#trump

Trumps Kehrtwende in der Ukraine-Politik: In absoluter Bereitschaft

via ▻https://diasp.eu/p/17751407

▻https://taz.de/Trumps-Kehrtwende-in-der-Ukraine-Politik/!6098135

Beim EU-Außenministertreffen sichern auch die Niederlande und Dänemark zu, sich an Patriot-Systemen zu beteiligen – und die USA dafür zu bezahlen. Trumps Kehrtwende in der Ukraine-Politik: In absoluter Bereitschaft

C’est assez fascinant de voir tout un appareil d’État se mettre en ordre de marche au service du fascisme (mais ça ne servira évidemment de leçon à rigoureusement personne). FBI launches probes into former FBI, CIA directors, Fox News reports
▻https://www.reuters.com/world/us/fbi-launches-probes-into-former-fbi-director-ex-cia-director-fox-news-repor

The FBI has launched criminal probes into former CIA Director John Brennan and former FBI Director James Comey, Fox News Digital reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

The probes are over alleged wrongdoing related to past government investigations about claims of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections in which President Donald Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the news report said.

L’Espagne sauvera-t-elle l’UE d’une fuite en avant militariste ?
▻https://lvsl.fr/lespagne-sauvera-t-elle-lue-dune-fuite-en-avant-militariste

Alors que les dirigeants européens serrent les rangs derrière l’objectif des 5 % du PIB consacré à la défense, le chef du gouvernement espagnol rompt le rang. Tandis qu’à La Haye il dénonce un « keynésianisme militaire » aux effets délétères pour les investissements sociaux, à Madrid ses partenaires de gauche menacent de quitter le gouvernement. À l’horizon, […]

#International #5% #austérité #Espagne #Keynésianisme_militaire #Militarisme #OTAN #Prédation #PSOE #Sanchez #Trump

Trump Has a Thin Cultural Vision of the Future
▻https://jacobin.com/2025/06/trump-culture-traditionalism-fascism-history

https://www.neh.gov/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/2025-04/aubrey-odom-h4I16YCGFWM-unsplash%20Washington%20horseback.jpg?itok=1Hi7XJeS

Est-ce que le #trumpisme est un #fascisme ? La réponse n’est pas évidente. Sur le plan culturel il est mille fois est pire que le fascisme italien et cent fois plus réactionnaire que les #nazis allemands. Au fond il a une vision apocalyptique qui se nourrit du récit de l’enlèvement évangélical et de L’Île à hélice pris un peu trop au sérieux par la noblesse libertaire de la silicon valley .

24.6.2025 by Matthew Grumbach - On art and culture, Donald Trump and the movement behind him are offering a highly circumscribed vision of the future in comparison to far-right movements of the past.

On November 16, 1989, protesters lined the sidewalk outside of Artists Space in New York City to protest the rescinding of federal funds for an exhibition dedicated to the AIDS crisis. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) had withdrawn a $10,000 grant because, as then NEA director John E. Frohnmayer claimed, “a large portion of the content [was] political rather than artistic in nature.”

The cut came on the heels of NEA-supported exhibitions featuring works by the artists Andres Serrano and Robert Mapplethorpe. These exhibitions sparked debates in Congress, with far-right Senator Jesse Helms and Representative William Dannemeyer pushing through tighter controls over what kinds of art could receive federal funding.

The AIDS activist group ACT UP and the artist David Wojnarowicz were quick to call out Frohnmayer’s dissimulations and homophobia at the NEA. Wojnarowicz linked the right-wing backlash to earlier waves of repression, writing, “We as a society have been in this political climate before. It is cyclical and similar bigots and extremists have reared their conservative/fascist heads before in order to conduct witch-hunts.” Like today, the invocation of fascism was not uncommon. A sign at the Artists Space protest read, “Fascism begins with censorship.”

Although the funding was eventually restored, the NEA’s reversal was a Pyrrhic victory and set the stage for culture war battles to come. As we face a new wave of censorship and cuts, analogies to fascism abound and have galvanized debate. In a recent Guardian piece, Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor describe Trumpism’s vision of endless war and assert that we are facing an end-times fascism that offers no utopian future. The seemingly peripheral sphere of cultural policy can help us assess this provocative claim. Examining matters of art not only confirms that today’s neofascism does not offer a future vision comparable to classical fascism but also reveals the contradictions of Trumpism’s shallow mode of governance.
Trump’s Miserly Return to the Past

One of the first moves that provoked comparisons to fascism came in late 2020 when Trump issued the Executive Order on Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture. The order criticized modernist architecture and called for new federal buildings to use classical and traditional designs (picture the US Capitol Building and its Corinthian columns). On January 20, 2025, Trump doubled down and released a memorandum directing the General Services Administration to come up with a plan “to advance the policy that Federal public buildings should be visually identifiable as civic buildings and respect regional, traditional, and classical architectural heritage.”

Beyond architecture, Trump 2.0 has continued down the traditionalist path and staged a hostile takeover of federal art institutions. First came the purges at the Kennedy Center, where Trump named himself chairman. Under its new direction, the center will no longer honor “radical left lunatics.” Then, in March 2025, Trump issued an executive order charging J. D. Vance with the task of removing “improper ideology” from the Smithsonian Institution. If Trump’s vision for federal architecture recalled the monumental neoclassicism of Albert Speer, then the overhaul of the Smithsonian was the nail in the coffin that prompted further comparisons with the Nazis and their purging of “degenerate art.”

However, Trump’s cultural policy is not only marked by historical revisionism, traditionalism, and a backward-looking élan. It is also exceptionally austere, even for a nation with a stingy welfare state. Not only has the administration drastically shrunk the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), but in May 2025, the NEA began canceling grants for arts organizations across the country. The termination letters state that “the NEA is updating its grantmaking policy priorities to focus funding on projects that reflect the nation’s rich artistic heritage and creativity as prioritized by the President.” The agency specifically plans on elevating projects that “foster AI competency,” “foster skilled trade jobs,” and “make America healthy again,” among other stated aims.

Given these new priorities, it is doubtful that we will see robust public funding for the arts anytime soon, even for art that conforms to Trumpism’s hackneyed patriotism. As of now, the only major projects on the table are the National Garden of American Heroes sculpture park and the Celebrate America! grant program, the NEH soliciting applications in preparation for the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 2026.
Art Under Italian Fascism

While it is possible that the National Garden of American Heroes may end up resembling the ring of marble athletic sculptures that encloses the Foro Mussolini’s Stadio dei Marmi, that is where the similarities end. With regard to culture, Trumpism is both more traditionalist and repressive, and less generous and visionary than Italian Fascism.
Stadio dei Marmi in Rome Italy. (Wikimedia Commons)

Since Nazism looms large in the public consciousness and tends to be the focus of liberal scholars of fascism like Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder, the bulk of recent commentary often collapses key distinctions between German and Italian fascism. One major difference has to do with how the regimes approached art.

Whereas the Nazis promoted a naturalist, sentimental realism, with Adolf Hitler demanding the “absolute correctness in the presentation of the female and male body,” no such mandate emerged in fascist Italy. Benito Mussolini called for the creation of “a new art of our times” and when artists and intellectuals debated how to fulfill the Duce’s wishes in the pages of Critica fascista, they came to the consensus that the regime should not intervene in the artistic process and established that fascist art needed to be socially engaged but not overtly didactic or propagandistic.

The cultural empresario and Critica fascista founder Giuseppe Bottai held tight to these principles. His often-repeated credo was, “Fascism does not promulgate aesthetics.” When he took charge of the Ministry of National Education in 1936, Bottai expanded the state patronage system and supported modernism from Novecento and futurism to post-impressionism and post-Cubism. Through competitions, state acquisitions, and encouragement prizes, avant-garde artists were rewarded for producing artworks that instilled national values and reflected the progress of the fascist epoch.

In addition to providing direct financial assistance to artists, Bottai and his deputies also spearheaded new initiatives that sought to increase traffic between center and periphery and ensure that Italy’s underdeveloped south was not deprived of culture. These measures aligned with the regime’s broader efforts to democratize culture through subsidizing train tickets for art exhibitions and programs like the Sabato teatrale, which provided discounted tickets to theater performances.

Of course, like Trumpism, Italian Fascism was embroiled in internal conflict and factional disputes, and not all fascists agreed with Bottai’s modernist approach to state patronage. The bellicose squadristi leader and former secretary of the National Fascist Party Roberto Farinacci and his philonazi faction were fierce critics. In the province where he ruled, Farinacci established the Premio Cremona, a painting competition that had prescribed themes and promoted an Italian version of national socialist realism.

The fascist culture wars went deeper than matters of taste and reflected long-standing tensions. In the early 1920s, after the March on Rome, Bottai and Farinacci were locked in a struggle over the future of fascism. According to the historian Edward Tannenbaum, “the squadristi idea of the fascist revolution was the conversion of Italy to a demagogic, gangsterlike form of militarism.” Bottai did not wholly oppose violence, but for him it represented “the negative phase of fascism,” and once the movement achieved power, it would have to move from destruction to construction.

The fascist future that he envisioned would be realized through “translating ideas into institutions.” To fulfill the revolution, it was thus incumbent on the movement to consolidate the state and expand its activities and functions. Bottai’s approach to cultural policy reflected his conviction that fascism ultimately needed to build something new and articulate a positive vision.
End-Times Fascism and Hegemony in the Long Downturn

Some scholars have grown wary of using classical fascism as a yardstick against which to measure the far right. And while there may be drawbacks to identifying new forms of fascism using the example of interwar Europe as our sole criteria, considering figures like Bottai and Farinacci can help us decipher the vision of Trumpism.

Klein and Taylor argue that the techno-capitalist and populist wings of Trumpism have converged on an apocalyptic politics of destruction that, unlike classical fascism, offers no “vision for a future golden age after the bloodbath that, for its in-group, would be peaceful, pastoral and purified.” While it is certainly not a perfect double, Trumpism’s “supremacist survivalism” dovetails with Farinacci’s rural gangsterism.

Given the libertarian leanings of the techno-capitalists, this is perhaps not surprising. In Late Fascism, Alberto Toscano notes the similarities between Italian Fascism’s “state-led anti-statism,” of which Farinacci was an exponent, and the minimal state advocated by market fundamentalists like Ludwig von Mises. The techno-capitalists that surround Trump are just the latest in a long line of progeny.

Focusing on trade policy, Adam Tooze has responded that Trumpism does indeed have a future vision that delivers by rejecting the status quo, reviving blue-collar manufacturing, and instilling unity through sacrifice so men can return to heavy industry. John Ganz also emphasizes the gendered dimensions of this industrial promise land. And Jamelle Bouie lists off Trump’s many destructive attacks but ends up siding with Tooze and Ganz to affirm that Trumpism has a future orientation that fits the definition of reactionary modernism.

But if Farinacci in some ways prefigures Trumpism’s narrow horizon, how does Bottai square with Trumpism’s techno-industrial futurism? However imperfect, the art initiatives that Bottai established offer a glimpse of the kinds of programs that fascists developed to break down regional divides, mobilize different segments of the population, transform their consciousness, and sometimes even put money in their pockets. When we consider the scope of these programs, the future vision that Tooze, Ganz, and Bouie attribute to Trumpism looks skimpy and circumscribed.

Trumpism’s future orientation at best constitutes a thin form of hegemony. It is often forgotten that Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is not a purely ideological phenomenon. The ruling classes need to make their narrow economic interests appear as the universal interest of society, yes, but the exercise of hegemony also requires that they develop their organizational capacity and make real material concessions to subordinate groups.

The Right has made strides in this direction by building a robust network of think tanks and media outlets. Art, however, plays less of a role in the exercise of hegemony than it did in the past. This is not only because Trumpism’s populist wing denounces cosmopolitan elites, but also because the techno-capitalists appear uninterested.

Michael McCarthy notes “that despite being flush with cash, the crypto world has failed to fund any truly public goods like public education, health, or even more mundane things like public infrastructure, parks for sports, or public centers for art making. Instead, this world funds the renaming of stadiums, like the Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles and SBF’s FTX Arena in Miami, or Superbowl ads.”

And while pronatalist baby bonuses are a step toward redistribution, it is hard to say if anti-woke TikTok videos, space fantasies, Ultimate Fighting Championship fights, and psychological wages will secure the active consent of the masses in the long run or endow Trumpism with a unifying moral-cultural vision. There is also a good chance that Trumpism will slide into domination without hegemony due to structural and economic constraints. Even if Steve Bannon, Josh Hawley, and the populist wing begin to command greater influence, how will Trumpism deliver the goods if the state is nothing but a hollow shell?

Upward redistribution remains the rule of the day, and it is unlikely that the kind of zero-sum redistribution that Bannon hopes would uplift white Christian households will come to pass as productivity growth slows and profitability declines. When we combine historical comparison with considerations of how neoliberal conditions reduce state functions and constrain the exercise of hegemony, Klein and Taylor’s diagnosis of end-times fascism looks more and more convincing.

We obviously cannot accept any form of fascism, whether it resembles the bleak Farinaccian version or the more inventive one that Bottai helped construct. Specifying the contours of neofascism is critical for locating our adversary’s vulnerabilities and determining how we resist. As alarming as end-times fascism sounds, it is unclear whether it is sustainable and can produce a resilient form of rule.

If Trumpism transforms society into a bunker world, then civil society is likely to degenerate, perhaps becoming “primordial and gelatinous,” as Gramsci once referred to civil society in tsarist Russia. Without “a sturdy structure of civil society” to offer support, end-times fascism may prove unstable. Time will tell. But as Klein and Taylor argue, any future success will hinge on our ability to unify a mass movement that articulates “a story not of end times, but of better times.”

NEH Announces Grant Opportunity to Create Statues of Iconic Americans for the National Garden of American Heroes | National Endowment for the Humanities
▻https://www.neh.gov/news/neh-announces-grant-opportunity-create-statues-iconic-americans-national-garden

First proposed by President Trump in 2020, the National Garden of American Heroes sculpture garden will feature life-size statues of 250 great individuals from America’s past who have contributed to our cultural, scientific, economic, and political heritage. The National Garden, which will be constructed for the 2026 semiquincentennial and located at a site to be determined, will create a public space where Americans can gather to learn about and honor American heroes.

Enlèvement de l’Église
▻https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enl%C3%A8vement_de_l%27%C3%89glise?searchToken=d9fxncl6q2lx2g0yj4uic

L’Île à hélice
►https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%8Ele_%C3%A0_h%C3%A9lice
Texte
▻https://fr.m.wikisource.org/wiki/L%E2%80%99%C3%8Ele_%C3%A0_h%C3%A9lice

Liste de prédictions de la fin du monde
▻https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_de_pr%C3%A9dictions_de_la_fin_du_monde

septembre 1935 Cet évangélique annonce que « le monde va « bouffer » et disparaître » en septembre 1935. Voliva, qui a acquis une notoriété nationale grâce à sa vigoureuse défense de la doctrine de la terre plate, a également prédit que la fin du monde viendrait en 1923, 1927, 1930, 1934 et 1935. États-Unis Wilbur Glenn Voliva (en), Protestants, Évangéliques

Date : 1936 Événement : Le fondateur de l’Église universelle de Dieu a dit aux membres de son église que l’enlèvement devait avoir lieu en 1936 et qu’ils seraient seuls sauvés. Après l’échec de sa prophétie, il a changé la date trois fois. Lieu : États-Unis Prédicatdur : Herbert W. Armstrong (en), Protestants, Évangéliques

1943 La première des trois dates révisées d’Armstrong après sa prédiction de 1936 n’a pas pu se réaliser.

1972 Troisième date d’Armstrong après ses prédictions de 1936 et 1943.

1977 Le fondateur de l’Église chrétienne israélite a prédit cette année qu’Armageddon se produirait. Angleterre John Wroe (en), Protestants, Évangéliques, Église chrétienne israélite
Ce Pasteur Pentecôtiste a prédit que l’enlèvement se produirait au plus tard en 1977. États-Unis

2038 Une « fin du monde » similaire au bug de l’an 2000 avait été supposée pour 2038 avec le retour à zéro des dates UNIX (nombre de secondes écoulées depuis le 1er janvier 1970, sur 32 bits). Le remplacement progressif des architectures 32 bits par des 64 bits au cours de la décennie 2010-2020 semble écarter tout risque de cet ordre.

2060 Fin du monde selon des calculs réalisés par Isaac Newton à partir de la Bible.

2239-3239 Selon une interprétation courante du Talmud par les juifs orthodoxes, l’avènement du véritable Messie doit se produire 6 000 ans après la création d’Adam (en) (fixée supposément à l’an -3761, selon l’actuel calendrier hébraïque). S’ensuivra une période de grand chambardement pendant 1 000 ans, qui se conclura par l’instauration du Royaume des Cieux.

etc.

#art #culture #religion #wtf

Aux Etats-Unis, la Cour suprême autorise Donald Trump à expulser des sans-papiers vers des pays tiers
▻https://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2025/06/24/aux-etats-unis-la-cour-supreme-autorise-donald-trump-a-expulser-des-sans-pap

https://img.lemde.fr/2025/05/16/1/0/8192/5461/1440/960/60/0/9ab37ae_ftp-import-images-1-hdxqpf6iewfp-5923705-01-06.jpg

Aux Etats-Unis, la Cour suprême autorise Donald Trump à expulser des sans-papiers vers des pays tiers
Le Monde avec AFP
La Cour suprême américaine a offert, lundi 23 juin, une nouvelle victoire à Donald Trump. La plus haute juridiction américaine a ouvert la voie à la reprise des expulsions de sans-papiers vers des pays étrangers dont ils ne sont pas issus.La décision non signée de la Cour, dominée par les conservateurs, a été rendue en réponse à un appel déposé en urgence par le ministère de la justice à la suite de la décision d’un tribunal fédéral de suspendre ces expulsions.
La Cour suprême n’a pas justifié sa décision et les trois juges progressistes ont exprimé leur désaccord. L’affaire contestant ces expulsions vers des pays tiers sera désormais examinée par une cour d’appel, mais la décision de la Cour suprême permet, pour l’instant, de les poursuivre.Le juge fédéral Brian Murphy avait ordonné l’arrêt des expulsions vers les pays tiers en avril, estimant que les personnes sans-papiers n’avaient pas la possibilité de les contester. Il avait alors déclaré que les immigrés devaient disposer d’au moins quinze jours pour contester leur expulsion et fournir des preuves qu’ils risquaient la torture ou la mort s’ils étaient expulsés des Etats-Unis.L’affaire initiale concerne huit immigrés condamnés pour des crimes violents aux Etats-Unis, selon le gouvernement. Embarqués dans un vol vers le Soudan du Sud, ils sont, depuis cette décision de justice, à Djibouti. Il s’agit de deux Birmans, d’un Vietnamien, d’un Laotien, de deux Cubains, d’un Mexicain et d’un Sud-Soudanais.
Le ministère de la sécurité intérieure a salué la décision de la Cour suprême comme une « victoire pour la sûreté et la sécurité du peuple américain ». La juge progressiste de la Cour suprême Sonia Sotomayor a rendu un avis divergent dans lequel elle accuse l’administration de « conduite illégale flagrante » qui « expose des milliers de personnes au risque de torture ou de mort ». « L’administration a clairement indiqué, en paroles et en actes, qu’elle ne se sentait pas contrainte par la loi et qu’elle était libre d’expulser n’importe qui, n’importe où, sans préavis ni possibilité d’être entendu », a-t-elle ajouté.
Donald Trump a érigé la lutte contre l’immigration clandestine en priorité absolue, évoquant une « invasion » des Etats-Unis par des « criminels venus de l’étranger » et communiquant abondamment sur les expulsions d’immigrés. Mais son programme d’expulsions massives a été contrecarré ou freiné par de multiples décisions de justice, y compris de la part de la Cour suprême, rappelant que les personnes visées devaient pouvoir faire valoir leurs droits.

#Covid-19#migrant#migration#etatsunis#droit#expulsion#politiquemigratoire#sante

„Kommunistischer Irrer“ : Trump wütet gegen demokratischen Bürgermeisterkandidaten von New York
▻https://www.tagesspiegel.de/internationales/33-jahriger-gewinnt-vorwahlen-linker-konnte-burgermeister-von-new-york-

https://www.tagesspiegel.de/images/13910452/alternates/BASE_21_9_W1000/1750826149000/new-york-city-primary-election-night.jpeg

Si on ne jugeait Trump qu’après so communication on devrait le considérer comme faciste idéal. Je crois que la réalité est pire.

Avec le président #DJT c’est comme si le ministre de la propagande Goebbels pouvait décider la guerre nucléaire. Wollte Ihr den totalen Krieg ?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1985-013-24%2C_Berlin%2C_Propagandaministerium.jpg

New York City könnte künftig von einem linken Bürgermeister regiert werden. Der frühere Gouverneur des Bundesstaats New York, Andrew Cuomo, räumte am Dienstagabend (Ortszeit) seine Niederlage bei den Vorwahlen der Demokratischen Partei um den Bürgermeisterposten in der Metropole ein. Er unterlag dem lokalen Abgeordneten Zohran Mamdani bei der sogenannten Primary. Der 33-Jährige bezeichnet sich als demokratischen Sozialisten. Er kann nun mit der Nominierung als Bürgermeisterkandidat seiner Partei rechnen.

Nach Auszählung von etwa 87 Prozent der Stimmen lag Mamdani nach Medienberichten mit 43,6 Prozent auf Platz ein. Der 67-jährige Polit-Veteran Cuomo, der vier Jahre nach seinem Rücktritt als Gouverneur aufgrund von Vorwürfen sexueller Belästigung ein Comeback versuchte, folgte mit gut 36 Prozent. Die neun weiteren Kandidaten lagen dahinter. Das endgültige Ergebnis dürfte jedoch voraussichtlich frühestens nächste Woche feststehen.

Mamdani, ein Muslim, wurde in Uganda in eine Familie indischer Abstammung geboren. Er sitzt im Parlament des New Yorker Bezirks Queens. Für seine Kampagne konnte sich Mamdani die Unterstützung von Senator Bernie Sanders und der Abgeordneten Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sichern, den linken Aushängeschildern der Demokraten. Cuomo wurde vom ehemaligen Präsidenten Bill Clinton und dem ehemaligen New Yorker Bürgermeister Michael Bloomberg unterstützt.

US-Präsident Donald Trump schoss sich am Mittwochnachmittag auf den neuen Star der politischen Linken ein und nannte ihn einen „hundertprozentigen kommunistischen Irren“.

Trump schrieb in seinem sozialen Netzwerk Truth Social: „Zohran Mamdani, ein 100% kommunistischer Verrückter, hat gerade die Vorwahlen der Demokraten gewonnen und ist auf dem Weg, Bürgermeister zu werden. Wir hatten schon früher radikale Linke, aber das wird langsam ein bisschen lächerlich. Er sieht furchtbar aus, seine Stimme ist kratzig, er ist nicht sehr klug.“

Mamdani will die städtischen Busse kostenlos machen, Mieten einfrieren und städtisch verwaltete Supermärkte eröffnen. Außerdem will er die Steuern für Reiche erhöhen. Er hat sich Boykottaufrufen gegen Israel angeschlossen und sich für die Anliegen der Palästinenser stark gemacht.

Der derzeitige Bürgermeister Eric Adams will als Unabhängiger ebenfalls bei der im November anstehenden Wahl antreten. Der ehemalige Demokrat steht nach eine Reihe von Korruptionsskandalen in der Kritik. Der republikanische Kandidat ist Curtis Sliwa, ein Radiomoderator, der vor allem als Gründer der Anti-Kriminalitätspatrouille Guardian Angels bekannt ist und 2021 gegen Adams verlor. (Tsp, mit Reuters)

#USA #New_York #politique #trumpisme

« ON VA DE TOUTE FAÇON VERS UNE FAILLITE DU SYSTÈME » - Entretien avec Fabrice Epelboin (PARTIE I)

via ▻https://diasp.eu/p/17709933

#politique #société #effondrement

▻https://yewtu.be/watch?v=tOdYvYZbkCU
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tOdYvYZbkCU

2025-06-23 --- 40 min.

(...)

#Iran : derrière la propagande, les profiteurs de guerre
▻https://lvsl.fr/iran-derriere-la-propagande-les-profiteurs-de-guerre

« Changement de régime », « armes de destruction massive », « guerre contre le terrorisme »… la rhétorique de l’ère Bush, longtemps taboue, retrouve droit de cité dans la Maison Blanche. Les néoconservateurs, conspués par Donald #Trump un mois plus tôt seulement, ont remporté une victoire éclatante : le #conflit avec la République islamique d’Iran débute enfin. Le tournant du chef […]

#International #Israël #moyen-orient #parti_républicain

found here:

▻https://x.com/mashabani/status/1936629470540034218

via ▻https://diasp.eu/p/17704985

Mohammad Ali Shabani @mashabani Editor @Amwajmedia (#Iran #Iraq #Peninsula). I’m here to learn.

BIG: High-ranking Iranian source tells @amwajmedia that Trump team gave advance notice of bombings of nuclear sites and insisted they’re intended as “one-off”. Signs of Trump seeking repeat of Jan 2020 (Soleimani killing=>symbolic Iranian retaliation).

(...)

#Zohran_Mamdani : un radical à la mairie de #New_York ?
▻https://lvsl.fr/zohran-mamdani-un-radical-a-la-mairie-de-new-york

Avec son programme de gratuité des bus et des crèches, de contrôle des loyers et d’épiceries municipales, le candidat de #gauche Zohran Mamdani pourrait renverser le baron démocrate corrumpu #Andrew_Cuomo. Une victoire de la mairie de New York qui enverrait un signal fort d’opposition face à #Trump.

#Politique #alexandria_ocasio_cortez #Bernie_Sanders #démocrates #DSA #Eric_Adams #Etats-Unis #socialiste

To push war on Iran, Trump sides with Israel over US intel
via ▻https://diasp.eu/p/17696512

▻https://www.aaronmate.net/p/to-push-war-on-iran-trump-sides-with

❞

Republicans against Trump sur X : "This is freaking weird. Trump just posted a text message he received from Mike Huckabee, his ambassador to Israel, urging him to attack Iran: “I don’t reach out to persuade you. Only to encourage you. I believe you will hear from heaven, and that voice is far more important than that
Ce qu’on trouve dans le trumpisme est sidérant
▻https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1934978195058553334

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GtpsaTcWYAAM-bG?format=jpg&name=medium#.jpg

Opinion | Really, Secretary Rubio? I’m Lying About the Kids Dying Under Trump? - The New York Times
▻https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/31/opinion/rubio-usaid-africa.html

simply shuttering [U.S.A.I.D.] with no transition has been catastrophic. An “impact counter” developed by an economist estimates that about 300,000 people have died so far from the reductions in American assistance, two-thirds of them children. The death toll is said to be rising at a rate of 103 per hour.

I’m not sure it’s actually that high, partly because I’ve seen some laid-off health workers continue to work without pay and some health ministries step up to pick up the slack. And it takes time for children to weaken and die. Yet while nobody knows the true number — partly because the cancellation of programs means that no one is counting the dead — the flat denial of any deaths at all is preposterous.

#usaid #génocide #hiv #trump

Peace in Ukraine Serves US National Interests - Pentagon Chief

via ▻https://diasp.eu/p/17683938

▻https://sputnikglobe.com/20250611/peace-in-ukraine-serves-us-national-interests---pentagon-chief-1122229

Le #génocide se poursuivra-t-il indéfiniment ?
▻https://lvsl.fr/le-genocide-se-poursuivra-t-il-indefiniment

Alors que les Gazaouis agonisent sous les bombes, un basculement silencieux s’opère : les États-Unis négocient directement avec le Hamas, marginalisent #Israël et redessinent leur stratégie au Moyen-Orient. Déclin de l’unipolarité américaine, montée en puissance des États du Golfe, isolement de #Netanyahou, fissures au sein des élites israéliennes : l’architecture régionale vacille. Le soutien à Israël, jadis […]

#International #Gaza #Isolationnisme #Militarisme #Palestine #Pivot_asiatique #Trump

Un capitalisme en crise, prédateur et autoritaire. Entretien avec Romaric Godin
▻https://www.contretemps.eu/capitalisme-crise-predateur-autoritaire-entretien-romaric-godin

https://www.contretemps.eu/wp-content/uploads/President_Trump_at_Davos_49419287718.jpg

Le capitalisme est en crise profonde, avec des taux de croissance faibles (en particulier en Europe), et marqué par la remise en cause par la Chine de la domination des États-Unis. C’est le support de politiques résolument antisociales, de plus en plus autoritaires et prédatrices, un aspect particulièrement visible lors des premiers mois de la présidence Trump. Dans cet entretien publié par la revue Inprecor, le journaliste économique Romaric Godin revient sur la stagnation du capitalisme et ses effets politiques.

~~~

Ignore Elon Musk. Pay Attention to Russell Vought.
▻https://jacobin.com/2025/06/trump-administration-musk-russell-vought

Le départ de l’horrible clown Musk dégage la vue sur le véritable instigateur derrière Trump.

6.6.2025 by Branko Marcetic - Elon Musk has been shown the door in the Trump White House. His erratic behavior and cringe antics made him an easy target for the media. But Musk was always carrying out Project 2025 author Russell Vought’s agenda — and Vought is still very much in power.

While making his official exit from the White House, Elon Musk has repeatedly griped that he and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) had been made the administration’s “whipping boy,” absorbing blame and outrage for just about everything the president and his team has done that people don’t like. The twist is, this is one of the rare times the Tesla billionaire is actually right about something.

For the past five months, Musk has been a useful punching bag for Democrats, the broad left, the press, and just about anyone looking to politically wound the second Trump administration. And who can blame them? His bizarre behavior, flagrant corruption, and general unlikability was tailor-made for clicks and shares, not to mention made him an easy target for Trump critics looking to tie the president to a sinking rock, which had real political consequences for the administration.

So it’s not surprising that even as the media pumps out pieces taking stock of Musk’s time in government, that coverage is peppered with insistences that Musk isn’t really leaving, and that he’ll continue to exert influence on the Trump White House from outside and thus be responsible for whatever it ends up doing next. This will no doubt be at least a little true, and the public certainly seems to agree. But trying to keep the spotlight on a departed Musk may not be as politically effective as critics hope, and it risks failing to understand what is actually going on in the Trump White House.

The reality is that while Musk was and still is a convenient political foil, even when he was in the thick of things at the White House he was still only doing the dirty, hands-on work of someone else: Russell Vought, the architect of Project 2025 and Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director.

Anyone hoping to properly hold the Trump administration to account, not to mention understand what the people running it are trying to do, needs to shift their focus from the billionaire and onto Vought. If US politics was Kill Bill, Musk and his DOGE team would be the wacky, colorful henchman the Bride spends most of her time and energy dealing with, while the faceless Bill waits, untouched, and directs things from dark rooms far away from the action.

Shifting focus to Vought will be tricky because he has spent this first half-year of maximum outrage against the DOGE cuts working quietly and out of sight, is far less click- and ratings-friendly than the outrageous Musk, and is generally a less erratic, more media-trained figure who’s not likely to create the same cluster of political headaches for the White House. But besides the president himself, he is the driving force of the Trump agenda — and is now going to start acting like it.

The Wall Street Journal reported as early as a month ago that, with Musk on the outs, Vought will now become the official architect of Trump’s austerity program, working with Congress to make further cuts and get legislative sign-off for some of those already made under Musk, while also doing the media rounds to sell it to the public. This past Sunday, Vought was on CNN defending the cuts and other parts of the White House agenda.

But it’s not as if he was twiddling his thumbs before. Vought was, even before he was appointed to a government role, the one behind Trump’s disastrous January executive order pausing all federal grants, which the White House was forced to quickly rescind. The entire legal theory and approach underpinning DOGE — that the US president can simply refuse to spend the money Congress authorized for various agencies and programs, and can dismantle or wholesale eliminate them at will — comes from Vought, who has been closely involved in DOGE’s cuts from the moment they started. Trump’s second term has as a whole closely followed Project 2025, the policy blueprint Vought was so central to creating, and he admitted to undercover reporters last year that he would still be shaping Trump policy from outside government even if he wasn’t given a White House post.

Look at the budgets and policies Vought has written and called for while he worked in Congress or as an activist, you’ll quickly see that the cuts attributed to Musk would have happened one way or another as long as Vought was in the White House. Over the years Vought has favored privatizing the US Postal Service and repealing Obamacare, as well as cutting or eliminating the Department of Education, Medicaid, USAID, public broadcasting, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Federal Aviation Authority, and many more.

You will also see where the Trump administration is likely to go in the future. Vought has long had the big entitlements like Social Security (which he wants to privatize) and Medicare in his crosshairs, and he openly told an interviewer two years ago that his goal is to use this current spate of cuts to condition the public to the idea, so that somewhere down the line they can attack these big, previously “untouchable” programs.

But this is exactly why Vought could, in fact, become as much of a political liability for Trump as Musk was — it would just require substantive and well-targeted criticism that’s less well-catered to salacious headlines than Musk’s tenure. So far, that hasn’t happened.

The liberal press has tended to frame Vought as a scary “Christian nationalist,” a term that doesn’t mean much to the average person and might even sound appealing to a public that is still majority Christian and, like any population, thinks of its own national interest as its top priority. Meanwhile, in her Sunday interview with the OMB director, CNN’s Dana Bash spent a lot of time on the topic of Vought’s “impoundment” theory and its constitutionality, an important but arcane legal subject that isn’t likely to resonate with many.

What is both accurate and a more effective line of criticism is that Vought’s ideology — a militant anti-government zealotry that means he literally considers government investment in infrastructure completely illegitimate, and wants to eliminate or sell to the highest bidder just about every government program, from Medicaid to NASA — is alien and unappealing to most modern Americans, including Trump’s own working-class base, and will hurt them and their loved ones. A thirty-year record high majority of Americans now wants the government to do more to solve the country’s problems, not do less or barely exist, as Vought dreams of.

If you understand Vought’s history, then you know the entire course of his career is defined by the fact that his political goals have consistently proven so toxic with ordinary Americans, including Republican voters, that they have never been able to get democratically enacted. Vought’s big complaint is that every time he wrote out a budget that took away people’s health care and dissolved half the government (except for the Pentagon, of course), it would never pass, because Republican members of Congress who paid lip service to his anti-government ideology would get cold feet when they realized they would be savaged by their constituents if they ever dared put it into practice.

This is what eventually led Vought to Trump. Vought has openly said that both the US political consensus and mainstream legal opinion are so far from his anti-government vision, that the only way to make it reality is to take radical, unprecedented steps — like entrusting an all-powerful president to single-handedly dismantle the federal government and wage war on the other branches if they get in the way. This is astoundingly undemocratic, but it’s also undemocratic by necessity, because it is in the service of a political agenda that would be repellent to most Americans if they were properly informed about it.

In fact, it has already proven to be: just look at the furious public backlash to the Vought-authored grant pause, which forced GOP members of Congress to pressure the White House to undo it, or the anger Republicans are fielding in town halls over a Medicaid-decimating budget modeled on what Vought had plotted out.

Musk’s exit should be an opportunity to refocus scrutiny on Vought, who has been able to fly somewhat under the radar the past five months thanks to the Tesla billionaire’s attention-seeking. Vought may not be as colorful of a character, but if the public is accurately told what he believes and plans to do, they will be left just as disturbed by his influence in the White House.

#USA #trumpisme #sustérité #libertaires

New #START déchiré, le retour des Dr Strangelove.

via ▻https://diasp.eu/p/17665951

#géopolitique #guerre

[...]

Dans le cadre de ce traité, tous les bombardiers stratégiques porteurs d’armes nucléaires, enregistrés sous des numéros d’immatriculation et connus des deux parties, sont stationnés à l’air libre, afin de permettre une vérification mutuelle par satellite. Grâce à ce traité, les États-Unis garantissaient à la Russie que ces bombardiers non protégés ne seront pas attaqués par ses armes ou celles de ses partenaires. Et réciproquement bien sûr.

[...]

►https://regisdecastelnau.substack.com/p/new-start-dechire-le-retour-des-dr

Brèves de presse :mastodon: :
▻https://mastodon.social/@Brevesdepresse/114573489753132538

🔴🇺🇸|🇷🇺FLASH - Donald #Trump affirme que Vladimir #Poutine « est devenu complètement fou ». (déclaration)

Bon. Finalement, on va l’avoir notre guerre nucléaire.

Capitalism Is Changing, but Not Into “Neofeudalism”
▻https://jacobin.com/2025/05/capitalism-neofeudalism-tech-medieval-history

https://www.buchprojekt1.de/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/20180629_woe_091.jpg

Le "néoféodalisme" n’est qu’une idée á la mode résultat et amplificateur de la confusion intellectuelle ambiante. En l’utilisant nous risquons de perdre de vue les véritables méchanismes du pouvoir.

21.5.2025 by David Addison , Merle Eisenberg - Some left writers have argued that contemporary capitalism is mutating into a form of “neofeudalism” as tech barons run amok. But what we’re actually witnessing is an important shift within rather than a transition from capitalism

The tech barons strategically placed around Donald Trump at his inauguration on January 20 this year were a who’s who of the oligarchic class. From Jeff Bezos to Mark Zuckerberg and everyone in between, the leaders of the US tech industry came to pay homage to their new ruler.

Court intrigue was palpable. Journalists speculated about the choreography of the ceremony, examining how the placement of the barons offered insight into their status and favor to shape the new regime. The pyramid structure of American society had never appeared so stark.

Trump’s inauguration was surely the most vivid manifestation of the growing political centrality of billionaire tech leaders. The last few years have seen commentators reach for ideas of “technofeudalism” or “neofeudalism” to explain what has been going on. However, those concepts ultimately bring more confusion than clarity to the debate about where capitalism is headed.

Looking Backward

Yanis Varoufakis’s 2023 book Technofeudalism: What Killed Capitalism was perhaps the most widely discussed foray into this field. But it has been joined this year by Jodi Dean’s Capital’s Grave: Neofeudalism and the New Class Struggle. Both works suggest that the world has left behind capitalism for an emergent feudal order.

These theorizations of supposed new feudalisms look to the past to envisage the future. They do so, however, in contradictory ways, drawing on divergent medieval pasts. For some proponents of the idea of “neofeudalism,” such as Katherine V. W. Stone and Robert Kuttner, the central transformation is a legal one. Stone and Kuttner hark back to the moment when the Roman Empire’s structures of public justice gave way to more fragmented, privatized juridical orders.

In contemporary society, they argue, we are witnessing a corruption of public justice by the interests of private capital, exemplified in forced private legal arbitration and the corporate capture of regulatory bodies. According to this perspective, we should see the ongoing privatization of today as the perversion of a legitimate and beneficial model of capitalism, which should be fortified by a strong public sphere. Their argument focuses on the changes to the legal sphere and the control of justice.

By contrast, Dean’s understanding of “neofeudalism” is fundamentally economic. It argues for a shift in the mode of production in contemporary society. Like Varoufakis, Dean traces a move away from competition and profit-maximization on the part of corporate leaders like Zuckerberg and Bezos, and she argues that they are now more preoccupied with establishing monopolies and extracting rent.

This, the analogy implies, mirrors the fate of the medieval rural peasantry, bound to pay rent to monopolistic lords above them. While Dean approvingly cites Stone and Kuttner, they actually diverge in both their notion of historic feudalism and their diagnosis for the present.

Definitions of Feudalism

As these examples make clear, the meaning and use of “feudalism” is ambiguous in this discourse. There are three main ways in which historians have defined feudalism that are incompatible for purposes of analysis with each other. Contemporary writers all too often merge these definitions.

The first feudalism exists especially in the popular historical imagination. It is the world of rigid hierarchies encapsulated in the image of the “feudal pyramid.” This idea is the staple of school classrooms, a quick search on Google, or the slop that poses as information via artificial intelligence.

The pyramidal view of feudalism describes a coherent social system in which kings granted land to nobility in exchange for loyalty and military service. Peasants at the bottom of the pyramid grew food and received “protection” in return.

This definition has a certain timelessness, since it supposedly existed for more than a thousand years, and a sense of rigidity, since almost no one could escape its fixed, pyramidal order. It is the social system that most non-medievalists seem to have in mind when they are contrasting present and past.

Medieval scholars generally hate this version of feudalism. For the last fifty years, academic historians have criticized this idea as overly broad and unreflective of a dynamic period in human history. Whatever else Game of Thrones and its prequel House of the Dragon might suggest, society does not stand still for centuries with few changes to class structure — unless we count dragons as a class.

Moreover, the term feudalism itself was only coined after the end of the Middle Ages. In fact, since the 1970s, historians in the English-speaking world have even tended to move away from using the word “feudalism” or speaking of a “feudal system.” They sometimes jokingly refer to it as the “F word.”

This leads to the second, much more specific, concept of feudalism. This is a legal idea expressing the mutual bonds between a ruler and their subordinate elites (sometimes called vassals). A ruler would provide land from which a subordinate could appropriate revenues. The ruler, in turn, received a legal pledge from the subordinate, which had to be renewed with each new generation.

The pledge tended to entail military service, fees, or various other rights for the ruler. It was the glue that held elite society together. It was not about peasants. This version can be glimpsed in the medieval images of seated rulers with knights kneeling before them pledging such an exchange.

This feudalism was restricted to a certain time (ca. 1100–1400 CE), a certain place (France and England, mostly), and certain specific individuals (elites only). Medieval historians still usefully employ this legal concept, but this is not the feudalism of today’s debates. It is too narrow, precise, and, well, medieval. Though its symbolic power remains in the metaphors of “vassal states” or “paying homage,” such phrases are figurative, not literal.

The Feudal Mode

A third understanding of feudalism is the feudal mode of production that, in its classic Marxist formulation, characterizes the economic framework of a society. Karl Marx laid out various modes of production, and more contemporary theorists have expanded on Marx’s ideas in useful ways.

Marxist scholars held the feudal mode of production to have developed from the ancient slave mode of production. Instead of requiring enslaved labor, owned and directly dominated by a lord, feudal lords dominated a large mass of peasants in various states of semi-freedom and unfreedom. These peasants produced food from lands they leased on tenure from elites, who appropriated a certain amount of the surplus and, in some cases, demanded labor services.

Under this regime, elite power was rooted in the ownership of land and the use of coercive force to seize goods and enforce the conditions of tenure. The specifics of how goods were appropriated could vary, deriving from taxes or rents, as could the legal ways in which the goods were taken. To differentiate the feudal mode of production from the two non-Marxist forms of feudalism, historians like John Haldon have relabeled the last type as the tributary mode of production.

The problem here is apparent: while there are similarities between the three varieties of feudalism, unless we engage in careful delineation, it is easy to pick and choose a characteristic from any or all of the three to form a catch-all feudalism of an idealized medieval past.

Dean, for example, quotes analysis from all three groups to define her idea: Marc Bloch and Joseph Strayer appear to discuss a feudal society (form 1), Susan Reynolds shows up to note that medievalists have debated whether to use the term (form 2), while Perry Anderson (among others) is used to discuss the feudal mode of production (form 3).

If we combine all three understandings of the original feudalism to create a picture of neofeudalism, the idea becomes unmoored from such conceptual definitions. It ends up as a transhistorical (and indeed ahistorical) idea, fit for a new purpose in the present.

Feudalism in Present Debates

This generic concept of feudalism suggests a lack of progress and a return to a less advanced society with more inequality, fewer freedoms, less property ownership for non-elites, and less mobility into the elite class. These transformations appear both in Marxist ideologies — as a move backward from capitalism to feudalism — and in liberal critiques — as the failure of a progressive narrative that has stalled and gone into reverse. Our aspirational future, whether consisting of socialism or a looser form of progress, has receded from view.

Yet few of these changes are necessarily linked to feudalism. Tech barons can offer fealty to President Trump or other rulers to advance their eminently capitalist goals, which may well involve privatization, but of a capitalist form. They aim to insert themselves and their businesses into state arenas to control lower classes and bend them to their will.

Nowhere is this more obvious than with the case of Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) as proponents of state control through a capitalist ideology: efficiency, market power, and privatization are their mantra, whatever outcomes they produce. Neither Musk’s ideological justifications nor his material goals resemble the feudalism of the modern imagination, with its rigid class structures, ceremonial expressions of order, and equivocal sense of private property.

Trump himself is evidently less attached to market forces, as his single-minded pursuit of tariffs shows. Yet in this, he is at remarkable variance with much of the donor class whose members brought him to power.

Elite figures such as Musk have long dominated political power by creating their own private jurisdictions. We could be speaking about Count Robert of Artois terrorizing peasants with a pet wolf in late thirteenth-century France, a robber baron of the 1890s, or the Disney Corporation today. However, the legal and economic framework for Count Robert was entirely different than for the other two cases.

The way in which private jurisdictions function in the twenty-first century is specific to our current capitalist system, which has chosen to center economic efficiencies and profits over human flourishing and the enjoyment of life. Such choices and structures would appear grossly out of place in most regions of medieval Europe, including Count Robert’s.

Part of the problem also rests in applying a singular notion of historical feudalism, whether we equate it with disordered private justice or a world in which plunder or monopoly power is the only avenue for the extraction of wealth. Even in the Middle Ages, we cannot speak of a single “feudalism.” Although the capitalist mode of production did not structure medieval Europe and the Middle East before modernity, capital, wage labor, and markets could nonetheless dominate in specific places and times.

As Chris Wickham recently argued, capitalist relations of production played an important role in parts of the Eastern Mediterranean from ca. 950–1150 CE, even while the overarching economic system remained feudal. Orientalist-inflected perspectives on the Islamic world have resulted in its capitalist elements being downplayed. The Middle Ages have served as a blank slate for many possible ideas of feudalism, with supposedly “well-known” aspects, such as private justice and predation, combined as seems useful to serve present needs.

2020s Capitalism

Getting to grips with today’s version of capitalism does not require us to fall back on a caricature of medieval feudalism, even if certain elements do appear similar. Private jurisdictional power has certainly exploded over the last several decades as massive corporations have expanded their reach into new spheres of life. At the same time, we should remember that even the most neoliberal state remains vastly more powerful and far-reaching in its influence than its pre-modern forebears.

Countries today may appear weak in comparison to the stronger states and public realms of the mid-twentieth century. Yet those cases represented a high point in public power, trade union mobilization, and redistributive policy, not the norm against which we should measure today’s capitalism.

We are dealing with a transformation within capitalism rather than a transition from capitalism. As tech platforms have created ever more precise data, they have simultaneously required larger capital injections to become viable and, eventually, turn a profit. Some have become rent-seeking, like Google, while others have purchased vast swathes of real estate.

Instead of creating new products, they destroy their competitors and existing markets to gain ever greater returns, encouraging investors to prop up loss-making ventures on the promise of supposedly secure future income. While Dean is correct about these changes in her work, none of this constitutes a new mode of production. It is, rather, a change in how capital works.

If it was the norm half a century ago for people to go in person to a community hall where they could buy and sell used clothing once a month, Facebook’s Marketplace fulfills a similar role every day by capturing the used clothing market through efficiency. But Facebook simultaneously uses the collected data to sell new products, rendering the consumer and their attention a secondary product to be sold to advertisers and content producers.

This practice owes much to modern psychological models developed by advertisers and tech companies and has nothing to do with feudal relations. Shoshana Zuboff’s The Age of Surveillance Capitalism has conceptualized this extractive, data-driven business model as representing ever greater capitalist colonization of the domain of private life and the private self. This is a much more stimulating idea than that of techno- or neofeudalism.

We do not need the concept of feudalism, in any of its variants or forms, to explain the ongoing problems of our respective states and systems. The appeal to archaic models to explain contemporary changes is a morbid symptom of an age in which visions of a better future have been replaced with oppressive fears of backsliding and regression. Things do get worse as well as better, but it gives too much credit to capitalism, in its various forms, to imagine it as the antithesis of monopoly power, the private corruption of justice, and the political rule of corporate elites.

Capitalists have often defined capitalism’s own ideal form against an image of “old world” feudalism, not least in the post-independence United States. We must not take these deeply ideological perspectives at face value. We are not regressing into the system from which capitalism once emerged: we are witnessing a new and dangerous transformation that is internal to capitalism itself.

#capitalisme #idéologie #théorie_politique #GAFAM #trumpisme #impérialisme

Le procureur en chef de la Cour pénale internationale a perdu l’accès à sa messagerie électronique, et ses comptes bancaires ont été gelés.

Trump’s sanctions on ICC prosecutor have halted tribunal’s work
►https://apnews.com/article/icc-trump-sanctions-karim-khan-court-a4b4c02751ab84c09718b1b95cbd5db3

The International Criminal Court ’s chief prosecutor has lost access to his email, and his bank accounts have been frozen.

The Hague-based court’s American staffers have been told that if they travel to the U.S. they risk arrest.

Some nongovernmental organizations have stopped working with the ICC and the leaders of one won’t even reply to emails from court officials.

Those are just some of the hurdles facing court staff since U.S. President Donald Trump in February slapped sanctions on its chief prosecutor, Karim Khan, according to interviews with current and former ICC officials, international lawyers and human rights advocates.

ICC Set Plan to Charge Netanyahu Just After Prosecutor Was Accused of Sexual Assault

▻https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/icc-netanyahu-prosecutor-sexual-assault-israel-gaza-d9bedee3

Archivé ici  :
▻https://archive.ph/fbwjP

Où le Wall Street Journal nous apprend que le procureur de la CPI Karim Khan est un serial violeur qui a fait venir une de ses jeunes assistantes dans sa chambre pour se jeter sur elle, lui arracher ses vêtements, la violer (sans capote, on a tous les détails), et ce à de très nombreuses reprises, à l’hôtel ou chez lui, à La Haye, New York, Bogota, Caracas, Paris, au Congo, au Chad et sans doute dans tous les autres pays du monde. La malheureuse s’est toujours laissé faire et n’a jamais rien dit car sa mère ayant le cancer, elle avait peur de se faire virer et ne plus pouvoir payer le traitement.

Et finalement, lorsqu’elle a révélé l’histoire, Khan a lancé dans la foulée des mandats d’arrêts contre les responsables israéliens à la grande surprise des US et d’Israël qui ne s’en doutaient pas une seule seconde, juste pour faire diversion contre ces accusations. Il a même outrageusement prétendu que le ralentissement de la fourniture l’aide humanitaire à Gaza ne serait pas une simple conséquence totalement involontaire de la guerre, mais une tactique du gouvernement israélien.

La victime a par la suite refusé de collaborer avec les enquêteurs, car étant tellement anti-israélienne, elle préférait ne pas nuire au procureur pendant son enquête contre Netanyahou.

Apparemment, la presse française ne veut pas mordre à l’hameçon, je n’y trouve aucun article relayant ces nouvelles... j’avoue que ça me fait presque mal de devoir le reconnaître  ! Heureusement, on a quand même  :
▻https://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/israel-en-guerre/artc-karim-khan-accuse-d-agression-sexuelle-le-mandat-contre-netanyahou-sera
▻https://fr.timesofisrael.com/le-wsj-detaille-les-allegations-dagression-sexuelle-a-lencontre-de

Le grand accaparement | Revue Esprit
▻https://esprit.presse.fr/article/sylvie-matelly-et-arnaud-orain/le-grand-accaparement-45927

Les premières mesures économiques de l’administration #Trump, entre relèvement des #droits de #douane, #accaparement des #ressources et accès inégal au commerce #maritime, signalent que le vent de la #mondialisation_libérale a tourné. Sylvie Matelly, économiste, directrice de l’Institut Jacques Delors, autrice avec Bastien Nivet de L’Europe peut-elle faire face à la mondialisation ?1 et Arnaud Orain, économiste, directeur d’études à l’École des hautes études en sciences sociales, auteur du Monde confisqué2, interrogent les racines de ce basculement, et ses conséquences.

(...)

Nous entrons à nouveau dans un monde où les règles de la #mondialisation #libérale ne servent plus les gagnants d’hier (#Allemagne, #États-Unis). Ces derniers souhaitent donc remettre en cause les règles du jeu, c’est-à-dire refusent la #théorie des #avantages_comparatifs de #Ricardo

(...)

via ▻https://mastodon.social/@Le_M_Poireau/114502113858092117

#US #popularity collapses worldwide in wake of #trump’s return
▻https://www.politico.eu/article/usa-popularity-collapse-worldwide-trump-return

— Permalink

#china #softpower #influence

L’allemand SAP supprime ses programmes de diversité pour se plier à l’administration Trump
▻https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/l-allemand-sap-supprime-ses-programmes-de-diversite-pour-se-plier-a-l-admin

Le géant allemand des logiciels SAP va supprimer plusieurs de ses mesures d’inclusion et de diversité pour se plier à l’administration Trump, a indiqué un de ses porte-parole ce dimanche 11 mai, confirmant une information de presse. Selon un mail interne consulté par le journal Handelsblatt, SAP va abandonner son objectif d’atteindre 40% de femmes parmi ses employés.

Les quotas de femmes dans les postes de direction ne seront plus appliqués aux États-Unis, où SAP emploie 17.000 personnes, soit 16% de sa masse salariale, et a réalisé près d’un tiers de son chiffre d’affaires en 2024. Par ailleurs, l’entreprise basée à Walldorf ne prendra plus en compte la diversité des sexes comme critère de rémunération de son directoire.

Son département dédié à la diversité et à l’inclusion va aussi perdre son autonomie pour être fusionné avec un autre. Dans un communiqué paru vendredi, le groupe côté au Dax à la Bourse de Francfort « s’engage à créer un lieu de travail inclusif » tout en « se conform[ant] pleinement aux exigences légales dans chaque pays où elle opère ».