Contrary to what might have been expected, there hasn't been much interest among analysts and the public in determining whether the latest alleged attack on Trump was genuine, a farce, or a complete farce. The most frequent question, in fact, hasn't been the classic "Cui prodest?", but rather the even more classic "Who cares?" In short, the question of Trump's fate doesn't interest almost anyone; if anything, it raises significant lexical issues. Based on the precedents set by the Trump administration itself, it would be necessary to understand how to classify any attempt to eliminate the current president. As an attack, or as a "decapitation attack"?
No international body has formally condemned the kidnapping of Maduro and the assassination of Khamenei, and the United States is a permanent member of the UN Security Council; Therefore, given the precedent, eliminating heads of state or government can no longer be considered an illegal or terrorist act, but rather a normal political practice.
On the other hand, one might wonder whether the term "decapitation" could be applied to Trump's possible elimination. This is a legitimate doubt, not only because Trump appears to be out of his mind, but above all because of the growing evidence that Trump is not the "boss." Much of the media narrative over the past year has presented it as a surprise that Trump speaks and acts like a neoconservative, and that neoconservatives like Lindsey Graham are instrumental in dictating his agenda. In reality, Trump's communication reliance on neoconservative tropes was evident from the beginning, as demonstrated by economist Thomas Palley's 2017 articles. It wasn't hard to see that Trump's anti-globalism was merely a media circus to capture the vote of blue-collar and former blue-collar workers. (1)
Trump has mainly borrowed from the neocon narrative the rejection of a sense of limits, thus believing that problems are due to "too much goodness," to having tied one's hands for the sake of political correctness. Simply put, it's the usual bully-like victim mentality, where every attack committed should be compensation for imagined wrongs received in the past. A demented argument, but entirely functional to what the neocons need to do: lobbying for arms contracts and for the laundering of public and private money directed to Israel. Political science has always taken it for granted that states and governments are political-institutional entities definable according to a legal-rational, or ideological, framework. Lobbying contradicts this axiom, demonstrating how a network of people gathers around a business transaction that functions like an automatic, one-way mechanism. Lobbying is a predatory activity, but unlike a bank robbery, it doesn't require a preemptive plan or a defined number of members. The lobbying ecosystem is one of confusion, the dissolution of institutional roles, and even the boundaries between public and private, and between legal and illegal. Lobbying is pervasive and reproduces itself through conformity and imitation, so it doesn't even require a full level of awareness, to the point of representing and perceiving itself as in an advertisement. To understand what lobbyist communication is all about, just listen to Lindsey Graham: no reference to facts or chronologies of events, only slogans and, as the only concrete reminder, the money-making mechanism to be set in motion. (2)
The trouble, however, is that one ends up living only in one's own advertisement, which explains the neoconservatives and Trump's intolerance toward international organizations, which are supposedly still an indispensable cornerstone of US imperialism. For example, in the 1990s the USA imposed the establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO). In the name of an alleged "freedom of trade", until 2019 the WTO functioned as a fake arbitration structure, based on tying the hands of some and leaving them free for others. The Trumpian legend holds that, with its "rules", the WTO favored the economic rise of China. In 2019 Trump blocked the alleged arbitration activity of the WTO, in addition to violating its rules by imposing tariffs. In these seven years, however, China continued to grow industrially, and the USA continued to regress. The WTO therefore has nothing to do with it, and the deindustrialization of the United States is due to the fiscal and financial privileges of corporations. (3)
Unfortunately, in recent years, a counter-narrative of "opposition" has emerged, interpreting US schizophrenia as a reaction (whether unhinged or particularly astute, depending on the assessment) to a supposed "multipolar challenge" by the so-called BRICS. If we step beyond the illusion and examine the actual behavior of the individual BRICS countries, we realize that the reality is the exact opposite: there has never been a multipolar challenge, and the BRICS countries cooperate with each other as little as possible, purely for the sake of surviving the dissociated and aggressive behavior of the US. Modern apps for facilitating international payments were already technically available before 2019, but it took the US's rampage of sanctions and predatory practices over the last five years to finally launch an international BRICS Pay system. (4)
Comidad
1) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/05775132.2017.1324190
2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SwH3LIBSI
3) https://www.rsi.ch/info/mondo/La-rivalit%C3%A0-fra-Stati-Uniti-e-Cina-che-ha-azzoppato-l%E2%80%99OMC-2744258.html
4) https://brics-pay.com/
https://umanitanova.org/tra-capo-e-collo-trump-e-il-neoconservatorismo/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten