Migration researcher Jochen Oltmer: “Labor migration has always existed”
In
conversation Jochen Oltmer researches the history of labor migration to
Germany, from the Huguenots to the present day. A conversation about
historical migration movements, the shortage of skilled workers – and
so-called “poverty migration”
by Sascha Lübbe
[This
article posted on 6/2/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.freitag.de/autoren/der-freitag/migrationsforscher-jochen-oltmer-arbeitsmigration-hat-es-immer-schon-gegeben.]
Labor migration to Germany has a history: Italian guest workers in the 1960s
"The
labor shortage in the countryside is becoming increasingly noticeable,
and it is becoming more and more difficult to find local workers; on the
other hand, the demand for migrant workers, mainly foreigners, is
increasing. (...)
There are abuses in the treatment and
accommodation of workers, in their sleeping and living quarters. In many
cases, even the most basic regulations and protective measures in terms
of morality and hygiene are disregarded. (...) The legislature takes a
defensive position towards workers immigrating from abroad, seeking to
protect the interests of the homeland and to tolerate immigration as a
temporary necessity to replace the labor force."
These
sentences are around 100 years old, taken from the dissertation
“Foreign Migrant Workers in German Agriculture” from 1914. The author,
Andreas Mytkowicz, describes the working and living conditions of
Polish-speaking people who came to Germany to work in the fields – to
compensate for the lack of local workers. The parallels with today are
obvious. Even
then, foreigners were taking on work for which there were not enough
people in Germany. Even then, they were living under sometimes
precarious, exploitative conditions. A conversation with the historian
Jochen Oltmer about the history of German labor migration.
The gap between the rich
and poor in Germany is widening. The broad middle class that once
characterized our country and supported our society is eroding
der Freitag: Mr. Oltmer, how long has there been migration to Germany?
Jochen
Oltmer: There has always been geographical mobility for the purpose of
employment in the area that is now Germany, usually limited to small and
medium distances. Transportation was expensive. For a long time, people
who had to leave their home for work were therefore usually on foot.
One
of the first major migratory movements was that of the Huguenots in the
17th century. Protestants who were persecuted in their homeland,
France, which was predominantly Catholic, and fled to Prussia. What kind
of people were they?
Many
specialized craftsmen, merchants, officers. In Prussia, they often
worked in the emerging luxury segment. They made gloves and hats, wove
silk, built furniture. In doing so, they were mainly in contact with the
social elite, who spoke French.
Many
Huguenots were “skilled workers”, as we would say today. Their
integration was therefore long considered to be relatively problem-free.
That's
true. But there were also conflicts. The Huguenots were exempt from
taxes, they received building land and favorable loans. This privileged
status was also viewed critically.
In the 19th century, the focus shifted towards the east. The main arrivals were Polish-speaking people.
On
the one hand, there were the so-called Ruhr Poles. People from the
mining areas of Upper Silesia, but also from East and West Prussia, who
moved to the mining areas of the Ruhr region because of the higher
wages. On the other hand, there were Polish-speaking people from abroad,
from Russia and Austria-Hungary, who came to Germany at harvest time.
They met with considerable resistance here, especially from the
political elite.
Why?
They
feared that they would strengthen the Polish minority in the country
too much. For this reason, Polish-speaking agricultural workers were
also subject to a compulsory return policy. After the harvest, they had
to leave the country again. These conditions did not apply to other
groups, such as Italians and Dutch people, who were working in German
brickworks, in mining and in industry at the same time.
What
is often overlooked in the discussion about migration: Germany, or
rather the area that became the German Empire in 1871, was itself a
country of emigration for a time, especially in the 19th century.
This
article is free of charge. However, independent and critical journalism
needs support. We would therefore be delighted if you subscribed to
Freitag and helped to maintain a diverse media landscape. We would like
to thank you in advance for your support!
Test it now for free
The
German population had grown enormously in the 19th century, almost
tripling, and this was out of proportion to the employment
opportunities. Over six million people emigrated across the Atlantic at
that time, 90 percent of them to the USA, where they formed the largest
immigrant group for a while. The development ended with the American
economic crisis of 1893, which was a significant turning point for the
USA. In the meantime, the situation in Germany had changed: Industry
had grown, agriculture had been modernized. There was now a shortage of
labor. Germany went from being a country of emigration to a country of
immigration. Before the outbreak of the First World War, 1.2 million
people from abroad were working in Germany.
One
of the most significant migration phases in Germany began in 1955 with
the recruitment agreement with Italy. Further agreements with other
countries followed. An exception?
Germany
was not the first or only industrialized country in Europe to conclude
this type of agreement. By the mid-1950s, almost all European
industrialized nations had negotiated agreements with southern European
countries. Italy, for example, had already concluded other agreements
with other countries before the agreement with Germany.
By
the time the so-called recruitment stop was introduced in 1973, 14
million people had come to Germany. Unlike today's migrant workers, the
so-called guest workers in Germany at that time were also permanently
employed by large companies, and many initially worked alongside German
colleagues. And yet it was difficult for them to gain a foothold in
society. There were no language courses, and the workers were initially
housed in separate barracks. Why?
Because
it was assumed that their stay would be limited. This applies to all
parties involved, including the sending countries. They hoped that the
people would return with new know-how and boost the domestic economy.
But by the end of the 1960s at the latest, it was clear that the people
were staying in Germany. They had built up social relationships here,
while the economic prospects in their home countries were not improving.
More articles on the subject
Exploitation, wage dumping, illegal employment: the dirty foundations of the German economy
Lucian
works hard on a construction site, Samim is a truck driver, Petar
cleans slaughtering machines – without their work, the German economy
would collapse. Nevertheless, they are tricked and forced to work
illegally. About exploitation as a system
By Sascha Lübbe
“Just because we do this hard work doesn't mean we're third-class citizens”
Mariana* is 72, comes from Bulgaria and had to fight in court to get paid for her work as a carer for the elderly in Germany
By Freitag
Anti-Semitism at the Documenta: A mental void
How can the international art show hold a dialogue on anti-Semitism without it seeming like a German educational measure?
By Hannes Klug
How was this received in German society?
No
one had seriously considered the prospect of these people staying. But
now they were there and seemed to be causing costs: more daycare places,
more school places, more apartments were needed. Only now did the
discussion begin about what immigration actually means for German
society. This also involved its self-image: the Federal Republic,
generally perceived as homogeneous, had become more colorful. Societies
that see themselves as homogeneous generally perceive immigration as a
threat. In such cases, migration is sometimes allowed, but attempts are
made to prevent settlement.
This
also applied to the so-called contract workers in the GDR. People from
socialist brother states such as Vietnam, Mozambique or Angola. Their
stay was limited to five years, they were not allowed to bring their
families with them, and women who became pregnant had to have an
abortion or were deported.
GDR
society saw itself as extremely homogeneous. The government treated
anyone who had not been socialized in the country with suspicion. They
feared that he or she could disrupt the political order.
You say that the majority society's view of certain migrant groups is changing.
Yes.
In the 1950s and 1960s, for example, there were lively debates about
Italian immigrants, with a lot of talk about crime and sexuality. At the
same time, Italy became a popular destination for Germans. Migration
from other countries increased rapidly, and new immigrants were now
perceived as particularly foreign. Italians were now seen as an
enrichment.
What about migration from Eastern Europe?
Even
before the eastward expansion, in the 1990s, many people from Poland
came to Germany to work. The media reported a lot about them. They were
mostly classified as illegal and criminal. This was associated with
strong political defense mechanisms. Later, people from Romania and
Bulgaria came to the public's attention. There was a lot of discussion
about “poverty migration” from both countries and “immigration into the
social systems”. The
discussion ended in 2015 because there was a more pressing issue: the
increased number of refugees. Romanian and Bulgarian workers only
reappeared in the media in the wake of the corona pandemic.
Jochen
Oltmer (born 1965) is a professor at the Institute for Migration
Research and Intercultural Studies at the University of Osnabrück. He
has written many books on migration, most recently Die Grenzen der EU.
Europäische Integration, “Schengen” und die Kontrolle der Migration
Selenskyj: “We see the Russians, but we can't reach them”
War
In an exclusive interview with the British newspaper The Guardian,
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy talks about Joe Biden's decision
to allow US weapons to be used against targets in Russia. However, this
is not enough
by Katharine Viner, Luke Harding, Shaun Walker, Nick Hopkins
The Guardian
[This
interview posted on 6/2/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.freitag.de/autoren/the-guardian/wolodymyr-selenskyj-wir-sehen-die-russen-aber-koennen-sie-nicht-erreichen.]
Selenskyj on the Russian side: “I think sometimes they just laugh”
In
the wide-ranging interview in Kiev, the Ukrainian president said the
White House's indecision had cost lives and he urged the US president to
overcome his concerns about a possible nuclear “escalation” with
Moscow.
On
Thursday evening, it was announced that the US had taken a small but
symbolic step after months of pressure, allowing the Kiev military to
use some US-made weapons inside Russia for the first time to defend the
city of Kharkiv. In
his interview with the Guardian, however, Zelenskyy made it clear that
he wanted to be in a position to use “powerful” long-range weapons that
could hit targets deep inside Russian territory – a red line that the
White House is not willing to give up. The US, he said, needed to
“believe in us more”.
Without
this green light, other allies such as the UK might not allow Ukraine
to use its long-range weapons. “Believe us, we have to react. They
understand nothing but force. We are not the first and not the last
target,” he said about Russia. “I think it is absolutely illogical to
have [Western] weapons and to see the killers, the terrorists who kill
us, on the Russian side. I
think sometimes they just laugh at this situation,” he said. “It's as
if they are hunting for them. Hunting for people. They understand that
we can see them, but we can't reach them”.
“Putin is not crazy, he is dangerous”
Selenskyj said in the interview:
New US weapons have not yet arrived in sufficient quantities to
equip additional Ukrainian brigades in the northeast, where Russia is on
the march.
He said that Vladimir Putin was similar to Adolf Hitler: “Putin is
not crazy. He is dangerous, which is much more frightening.”
He had asked former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to lobby
Donald Trump ahead of a vote in the US Congress in April to authorize
$61 billion in aid for Ukraine, which was rejected by the right-wing
Republicans.
British Labor leader Keir Starmer, whom he met in Kiev last year,
was a “good guy”. After a pause, he added: “Rishi [Sunak] is a good guy
too.”
Selenskyj's
comments came as the Biden administration on Thursday relaxed its
longstanding policy that prohibited Ukraine from using US weapons
against targets in Russia. It granted Ukraine permission to fire back –
but only near Kharkiv, where Moscow has launched a new offensive. The
decision allows Ukraine to use the Himars artillery supplied by the US
against Russian soldiers and command and control centers. Zelensky's
press secretary, Serhii Nykyforov, welcomed the US move. He told the
Guardian: “This will significantly improve our ability to counter
Russian attempts to push across the border.”
The
White House, however, insisted that nothing had changed in its policy
of banning deeper strikes into Russia. Ukraine would still not be able
to use the Atacms long-range missile system within Russia, it said.
Long-range missiles on Russia?
In
a speech at the presidential office, Zelenskyy made it clear that he
wanted to use long-range weapons such as the Storm Shadow missiles
manufactured in the United Kingdom. He said that despite reports to the
contrary, the United Kingdom had not given its “full permission” to do
so. It is unlikely that Thursday's decision will change this position.
In
reality, Downing Street is waiting for the Americans, said Zelensky.
“We have raised this issue twice. We have not received any confirmation
from him [David Cameron, the foreign secretary],” he said. A final
decision by the UK and other partners would depend on a “consensus”,
with the position in Washington being crucial, Zelensky said: “You know
how it works.”
Joe
Biden has long been concerned about the risks of a direct nuclear
conflict with Moscow. The US president is unlikely to attend a peace
summit in Switzerland next month, which Zelensky organized. When asked
if he felt abandoned by the US and its leadership, he replied: “I think
they need to believe in us more.” Ten countries had signaled their
support for the removal of the “red lines”. French
President Emmanuel Macron had pledged his support on Wednesday, saying
Ukraine could use French Scalp long-range missiles against enemy Russian
military installations.
A dialogue takes time, but time is short in a war
Last
week, Russia killed at least 25 civilians in Kharkiv with guided
missiles. However, Ukraine has not been allowed to fire on Russia, said
Zelensky. It also does not have enough conventional weapons to equip
reserve brigades that could be used to drive out the Russians.
“Nobody
is blaming anybody,” he said. “We are where we are. We are fighting,
and we are at war, not at the beginning. Therefore, we have to find a
way out of this situation every day.” Zelenskyy noted that Western
countries, which are at peace, have “different priorities” and
understandably do not share Ukraine's sense of existential urgency. This
means that a “dialogue” instead of action can be frustrating. “For us,
time is our life,” he said. “If you don't go [to a bunker] in a minute,
you can be dead. That's why the attitude to time is completely
different.”
More articles on the topic
Olaf Scholz, Anton Hofreiter and the war: learning from Willy Brandt
The
Green Party's Anton Hofreiter and Roderich Kiesewetter of the CDU are
putting pressure on SPD Chancellor Olaf Scholz to supply weapons that
can reach targets in Russia. This would hardly be compatible with the
SPD's posters for the European elections
By Michael Jäger
Ukraine war: If Olaf Scholz wants realpolitik, he won't be able to avoid a “back channel”
Willy
Brandt's new Ostpolitik was dependent on back-channel contacts with
Moscow. They still seem advisable today, so that realistic approaches do
not immediately fall prey to hysterical denunciation. Will Olaf Scholz
use a secret channel?
By Wolfgang Michal
Russia feels it is at war with the West
The
war is being waged in response to the fact that Russia is facing the
“collective West”, according to Russian sources. How much influence does
the Kremlin still have on the debate?
By Nikita Gerasimov
The role of the International Court of Justice in the Gaza war
by Norman Paech
[This article posted on June 6, 2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=116291.]
Colonial
violence and the path to justice. The war in Gaza has been raging for
over seven months now and has long since reached the incomprehensible
dimensions of genocide. All initiatives to end this horror by political
means have so far failed. And now, as so often, peace is hoped for from
the judiciary as the ultima ratio. By Norman Paech[*].
For
decades, it was kept out of the conflict between Israelis and
Palestinians, just like the UN. But now the courageous initiative of
South Africa has broken the spell and received an unexpected positive
response worldwide – except from Israel and its cronies in the USA and
Germany. Since
the preliminary ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on
February 26 of this year, it has already taken a position on South
Africa's complaint against Israel three times. The first two rulings did
not persuade Israel to change its conduct of the war as demanded, and
the third decision did not either, as the bombing of Rafah immediately
after the court's decision to cease the offensive proves. The
question therefore arises as to what significance international
jurisdiction has in preventing and managing wars. And this may then lead
to the question of how Germany, or rather the German government, should
behave towards such a court, in other words, what significance
international law has for its foreign policy.
Israel,
at least, has ignored international law for decades – but without
consequences. Israel is the country most condemned by the organs of the
United Nations, in particular by the General Assembly, but also by the
Human Rights Committee. All Israeli governments have refused to accept
any resolution and have reacted at most with accusations of
anti-Semitism. International jurisdiction has never been able to
intervene, simply because there were no plaintiffs. It is only in recent
years that this situation has changed fundamentally. There are currently four court cases directly or indirectly pending against Israel.
At the turn of the year 2008/2009, there were significant Israeli
attacks on Gaza. In the short space of ten days, over 2,000 people were
killed by the Israeli army. Palestine immediately applied to the
International Criminal Court (ICC) for an investigation into this attack
on Palestine. The
legal basis for this is the international criminal law, the so-called
Rome Statute, which has existed since 1998. The court in question, the
International Criminal Court (ICC), was established in 2000 in The
Hague, where it then began its work in 2002.
At first, nothing happened after this request to investigate the attacks of 2008/2009. However,
when the Israeli army launched a second military offensive against Gaza
in 2014, the so-called Protective Edge, which lasted 50 days and
claimed well over 2,000 lives and left over 10,000 injured, the
International Criminal Court, i.e. its chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda,
became active. Investigations
were now launched into war crimes, crimes against humanity, and above
all into the settlement activities since 2014.
In 2019, Fatou Bensouda reported on her preliminary investigations
and stated that they had been completed. Then, in 2021, two years later,
the International Court of Justice also declared itself competent.
Palestine had been a state party since 2015 and had recognized the Rome
Statute. The question was whether the active legitimization was
sufficient for this? It
had taken two years for the Court to recognize the active legitimation,
even though Palestine is still not recognized as a state in the UN. The
Court considered the observer status to be sufficient for the active
legitimation before the court, which is why the proceedings could now be
transferred to official investigations. Article 7 of the Rome Statute,
which defines apartheid and segregation as crimes against humanity, also
played a role here.
For a long time, however, nothing happened. This was partly because
Fatou Bensouda was replaced by a new chief prosecutor, the Englishman
Karim Khan, in 2021. He did nothing at first, until 32 UN special
rapporteurs complained to the UN and the International Criminal Court in
March 2023 about why no official investigation had been carried out so
far. It
should be noted that the position of Chief Prosecutor is a political
one, as is the case in the national legal systems of European states.
Every prosecutor is dependent on his or her government. The ICC's Chief
Prosecutor is also dependent on the dominant states. Khan was the
preferred candidate of the UK and the US, which in fact have no interest
in an investigation against Israel. That is why it took so long.
We recall that Khan suspended the ongoing investigation into war
crimes in Afghanistan against US soldiers accused of torture in Bagram
prison in September 2021, officially due to a lack of capacity and a
lack of prospects for success. He therefore limited the investigations
to the prosecution of possible war crimes by the Taliban. President
Trump had already threatened his predecessor Fatou Bensouda with
sanctions if further investigations were carried out against US
soldiers. The Mossad, with Yossi Cohen at its head, also put Bensouda
under massive pressure to drop the investigations, as the Guardian
recently revealed on May 28. The pressure on Khan will not have been
much less, as can now be concluded from the reactions in Israel and the
USA. Nevertheless,
he suddenly became active on October 7, 2023, with the Hamas attack on
Israel. He went to Rafah to open the investigation – not only against
Israel, but also against Hamas.
And now the politically surprising, but legally consistent and
necessary application for an arrest warrant against Prime Minister
Netanyahu and Defense Minister Galant, and against the three Hamas
leaders Ismail Hanyieh, Yahya Sinwar and Mohammed Deid. The relevant
chamber of the court has not yet granted the application, but the
political impact is already considerable. For
the first time, the Criminal Court is daring to issue an arrest warrant
for a head of state from the Western camp. It will have to follow
Khan's request if it does not want to lose its credibility.
Surprisingly, on January 9, 2023, the UN General Assembly called on
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to investigate the legality of
the Israeli occupation (Article 36 of the ICJ Statute). The Court was
asked three questions: What legal consequences can be identified from
the permanent violation of the Palestinians' right to self-determination
by the occupation? And secondly, what is the legal status of the
occupation? Finally,
what are the legal consequences for third countries, for example for
the Federal Republic of Germany or for France? At the end of February
2024, hearings were held before the Court of 52 states that had
expressed an interest in the proceedings in order to submit their legal
assessment to the Court. The most interesting was probably the Chinese
one, which emphasized the right of the Palestinian people to defend
themselves against the occupation, even with the use of force.
In this context, I would like to refer to an advisory opinion that
the International Court of Justice had already issued in 2004, also at
the request of the UN General Assembly, the so-called Wall Advisory
Opinion. The Court was asked to examine whether the wall or fence that
Israel has built and is still building around the occupied territories
is lawful. The judges published their advisory opinion in 2004, which is
not binding, however. But the language is very clear. The
wall is illegal to the extent that it cuts off Palestinian territory.
The Israelis had not only built the wall on their own territory, but 80
percent of it was on Palestinian territory. Every state can build a wall
around itself. But of course it cannot at the same time appropriate
foreign territory. The court ordered Israel to dismantle the wall and to
pay compensation to the expropriated owners. Israel has not done
anything about it. However,
since the International Court of Justice has no means of enforcement,
this opinion is now in limbo. The Court has determined that the majority
of the wall is illegal, but it cannot do anything to enforce its
opinion.
The decision is well known. The 15 male and two female judges called
for concrete humanitarian measures to prevent genocide. But that was
all. They did not order an end to the hostilities, which South Africa
had demanded. And yet, just a week before, on January 15, UN
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had called for an immediate
ceasefire. However, the court did not want to follow suit. There was also no dissenting vote, i.e. a minority vote calling for a ceasefire.
As was to be feared, Israel has ignored this decision of the ICJ as
well and has mercilessly continued to pursue its goal of destroying
Hamas, with terrible consequences for the civilian population. South
Africa has repeated its demand for a ceasefire three times. However, the
court felt that it had already said everything necessary in its
decision of February 26. In
a further application, South Africa demanded that the offensive in
Rafah be stopped. In its decision on March 28, the court recognized the
drastic deterioration of the situation in Gaza, which is endangering all
areas of life in a way that is without comparison. It ordered further
urgent measures of humanitarian aid, but without deciding on a stop to
the violence. According
to media reports from the Netherlands, seven judges are said to have
voted for an immediate ceasefire this time. The chairmanship of the
court had changed from the career lawyer from the US State Department,
Joan E. Donogue, to the Lebanese Nawaf Salam. This can be decisive if an
eighth judge is added. Now, on May 10, South Africa has made a third
urgent appeal to the court to demand an immediate stop to the offensive
against Rafah. South
Africa used the public hearing on May 16 to once again describe in
detail the horrific atrocities and the excessive, unbridled violence of
the Israeli army in the south of the Gaza Strip. On May 24, the court
decided to grant the request and ruled by a vote of 13 to 2 that Israel
must immediately stop its military offensive. However,
the praise for this decision is mainly directed at the South African
government, which, with its courage and tenacity, not only drove the
court to this decision, but also drew the attention of the whole world
to these crimes in order to increase the pressure on Israel to finally
end almost 60 years of colonial oppression.
However this terrible massacre in Gaza continues, and hopefully
comes to an end soon, the International Court of Justice will remain
involved in both proceedings concerning the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. And the question arises: how will it deal with it?
The ICJ has a long and varied history of dealing with colonial
conflicts, which may also provide some pointers for this conflict. We
have to go back to the early days of the anti-colonial liberation
movements, more precisely to the year 1960, when the UN General Assembly
adopted Resolution 1514 (XV) on the “Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples” by a large majority (89+ 9- 9./.) on
December 14, after long deliberations. It
declared: “All peoples have the right to self-determination... The
subjection of peoples to foreign subjugation, domination and
exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights.” And on
the principle of territorial sovereignty: “Any attempt to destroy the
national unity of a country, in whole or in part, is incompatible with
the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.” This
manifesto of anti-colonialism had become possible because numerous new
and young states had joined the UN, 16 African states alone in 1960.
During the deliberations on Resolution 1514, Liberia and Ethiopia
filed a complaint against South Africa in The Hague in November 1960.
They wanted to put an end to its administration of South West Africa.
This country had come under brutal German colonial rule in 1884, with
massacres of the Herero and Nama peoples, which the German government,
after much hesitation, now recognized as genocide. When
German rule ended in 1919, the League of Nations turned the territory
into a British mandate, placing it under the administration of the Union
of South Africa. It
remained there even after South Africa gained independence in 1931 and
the League of Nations was replaced by the UN in 1945. However, the
General Assembly was increasingly outraged by the apartheid policy that
South Africa was also applying to the mandate territory. It commissioned
a total of three expert opinions from the International Court of
Justice to examine the rights of the people and the UN's control options
over the territory. However, the results were not satisfactory to Liberia and Ethiopia, who therefore filed a lawsuit.
The court first had to deal with South Africa's objection that the
two plaintiff countries had no legitimate legal interest in the
treatment of the inhabitants of a third country. But with a narrow
majority of 8 to 7 votes, the court rejected the objection and
recognized the right of the plaintiff countries to bring the case. That
was in 1962. However, when the deliberations on the final decision were
due in 1968, the bench of judges had changed. The leader of the
minority opinion, the Australian judge Sir Percy Spender, had been
elected President of the Court and he managed to put so much pressure on
the Pakistani judge Sir Zafarullah Khan that the latter finally
withdrew as a result of prejudice. Only
14 judges were therefore left to take part in the decision, which ended
in a 7-7 tie. Since the chairman's vote is decisive in this case, the
complaint was rejected. A clear political step backwards and a
significant defeat for the UN. A loss of confidence in the court and
apparently further proof of the powerlessness and uselessness of the
judiciary.
But the story did not end there. The General Assembly immediately
reaffirmed its 1960 Resolution 1514 and terminated South Africa's
mandate. The Security Council called on the government to withdraw from
South West Africa. But South Africa refused. So the Security Council
turned to the ICJ again and requested an advisory opinion on the legal
consequences of South Africa's refusal. It
was now 1971 and the bench had changed again. Sir Percy Spender had
retired and his rival Sir Zafarullah Khan had become President. The
court now ruled that the South African administration was illegal and
that it had to leave Namibia immediately. All member states were called
upon to end all support for the occupying forces. The court's
credibility had been restored.
This brief excursion into the history of decolonization shows two
things. The fight for justice is highly political and can only be won if
the pressure of the people forces the norms of justice in the direction
of liberation and equality. The long struggle for the right of
self-determination of the people is an instructive example of this. It
is mainly conducted in the UN. The
courts and tribunals are merely the regulated battleground that
replaces the largely uncontrollable theater of war of armed force in
order to achieve progress in the areas of liberation, equality and
peace. But they too are highly political institutions that are
constantly being fought over. Incidentally, the German government has
just lost a battle with France over a vacant seat on the International
Criminal Court. Germany will no longer be represented there in the
coming years.
Nicaragua, once a Spanish colony, became independent as early as
1821, but for decades it suffered under the anti-communist and pro-US
Somoza family. When they were overthrown in the Sandinista revolution in
1979, the USA did not hesitate to use its favorite instruments of
blockade and intervention, supplying the so-called Contras with money,
weapons and training. When
the USA began to mine Nicaragua's ports and violate its airspace, the
Sandinistas planned to file a lawsuit with the ICJ in 1983. Their allies
Cuba and the Soviet Union were against this, as they did not trust the
court in The Hague. But
after extensive secret consultations with other countries, precise
analyses of the court and the balance of power, they filed a complaint
with the ICJ at the beginning of 1984 for violation of the prohibition
of the use of force under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter. The
USA defended itself with collective self-defense to protect El Salvador
from violence from the neighboring state. However,
the court, under the chairmanship of Judge Elias from Nigeria, ordered
provisional measures as early as May 1984, such as the lifting of the
blockade and the removal of mines from the ports, and the observance of
Nicaragua's sovereignty. In November 1984, the court confirmed its
jurisdiction over this case. Only
the US judge Schwebel voted against it, saying that it would undermine
justice, and the US withdrew from the process – after the judgment,
which was to be passed in the absence of the US, they also left the
court. They never rejoined it.
It took the court only two years until, in the summer of 1986, the
new chairman, Justice Singh, announced the verdict by a vote of 12 to 3,
condemning the United States on a total of 11 counts for the illegal
use of force, violation of Nicaragua's sovereignty, training, arming and
financing of the Contra forces, to cease their activities and to pay
compensation. It rejected the US argument of collective defense. The
USA rejected the judgment with the remarkable argument that the court
had no jurisdiction over its actions and that this was exclusively a
matter for the USA. In short, the USA's actions against Nicaragua were
not the court's concern – a view that is familiar from the “political
question doctrine” in the USA, which largely exempts government action
from judicial review. The
Ugandan judge Sebutinde, now Vice President of the Court, also rejected
all decisions on the complaint of South Africa against Israel on the
same grounds.
Nicaragua immediately turned to the UN Security Council and insisted
that the decision of the International Court of Justice be binding. On
October 28, 1986, the USA naturally vetoed the planned decision of the
Security Council, while France, Great Britain and Thailand abstained. Undaunted,
Nicaragua turned to the General Assembly and received overwhelming
support for its claim, with 94 votes in favor and only three against
(the USA, Israel and El Salvador). A year later, on November 12, 1987,
the General Assembly reiterated its demand that the USA comply “fully
and immediately” with the ICJ ruling. The
USA had left the court, but largely ceased its interventions against
Nicaragua. It never paid any compensation and Nicaragua has only
recently submitted a declaration to the UN Secretary-General, in which
it still demands compliance with the 1986 judgment. The original claim
of 12 billion US dollars has now risen to more than 31 billion dollars
with interest.
The success at the court in 1986 undoubtedly prompted Nicaragua to
follow South Africa's example and file a lawsuit against a state, the
Federal Republic of Germany, which, like no other state after the USA,
unconditionally supports Israel in a murderous war. Just
recently, on May 16, the lawyers of South Africa presented in a renewed
public hearing the hardly imaginable excesses of violence with
expulsion and so-called extermination zones in the Gaza Strip, which
make the accusation of genocide seem so justified. The
two historic lawsuits have also shown, however, that the last bastions
of colonialism can only be overcome with the additional support of the
states in the UN – and these include the occupation of Palestine by
Israel.
Back to the current proceedings before the International Court of
Justice. It has ruled quickly and, for the time being, exonerated
Germany of the charge of supporting genocide on May 2. It has rejected
Nicaragua's urgent application to order a stop to German arms
deliveries, since export licenses for military equipment have declined
sharply this year. However,
it also rejected the German government's request to dismiss Nicaragua's
complaint for aiding and abetting genocide. Germany therefore remains
under indictment until a final decision is made on this request. How
long this will take is uncertain.
The fact that this war in Gaza is so difficult for our society to
understand as one of the last colonial wars is undoubtedly due to the
fact that Israeli propaganda about the war of survival, the fight for
the existence of Israel, has been adopted as a so-called German raison
d'état. Israel's existence may be threatened, but the threat comes from
within, from the escalating crisis and the growing contradictions in
Israeli society. And
these contradictions are essentially generated by the unnatural,
completely illegal and increasingly violent occupation. Israel's
existence is indeed not secured by the ongoing occupation, which is
becoming increasingly intolerable for both sides, but only without
occupation and with a free and equal state of Palestine as a neighbor. Such
a state without occupation could be guaranteed its existence, but a
state with occupation and the violence that goes with it cannot be
guaranteed its colonial existence.
For Germany, this realization would require a break with the
outdated cliché of the culture of remembrance that the burden of the
Holocaust forces German politics to accept the crimes of Israeli
government policy, which it would not allow any other state in the UN to
do. It has taken Israel's side before the International Court of
Justice, although it would have to take at least a neutral position due
to its contractual obligation to support the court. The
“never again” that the memory of German history repeatedly leads to
forbids the support or even the acceptance of foreign crimes, as well as
one's own crimes – a matter of course with regard to every other state,
which does not allow for double standards and thus no exception for
Israel.
[«*]
“N.P. Prof. emeritus of public law at the University of Hamburg. His
work focuses on international law, human rights, war and peace. Member
of the scientific advisory board of the International Association of
Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) and International Physicians for
the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), 2005-2009 Member of the German
Bundestag for the party DIE LINKE, norman-paech.de.
A Germany of lead: Why political illusions are our main problem
Inequality
and poverty, the exclusion of minorities, defamation of critics and
support for military violence have always existed in Germany, as in
other countries around the world, despite all the improvements and
positive developments that have been fought for from below.
But
in the last two or three decades, German politics has taken a
disastrous turn. This has been accompanied by a creeping process of
social erosion, while even the claim to social equality, democratic
strengthening of the public and the promotion of a global peace and
prosperity policy has increasingly disappeared behind mere rhetoric.
Instead of progress, there have been setbacks.
In
order to conceal the departure from general prosperity and values,
illusions were created about what actually drives politics.
Are we at the end of the Gaza war?
Biden
has presented Israel's plan for a ceasefire. Now there is great
confusion. Will Netanyahu agree to his own proposal? An analysis.
After
almost eight months of war, US President Joe Biden presented a plan for
a ceasefire in the Gaza Strip on Friday. He described three phases in
which prisoners from both sides would be released, residents would be
able to return to the north of the Gaza Strip and the reconstruction of
the devastated area would begin after the complete withdrawal of Israeli
troops.
According
to Biden, this is a proposal from Israel. Hamas has already accepted
the same conditions for a ceasefire in previous negotiations and
immediately expressed its positive attitude towards the proposal.
At
first glance, it looks good: all the relevant parties, Israel, Hamas
and the USA, are in principle behind the plan. The Gaza war could
therefore be coming to an end. But is that really the case?
The vulgar and undignified speech by the Israeli UN ambassador
With his speech to the UN General Assembly, Israel's UN ambassador Gilad Erdan has played into the hands of the Palestinians.
Guest author Professor Jeffrey Sachs is Director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University in New York.
On
May 10, the UN General Assembly voted 143 to 9 (with the remaining
members abstaining or not voting) to request that the UN Security
Council admit Palestine as a full member. During the debate preceding
the vote, Israel's UN ambassador Gilad Erdan provoked the assembly with
an undiplomatic, insulting and vulgar speech:
Neutrality is not a fair-weather option
In Switzerland, some people are calling for a reduction in neutrality when it comes to punishing “the aggressor”.
In
2002 and 2003, ABC inspectors spent months searching for “trace
elements” of uranium and for Saddam Hussein's hidden weapons. They were
not found, but a “coalition of the willing” bombed Iraq to smithereens
as a preventive measure, because with its nuclear bombs and biological
weapons, it was a threat to the West and our liberal order. Then
the astonished newspaper reader learned that the evidence of the
existence of these weapons was a fake concocted by the US secret
services. The “threat” had evaporated into thin air. And the claim that
Saddam Hussein had had a hand in 9/11 was also a lie.
No more votes for warmongers and their parties
Never
before has the danger of our country being drawn into a global war been
as great as it is now. A war that will most likely be fought with
weapons of mass destruction and will leave a completely devastated
Europe in its wake.
For
about 10 years, NATO and Russia have been waging a proxy war in
Ukraine, arming and supporting different warring parties (the West the
Kiev central government, Russia the oppressed minority in eastern
Ukraine). With the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and the
anti-Russian sanctions of the West, this war has escalated to a new
level.
Strategically,
Ukraine is now so at a disadvantage that even the delivery of alleged
“wonder weapons” such as the Taurus cruise missile cannot reverse the
trend in this war. They may be good for a few pinpricks against Russia,
but they will not be able to force the withdrawal of Russian troops –
but they are increasingly entangling Germany in a war with Russia and
making our country a target for Russian missiles.
State fanaticism and mass delusion
against forgetting
Aspects of anarchist fascism theory in Rudolf Rocker
by Jens Kastner
[This
article posted on 4/30/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet,
https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/2024/04/staatsfanatismus-und-massenwahn/.]
Anarchists
in London in 1912: Ernst Simmerling, Rudolf Rocker, Lazer Sabelinsky,
Loefler (back), Milly Witkop-Rocker, Milly Sabel (front): Photo: [1],
Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Anarchism
is anti-fascist, of course. Its theory and practice aim at the
abolition of domination, of which fascism – in a minimal definition –
must be considered one form, among others. Nevertheless, fascism was not
a central theme of anarchist theory. While
the founders of anarchism, such as Mikhail Bakunin and Voltairine de
Cleyre, had not yet been confronted with fascism, it was rarely
addressed in later writings. An exception is Rudolf Rocker's work
“Nationalism and Culture”, first published in 1937.
For
the German anarchist Rudolf Rocker (1873–1958), fascism was a form of
modern nationalism “with its state fanaticism taken to the extreme” (1).
In
his main work, Rocker deals with contemporary fascism in Italy and
Germany at various points. In doing so, he also emphasizes the economic
dimension of the rise of fascism and the support it received from big
business. However, the entire book is characterized by an
anti-economism. “There
are thousands of phenomena in history,” writes Rocker, “that cannot be
explained by purely economic reasons or by these alone.” Fascism is one
of them. He sees its foundations in certain philosophical traditions
that also go back to the Enlightenment. He describes the successes of
fascism primarily as the effects of its quasi-religious manifestations.
Philosophy and religion
According
to Rocker, Hegel's concept of the state as the bearer of the “objective
spirit” and the sole guarantor of successful coexistence is similarly
totalitarian. In
this concept, which was taken up by the fascist philosopher Giovanni
Gentile (1875–1944) in the 1930s, according to Rocker, “the love of
one's fellow human beings [...] is crushed by the greatness of the
state, which people must serve as fodder for”. The state is made by
fascists into a kind of substitute for religion, to which individual
life is subordinated.
The
initially anti-religious and, above all, anti-clerical attitude of
fascists such as Benito Mussolini therefore gave way to a religion-like
policy with a cult of personality for strategic reasons, because
long-term power could not be secured with repression and pogroms alone.
The orientation towards authoritarian leaders is certainly shared by
today's extreme right-wingers from Orbán to Trump with historical
fascism.
Structurally
related to state fetishism is the elevation of the economy as a kind of
natural law of social development, as reflected in the talk of
“objective constraints” since the triumph of neoliberalism. Rocker
writes: “Just as political fascism tries to teach people today that
they can only claim the right to live insofar as they serve the state as
fuel, so modern economic fascism tries to show the world that the
economy does not exist for the sake of people, but that people exist for
the sake of the economy and serve only the purpose of being exploited
by it. If
fascism has taken on the most terrible and inhuman forms in Germany,
this is due not least to the fact that the barbaric thoughts of German
economic theorists and traveling industrialists have, so to speak, paved
the way for it.
Rocker has already drawn attention to the flexibility of fascism in terms of content, which, as the film and political theorist Drehli Robnik recently described in “Flexible Fascism” (2), is also characteristic of the current right-wing extremists. Nationalism, anti-Semitism and – not considered by Rocker – anti-feminist tendencies are indeed integral components of fascist mobilization. They should therefore not be taken up by the left: Rocker accordingly criticized the KPD for using nationalist slogans with the aim of taking the wind out of the right-wingers' sails – a criticism that can easily be applied to many current attempts to occupy nationalism from the left. What gave the fascist movement “its substance”, however, was less the consistency of its content than, according to Rocker, “the brutality of its methods, its reckless recklessness, which did not respect any other opinion because it itself had no opinion to defend”. In the struggle for social power positions, the fascists also engaged in a “struggle for hegemony”. In these struggles for cultural dominance, they are willing to compromise in order to appear all the more uncompromising as soon as they are powerful enough.
Minority and the masses
Rocker
ultimately describes fascist movements as projects of a relatively
small political elite. “In reality, however, only the power-political
aspirations of a small minority stood behind this movement, which
understood how to exploit an exceptionally favorable situation for its
own special purposes.” The masses were suggested to be “the chosen
instrument of a higher power” and to serve “a sacred purpose that gives
their lives meaning and color. The
fascist movement's real strength lies in its roots in the masses' need
for worship. For fascism, too, is only a primitive religious mass
movement in political clothing.” According to Rocker, National Socialism
also bore ‘all the signs of a religious mass delusion’.
On
the one hand, the characterization of fascism as mass delusion has a
certain plausibility, as the mobilization successes of the extreme right
can often not be attributed to rational reasons: many voters of
historical fascisms, as well as those of Trump, Milei and the like, have
not and will not be materially rewarded for their vote. Nevertheless,
the appeal of being part of a “higher power” that would make the
respective nation great again apparently works. On the other hand,
however, there are also many profiteers who make the assessment that
fascism is based primarily on the “delusions of power of a minority”
problematic. This
is because she always conceives the majority, which is opposed to the
minority, as being exploited and seduced and thus as being innocent.
However, Rocker does not mention that many people also benefit from
fascist forms of society, are able to expand their own privileges and
enjoy the (at least symbolic) advantages of their ascribed (“people's”)
affiliation at the expense of others. This
historical, anarchist position has little to contribute to the current
debates on dominance culture and privilege. This is ultimately due to a
positive attitude towards the “people”, which Rocker shares with many
leftists.
Rocker
envisioned the “development of a world federation” that would
explicitly “ensure that the so-called colonial peoples have the same
rights and claims to their full humanity”. Like most projects of the
left, the world federation was ultimately dependent on the idea of a
“people” that was not contaminated by right-wing influences.
(1)
Page 208. All quotations, unless otherwise stated, from: Rudolf Rocker:
“Nationalism and Culture.” [1937] No place of publication given 1947,
https://mirror.anarhija.net/anarchistischebibliothek.org/mirror/r/rr/rudolf-rocker-nationalismus-und-kultur.pdf
(2)
Drehli Robnik: “Flexible Fascism. Siegfried Kracauer's Analyses of
Right-Wing Mobilizations Then and Now.” Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld
2023.
(3)
Rudolf Rocker: “Antisemitismus und Judenpogrome” [1923]. In: “Der
Syndikalist”, 5th year, no. 47,
https://www.marxists.org/deutsch/referenz/rocker/1923/xx/antisemit.htm
(4)
Cf. Olaf Kistenmacher: “Against the Spirit of Socialism. Anarchist and
Communist Criticism of Anti-Semitism in the KPD during the Weimar
Republic.” Ca Ira Verlag, Freiburg 2023.
“To submit means to lie!”
Numerous events to mark the 90th anniversary of Erich Mühsam's death in Oranienburg
[This article posted on May 29, 2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.graswurzel.net/gwr/2024/05/sich-fuegen-heisst-luegen-4/.]
Writer,
anarchist, revolutionary, free spirit, bohemian. Erich Mühsam's life,
which lasted only 56 years, was like a wild ride through political,
social and personal struggles. His ideals and his Jewish origins
ultimately became Mühsam's downfall. On the night of July 10, 1934, the
National Socialists had him murdered in the Oranienburg concentration
camp. A large program of events is being held in Oranienburg to honor him on the 90th anniversary of his death.
A
series of events, including an exhibition and a symposium, will be held
from the end of June to commemorate the writer Erich Mühsam, whose
murder by the SS in the Oranienburg concentration camp will be
commemorated for the 90th time on July 10. However, before Oranienburg
became the place of his death, the poet also had positive associations
with the city. He was in contact with the Eden fruit-growing
cooperative, which was part of the life-reform movement.
A
group of people from the cultural association Alte Mosterei Eden e.V.,
the Oranienburg Democracy Forum, the Association for the Promotion of
the Sachsenhausen Memorial and Museum and the Erich Mühsam Society have
set themselves the goal of commemorating the 90th anniversary of Erich
Mühsam's death with a series of events.
Exhibition and lecture on life and work
An
exhibition can be visited in Oranienburg Castle (municipal
administration) from June 21 to July 27, which provides information on
Erich Mühsam's life and work on more than 40 panels. The exhibition can
be seen in the gallery on the second floor of House 1 during regular
opening hours (Mon-Fri: 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.). Admission is free.
In
a talk entitled “Erich Mühsam – Writer, Anarchist, Scourge of the
Bourgeoisie”, Dr. Maurice Schuhmann will report on the life and work of
the anarchist and writer, thus bringing the exhibition to life. Original
text passages from the work will be read by actor Manuel Harder (Dt.
Theater, Berlin). June 27 at 6:30 p.m. Oranienburg City Library.
Admission free.
Multi-day symposium
A
conference lasting several days will take place from July 4 to 7, in
search of the poet's traces and will explore various questions: How did
Erich Mühsam die in the Oranienburg concentration camp? Will his memory
be sufficiently honored in the redesign of the memorial at the former
Oranienburg concentration camp? What happened to Mühsam's wife Zensl
after his murder? What
was his involvement with the life-reform movement, which included the
Eden settlement cooperative? Did Erich Mühsam himself visit Eden? These
and many other questions will be answered during an excursion to Eden on
July 7. In addition to guided tours of the Eden exhibitions and the
historical settlement grounds, a lecture will also shed light on Erich
Mühsam's relationship with the Eden settlement cooperative.
All
events of the symposium can also be attended individually. Among the
speakers: Wolfgang Haug, Uschi Otten, Dr. Siegbert Wolf, Gustav Landauer
Initiative and Klaus Trappmann. The detailed program of the symposium
and information on registration can be found at:
www.muehsam-in-oranienburg.info/Muehsam/Fachtagung
Memorial demonstration and concert
Not
to be bent was the motto of the anarchist writer and activist Erich
Mühsam, who was murdered by the SS in the Oranienburg concentration camp
90 years ago. Throughout his life, Erich Mühsam was in the front line
in the fight against paternalism, authorities and for the rights of
workers. The
organizers are using the 90th anniversary of his death as an
opportunity to remember Erich Mühsam and his work. The call reads: “We
also expect an appropriate tribute to his person in the upcoming
redesign of the memorial site ‘Oranienburg Concentration Camp’. Once
again, our republic is under massive threat from right-wing extremist
forces. It is precisely against this background that we would like to
remember Erich Mühsam and his cruel death! Let us send a clear signal on the 90th anniversary of Erich Mühsam's death!
First
callers: Democracy Forum Oranienburg, Erich Mühsam Society, Association
for the Promotion of the Memorial and Museum Sachsenhausen
A
memorial demonstration for Erich Mühsam will take place on July 6. It
will start at 3 p.m. at the Bahnhofsplatz in Oranienburg, from where we
will walk together to the memorial site of the Oranienburg concentration
camp in Berliner Straße. From 4 p.m. there will be a stage program with
music, speeches and theater.
At
8 p.m., the commemoration of Erich Mühsam will continue with a concert
at the Oranienwerk. The audience will hear poems by the author, which
Isabel Neuenfeldt will translate into accordion and song. Admission: 7
p.m. Registration via the Oranienwerk, advance ticket sales from 12
euros/8 euros (reduced): www.oranienwerk.com/veranstaltungen
All events in memory of Erich Mühsam can be found at www.muehsam-in-oranienburg.info/Muehsam
Erich Mühsam
They want total war
Crazy NATO politicians are trying to prepare us militarily and psychologically for a war against Russia.
It
started with 5,000 helmets, and now, after a good two years of war in
Ukraine, “we” have arrived at the point where German weapons are being
used to kill Russians in their own country. What's next? Who will be the
first to press the red button? The abyss is getting closer and closer.
by Sven Brajer
[This
article posted on 6/7/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/sie-wollen-den-totalen-krieg.]
“International
politics is never about democracy or human rights. It is about the
interests of states. Remember that, no matter what you are told in
history class” (Egon Bahr, 2013).
The
callousness with which Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) is tearing up the
red lines he himself drew is truly remarkable. In this respect, he is
reminiscent of his predecessor Konrad Adenauer and his legendary saying:
“What do I care about my talk of yesterday?” Now, for the first time,
he has officially allowed Ukraine to use German weapons to fire on
Russian territory. 80
years after the Red Army pushed the German occupiers out of the Soviet
Union at unimaginable cost, and 110 years after the Social Democrats
voted for the German Empire's war loans on the eve of the First World
War.
It
is striking that just one day earlier, Washington announced that the
Ukrainians would now be allowed to use US weapons against targets on
Russian territory, but only in the Kharkiv region for the time being.
For the time being. So it is clear where the wind is blowing in the
Federal Chancellery: from the west, from the Atlantic, as so often.
Because that is where the decision has now been taken to escalate. Not
only Ukraine is being sacrificed on the geopolitical chessboard of the
US administration, but the rest of Europe is also welcome to become a
battlefield, as long as the war is far enough away from their own
territory. In
the “best case”, the EU would be eliminated as an annoying economic
competitor, which could be rebuilt with US loans after a possible total
or partial destruction, as was the case after 1945.
But
fortunately we are not at that stage yet. First of all, mobilization is
needed. And that is happening right away: FDP politician and warmonger
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann has called for the 900,000 reservists in
Germany to be activated and registered as quickly as possible, just one
day after the renewed “turning point” in the chancellery. Because one thing is clear: Ivan will soon be back on the doorstep of Berlin if we don't stop him now.
The
5,000 helmets that were sent east have now become tanks and artillery.
The Federal Republic of Germany, as part of the declining West, is
cheerfully escalating in the collective of values. Others are going even
further: at the end of May, the Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke
Rasmussen allowed Ukraine to use F-16s supplied by the NATO state of
Denmark to attack military targets in Russia. For months, French President Emmanuel Macron has been ranting and raving about the deployment of French troops in Ukraine.
Napoleon
complex? Old French colonial reflexes? Maybe. But what is even more
obvious is that, just like the traffic lights here in Switzerland,
Macron is backed into a corner in terms of domestic policy: the madness
of the Corona years has massively divided societies everywhere – he was
right at the forefront of it; the migration debate, along with social
and cultural upheavals, especially about people with an Islamic
background, is flying in the face of the ruling powers. Large
parts of the economy have been and are being driven to the wall, and in
this country, due to the globally unique climate apologetics, even more
so than in neighboring countries, because the French, as is well known,
do not put up with every kind of madness – unlike the Germans.
What
unites both governments again: the policy of cheap money. Since 2020,
the new debt of both states has been through the roof. Pensions, social
benefits, health care for future generations? Not interested! No, the
young can look forward to even higher taxes in the future – besides: we
are still doing well, aren't we? Not quite anymore, there is ferment at
every turn. A big war would be the solution! After
all, the arms industry wants to get back to the meat troughs, and the
banks have always been happy to finance wars, as well as the
reconstruction of the destroyed areas afterwards, of course. Then no one
will ask any more about the annoying RKI files or Pfizer deals, why
bloody knife attacks seem to happen every day in broad daylight, or even
why the traffic light has “sustainably” damaged Germany as a business
location in just three years.
The enemy image is ready, it has been “the Russians” for more than
100 years – who cares about the 27 million dead Soviet citizens of the
Second World War or even the question of who has been getting closer and
closer to whom in the last 35 years: NATO to Russia or Russia to NATO?
And
who actually made the reunification of Germany possible in the end by
withdrawing their own troops? It doesn't matter – the chancellery has
already forgotten about completely different things, but for the
“Western values” the roles of “good” and “evil” are immovable. After
all, it's always about “our democracy and freedom”! Instead of in
Afghanistan, “our values” are now being defended in Ukraine. Or better
yet, directly in Russia. With the Taurus? We'll see.
So
everything is in place for a “purifying” military campaign in the East,
isn't it? The third attempt will definitely work — if we are all a
little “solidary” and everyone makes a few smaller or larger sacrifices.
For the good cause, you know. The only question is when the starting
signal will sound from Washington. Since
someone could move into the White House in November who might call off
this madness at the last minute, the time window is manageable.
“I'm
not sure what weapons will be used in the Third World War, but in the
Fourth World War they will fight with sticks and stones” (Albert
Einstein).
Editorial
note: This article was first published under the title “They want total
war. Will it finally work on the third attempt?” on the blog Im Osten.
Perspektiven wider den Zeitgeist.
Sven
Brajer has a doctorate in history, is a museologist and journalist. The
trained retail salesman studied history, sociology and political
science at the Technical University of Dresden. His academic focus is on
German and European social, cultural and economic history from the 19th
to the 21st century, especially parties and movements, revolutionary
research, East Germany, geopolitics with a focus on Central and Eastern
Europe. His
book “The (Self-)Destruction of the German Left. From Criticism of
Capitalism to the Woke Establishment” was published in spring 2023. For
more information, visit imosten.org.
Read more
The abolition of the human being
In
the Manova-Einheizpodcast, Sven Brajer and Aron Morhoff discuss the
author Tom-Oliver Regenauer and the philosopher Gwendolin Kirchhoff
about the intention of the transhumanists to completely subjugate the
body, mind and soul of humans.
Lawless world
War and political assassinations are driving humanity to the brink of disaster.
On
Monday, May 20, 2024, the chief prosecutor of the International
Criminal Court (ICC) of the United Nations issued arrest warrants for
war crimes against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his
defense minister Yoav Gallant, as well as against three Hamas leaders,
and Joe Biden repeated: “What is happening is not genocide. We
reject it” and thus continues to insist that Zionist Israel is not
currently committing genocide against the Palestinian people, we live in
an increasingly dangerous world. And
this is just a few days after a failed assassination attempt on a head
of state of the EU and then the sudden death of the Iranian president
and foreign minister: the incredible speed at which disturbing events
are occurring worldwide is extremely threatening.
by Manova's World Editorial Team
by Daniel Warner
[This
article posted on 6/6/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/gesetzlose-welt-2.]
Indeed,
we are now witnessing ever more dangerous and ominous signs of an
end-time collapse and an imminent world war between the leading nuclear
powers, political assassinations and, yes, a polarized, seemingly
out-of-control world that is becoming increasingly unstable and violent
from week to week.
This
seemingly unending stream of events represents an escalation of global
destabilization, the deliberate and controlled destruction of our
out-of-control planet by globalists. None of this is happening by
accident or by mistake. It merely reflects the systematic breakdown of
all life as we know it, following a diabolical plan. Portents
of destruction and accelerating upheaval, as well as potential mass
death, are appearing almost daily and on a large, shocking scale.
Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was almost assassinated on Wednesday, May 15. He
is one of only two EU leaders who are friendly to Russia and oppose
military aid to Ukraine, and the only living world leader investigating
and determined to publicly hold accountable Pfizer and the power-hungry
co-conspirators in the mass destruction of COVID death vaccines.
Three
African heads of state and the last elected Haitian head of state were
assassinated several years ago for courageously opposing the globalist
agenda of committing genocide on humanity with Big Pharma's bioweapon of
a poison that is not a vaccine. It
is no coincidence that one of the largest globalist-controlled news
agencies, the Associated Press, claimed just hours after the attack on
Fico:
“Slovak authorities say the (failed assassin) acted as a lone gunman in a politically motivated attack.”
Every
time the establishment's embedded frauds bring up their “lone wolf”
metaphor like clockwork, they immediately follow it up with their
standard, crime-covering conclusion. The facts, however, often prove the
opposite, as the CIA and Mossad are known to be guilty of countless
assassinations and coups. John F. Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy, Martin
Luther King immediately come to mind.
Just
a month and a half ago, the author Simon Tisdall introduced his article
in the Guardian entitled “Once a relic of the Cold War, political
assassins are now back with a license to kill” as follows:
“In
today's lawless world, political assassination is the new growth
industry – and anyone, famous or not, is a potential victim.
State-sanctioned killings are on the rise, led by Russia, Israel, Iran
and India.”
Tisdall
was referring to the assassination of senior Iranian generals at the
Iranian consulate in Damascus, Syria, by Israel on April 1 (2024), which
was clearly a violation of international law. This
in turn led to Iran's restrained “revenge” on April 13, when it
launched the world's largest drone and missile attack (on Israel), in
which Tehran directly attacked military targets on Israeli soil for the
first time, hitting spy military posts in the Negev desert,
while at the same time sending a clear message that Israel's air
defense system is indeed penetrable, despite Zionist lying bragging
about its infallible “Iron Dome”.
Within four days last week, the world witnessed a failed
assassination attempt on an EU head of state who is friendly to Russia –
a rare case – followed just four days later by what could be described
as the successful assassination of another of Russia's allies, namely
Iran's president and foreign minister.
On
May 20, 2024, all the headlines reported the death of 63-year-old
Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, his 60-year-old Iranian Foreign
Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian and six other senior Iranian officials
on Sunday, May 19, in a helicopter crash in the northwestern Iranian
province of East Azerbaijan near the city of Varzaqan. Other
fatalities included the governor general of East Azerbaijan Province,
Malek Rahmati, and Mohammed Ali Ale-Hashem, a representative of the
Supreme Leader in East Azerbaijan.
Despite
today's GPS technology, which can accurately pinpoint a location with
the help of black box recordings, heavy fog hampered the efforts of the
forty rescue teams to locate the crash site, which in itself is
suspicious. AP stated that the crash occurred 12 miles south of the
Iran-Azerbaijan border “on the flank of a steep mountain”.
Israel
immediately denied any involvement, and the allegedly difficult flight
conditions at the time of the crash back up Israel's automatic
declaration of “plausible deniability”. Reuters stated:
“An Israeli official, who asked for anonymity, told Reuters that Israel was not involved in the crash.”
Israel's
track record on credibility has been abysmal, especially of late. Few
states or people trust Israel, because it has the worst record of
perpetual deception, not unlike its top liar-in-thief sitting in the
White House and its treacherous regime in Washington. (Translator's
note: “Liar-in-Thief” is a play on words that turns the
“Commander-in-Chief”, namely the supreme commander of the US army and
thus the US president, into a liar and thief.)
The
genocidal Israeli government has not yet issued an official statement
on the death of the Iranian leader. Nevertheless, Israel's current
Minister of Heritage, Amichai Eliyahu, reacted to Raisi's death by
posting a picture of a wine glass with the caption “Cheers!” on X. Avigdor
Liebermann, former defense minister and leader of the right-wing
opposition party Yisrael Beiteinu, told Ynet News that Israel “will not
shed a tear over the death of the Iranian president”.
Despite
the supposedly bad weather, two other Iranian helicopters, apparently
carrying less important officials from Tehran, reached their destination
safely after attending an opening ceremony for a joint dam project with
Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan. But was this helicopter
crash really an accident or another terrorist attack by Israel on the
top leaders of Iran, the arch-enemy of Zionist Israel?
Ali
Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader since 1989, has declared a five-day
period of national mourning and appointed Raisi's deputy, Mohammad
Mokhber, as acting president until new elections are held within 50
days.
The assassination of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi would certainly
not be the first deadly political attack by Israel and its allies. In
the last ten years, Israel and its friends have been responsible for
numerous targeted assassinations of Iran's top political and military
leaders.
On
January 3, 2020, under the presidency of Donald Trump, who was bought
and paid for with “Israel First” money and with an “Israel First”
mentality, his then Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a West Point
graduate and former CIA director, launched a CIA drone attack against
the highest-ranking military official in Iran, General Qasem Soleimani. Mike
Pompeo is another brazen liar: the day after he executed Soleimani, he
was blabbering on CNN about his trophy, smugly claiming that the Iranian
general had been working with Middle Eastern terrorists. In fact,
Soleimani was about to take them out, thereby defeating the US-backed
terrorist proxy groups like ISIS in both Syria and Iraq.
The
U.S. war against Iraq, based on another bald-faced lie about Saddam
Hussein's nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, was another U.S.
imperial expansion war in which the U.S. was clearly on the wrong side
of history once again as the globalists' battering ram. General
Soleimani helped Iraq remove the US military as occupiers of Iraq by
inflicting another humiliating defeat on the US in 2011, which was only
surpassed by the Afghanistan debacle almost a decade later.
For years, the U.S. has blatantly violated the national sovereignty
rights of Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan by stationing U.S. military forces
on their soil against the will and rights of the governments in
Baghdad, Damascus, not to mention Kabul.
These
nations know that the US pretext for its unwanted presence to this day –
namely the removal of the so-called remnants of Islamic State
terrorists in the region – is an absolute lie, as the US and Israel are
the main perpetrators and long-time supporters of their surrogate terror
allies in the US-declared war on terror, who operated throughout the
Middle East for decades.
Before
ISIS, the US and Israel joined forces with the monarchies of the Gulf
States to create Al-Qaeda and the Bin Laden family, an ally of Bush, to
carry out the US-Israeli insider job 9/11,
deliberately committing treason by killing 3,000 Americans to launch
the planned “new Pearl Harbor” and overthrow seven nations in five
years. All this is now known history.
General
Soleimani, at the time of his assassination the most popular general
and second most powerful national leader in Iran after Supreme Leader
Ali Khamenei, was not only primarily responsible for weakening the
Taliban, but also for the almost complete eradication
of the US-created, funded and trained terrorists of the Islamic State,
which had grown into the world's largest terrorist organization, as well
as other US-backed militant jihadist groups operating in Syria and
Iraq.
At
the end of December 2021, Major General Tamir Hayman, then the recently
retired head of the Israeli military intelligence service, admitted
that Israel had supported the United States in the assassination of
General Soleimani, and said with a smirk:
“Soleimani's
assassination is a success, because in my eyes Iran is our main enemy.
Two significant and important assassinations fall within my term of
office.”
The
other assassination that Hayman boasted about illustrates how Israel
has always used its “divide and rule” strategy to control both
Palestinian factions – Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority (PA)
in the West Bank. Hamas
was secretly created and funded by Netanyahu to oppose the PA, and as
long as the Palestinian groups fight each other, remaining weak and
easily controlled, they enable Netanyahu's long-term policy of outlawing
a two-state solution.
In
this case, Hamas accused the Palestinian Authority's intelligence
agency of informing the IDF of the whereabouts of Baha Abu al-Ata, the
commander of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in Gaza so that he could be
assassinated in November 2019 by another Israeli air strike. Another
Israeli blow below the belt against Iran came a year later in November
2020, when Iran's leading nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh-Mahavadi
was assassinated.
On
Christmas Day 2023, another deadly assassination followed in a suburb
of Damascus in an air strike by the Jewish state: this time the target
was Iranian General Sayyed Razi Mousavi, a senior advisor to the Iranian
Revolutionary Guards who was responsible for coordinating the military
alliance between Syria and Iran. A
little over a week later, on January 3, 2024, the US and Israel
undoubtedly coordinated with their proxy ally in the Middle East, ISIS,
to once again cold-bloodedly massacre another 84 Iranian
civilians—simply for commemorating the loss of their heroic and beloved
General Soleimani and attending a memorial service for the fourth
anniversary of his death. This
act of terror was committed to deliberately escalate tensions in the
Middle East, once again targeting Iran as a brutal victim.
Iran
did not retaliate with any killings in response to any of the Israeli
attacks, even though they would have been more than justified. Just last
month, on the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr, Israel deliberately killed
the three sons of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and four of his
grandchildren.
Haniyeh
said that Israel had deliberately targeted his family in the Shati
refugee camp, where they were visiting family for the holiday.
Targeted killings remain a protected lifestyle, apparently reserved
for the “chosen” of the Israeli state. No other nation-state comes close
to matching such a high frequency of premeditated, heinous acts of
violence, followed, no doubt, by the United States.
It didn't take long for speculation to run rampant and for Israel to be considered the most likely suspect. In
a video released by DCM Global on Monday, May 20, anonymous sources
within the government in Tehran claim that the helicopter pilot who
transported Raisi and his staff to the event with the Azerbaijani
President Ilham Aliyev in Azerbaijan near the border with Iran was a
different one than the one who brought them back to Iran for the “hard
landing” due to an accident. The
video also claims that the second pilot was a Mossad agent. When search
and rescue teams arrived at the alleged crash site, the helicopter was
already completely burnt.
Reports
of a US Air Force C-130 plane suspiciously arriving in Azerbaijan
around the time of Raisi's helicopter's departure are fueling
speculation about the sudden deaths of Iran's president and foreign
minister, as well as other prominent officials. At
the center of the speculation is the possible use of electronic warfare
to cause disruptions in the president's aircraft and ultimately cause
the crash.
Iran
claims to have purchased the Bell 212 helicopter in the early 2000s.
The USA is said to be extremely familiar with its avionics and may have
disabled Raisi's helicopter in Azerbaijan. Unlike the Boeing aircraft of
recent years, the B212 model has had an excellent safety record for
decades. An involvement in an accident – and with the president of a regional superpower – is therefore highly unusual.
It would have been hard to imagine a more explosive time for this
fateful incident in the current conflict situation, which is escalating
into a third world war. The timing also seems highly suspicious and
worrying in relation to the impending retirement of the 85-year-old
Supreme Leader Khamenei.
Raisi
was considered the top candidate to succeed Khamenei, having served
under his aging predecessor, Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini, from 1981
to 1989.
While
Israel has played a special role in the assassination of so many
Iranian leaders in politics, the military and science, Israel has been
able to murder systematically and deliberately for three-quarters of a
century without being challenged or facing any consequences. Should
conclusive evidence emerge that Israel murdered Raisi, will this latest,
most monstrous crime also go unpunished? If history repeats itself, it
will.
However,
we are living in extraordinary times that call for extraordinary,
unprecedented measures. And a radical change is in the air. Iran, the
Muslim world and indeed the whole world are on the verge of a revolt
against the old world order that the globalists have transformed into a
New World Order (NWO). The
growing opposition in the midst of so many public revelations of these
egregious, exposed crimes against humanity is reaching the point of no
return.
It
has been widely reported that relations between Iran and Azerbaijan
have been strained in recent years. The fact that Azerbaijan and Iran
are Shiite Muslim neighbors has not prevented the oil-rich Azeri
dictator Ilham Aliyev from cultivating increasingly warm and intimate
relations with Israel.
After
all, it was the Jewish Ashkenazi state that supplied Azerbaijan with
the strategic drones that enabled it to defeat the Armenians on the
battlefield for the first time in the 45-day war in Nagorno-Karabakh at
the end of 2020. This
action, in turn, was the trigger for Baku's “lightning strike” in
Nagorno-Karabakh last year, which drove out virtually all 120,000
Armenians who had fled as war refugees from their rightful ancient
homeland to the Republic of Armenia.
Because
of this symbiotic relationship between the “strange friends” Israel and
Azerbaijan, Aliyev today openly supports Israel's war against Hamas.
For
the Iranian leader, it was therefore possibly a fatal, fateful mistake
to participate in a political event in Azerbaijan with a proven
untrustworthy despot who is so close to Zionist Israel, Iran's
arch-enemy. And
the fact that the Iranian foreign minister, Amir-Abdollahian, may be of
Armenian origin makes this fateful trip even more insidious and
suspicious. Aliyev has never made a secret of his desire to wipe the
Armenians off the face of the earth, just as his godless Khasarian mafia
comrade Benjamin Netanyahu wipes all Palestinians off the face of the
earth. These two war criminals Bibi and Ilham are as alike as two rotten eggs.
Editorial
note: This text was first published under the title “A Lawless World
Driven to the Brink of War And Political Assassinations”. It was
translated by Gabriele Herb on a voluntary basis and proofread by the
Manova volunteer proofreading team.
Manova's World Editorial
It
is of little use to stew in one's own, albeit exquisite, juice. That is
why Manova's World Editorial Team regularly collects and publishes
voices from around the world. What do critical contemporaries in other
countries and cultural circles think about geopolitical events? What
ideas do they have for solving global problems? What developments are
they observing that may soon be upon us in Europe? It is also encouraging to look beyond our own horizons, as it makes it clear that we are not alone!
Read more
Creative chaos
The current student protests in the USA are part of a long tug-of-war that can be viewed positively overall.
29.05.2024 by Manovas Weltredaktion
Psychosis against the right
Before the social explosion
In the USA, the gap between rich and poor is wider than ever before – frustration is reaching dangerous levels
Donald
Trump wanted to make America “great again”; however, the incomes of
Americans have been shrinking under him and his successor Joe Biden. For
decades, the media have been complaining about the ever-widening gap
between rich and poor. Since then, a lot has happened – it has gotten
even worse. Capital concentration and mass impoverishment are among the
megatrends of the era, as are the despair and political weariness of
millions. The
unemployed and the working poor are among the steadily growing
“professional groups”, and the psychosocial health of an entire nation
is at an all-time low. How long can this go on? The answer is: not much
longer. Social uprisings out of sheer desperation could break out very
soon.
by Manova's World Editorial Team
by Tyler Durden
[This
article posted on 6/6/2024 is translated from the German on the
Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/vor-der-sozialen-explosion.]
Have
you ever felt like you're just not getting ahead, no matter how hard
you try? If so, you're definitely not alone. The gap between the
ultra-rich and the rest of us has never been wider, and every day more
wealth is being transferred to the top of the pyramid. Unfortunately,
our economy has become a highly centralized system designed to extract
wealth from those who do not own profitable assets and transfer it to
those who do.
Sadly,
the elite have even turned most of our homes and vehicles into
profit-generating assets. Every month you pay off your house or car, you
make the rich richer. The whole system is designed to get you into debt
and to keep you in debt until you die.
As we have seen in recent years, the system managers will do everything they can to protect the wealth of the elite.
The
Federal Reserve has pumped trillions of dollars into the system to
maintain the value of financial assets – and it has worked. The Dow
Jones Industrial Average is currently hovering around 40,000, giving
stock owners a life of luxury.
But who owns the most shares?
According
to the Federal Reserve, the wealthiest Americans have never held such a
large share of the stock market; the wealthiest 10 percent now own a
record high of 93 percent of all stocks.
On
the other side of the coin, data from the Federal Reserve shows that in
the third quarter, the poorest 50 percent of Americans held just 1
percent of all stocks and shares of mutual funds.
Of course, stocks are only one form of wealth.
But
when all other forms of wealth are added in, the bottom 50 percent of
the US population still own only 2.6 percent of all assets.
Tens of millions of Americans have lost faith in the system and are
growing increasingly restless, while our politicians try to pacify them
with handouts.
As
many as 42 million Americans are now receiving food stamps every month,
and a large portion of that money is spent on junk food...
An alarming study shows how 42 million food stamp recipients are spending their welfare on highly processed junk food.
According
to a new study, Coca-Cola, Sprite and other soft drinks are the most
purchased items in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP),
which spends $135 billion annually. Candy, potato chips, frozen pizza,
ice cream, cookies and other highly processed foods are among the top 20
products most often purchased, according to a report from the Economic
Policy Innovation Center (EPIC).
Many
of those receiving government assistance are currently employed. But
the cost of living has become so oppressive that even people working for
the largest corporations in the U.S. can no longer afford the most
basic necessities...
Five
years after Amazon.com.Inc. raised hourly wages to $15, half of
warehouse workers surveyed say they struggle to afford enough food or
housing.
In
the national study, released Wednesday (May 26, 2024; translator's
note) by the Center for Urban Economic Development at the University of
Illinois, Chicago,
surveyed U.S. workers about their economic well-being — including
whether they skipped meals, suffered from hunger or worried about being
able to pay their rent or mortgage.
53
percent of respondents reported experiencing one or more forms of food
insecurity in the three months prior to the survey. 48 percent reported
experiencing one or more forms of housing insecurity. The researchers
found that workers who reported taking unpaid leave after an
occupational injury were more likely to have trouble paying their bills.
Today, about 40 percent of the total U.S. population either lives in poverty or is among the “working poor”.
An
average American family now has to find an additional $12,000 per year
to maintain the same standard of living as in January 2021. If your
income has not increased by $12,000 since January 2021, you are falling
behind.
And
now that economic conditions are deteriorating at an alarming rate,
Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the economy's future.
After a brief period of optimism, Americans are feeling a little more downbeat about the economy.
A
widely watched index from the University of Michigan – a gauge of
Americans' economic sentiment – shows consumer sentiment at a six-month
low and the sharpest decline since 2021. It reflects the ongoing strain
on household budgets from inflation and fuels fears that rising prices,
unemployment and interest rates could worsen in the coming months.
This
pessimism is changing consumer behavior. McDonalds, Home Depot, Under
Armour and Starbucks recently reported disappointing earnings as people
cut back on fast food, kitchen renovations, sneakers and afternoon
lattes.
Discontent with economic conditions will be a big issue here in the US in the next few years.
Of
course, the whole world is struggling with a system that leaves far too
many people behind. According to Oxfam, the majority of the world's
population has become poorer since 2010...
Oxfam's
latest report, Inequality Inc., examines the gap between the super-rich
and the rest of society. Since 2020, five billion people have become
poorer, while the world's five richest men have more than doubled their
wealth at a rate of $14 million per hour.
As
in the US, the gap between the rich and the poor is reaching
unprecedented levels worldwide. Hundreds of millions of people are
struggling to keep up with the cost of living, while billionaires have
become 3.3 trillion richer than in 2020, according to Oxfam. This is no
coincidence. When
we analyzed the world's largest companies, we found that in 7 out of 10
cases, a billionaire either runs the company or is its main
shareholder.
Such a system is not sustainable.
If the majority of the world's population is getting poorer and
poorer and a tiny minority of the world's population is getting
fabulously rich, it is only a matter of time before the whole system
collapses.
Hundreds
of millions of people will become increasingly angry and frustrated,
and in the period of great chaos that is now dawning, riots will break
out in all major cities around the world.
Today, the world is ruled by ultra-powerful governments, ultra-powerful banks and ultra-powerful corporations.
The
little guy is being literally crushed, but it won't be long before the
deeply corrupt system that the rich have created implodes before their
eyes.
Editorial
note: This text was first published under the title “The Gap Between
The Rich And The Poor Is Larger Than Ever, And Frustration Is Growing To
Very Dangerous Levels”. It was translated by Gabriele Herb on a
voluntary basis and proofread by the volunteer Manova proofreading team.
Manova's World Editorial
It
is of little use to stew in one's own, albeit exquisite, juice. That is
why Manova's World Editorial Team regularly collects and publishes
voices from around the world. What do critical contemporaries in other
countries and cultural circles think about geopolitical events? What
ideas do they have for solving global problems? What developments are
they observing that may soon be upon us in Europe? It is also encouraging to look beyond our own horizons, as it makes it clear that we are not alone!
Read more
Creative chaos
The current student protests in the USA are part of a long tug-of-war that can be viewed positively overall.
29.05.2024 by Manovas World Editorial
No comments:
Post a Comment