an image of an immense popularity, much more than it actually is,” Negar Mortazavi, senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said on Democracy Now! “He does enjoy a base in the diaspora. He does have a growing base inside Iran. We see his name being chanted by people, as far as the protests. But there’s also sort of an authoritarian and undemocratic movement of people around him.”

In fact, “[t]he Trump administration appears to have no long-term plan, no sense of what the U.S. ultimately aims to achieve, and no answer to what happens after the American-Israeli assault,” Nicholas Grossman wrote at LiberalCurrents. “The president is talking about regime change, and missiles are flying at government targets, but there’s no ground force ready to take control if it fails.”

Countries Can Prosecute Under Universal Jurisdiction

How can the leaders of the U.S. and Israel be held accountable for their crimes in Iran?

The U.S., Israel, and Iran are not parties to the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court (ICC). So the ICC would have no jurisdiction to prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders for war crimes.

But under well-established principles of international law, the crimes prosecuted by the ICC — including war crimes — are crimes of universal jurisdiction.

The doctrine of universal jurisdiction allows any country to try foreign nationals for the most atrocious crimes, even without any direct relationship to the prosecuting country. That means other nations can prosecute U.S. and Israeli leaders for the war crime of targeting civilians.

Indeed, the United States has taken jurisdiction over foreign nationals in anti-terrorism, anti-narcotics trafficking, war crimes, and torture cases. The U.S. government tried, convicted, and sentenced Charles “Chuckie” Taylor Jr. to federal prison for torture committed in Liberia. Israel tried, convicted, and executed Adolph Eichmann for his crimes during the Holocaust.

The War Powers Resolution

In addition, U.S. participation in the war on Iran violates U.S. statutory law.

The U.S. War Powers Resolution permits the president to introduce U.S. armed forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities only (1) after Congress has declared war; (2) in “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces”; or (3) when there is “specific statutory authorization.” None of those three conditions was met before the U.S. attacked Iran.

Trump launched a major war against Iran without seeking congressional approval.

The Senate will vote this week on the War Powers Resolution that Senators Tim Kaine (D-Virginia) and Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) co-sponsored. It says, “Congress hereby directs the President to remove the United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Iran, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or a specific authorization for use of military force.”

There is little or no chance that this resolution will pass, however, as the majority of U.S. legislators, including some Democrats, support Trump’s war of aggression on Iran.

Meanwhile, the United States has the largest arsenal of nuclear weapons in the world, and it is the only country ever to have used them. Israel also possesses nuclear weapons, in spite of Security Council Resolution 687, which was a step toward the goal of creating a weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone throughout the Middle East.

Former UN human rights official Craig Mokhiber referred to “[t]he US-Israel Axis” as “the greatest threat facing humanity today.” He posted on X:

A murderous bombing campaign in Iran, continuing genocide in Palestine, serial aggression abroad, belligerent occupation of several countries, acts of transnational terrorism, repression at home, schemes to profit from murder and colonization, systematic coverup of the Mossad-Epstein operations, massive corruption of the public and private sectors across the West, sanctions against human rights defenders and international courts, attacks on international institutions, the dismantling of international law, mass surveillance of the rest of us, and a growing trail of blood and destruction around the globe.

The International Association of Democratic Lawyers issued a statement on February 28, in which it urged “all states to immediately implement an arms embargo on Israel and the U.S., withdraw their ambassadors, and pursue legal actions to hold their military and political officials accountable.”

An overwhelming majority of people in the United States oppose U.S. perpetration of the war in Iran. They must make their views known to their congressmembers and take collective action in opposition to Trump-Netanyahu’s dangerous aggression against Iran.

Original article:  truthout.org

Segue nostro Telegram.

La Germania bonaria e amichevole di Angela Merkel, a quei tempi motore economico e politico dell’Unione Europea, non esiste più.

Il governo tedesco del già funzionario di BlackRock Friedrich Merz sta indirizzando quella nazione verso orizzonti prima immaginabili e sempre più preoccupanti, tanto a livello sociale, quanto in campo internazionale.

L’esercito tedesco ad esempio, che sta per rilanciare la leva obbligatoria a partire dall’estate del 2027, ha firmato commesse per l’acquisto di cannoni dalle fabbriche automobilistiche decise o costrette a passare dalle quattro ruote ai cingolati militari e ha firmato un accordo di cooperazione con l’esercito israeliano, per migliorare, dicono, l’addestramento delle truppe, in verità per impiantare anche sul suolo tedesco sistemi di controllo spionistico di ogni opposizione.

La Volkswagen intanto viene obbligata alla produzione di carri armati, pena sessanta miliardi di euro di tagli per un contenimento dei costi di un quinto del totale entro il 2028, in sostanza armi o licenziamenti e chiusure di stabilimenti, anche perché l’alternativa ai licenziamenti, ovvero il pre – pensionamento di almeno quarantamila operai e impiegati, viene bloccata dalle politiche di contenimento della spesa pensionistica del governo.

Il 38° congresso tenuto a fine febbraio 2026 a Stoccarda dai militanti e dai dirigenti della CDU ha deciso di colpire i lavoratori in malattia, di peggiorare le condizioni contrattuali dei precari e di quanti sono a tempo ridotto, nonché lo smantellamento generalizzato di molte prestazioni del sistema di tutela sociale delle classi meno abbienti e dei disoccupati.

I cristiano – democratici vogliono altresì reintrodurre la settimana obbligatoria di 48 ore di lavoro per aumentare la produttività, ovviamente senza aumenti di salario. Sarà da capire se intendano proporre di tornare al sabato lavorativo, oppure prevedano dieci ore di lavoro per quattro giorni la settimana e otto ore il venerdì.

Il cancelliere Friedrich Merz, tuttavia pensa in grande, mentre promuove leggi che istituiscono l’obbligatorietà del sostegno all’Ucraina e a Israele e contestualmente criminalizzano ogni forma di amicizia e di solidarietà con la Russia e la Palestina, ritiene anche necessario ridurre le pensioni e ancor peggio obbligare donne e uomini a lavorare fino a settant’anni, limitare ulteriormente le indennità di malattia, ridimensionare le prestazioni sanitarie e ospedaliere e aumentarne i costi.

A chi lo critica, risponde, come dalla tribuna congressuale di Stoccarda, che le riforme siano a suo avviso assolutamente necessarie, di più, obbligatorie e urgentissime, bollando i dissenzienti come incompetenti e affetti da “pigrizia intellettuale”, come se la distruzione dello stato sociale, il generale impoverimento, la scelta di un militarismo feroce e unidirezionale, succube della NATO e delle sue politiche antirusse e anticinesi fosse la sola strada possibile per il futuro della Germania.

In parlamento i cristiano – democratici sono al governo insieme ai socialdemocratici della SPD, i quali hanno bofonchiato, di fronte a questi molteplici e assurdi progetti ultraliberisti e guerrafondai, con la timidezza che li contraddistingue, sostenendo che in effetti occorre prendere in esame la sostenibilità finanziaria dell’attuale stato sociale, così come siano meritevoli di un’approfondita discussione molte delle proposte avanzate con baldanzosa spocchia da Merz. In più i socialdemocratici sono totalmente conniventi e subalterni alle scelte di politica internazionale, insieme agli ancor più irresponsabili Verdi, infatti hanno dichiarato che accetteranno, se non si troveranno abbastanza volontari per la Bundeswehr, ovvero l’esercito, il ritorno al servizio militare obbligatorio per fronteggiare quello che anche loro ripetono essere il “pericolo russo”, ovviamente totalmente falso e inventato.

Il ministro della Difesa, il socialdemocratico Boris Pistorius, ha inoltre reclutato istruttori ucraini  per l’esercito al fine di spiegare alle giovani reclute “come ammazzare i russi”, abominevole frase, ma realmente pronunciata, detta sussiegosamente per intendere che dovendosi i tedeschi preparare, a suo avviso, per la guerra contro la Russia, valga la pena imparare da chi abbia esperienza, poco importa che si tratti di una sommatoria di sconfitte.

Appena i socialdemocratici hanno poi provato a correggere le proposte ultraliberiste, chiedendo almeno tutele per i disabili, i malati cronici e gli anziani con lunghe degenze, nonché congedi parentali adeguati e più lunghi per la tutela dei bambini, i cristiano – democratici hanno risposto negativamente, pretendendo piuttosto tasse più basse per i benestanti e ancora più sgravi fiscali per le imprese.

Rainer Dulger, presidente della BDA, la Confederazione delle Associazioni dei Datori di Lavoro, ovvero la Confindustria tedesca, saluta con entusiasmo le proposte governative, non una parola da parte degli industriali rispetto al prezzo dell’energia, clamorosamente aumentato dopo il passaggio dal gas russo a quello statunitense, sull’impossibilità di sostenere con le sole esportazioni l’economia, vista anche la chiusura autoimposta del mercato russo, sulla mancanza di innovazione scientifica e tecnologica delle aziende e la necessità di rilanciare i consumi interni. Sembra insomma si siano convinti che la via verso la ripresa economica passi soltanto attraverso le armi.

D’altronde la fiera militare di Norimberga di febbraio 2026, un decennio fa di ridottissime dimensioni con solo sessanta espositori, ha attratto quest’anno un numero crescente di aziende del settore militare, oltre mille quattrocento provenienti da cinquantaquattro nazioni e oltre ventimila visitatori, inaugurata con entusiasmo dal generale di Brigata Volker Pötzsch delle Forze Armate Tedesche, gongolante nella citazione meno evangelica possibile, seppur tratta dal Vangelo di Matteo: “Non sono venuto a portare pace, ma una spada”, ovviamente aggiornata alle più moderne e tecnologiche armi da fuoco, compresi i droni, pubblicizzati senza vergogna da un’azienda israeliana presente, la Elbit Systems, mostrando come siano in grado di tracciare e uccidere persone, portando a testimonianza di tale presunta abilità video reali del massacro di Gaza, facendo scattare lo sciopero delle maestranze addette alla sicurezza in larga parte di origini turche e arabe. Qualche militare presente si è anche prodigato in sperticate fantasie, sostenendo che i tedeschi si debbano preparare all’eventualità – in verità inesistente – che l’Armata Rossa torni presto alle porte di Berlino.

Insomma, una preoccupante Germania che persegue spietatamente il riarmo, sta nuovamente ammassando le truppe sul confine orientale, sta rapidamente perseguendo un progetto di militarizzazione della società.

A conferma di tutto questo si aggiunge il documentario presentato al Festival del cinema di Berlino, la celebre Berlinale, svoltosi nel febbraio 2026, girato presso l’area di addestramento al combattimento urbano e ravvicinato di Schnöggersburg della Bundeswehr a Windberge nella Sassonia-Anhalt, dotata di oltre cinquecento edifici e addirittura tre stazioni sotterranee della metropolitana perfettamente ricostruite. La regista Marie Wilke, oltre alle immagini delle esercitazioni, dedica molto spazio per i sermoni dei comandanti alla truppa rispetto alla bellezza e all’importanza di far parte di un esercito di una nazione democratica, lo sguardo dei soldati astanti pare tuttavia poco convinto. La pellicola non ha mancato di sollevare veementi polemiche, perché i graduati sullo schermo cercano di normalizzare con linguaggio militare la presunta giustezza dell’uccisione di altri esseri umani e la necessità del combattimento, mostrando, ve ne fosse stato ancora bisogno, che la guerra risulti apprezzata da chi non la conosce e non l’ha mai vissuta. In Germania forse si preparano alla guerra, anche perché sulle rive del Reno nessuno più ricorda che cosa sia e come drammaticamente si svolga nella realtà.

Germania dunque motore ed esempio dell’Europa, come per altro i partecipanti al congresso CDU di Stoccarda hanno rivendicato sotto tutti i punti di vista: economico, politico, militare? Speriamo proprio di no! I sempre meno simpatici tedeschi giocano sulle debolezze francesi, dotati di bomba atomica ma con un’economia debolissima, sui limiti polacchi, forti solo regionalmente e nell’alleanza con gli scandinavo – baltici, sulla lontananza britannica, rientrati a maggio 2025 in Europa con una serie di accordi bilaterali con Bruxelles, ma non formalmente.

I tedeschi sperano insomma di imporre, sotto la guida del governo consociativo democristiano – socialdemocratico presieduto dall’affarista Friedrich Merz, una baldanzosa e prepotente volontà egemonica destinata a tutto il continente, nel momento stesso in cui propongono ai loro concittadini un ritorno all’Ottocento, fatto di sfruttamento lavorativo, sciovinismo, militarismo.

Un distopia di cui volentieri faremmo a meno in Europa, anche in ragione dei preoccupanti precedenti del passato.

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

Nos últimos meses, o Brasil vem sendo agitado por uma questão que é pertinente para todo o mundo: a possibilidade de os paralíticos com lesão medular total (e só eles) recuperarem totalmente os movimentos, caso recebam uma certa injeção na medula até 3 dias após o acidente e façam fisioterapia.

O Brasil começou a prestar atenção ao assunto quando, em setembro de 2025, a imprensa publicou a incrível história de Bruno Drummond: em 2018 ele quebrou o pescoço num acidente de trânsito, ficou tetraplégico e aceitou ser cobaia de uma pesquisa piloto. Em menos de 24 horas, ele recebeu a injeção na medula e hoje consegue caminhar. Ele saiu direto da classificação A (sem movimentos) para a D (força e sensibilidade para quase todos os movimentos), fato sem precedentes na literatura médica. Esse teste piloto tinha seis pacientes. Os cinco pacientes restantes pularam do A para o C (com parte da força e mobilidade). A pesquisa era desenvolvida por pesquisadores da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro liderados pela Prof. Tatiana Sampaio em parceria com o laboratório brasileiro Cristália.

O Brasil ficou empolgadíssimo, e os internautas repetiam que ela merece o Nobel. Diante da novidade, as famílias dos pacientes, desesperadas, começaram a entrar na justiça para pedir o uso compassivo do medicamento em teste. E aí apareceu mais uma história muito importante: um certo Diogo Brollo trabalhava instalando janelas num prédio quando caiu, sofreu uma lesão total da medula e sua irmã conseguiu uma ordem judicial para que ele recebesse o tratamento por uso compassivo. Em apenas quinze dias, ele conseguiu mexer o pé e a perna. Até 22 de fevereiro, havia 55 pedidos judiciais, dos quais 30 foram aceitos.

Os pacientes que tomam o medicamento por uso compassivo não contam como caso clínico. Assim, fica a questão: se porventura a corrida judicial continuar, e o tratamento continuar tendo resultados favoráveis, como seguir os trâmites da pesquisa?

E aí temos a polêmica que incendiou o Twitter brasileiro. Um economista neoliberal que escreve para o mais tradicional jornal liberal de direita do país tuitou um corte de 28 segundos da entrevista da Prof. Tatiana Sampaio ao Roda Viva no qual ela dizia: “Vamos supor uma hipótese: que essas 30 pessoas que receberam por uso compassivo, todos voltem a andar. Você teria coragem de fazer um estudo clínico controlado?”, ao que uma entrevistadora responde, impassível, que é preciso seguir todos os trâmites e passar por todas as fases. Junto com o vídeo, o economista postou o comentário irônico “Agora o Nobel vem”. Ato contínuo, os mesmos atores que defendiam as maravilhas da “vacina” da Pfizer passaram a tratar a Prof. Tatiana Sampaio como uma charlatã ou uma simplória que não conhece a ciência.

Na mesma entrevista, porém, Tatiana Sampaio explicava os problemas de se fazer teste clínico nesse caso em particular, bem como em geral. Comecemos com o particular: cada vez que um paciente ganha na justiça o direito de fazer o teste, é preciso que o laboratório Cristália envie um neurocirurgião até o local para fazer o procedimento invasivo de injetar polilaminina na medula espinhal. No teste duplo-cego, cuja finalidade é eliminar o efeito placebo, dá-se o medicamento para uma parte de cobaias e placebo para outra, a fim de comparar os resultados. Ora, é antiético submeter um paciente a um procedimento invasivo para enfiar um líquido na melhor das hipóteses inócuo em sua medula. Além disso, mesmo que fosse um procedimento simples e fácil de substituir por um placebo, o tempo é importante para a eficácia do tratamento, logo, aquele que recebesse o placebo estaria fadado à cadeira de rodas. (A isto acrescentemos: se o paralítico pode conseguir o medicamento por via judicial, por que aceitaria ser cobaia num duplo-cego?)

Diante do fato de que é difícil seguir os trâmites existentes de maneira ética, a Prof. Tatiana Sampaio diz que é preciso pensar em novos modelos. E essa não é a única questão burocrática que clama por reflexão.

A questão das patentes e do custo dos testes clínicos

Outra notícia que chamou a atenção é que a cientista teve que pagar do próprio bolso pela patente. Há muito tempo a UFRJ tem sérios problemas administrativos que nenhuma autoridade quer resolver. Vou me limitar a observar que ela tem um orçamento bilionário mas, ainda assim, deixou o Museu Nacional pegar fogo devido à precariedade da rede elétrica – e o reitor ainda culpou os bombeiros. As múmias egípcias do imperador viraram pó; coleções de fósseis se perderam. Ao menos o Meteorito do Bendegó não pôde ser destruído. Assim, a UFRJ não iria pagar pela renovação das patentes brasileira, estadunidense e europeia, e perguntou à professora se ela mesma não queria pagar para não perder. Ela pagou somente a brasileira e as demais se perderam. Depois ela encontrou o Cristália.

Na entrevista ao Roda Viva, ela explicou que isso foi um mal que veio para bem, pois se a patente dos Estados Unidos ainda valesse, provavelmente teria sido comprada por um laboratório do primeiro mundo, o qual dispensaria os pesquisadores brasileiros, faria uma bateria de testes com toda rapidez e venderia o produto por uma fortuna. De posse da patente brasileira, ela e o laboratório esperam que no futuro o medicamento seja vendido para o SUS (o NHS brasileiro). Somos convidados a pensar, então, quantos países mundo afora não financiam cientistas nacionais para que uma grande empresa compre a patente de suas pesquisas em estágio inicial, termine de desenvolvê-las e ponha um preço absurdo a ser pago por esses mesmos países quando vão comprar o medicamento. O estrago que Reagan fez ao permitir que a verba pública de pesquisa virasse patente privada foi globalizado.

De resto, vale destacar o custo e a razoabilidade dos testes clínicos, que foi justamente o que levou os pets da Pfizer a atacarem a cientista após a entrevista no programa Roda Viva. Encerro citando a Prof.ª Tatiana Sampaio: “A patente é muito importante quando você vai vender alguma coisa. Imagina que você tem uma proposta de um novo medicamento e aí você quer fazer um estudo clínico para poder testar se ele funciona mesmo. Para fazer esse estudo clínico, você precisa de um orçamento muito grande, porque os estudos clínicos são muito caros. E aí você precisa que alguém se interesse por fazer aquele estudo clínico. E esse alguém, via de regra, vai se interessar por fazer esse estudo se ele tiver a perspectiva de um lucro muito grande com a exploração comercial daquilo. Por isso ele precisa da patente para garantir que só ele possa ganhar dinheiro com aquilo. Toda essa dinâmica é como a roda gira. Mas eu tenho que te dizer que não acho que seja uma situação ideal, na minha opinião. Eu acho que isso acaba fazendo uma grande reserva de mercado para grandes corporações.”

O entrevistador pergunta se então o ideal seria o Estado bancar, ao que ela responde: “Não sei, o ideal é uma coisa nova que a gente tem que fazer. A gente não precisa ter medo disso. Tem que construir uma coisa nova, porque esse paradigma de: você faz a patente, e aí você vende a patente para alguém que tem muito dinheiro e que vai botar muito dinheiro, e que vai… A gente tem que se perguntar isso: no afã de proteger as pessoas de serem usadas como cobaia, será que a gente não tá também fazendo uma reserva de mercado para um ente que tem uma expectativa muito grande de lucro?”

Segue nostro Telegram.

Quando pronunciamo il nome Sanremo, non evochiamo soltanto una località della Riviera ligure. Ormai quel toponimo è diventato altro: è la scorciatoia linguistica con cui indichiamo il Festival di Sanremo, rito mediatico collettivo che ogni anno monopolizza l’attenzione nazionale. Il nome della città ha divorato il suo significato originario: non più solo luogo geografico, ma marchio, simbolo, evento. La parte si è trasformata nel tutto; il contenitore ha preso il posto del contenuto.

Ed è proprio questa trasformazione a suscitare perplessità. Chi apprezza la città reale — i suoi scorci, la sua storia, la sua dimensione quotidiana — può provare disagio nel vederla ridotta a sfondo di una gigantesca macchina televisiva. Per una settimana il Teatro Ariston, normalmente sala di provincia con programmazione ordinaria, diventa il centro simbolico del Paese. Non si tratta soltanto di musica: è un palcoscenico su cui l’Italia mette in mostra se stessa, con le sue mode, le sue ossessioni, le sue liturgie ideologiche.

Le canzoni finiscono spesso in secondo piano. Intorno proliferano talk show, conferenze stampa, polemiche, dichiarazioni politiche, interventi a effetto. Il festival si trasforma in un grande contenitore di opinioni e posture morali. L’importante non è tanto la qualità artistica quanto la presenza scenica, la visibilità, la partecipazione al rito. Essere lì — sul palco o nei commenti — vale più che vincere.

A orchestrare il tutto c’è RAI, che concentra risorse e attenzione mediatica in un’operazione capace di garantire ascolti imponenti e ricavi pubblicitari. Per quei giorni la concorrenza sembra dissolversi: le altre reti parlano comunque del festival, contribuendo ad amplificarne l’eco. Sfuggirvi diventa quasi impossibile, a meno di rinunciare a televisione, radio, giornali e conversazioni sociali. Sanremo si impone come argomento unico, calamita totale dell’interesse collettivo.

A pochi passi dall’Ariston, la statua di Mike Bongiorno ricorda un’epoca diversa, quando la manifestazione appariva più lineare: un presentatore, una cartellina, le canzoni al centro e quell’“Allegria!” che è rimasto nella memoria televisiva italiana. Colpisce che la città celebri con tanta evidenza un volto dello spettacolo mentre figure come Italo Calvino o Giovanni Domenico Cassini, pure legate a Sanremo, ricevano un’attenzione incomparabilmente minore. È il segno di una gerarchia culturale in cui la ribalta televisiva pesa più della letteratura o della scienza.

Nel frattempo, già nei giorni precedenti l’evento, la città cambia fisionomia: controlli rafforzati, palchi collaterali, spazi occupati, attività penalizzate dalla logistica stravolta. I residenti si adattano; qualcuno ne paga il prezzo in termini di disagi e lavoro rallentato. Ma la macchina procede spedita, perché i numeri la premiano: share elevati, sponsor soddisfatti, centralità culturale riaffermata.

Il punto, allora, non è soltanto musicale. Il festival funziona come specchio e insieme come megafono: riflette un certo modo di intendere la società e al tempo stesso lo consolida. Piaccia o no, diventa una celebrazione collettiva in cui il Paese si riconosce e si rassicura.

Resta sempre la possibilità di sottrarsi: spegnere lo schermo, aprire un libro, scegliere un teatro o una cena tranquilla mentre l’attenzione generale è altrove. Le canzoni, se valide, sopravvivranno comunque oltre la settimana di clamore. Tutto il resto — polemiche, slogan, dichiarazioni — svanirà con la stessa rapidità con cui è esploso.

Eppure, ogni anno, la formula si ripete immutata: Sanremo non è più soltanto una città, ma un evento totale, un’abitudine nazionale, un marchio che finisce per oscurare il luogo da cui prende il nome.

E la verità è che Sanremo non ci serve proprio a niente, se non che a rinnovare con cadenza annuale il voto di obbedienza ad un sistema di controllo sociale che fa della mediocrità e dell’osceno il suo rito di consacrazione per l’intera nazione. Spetta a noi decidere se vogliamo continuare ad essere le vittime di questo rito.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

In recent months, Brazil has been abuzz with an issue that is relevant to the whole world: the possibility of paralytics with complete spinal cord injury (and only them) fully recovering their movements if they receive a certain injection into the spinal cord within 3 days of the accident and undergo physiotherapy.

Brazil began paying attention to the issue when, in September 2025, the press published the incredible story of Bruno Drummond: in 2018 he broke his neck in a car accident, became quadriplegic, and agreed to be a guinea pig in a pilot study. In less than 24 hours, he received the spinal cord injection and today he can walk. He went directly from classification A (no movement) to D (strength and sensitivity for almost all movements), an unprecedented fact in medical literature. This pilot test had six patients. The remaining five patients jumped from A to C (with some strength and mobility). The research was being developed by researchers at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), led by Prof. Tatiana Sampaio, in partnership with the Brazilian laboratory Cristália.

Brazil was thrilled, and internet users repeatedly said she deserved the Nobel Prize. Faced with the news, the patients’ families, desperate, began to go to court to request the compassionate use of the drug being tested. And then another very important story emerged: a certain Diogo Brollo was working installing windows in a building when he fell, suffered a total spinal cord injury, and his sister obtained a court order for him to receive treatment under compassionate use. In just fifteen days, he was able to move his foot and leg. By February 22, there were 55 court requests, of which 30 were accepted.

Patients who take the drug under compassionate use do not count as clinical cases. Thus, the question remains: if the legal battle continues, and the treatment continues to have favorable results, how will the research procedures proceed?

And then we have the controversy that set Brazilian Twitter ablaze. A neoliberal economist who writes for the country’s most traditional right-wing liberal newspaper tweeted a 28-second clip from Professor Tatiana Sampaio’s interview on Roda Viva in which she said: “Let’s suppose a hypothesis: that these 30 people who received it for compassionate use, all walk again. Would you have the courage to conduct a controlled clinical trial?”, to which an interviewer replies, impassively, that it is necessary to follow all the procedures and go through all the phases. Along with the video, the economist posted the ironic comment “Now the Nobel Prize is coming”. Immediately afterwards, the same actors who defended the wonders of Pfizer’s “vaccine” began to treat Professor Tatiana Sampaio as a charlatan or a simpleton who does not know science.

In the same interview, however, Tatiana Sampaio explained the problems of conducting clinical trials in this particular case, as well as in general. Let’s start with the specifics: every time a patient wins the right in court to undergo the test, the Cristália laboratory has to send a neurosurgeon to the location to perform the invasive procedure of injecting polylaminin into the spinal cord. In the double-blind test, whose purpose is to eliminate the placebo effect, the medication is given to one group of test subjects and a placebo to another, in order to compare the results. Now, it is unethical to subject a patient to an invasive procedure to inject a liquid that is, at best, innocuous into their spinal cord. Furthermore, even if it were a simple procedure and easy to replace with a placebo, time is important for the effectiveness of the treatment, so the one who received the placebo would be doomed to a wheelchair. (To this we add: if the paralytic can obtain the medication through legal means, why would they agree to be a test subject in a double-blind trial?)

Given the fact that it is difficult to follow existing procedures ethically, Professor Tatiana Sampaio says that it is necessary to think about new models. And this is not the only bureaucratic issue that calls for reflection.

The issue of patents and the cost of clinical trials

Another piece of news that caught attention is that the scientist had to pay for the patent out of her own pocket. UFRJ has had serious administrative problems for a long time that no authority wants to solve. I will limit myself to observing that it has one billion dollar’s budget but, even so, allowed the National Museum to catch fire due to the precariousness of the electrical grid – and the rector even blamed the firefighters. The Egyptian mummies of the emperor turned to dust; fossil collections were lost. At least the Bendegó Meteorite could not be destroyed. Thus, UFRJ was not going to pay for the renewal of the Brazilian, American and European patents, and asked the professor if she herself did not want to pay so as not to lose them. She only paid for the Brazilian one and the others were lost. Then she found Cristália.

In the interview on Roda Viva, she explained that this was a blessing in disguise, because if the United States patent were still valid, it would probably have been bought by a first-world laboratory, which would have dismissed the Brazilian researchers, conducted a battery of tests very quickly, and sold the product for a fortune. With the Brazilian patent in hand, she and the laboratory Cristália hope that in the future the drug will be sold to the SUS (the Brazilian NHS). We are invited to consider, then, how many countries around the world do not fund national scientists so that a large company can buy the patent for their research in its initial stages, finish developing it, and set an absurd price to be paid by these same countries when they go to buy the drug. The damage that Reagan did by allowing public research funds to become private patents has been globalized.

Furthermore, it is worth highlighting the cost and reasonableness of clinical trials, which is precisely what led the Pfizer puppets to attack the scientist after her interview on the Roda Viva program. I conclude by quoting Professor Tatiana Sampaio: “A patent is very important when you are going to sell something. Imagine that you have a proposal for a new drug and then you want to do a clinical study to test if it really works. To do this clinical study, you need a very large budget, because clinical studies are very expensive. And then you need someone to be interested in doing that clinical study. And that someone, as a rule, will be interested in doing this study if they have the prospect of a very large profit from the commercial exploitation of it. That is why they need the patent to ensure that only they can make money from it. All this dynamic is how the wheel turns. But I have to tell you that I don’t think it’s an ideal situation, in my opinion. I think this ends up creating a large market reserve for large corporations.”

The interviewer asks if the ideal solution would be for the state to fund it, to which she replies: “I don’t know, the ideal is something new that we have to do. We don’t need to be afraid of that. We have to build something new, because this paradigm of: you get the patent, and then you sell the patent to someone who has a lot of money and who will invest a lot of money, and who will… We have to ask ourselves this: in the eagerness to protect people from being used as guinea pigs, aren’t we also creating a market reserve for an entity that has a very high expectation of profit?”

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

The imprisonment of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor for his associations with the Epstein scandal is replete with peculiar aspects, both in a symbolic sense and in a historical sense. The arrest was carried out on the day of Andrew’s 66th birthday, February 19, 2026, 666 days after that strange event in London, on April 24, 2024, in which a bloodied white horse broke free and rode through the city streets. Coincidence? Who knows?

The accusation, specifically, involves numerous reports and evidence, deduced from Epstein’s emails and witness testimonies, that Andrew allegedly participated in, accompanied, and collaborated in the sexual abuse of women of various ages, including potentially prepubescent girls, and in the torture, also, of children and adolescents — torture with a sexual connotation or overtones. Definitely atrocious and repulsive behavior.

Andrew, who is no longer a prince, duke, earl, or baron, having lost all his titles and the rights associated with them, nevertheless remains the brother of King Charles III, the current sovereign of the United Kingdom.

If we are referring to controversies involving the British royal family, however, the figure of Charles III quickly brings us to the strange death of Princess Diana, who was once the wife of the British king when he was still the Prince of Wales.

Diana was Princess of Wales and wife of the current King Charles from 1981 until 1996, when she divorced him. We will never know the real reasons for the divorce, beyond the publicly given explanations, which include, for example, the prince’s infidelities, as well as constant pressure from the royal family on her. But then there are those who insist that part of Diana’s tensions with the royal family involved much deeper secrets that the princess allegedly became aware of, including the involvement of royal family members with pedophilia and sexual abuse.

We cannot be certain about anything of that sort, but Jimmy Savile’s friendship with members of the British royal family is certainly disconcerting. Jimmy Savile, who died in 2011, was a British DJ and media personality who worked for the state-owned BBC. But he is better known as an aberrant pervert who allegedly sexually abused hundreds of children over decades. Very conveniently, the British media waited for Savile’s death to expose his “dirty secrets.” Almost as if everyone already knew everything…

Savile allegedly met King Charles personally, when he was still a prince, in the 1970s, at charity events. But he quickly became surprisingly intimate with the royal family, acting as an advisor on numerous topics. According to Diana, Charles at the time saw Savile almost as a guru, a mentor. Savile even said, however, that he had known the British royal family for even longer, since the 1960s; having been introduced to the royal family’s affairs by Lord Louis Mountbatten, former Governor of Burma… and a notorious pedophile with a predilection for little boys.

Savile, however, was not just a “consumer,” he was also a “supplier.” At least, that’s what his nephew, Guy Marsden, says, claiming that Savile organized orgiastic parties where the unique feature was the “offer” of children — boys and girls — to members of the British elite. Savile’s nephew says he believes most of the children came from orphanages and shelters. This places Savile in a role similar to — albeit perhaps on a smaller scale — Jeffrey Epstein. Savile, apparently, was not as close to Andrew as he was to the Prince of Wales, but Andrew himself, in an infamous 2019 interview, stated that he spent much more time with Savile than with Epstein.

Returning to Louis Mountbatten, the great-uncle of King Charles III, besides being a friend of Jimmy Savile, recent leaks of files have brought to public knowledge the fact that he allegedly abused dozens, or even hundreds, of boys. Some of the abuse allegedly occurred in Northern Ireland, at the Kincora boys’ home in Belfast — a location where the orphanage apparently served as a “buffer” of children for members of the British political and military elite, all operated by MI5. The orphanage was closed in 1980, one year after Lord Mountbatten was assassinated by the IRA.

There aren’t many other scandals involving pedophilia in connection with the British royal family, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other serious sexual scandals.

If we go even further back in time, to the end of the 19th century, we arrive at the era of the famous Whitechapel murders. Canonically, five women were murdered, with the same modus operandi, by a man who became notorious in macabre folklore as “Jack the Ripper.” No one was ever arrested, no culprit was discovered, and theories abound.

One of the most notorious is the theory connecting the murders to the figure of Prince Albert Victor, Duke of Clarence. Albert, whose reputation was historically affected by the revelation that he frequented a male brothel on Cleveland Street, London, came to be considered, over time, the prime suspect for being the notorious serial killer. His knowledge of hunting would have been sufficient to account for the technical aspect of the deaths. Furthermore, it has recently been proven that he suffered from syphilis and/or gonorrhea, sexually transmitted diseases which, if untreated, lead to insanity.

Theories based on this hypothesis then diverge. There are some who claim that the killer himself was the prince, afflicted with bouts of insanity that led him to retaliate against prostitutes, seen perhaps, as a class, as responsible for his suffering. Others claim that the murders were actually committed at the behest of the royal family in order to cover up sexual scandals in which Prince Albert had been involved, including a possible secret marriage to a commoner, held in a tavern and witnessed by prostitutes.

Unlike more recent cases, the truth about Jack the Ripper and his possible connections to the British royal family is unlikely to come to light, especially given all the time that has passed.

Even so, there is certainly something rotten flowing in the depths of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Join us on Telegram, Twitter, and VK.

Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su

Endorsing a negotiated settlement does not require the left to justify Russia’s invasion or advocate legal recognition of its territorial gains.

A negotiated end to the Ukraine War now seems possible, if the last remaining obstacles can be overcome. Of these, the most important is Russia’s demand that Ukraine leave the last remaining part of the Donbas region that it still holds. Putin apparently needs this if he is to be able to claim a qualified victory in a war that has cost Russia enormously for very limited gains. It is, however, obviously extremely hard for Ukraine to withdraw from part of its national territory, for which it has sacrificed so many lives.

The European Union and its leading members could make a valuable contribution to peace if, in return for Russia’s dropping this demand, they were to offer to suspend sanctions against Russia, resume purchases of Russian oil and gas (though without returning to prewar levels) and abandon the idea of a European “reassurance force” on Ukrainian territory—something that Russia has categorically rejected.

European leaders are now calling for the resumption of direct talks with Russia, and it is reported that former Finnish president Sauli Niinistö is being considered as an EU envoy to the Russian government. But Russian sources have told me an offer to talk is meaningless. The EU must put forward concrete proposals.

European progressive parties and groups could play a useful part in urging their governments toward making such proposals. Tragically, with rare exceptions, they are largely silent or opposed.

Feelings of shock and anger on the left at Russia’s invasion were entirely justified, as was support for the sanctions that the EU imposed on Russia and the aid the West gave to Ukraine. The goal of this strategy however should have been a compromise peace—one that indeed seemed possible (and on far better terms for Ukraine) in the first weeks of the war, but that was opposed by key Western governments.

Instead, the Biden administration and its European satellites sought the defeat and permanent weakening of Russia—or even, in some Russophobe fever dreams, its dissolution. And this goal persisted long after the complete failure of the Ukrainian offensive in 2023 made clear that it was impossible. Indeed, some leading figures, like EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, still seem to be dreaming of this. US and European officials went on parroting their commitment to support Ukraine for “as long as it takes,” without ever asking their populations, “Takes to achieve what exactly?”

It is time for the European left to break decisively with this approach and give full support to a compromise peace including the suspension of sanctions (with a “snap-back” provision that they would automatically resume if Russia resumed aggression). There is an urgent moral imperative to do this in order to end the suffering of the Ukrainian population on terms that will preserve the independence—and insofar as this is realistically possible, the security—of by far the greater part of Ukraine.

However, equally important as a consideration should be the future of progressive agendas in Europe as a whole, as these will be mortally threatened if European establishments are able to create a permanent atmosphere of emergency and militarization justified by a supposed threat from Russia. It is therefore essential not just that peace be achieved in Ukraine, but that this peace should form part of a general reduction of tension in Europe and restoration of reasonably stable and predictable relations with Russia. It is also essential that support for peace should not be left to the radical right—as at present it seems to be.

The costs to Ukrainian lives and well-being if the war continues should be obvious. As Ukraine runs dangerously low on air defense missiles (and with US and European production capacity unable to match Kyiv’s needs), Russia’s escalating strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure have left some 1 million ordinary Ukrainians without electricity and heating amid a winter freeze.

According to members of Ukrainian civil society who support a negotiated resolution to the fighting, the fundamental concern for all Ukrainians has been how the war has divided families. “We need to reunite our families, to have physical access to our loved ones, and to see our husbands, brothers, and fathers return from the frontlines alive and unharmed. We want to focus on rebuilding cities and villages—the restoration of human ties is essential for societal healing,” says one Ukrainian living in the northeast of the country along the front line. Some 3.5 million Ukrainians are internally displaced, while over 5 million are refugees outside the country. An end to the fighting and the accompanying investment and reconstruction plans may offer a chance for their return.

As increasing numbers of Europeans become reluctant to spend the money necessary to keep Ukraine in the fight, and with the Americans largely halting financing to Kyiv, support for a negotiated settlement will not only help regain important political space but also, hopefully, begin to address Europe’s economic woes.

Since the war began, the EU and its member-states have made available almost $200 billion to Ukraine for financial, military, and humanitarian support. This backing has included grants, in-kind support, and highly concessional loans. With reconstruction costs in Ukraine approaching the $1 trillion mark, European budgets are likely to be further strained as the continent seeks to increase military spending while supporting Ukraine and at the same time not allowing their social safety nets to become too degraded. Russia’s frozen assets in Europe, totaling some $200 billion, will undoubtedly play a crucial role in Ukraine’s reconstruction and help offset some of Europe’s direct financial support.

The Ukraine War has become a cultural and narrative conflict, too, one that European establishments have turned to their own advantage. The left, therefore, needs to pay greater attention to how the conflict has been used in the West to strengthen the state’s security and surveillance networks. This, in turn, has been used to suppress not just allegedly “pro-Russian” voices, but also protests against Israeli policy, among others.

The left would be wise to remember previous periods of anti-Communist panic, like those after the First World War and during McCarthyism when those who questioned the official narrative faced far stricter censure than social media “cancellations.” The entire present approach of most European governments points towards a permanent state of mobilization against Russia, fueled by fear of a deliberate Russian attack on NATO that exists chiefly in their own imaginations—or propaganda.

For how on earth can any serious analyst believe that a Russia that has been fought to a near-standstill in eastern Ukraine would plunge into a war with the whole of NATO? Or that Putin, who has consistently resisted pressure from Russian hard-liners to launch mass conscription and full economic mobilization to win the war in Ukraine would do so for the sake of a horribly risky direct war with the West? What could Russia possibly hope to gain, compared to the dangers involved? It is true that European states need to strengthen their defenses; but if defense is really their goal, then (as Ukraine has shown) new drone technology allows states to achieve that for a fraction of the amounts that European establishments are now planning to spend on tanks and warplanes that may be obsolescent by the time they are built. At some point, no doubt, new technologies will change this balance—but at present, they are in prospect.

Endorsing a negotiated settlement does not require the left to justify Russia’s invasion or advocate legal recognition of Russia’s territorial gains. It does require a recognition of how hostility to Russia has been mobilized by forces of unrestrained militarism and ethnic nationalism that have also always been bitterly hostile to the left. Some of the accusations of atrocities against the Russian army have been true. But it should not be difficult to remember how such charges were exaggerated and manipulated to justify US imperial aggression in Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and elsewhere. Given this record, and whatever the anger at Russia’s invasion, there is no excuse for left-wing journalists and politicians to unthinkingly accept and repeat whatever Western and Ukrainian official propaganda tells them.

Anyone who opposed those US and European operations should have thought twice for example about repeating the charge of “genocide” against Russia, on the ludicrous grounds that Putin has spoken of Russians and Ukrainians as “one people”—as if Hitler had spoken of Germans and Jews as “one people,” or the Rwandan Hutu extremists had argued their historically brotherly relations with the Tutsi.

Original article:  www.thenation.com

Junte-se a nós no Telegram , Twitter e VK.

Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su

No mês passado, tratei do problema de que a ciência moderna padece desde o seu berço: o seu caráter fragmentário, já que existem mil disciplinas autônomas, com mil e uma especialidades, mas não existe um corpus de conhecimento. A física não sabe se o vidro é sólido ou líquido, a química tem certeza de que é sólido. Não existe uma definição do homem válida em todas as disciplinas, e de repente tivemos de aceitar (por força de lei) que mulheres têm pênis. Esse caráter fragmentário, creio eu, advém da influência que a magia renascentista teve sobre a constituição da ciência moderna: quando o edifício uno da filosofia escolástica foi destruído pela Revolução Copernicana, entraram em cena os homens da Renascença, que faziam tentativas ecléticas de construir conhecimento sem se preocupar com coerência, importando-se antes com a utilidade aparente. Além disso, a imensa influência da cabala na Renascença fez com que os homens de ciência colocassem em primeiro plano a meta de dominar a natureza para fazer “magia”, tal como Francis Bacon pretendia. Com o espírito da Renascença, a ciência abandona a pretensão universalista de descrever o todo e passa a procurar truques úteis.

Argumentei então que o mundo precisa restaurar o ideal original da universidade, que visava a constituir um conhecimento do todo (universum) que criasse um corpo coerente, em vez de continuarmos com disciplinas que não prestam contas umas às outras. Mesmo antes do advento do pós-modernismo, o atual estado de coisas é o do relativismo, já que cada disciplina tem a “sua” verdade.

Neste mês, temos visto a possibilidade de o neoateísmo ser um artifício propagandístico promovido por gente que, na verdade, quer privatizar os fenômenos não-explicáveis pelas ciências naturais. A plebe tem que ser ateia e guiar-se por um clero laico de divulgadores científicos, enquanto uns poucos iluminados têm um misterioso templo numa ilha privada, na qual se fazem as coisas mais horripilantes. Assim, devemos perguntar: qual é a atitude que a humanidade produtora de conhecimento deveria ter diante de fenômenos que não são explicáveis pelas ciências naturais?

A atitude atual creio que seja exatamente aquela promovida por David Hume (1711 – 1776) na Investigação sobre o entendimento humano. Aí ele defende que não se deve crer em nenhum relato de milagre, porque o testemunho de nenhuma autoridade humana deve ser superior ao testemunho que atesta a regularidade das leis naturais. Se todos os historiadores dissessem que a Rainha Elisabete morreu e dias depois ressuscitou, o homem de hoje teria de considerar que os historiadores estavam pregando uma peça, porque a experiência ensina que ninguém ressuscita, e nós devemos crer mais na experiência do que na palavra de terceiros. Ademais, os milagres não acontecem na Royal Society diante de cientistas, mas em meio à gente pobre e ignorante. Acontecem em rincões (como a Judeia), não em Roma à vista de todos. Se a experiência diz que a natureza nunca viola sua regularidade, diz também que os homens gostam de crer em relatos que despertam paixões – e isso explica não os milagres, mas a crença neles. Podemos dizer que o senso comum científico é esse: as leis da natureza não se suspendem jamais, então todo relato de milagre (ou, por extensão, de fenômenos demoníacos extraordinários) é fruto da mentira ou ignorância.

Alguns séculos após a morte de Hume, os métodos para documentar e analisar ocorrências miraculosas melhorou muito. Se a NASA analisou o manto de Guadalupe e não conseguiu encontrar alguma explicação natural para a maneira como foi feita, ou por que não se decompôs, não se trata mais de meros relatos que podem ser mentirosos. Além disso, os processos de canonização – que não são poucos desde o avanço da ciência – analisam reivindicações de milagres de potenciais santos. Ao badalado Carlo Acutis, por exemplo, foi atribuída a cura de um menino brasileiro que tinha uma deformidade no pâncreas – uma cura que não podia ser explicada pela medicina moderna. E aí ficamos assim: o senso comum científico é que não existem milagres, mas cientistas analisam rotineiramente alegações de milagres para o Vaticano.

Novamente, não existe nenhuma autoridade científica universal que determine que milagres existem ou que não existem. Tudo é subjetivo: se você é ateu, então para você com certeza não existem milagres; se você não é ateu, então para você talvez milagres existam. Mas se você disser que a terra tem 5 mil anos e que a evolução das espécies não existe, aí não pode, porque a ciência já deu o seu veredito sobre o assunto. Ora, talvez seja o caso de se perguntar se a ciência, enquanto corpo de conhecimento universal, não deveria ter uma posição sobre o assunto. O atual estado de coisas é do relativismo, o qual abre a possibilidade para a adoção de dogmas simplesmente errados por parte da maioria dos cientistas.

Um experimento engraçado foi feito por William Friedkin em seu documentário de 2017. William Friedkin (1935 – 2023) é famoso pelo seu filme O Exorcista, de 1973. Mais de 40 anos depois, ele soube que o exorcista da diocese de Roma, o Pe. Amorth, escreveu um livro de memórias no qual revela que O Exorcista é o seu filme predileto. Elogiou-o, ressalvando porém que os efeitos especiais são exagerados. Friedkin então entrou em contato com o Pe. Amorth, encontrou-o na Itália e pediu para filmar um exorcismo pela primeira vez na vida. O Pe. Amorth pediu um tempo para refletir e pouco depois conseguiu uma autorização – fato sem precedente. O combinado era que Friedkin iria filmar sozinho (isto é, sem equipe), com uma câmera pequena, a nona sessão de exorcismo de uma arquiteta na Itália.

E assim foi feito. O exorcista, nada lúgubre, é um velhinho bem humorado que gosta de fazer graça; a família da arquiteta está toda reunida, mais o namorado e uma porção de padres. Durante o ritual, ela se debate e se contorce, precisando ser segurada por homens, e ruge com uma voz que não é normal (é gutural e às vezes parece ser de várias pessoas). Respondendo às perguntas do exorcista, diz que se chama Satanás e é uma legião de 89 demônios.

Ato contínuo, Friedkin leva a gravação para a Ciência averiguar – na verdade, para três professores neurocirurgiões e um departamento de psiquiatria. Pergunta a todos o que a arquiteta tem, e se as suas respectivas especialidades poderiam resolver o problema dela. Dois neurocirurgiões, ambos da UCLA, não sabem o que ela tem e negam que possam resolver o problema dela. O primeiro, que é o mais normal, aponta que nunca viu coisa assim e que aquela voz não é deste mundo. Argumenta que ela está consciente e interage com as pessoas da sala, o que descarta um certo tumor que causa delírios. Em seguida, passa para a entrevista de um professor neurocirurgião de Tel-Aviv, que acha que pode ser um tumor e que ela pode estar delirando. Não menciona a voz, que é o que mais chama a atenção. Este último tem em comum com o segundo neurocirurgião da UCLA (que parece ser ateu) a crença de que a arquiteta só está naquela situação por causa da religião. Esse tipo de coisa pode acontecer com gente religiosa: um padre, com um rabino; em suma, com quem acredita. Ao que Friedkin pergunta ao israelense em que ele acredita, e ele fica incomodado. Embora não seja religioso, acredita que Deus existe no que não pode ser compreendido. Será um espinosano ambíguo como Sagan e Sam Harris? Até aqui, mesmo com um  crendo em Deus, temos dois neurocirurgiões que agem conforme a preceito humeano. O segundo neurocirurgião da UCLA pensa que talvez se trate de um fenômeno natural que, um dia, ainda será descoberto (como a radioatividade foi um dia), e acha que a arquiteta deve continuar com o exorcismo devido ao efeito placebo. Assim como uma pessoa pode se sentir melhor só por ter uma consulta com um psiquiatra que não prescreva remédios, uma pessoa religiosa pode se sentir melhor com um padre, e isso explicaria a eventual eficácia do exorcismo.

O momento mais divertido, porém, é o da reunião com o departamento de psiquiatria de Colúmbia. Ali aprendemos que ela tem a Desordem de Transtorno Dissociativo, e mostram um paper que atrela esse diagnóstico a pessoas que relatam possessão demoníaca e se submetem a exorcismos. Nessa reunião, Friedkin aprende que o DSM respeita a diversidade cultural e, como os relatos de possessão demoníaca ocorrem em várias culturas, “possessão demoníaca” está no DSM. Conforme já vimos em maior detalhe antes (usando o trabalho do psiquiatra Guido Palomba), o DSM não tem causalidade: ele lista uma série de sintomas e dá um nome a uma síndrome que tem um protocolo de tratamento.

Nomear é fácil. E quanto ao tratamento? Um jovem médico se pronunciou. Relatar possessão demoníaca é algo que ocorre entre pessoas religiosas, e ele tem uma paciente protestante muito parecida com aquela da gravação. Inclusive tem aquela voz estranha – o jovem médico e o cirurgião normal são os únicos a destacar a coisa que mais chama a atenção na gravação. Pois a paciente tem feito terapia e tomado medicamentos e está melhor. Fica-se com a impressão de que, se um psiquiatra tiver uma paciente girando a cabeça 360º como no filme, fará terapia e tomará remédios. Ao cabo, os psiquiatras dizem que a arquiteta tem solução (terapia e remédio), enquanto os neurocirurgiões disseram que não.

Por outro lado, no documentário vê-se que tudo isso começou por causa da universidade. William Peter Blatty (1928 – 2017), autor do livro O Exorcista em que o filme se baseia, teve aulas de teologia com um jesuíta na Universidade de Georgetown, em Washington, e ouviu a história da possessão demoníaca de um adolescente ocorrida em 1949, em Maryland, numa família luterana. O menino de 14 anos dizia estar possuído, a família procurou médicos e psiquiatras, mas acabou recorrendo aos serviços da Igreja Católica, que enviou um padre de Washintgon para realizar o exorcismo. Blatty foi atrás da história e do padre, mas não conseguiu contato com a família do garoto, que queria manter sigilo máximo sobre a história. O fato de que uma família luterana procurou a Igreja Católica sugere que os cientistas estavam errados ao crerem que a eficácia, explicada como placebo, depende da afinidade cultural.

Pois bem: aí se vê bem o estado de coisas da universidade. Uma disciplina – uma disciplina bem desprezada, e cujo conteúdo varia a depender da instituição – diz que milagres e ações demoníacas são reais. Já as outras não dizem nada, mas têm um senso comum tácito, chancelado pela mídia, segundo o qual não existem em hipótese alguma. Cada um crê no que quiser.