"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life"

Father God, thank you for the love of the truth you have given me. Please bless me with the wisdom, knowledge and discernment needed to always present the truth in an attitude of grace and love. Use this blog and Northwoods Ministries for your glory. Help us all to read and to study Your Word without preconceived notions, but rather, let scripture interpret scripture in the presence of the Holy Spirit. All praise to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Please note: All my writings and comments appear in bold italics in this colour
Showing posts with label American Hegemony. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American Hegemony. Show all posts

Saturday, July 12, 2025

Economics > BRICS - What Happens in Rio, Won't Stay in Rio

 

What just happened in Rio should terrify the West


The 17th BRICS summit was more than a photo op. It was a coordinated rejection of Western power – and a declaration of intent
What just happened in Rio should terrify the West











A few days ago, the city of Rio de Janeiro hosted the 17th BRICS summit, marking a significant step forward for the organization amid the accelerating transformation of the global political and economic landscape. Represented by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, Russia played an active role in the summit’s proceedings, while President Vladimir Putin addressed the plenary session via video link. In his remarks, the Russian leader offered a comprehensive analysis of current global trends, emphasizing that the liberal model of globalization is losing viability as the center of economic and political activity shifts decisively toward the Global South – developing countries with rising demographic, resource, and technological potential.

The Rio summit reaffirmed BRICS’ growing political weight and its ambition to become a key force in shaping the emerging multipolar order. High-level meetings drew global attention not only because of their scale but also due to the substantive outcomes they produced. A total of 126 joint commitments were adopted, spanning critical areas such as global governance reform, the restructuring of international financial institutions, healthcare, climate initiatives, artificial intelligence, and sustainable development.

The declaration adopted at the summit, titled ‘Strengthening Global South Cooperation for More Inclusive and Sustainable Governance’, underscored BRICS’ commitment to multilateralism, respect for international law, and the promotion of a fair and equitable world order. But beyond the formal language, the summit revealed a deeper shift: BRICS is no longer limiting itself to cautious technocratic dialogue. The bloc is increasingly positioning itself as a cohesive international actor – capable of proposing new frameworks for economic integration, political solidarity, and global coordination.

Crucially, this political reorientation did not begin in Rio. It builds directly on the strategic groundwork laid during the 2024 summit in Kazan, Russia – the largest BRICS gathering to date – which brought together not only member states but also dozens of partners under the BRICS+ umbrella. The Kazan summit established a new level of cooperation and ambition, and Rio served as a continuation of that trajectory. It became the arena where aspirations evolved into policy, and where the Global South began to more clearly articulate its place in the world.

From economic cooperation to collective security

Among the most consequential developments at the Rio summit was the firm commitment to advancing financial sovereignty among member states. Particular emphasis was placed on transitioning to transactions in national currencies – a long-standing initiative championed by Russia and several other BRICS countries. The leaders endorsed this direction, recognizing the need to reduce dependence on dominant reserve currencies. President Putin underscored that this was not merely an economic measure, but a geopolitical move aimed at strengthening the sovereignty of participating nations and insulating them from external pressure.

In support of this goal, the summit produced agreements to boost mutual investment volumes and accelerate the development of independent payment and settlement mechanisms. These initiatives are designed to lay the groundwork for a more resilient financial architecture – one that bypasses traditional Western-controlled institutions and empowers countries to determine the terms of their own economic cooperation. Increasingly, BRICS views economic autonomy as a precondition for long-term political independence in a world marked by volatility and polarization.

But the Rio summit did more than solidify the BRICS financial agenda. For the first time in its history, the organization made a strong, collective political statement on an issue directly related to international security. The final declaration included a specific condemnation of Ukrainian attacks on civilian infrastructure in Russia’s Bryansk, Kursk, and Voronezh regions. Referring to the bombings of bridges and railway lines on May 31, June 1, and June 5, 2025, the text reads: “We condemn in the strongest terms the attacks against bridges and railways infrastructure deliberately targeting civilians.”

This passage carries substantial symbolic and strategic weight. Despite the ideological and political diversity of BRICS members, the bloc united in denouncing attacks that threaten the internal security of one of its founding members. This is a marked departure from the organization’s previously cautious diplomatic tone on sensitive geopolitical issues. BRICS, once defined by its reluctance to address matters of military conflict or security, is now building a normative foundation for solidarity and shared responsibility.

The inclusion of this clause suggests that BRICS is beginning to embrace a collective role in shaping norms related to international conflict and security. It signals that the alliance is willing to defend the principle of territorial integrity not just rhetorically, but through coordinated diplomatic action. This is more than a gesture – it is the foundation of a future in which BRICS may serve not only as an economic bloc, but as a political and moral anchor in a divided world.

The American reaction: why Washington is nervous

Just 48 hours after the release of the Rio declaration – particularly the section denouncing unilateral tariffs and non-tariff measures – US President Donald Trump issued a sharp response. From the White House lawn, he threatened to impose a 10% tariff on all imports from BRICS countries and accused the bloc of attempting to “degenerate the dollar.” In characteristically blunt terms, he remarked: “If you have a smart president, you will never lose the standard. If you have a stupid president like the last one, you would lose the standard.”

While Trump’s words may have been wrapped in personal bravado, the underlying message was clear: Washington sees BRICS not as a neutral economic club, but as a mounting strategic threat. Despite the bloc’s repeated assertions that its cooperation is not aimed against any third party, the West views efforts to establish alternative economic frameworks – particularly those bypassing the dollar and Western-controlled institutions – as an existential challenge to US hegemony.

The nature of the response underscores a deeper anxiety in Washington. BRICS initiatives once dismissed as symbolic or impractical are now materializing into real structures: trade in local currencies, independent payment systems, and new investment platforms with global reach. These are not just alternatives – they are systemic innovations that call into question the foundations of the current world order.

Trump’s outburst, then, is not just a political sideshow. It is evidence that BRICS is crossing a threshold – from peripheral relevance to central influence in global affairs. For years, Western analysts argued that the bloc would collapse under the weight of its internal contradictions. Yet BRICS has not only endured – it has expanded, institutionalized, and begun to assert itself in domains once considered off-limits.

The American reaction confirms what many in the Global South already perceive: that BRICS is no longer a passive forum for South-South dialogue. It is becoming an active agent in reshaping the architecture of international power.

No turning back: BRICS as a systemic alternative

The Rio summit left little doubt that BRICS is evolving beyond its original mandate. Once focused primarily on economic coordination, the bloc is now laying the institutional groundwork for an alternative system of global governance – one rooted in sovereignty, equality, and resistance to unilateral pressure. This transformation is not driven by ideology but by the lived experience of its member states, many of which have faced the political and economic consequences of a Western-dominated order.

Three strategic vectors are propelling BRICS forward. First, its geo-economic advantage: the bloc is consolidating control over key global trade routes and resource markets. With the accession of new members in 2024-2025 – including Egypt, Iran, and Ethiopia – BRICS now spans critical logistical corridors across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. The bloc also commands a significant share of the world’s reserves in energy, rare earth elements, and agricultural commodities, granting it considerable influence over global supply chains and commodity pricing.

Second, BRICS possesses an increasingly potent force of attraction. Despite mounting external pressure and efforts to isolate its members, more than 30 countries have applied for membership or partnership status. This groundswell reflects a growing desire among Global South nations for a platform free from ideological gatekeeping, conditional loans, or weaponized sanctions. BRICS, in their eyes, is not just a bloc – it is a symbol of multipolarity, mutual respect, and strategic independence.

Third, BRICS is beginning to serve as a functional alternative to gridlocked institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization. Without explicitly seeking to replace them, BRICS offers a more agile and consensus-based model – one that prioritizes non-interference, sovereignty, and pragmatic cooperation over rigid norms or selective enforcement. Its representation of the world’s demographic and economic majority lends it moral and political weight, especially in a context where trust in traditional global structures is in sharp decline.

In this light, the anxiety emanating from Washington is not simply reactive – it is anticipatory. The US and its allies understand that what BRICS is building is more than a set of alternative institutions. It is a rival paradigm: one that challenges the monopoly of the dollar, rejects coercive diplomacy, and proposes a new vocabulary for international legitimacy.

The Rio summit demonstrated that BRICS is not content to remain a forum of dialogue. It is becoming a vehicle for action. The question is no longer whether BRICS will shape the future of global governance, but how – and how fast. What began in Kazan, and accelerated in Rio, is a project with momentum. And in the shifting landscape of 2025, that momentum now appears irreversible.



Monday, March 17, 2025

American Politics > A Troubling View of American Democracy from the Beginning; Jewish Dems on wrong side of history


The following is a liberal professor's slightly warped view of American democracy. He is certainly liberal and most likely a godless liberal as he accuses Israel of being apartheid. Israel is not apartheid, ask any of the millions of Palestinian Arabs living in Israel, working in schools the government, the military, the boardrooms of Tel Aviv. Those who have full access to education, medical care, social services, etc., etc. Those who live in peace in Israel are happy to be there. Those who cannot see that, have their eyes blinded by the father of lies.

I include this article because it has some very interesting, if not provocative assertions that are worth learning and thinking about. 

Truth only comes to those who are willing to follow it wherever it leads.

The Founding Fathers were oligarchs. "We, the people" was not about the ordinary people either, but about this group of predatory capitalists who oppose noble domination. The proof is US history.
 
See original
 
Rate this translation
May be an image of map and text
The evidence against this story is overwhelming.
On March 4, Bernie Sanders issued a statement saying that "the United States has supported democracy for 250 years." He expressed concern about the Trump administration’s authoritarian course, which is at odds with a centuries-old tradition of American democratic principles, both nationally and internationally. It's not uncommon to hear conversations like this from American political leaders. Biden has regularly called the United States a "beacon of democracy," as have many presidents before him. Sanders' statement underscores the extent of this speech in the United States, across the entire political spectrum of Congress.
We can understand what Sanders is trying to say. But this claim about the United States and democracy is fundamentally wrong. The evidence against her is indeed overwhelming.
The United States was not founded as a democracy. It was rather an apartheid regime which institutionalized inequalities based on race, gender and class and ruled like an oligarchy. This is not an exaggeration, it's a well documented reality. U.S. states generally restricted the voting rights to white, wealthy men (about 6% of the population). The working class, women and people of color were overwhelmingly denied the right to vote. Virtually all black people were subjected to mass slavery and had no rights. In addition, the Indians were the target of government-sponsored ethnic cleansing and genocide.
Property claims will not be completely abolished until 1856. Women weren't given the right to vote until 1920. Native Americans were given the right to vote until 1948. Racial segregation, the American system of apartheid, was completely abolished until 1964. And only in 1965 did all minorities officially get the right to vote. It's worth stressing this point: the United States didn't get universal voting rights until 1965, almost 190 years after its founding. And in both cases this right was not granted by a government that adhered to democratic principles, but it was acquired by the working class through organized collective struggle.
Nevertheless, the democratic functioning of the United States today is very questionable. Power is divided between two established parties, both of which are led by the rich and both of which are attached to the interests of capital. Third parties are practically excluded from the national political process. Furthermore, elites and corporations can spend unlimited amounts to fund their election campaigns, to install politicians who influence policies to their advantage, in a form of institutionalized political corruption. Under these circumstances, democracy cannot function.
The facts back this up. A 2014 study by Cambridge University Press found that American policy generally follows the preferences of elites and organized interests, even if it contradicts the preferences of the majority. In other words, the United States looks more like an oligarchy than a democracy. This helps to understand the data from the Democracy Perceptions Index, which showed in 2023 only 54% of Americans believed their country was truly democratic and only 42% believed the government served the majority of the population.
So much for democracy in the United States. And how is it abroad? American politicians claim that the United States is the world champion of democracy. But in reality, American policy at this point is exactly the opposite.
The United States regularly interferes in foreign elections in order to corrupt the democratic process and serve its own interests. A recent study by Dov Levin found that the United States interfered in foreign elections at least 128 times between 1946 and 2014, typically to prevent leftist parties from forming a government or staying in power.
In the 20th century, the United States is actively opposing the anti-colonial liberation struggle in Asia and Africa, where democracy and equal rights are fought. They especially supported the apartheid regime in South Africa (the US government cooperated in the imprisonment of Mandela and labeled him a 'terrorist until 2008') and still support the apartheid in Israel. The United States supported Pinochet's dictatorship in Chile, Shah Dictatorship in Iran, Mobutu Dictatorship of Zaire, Franco's Dictatorhood in Spain, and many more. This situation is still current: a recent report shows that 73% of the world's dictatorships receive direct military support from the United States.
The United States also has a long history of carrying out regime change operations in other countries to secure the conditions for their geopolitical hegemony and capital accumulation. Scientists and journalists such as Lindsey O'Rourke, William Blum, and others have documented at least 113 such operations since 1949, based on official documents (excluding operations performed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries under the Monroe Doctrine and the Roosevelt Corollary). Half the attacks were committed against liberal democracies or centralist democratic states. The United States has a history of supporting coup d'état or assassination of democratically elected leaders, such as Salvador Allende in Chile, Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, and Patrice Lumumba in the Democratic Republic of Congo. They were all replaced by dictators.
In short, the United States wasn’t established as a Democracy and it hasn’t been for most of its existence. Today they are struggling with such severe democratic shortcomings that they still function like an oligarchy. Furthermore, they have a long history of obstructing, undermining, and even destroying democratic governments abroad. This problem did not start with the Trump administration; this is a structural pathology of the American system. The political goal of American progressives should be to fight for change.
Jason Hickel , March 10, 2025
 
See original
 
Rate this translation



Godless Jews must be a terrible bane to our Lord!


Jewish Dems Stand With Columbia U Supporter of Killing Jews


The masks are off.

Nearly every major Democrat official stands with Mahmoud Khalil: a leader in a Columbia University hate group that committed vandalism and assaults in support of Hamas, and which had expressed its support for murdering Jews.

That now includes not only Sen. Chuck Schumer but the Jewish Democratic Council of America which styles itself Jewish Dems. The message was delivered by Halie Soifer, the head of the JDCA, who also served as a foreign policy advisor to Kamala Harris.

First, Soifer complained that calling Sen. Chuck Schumer (who also came out for Mahmoud Khalil and Hamas) a ‘Palestinian’ “is antisemitic, racist, Islamophobic, and bigoted all at the same time.”

(One would think that claiming it’s both antisemitic and Islamophobic at the same time would be contradictory?)

This was followed by Soifer and the JDCA launching into the same tired “due process” defense of Khalil.

“While Khalil fomented anti-Israel, antisemitic, and potentially pro-Hamas sentiment in the protests he organized on Columbia’s campus,” Soifer admits. “While we can vehemently disagree with one’s speech, that doesn’t mean it isn’t protected speech under the Constitution.”

She then claimed that Trump is “weaponizing antisemitism to potentially deny constitutionally protected speech. The use of antisemitism as an excuse to deny free speech is not good for our community, security, or democracy.”

The only people who talk about “weaponizing antisemitism” are antisemites and their political allies.

That now includes Soifer and Jewish Dems.

The masks are now off. All the way off.

Haile Soifer concludes with the usual smug lecture. “It may be pro-Palestinian protestors who are targeted and denied their rights today, but we don’t know who will be next. If we support the selective denial of protected speech and rights of others, even those with whom we strongly disagree, we fall into a dangerous trap that will only come at our own peril.”

The problem with that is Jews already lost their protected speech and rights at Columbia U and other universities while JDCA and Sen. Schumer either stood by or reassured the college administrators privately that they had nothing to worry about.

This isn’t about protecting everyone’s rights. It’s about choosing the killers of Jews over Jews.

================================================================================