Replica Life

Copy of all that happens in real life and in dreams

 









  • Weapons2
    Yahoo/Inbox
    Marc Batko
    Rocket roulette by Wolfgang Schwarz [This article posted on 8/12/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://das-blaettchen.de/2024/08/raketenroulette-69602.html.] Government expects understanding for deployment of US weapons Handelsblatt, 12.07.2024 As many as 47 percent of Germans fear, according to a Forsa survey, that the US cruise missiles increase the risk of a conflict with Russia. Only 17% believe their lives will be safer. Focus, 30/2024 So far, Scholz's turnaround has manifested itself in an exorbitant increase in German arms spending and an accompanying increase in the general militarization of the country[1], which follows the motto issued by Federal Defence Minister Pistorius as early as 2023, sanctioned by the Chancellor and reaffirmed by Pistorius in the Bundestag on 5 June 2024: “We must be ready for war by 2029."[2] Moreover, the turning point is manifested in billions of taxpayers' money being squandered on aid to Ukraine, which appears to be primarily aimed at wearing out Russia's military and economic resources in the long term rather than ending the war as quickly as possible.[3] Recently, the turning point has also been defined as follows: While the stationing of US medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe, which took place in the early 1980s, not only required a unanimous decision by the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the so-called NATO Double-Track Decision of December 12, 1979[4], but for Germany, moreover, a separate majority decision by the Bundestag on 22. November 1983 in order to actually begin deployment just days later, this time a decision by the US government, nodded off by the Chancellor and announced at a press conference on the fringes of the most recent NATO summit, which took place in Washington from July 9 to 11, 2024, was sufficient: Three types of ground-based US long-range weapons are to be stationed in Germany from 2026: Tomahawk cruise missiles, Standard Missile 6/SM-6 (in
    Fri, Aug 23 at 6:26 AM
    Marc Batko 
    From:marc1seed@yahoo.com
    To:marc1seed@yahoo.com
    Fri, Aug 23 at 6:26 AM

    Rocket roulette

    by Wolfgang Schwarz

    [This article posted on 8/12/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://das-blaettchen.de/2024/08/raketenroulette-69602.html.]


    Government expects understanding

    for deployment of US weapons

    Handelsblatt, 12.07.2024


    As many as 47 percent of Germans

    fear, according to a Forsa survey,

    that the US cruise missiles

    increase the risk of a conflict with Russia.

    Only 17% believe their lives will be safer.

    Focus, 30/2024


    So far, Scholz's turnaround has manifested itself in an exorbitant increase in German arms spending and an accompanying increase in the general militarization of the country[1], which follows the motto issued by Federal Defence Minister Pistorius as early as 2023, sanctioned by the Chancellor and reaffirmed by Pistorius in the Bundestag on 5 June 2024: “We must be ready for war by 2029."[2] Moreover, the turning point is manifested in billions of taxpayers' money being squandered on aid to Ukraine, which appears to be primarily aimed at wearing out Russia's military and economic resources in the long term rather than ending the war as quickly as possible.[3]

    Recently, the turning point has also been defined as follows: While the stationing of US medium-range nuclear weapons in Western Europe, which took place in the early 1980s, not only required a unanimous decision by the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the so-called NATO Double-Track Decision of December 12, 1979[4], but for Germany, moreover, a separate majority decision by the Bundestag on 22. November 1983 in order to actually begin deployment just days later, this time a decision by the US government, nodded off by the Chancellor and announced at a press conference on the fringes of the most recent NATO summit, which took place in Washington from July 9 to 11, 2024, was sufficient: Three types of ground-based US long-range weapons are to be stationed in Germany from 2026: Tomahawk cruise missiles, Standard Missile 6/SM-6 (in the surface-to-surface missile version) and hypersonic missiles currently still under development (presumably of the Dark Eagle type).[5] Vasily Kashin, Director of the Moscow-based Center for Comprehensive European and International Studies, CCEIS, attributes a range of 3,000 kilometers to the latter.[6] Unit numbers have not yet been mentioned. The current announcement was not accompanied by a parallel offer to negotiate with Moscow, as was the case with the NATO Dual-Track Decision. This time, the other NATO states were left out of the loop, as was the Bundestag.

    In contrast to the reporting in some media, which spoke of a merely temporary deployment of the US systems,[7] the US-German statement reads: “The United States will begin episodic deployments of its Multi-Domain Task Force long-range fire capabilities in Germany in 2026 as part of the planning for a permanent deployment of these capabilities in the future (emphasis added - W.S.)”[8].

    Former SPD chairman Norbert Walter-Borjans expressed his astonishment on Deutschlandfunk radio that, despite this far-reaching security policy decision taken single-handedly by the Federal Chancellor - in a quasi lord of the manor manner - “there is [...] a frightening silence throughout society”[9]. Walter-Borjans' perception is certainly correct when it comes to the public, especially when looking back at the powerful peace movement[10] that formed at the beginning of the 1980s against the double decision, but this is precisely what the savvy political professional Scholz may have soberly calculated: In a society for which seamlessly merging crises in central areas of life have been the normal state of affairs for years, tying up and sapping energy, accompanied by daily reports of war in neighboring regions (Ukraine, Middle East), the announcement of the deployment of a few more missiles aimed at Russia will not draw anyone out from behind the stove. Not even if a few lonely criers in the wilderness make themselves heard - once again the SPD parliamentary group leader in the Bundestag, Rolf Mützenich: “It is not clear to me [...] why Germany alone should deploy such systems. I have always understood burden-sharing to mean something else."[11]

    Others, however, are not holding back with their unconditional approval of the planned missile deployment, including once again leading Greens. First and foremost, as the Tagesschau reported, “Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock [...] has defended the planned stationing of long-range US missiles in Germany against criticism”[12]. And “Federal Economics Minister Habeck”, according to Deutschlandfunk radio, “described the decision as necessary, even if he does not take armament lightly.”[13]

    The reaction from Moscow to the current deployment decision was prompt and made it clear what the most serious consequences of implementing the decision would be. In his speech at the naval parade in Saint Petersburg on July 28, President Putin explained that US systems in Germany would make important Russian state and military facilities and industrial companies vulnerable to attack, with the US missiles only needing around ten minutes to reach their targets in Russia[14].

    Putin was obviously referring to the announced Dark Eagle[15] hypersonic weapons, which are supposed to operate at a speed of Mach 5[16] and would thus bring back a situation like the one that already existed in 1983 with the Pershing II deployment: According to experts, an extremely shortened warning time invites the systems in question to be pre-emptively switched off in an escalating crisis situation. The Erhard-Eppler-Kreis probably had this context in mind when it made its statement: it was “about nothing less than the question of whether our densely populated country could become the target of a nuclear first strike”[17]. Such an attack would, of course, be highly contrary to international law, but the question itself would, in retrospect, be of academic importance for Germany at best. We can therefore only agree with Wolfgang Richter's assessment: The deployment decision “changes Germany's strategic situation”[18].

    However, even renowned German security experts are no strangers to the idea of pre-emptive strikes. Just a few days after the current deployment announcement, Claudia Major from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) - which claims to be the think tank of the German government and the Bundestag - made the following statement in a plea published by Handelsblatt under the apodictic headline “Europe needs the US medium-range missiles”: “In an emergency, NATO states must also be able to attack themselves, for example to destroy Russian missile capabilities before they can attack NATO territory and to destroy Russian military targets, such as command centers. “[19]

    It also seems somewhat strange in this context when Chrismon, the magazine of the Evangelical Church in Germany (EKD), of all places, has a private lecturer at the Bundeswehr University in Munich warn against “disinformation slingers”, to which the author of this article would probably also belong, who “are now [...] unnecessarily persuading people to fear nuclear death”[20]. On the other hand - if one takes into account the centuries-long blessing of weapons and war campaigns by officials of Christian churches ...

    Alternatively, Moscow could largely automate the launch of a counter-attack in the event of an attack - pre-emptively quasi à la Major with the future US systems from Germany - and thus ensure that a military response takes place before the first enemy missiles hit. Such considerations were repeatedly discussed by Western experts during the first Cold War under terms such as launch on warning and launch under attack - including the associated risks. For example, in the event of an automated counter-strike, there would be virtually no human intervention options left to prevent a cascading sequence of events leading to a nuclear apocalypse in the event of a false alarm - as happened on September 25, 1983 in a combat command center of the Soviet early warning system at the time[21].

    It is obvious that with launch on warning or launch under attack, the risk of a nuclear war between Russia and the West could also increase significantly beyond the current level.

    The fact that Russia will not limit its countermeasures to Germany and Western Europe was already indicated by the Russian media on July 12, when they reminded Vasily Kashin that “we should not forget the statements of the top Russian military leadership” that “if missiles appear near our borders, we will symmetrically create an additional pressure point near the United States”[22]. A remark made by Donald Trump at the Republican Convention held in Milwaukee from July 15-18, 2024, fits into this context: “Russian warships and nuclear submarines are operating just 60 miles off the coast of Cuba. Did you know that?"[23] This remark apparently referred to the fact that three battleships and a nuclear-powered submarine from the Russian navy had paid an official visit to Havana in June. However, they were not carrying nuclear weapons, as Cuban authorities assured.

    For his part, Putin emphasized in his aforementioned speech in St. Petersburg, according to RT DE: “Russia will react in the same way depending on the actions of the US and ‘its satellites in Europe and other regions of the world’.”[24]

    *

    Finally, some comments in the debate to date on the US-German deployment announcement:

    • Marcus Faber (FDP), the new Chairman of the Bundestag's Defense Committee since 12 June 2024, took aim at Rolf Mützenich: “I have not yet heard any statement from Mr Mützenich on Putin's medium-range missiles in Kaliningrad.”[25] This probably refers to the Iskander ballistic missiles, which can be armed both conventionally and with nuclear weapons. The fact that Mützenich does not comment on this could be related to the fact that these missiles, although not in the Kaliningrad area, already existed completely unchallenged at a time when the INF Treaty had not yet been torpedoed: with their range of up to 500 kilometers, no one even in the USA would have thought of talking about medium-range missiles at that time. Such missiles were only moved to Kaliningrad when American missile defense systems of the Aegis Ashore type began to take shape in Poland, which from the Russian point of view were also strategically offensive[26] and could therefore be deactivated in the event of war. - Finally, politicians and the media in Germany like to repeatedly invoke the horror scenario that Moscow could use Iskander to launch a nuclear attack on Berlin. Even if it is little consolation, the nuclear weapons expert Otfried Nassauer, who unfortunately died far too early, had already determined years ago in collaboration with the Danish expert Hans Kristensen, Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists, that Iskander missiles could at best reach Eberswalde even from the south-westernmost tip of Kaliningrad.
    • The Berliner Zeitung reported in its print edition of July 29, 2024, citing dpa in an article entitled “Putin threatens to respond”: “Russian warships could [...] also be equipped with missiles in response [to the deployment of US medium-range weapons in Germany - W.S.].” However, the fact is - dpa here, dpa there - that Russia has had Kalibr sea-based cruise missiles, which can be equipped with conventional or nuclear weapons, since 2012. In 2015, these weapons were used for the first time - from the Caspian Sea against targets in Syria, where Moscow's intervention became a decisive factor in thwarting the attempted coup d'état by the Syrian opposition against the Assad regime, which was massively supported by the USA and other NATO states. At the time, Putin praised the “high-tech, high-precision, modern” weapons. The missiles had flown over a distance of 1500 kilometers and at an altitude of between 80 and 1300 meters, changing their flight direction 147 times. In a television interview, the Russian president said: “It is one thing to know at an expert level that Russia has such weapons, and quite another to be convinced that, firstly, they actually exist, that they are manufactured by our arms industry, secondly, that they are of high quality, thirdly, that there are people who can use them efficiently, and fourthly, that Russia is also prepared to use them.”[27]
    • Claudia Major and other proponents of the deployment emphasize that the new US delivery systems, which are to come to Germany from 2026, will not be nuclear, but (merely?) conventional weapons.[28] Is this supposed to reassure? Unfortunately, there is no reason to do so, at least with regard to the Tomahawks. If the worst comes to the worst, it would be impossible for Russia to determine how cruise missiles of this type are armed - conventionally or with nuclear weapons. It is therefore highly likely that any counter-strike launched before the cruise missiles hit would be a worst-case scenario. However, Major's speculation that NATO will have “additional options for escalation management below the nuclear threshold thanks to these conventional systems” from 2026 could prove to be a suicidal miscalculation in an emergency.
      Moscow had already made it clear a few years ago that such a risk exists when the USA began to replace the large-caliber W76-1 warheads (explosive power: 90 kilotons) on individual strategic delivery systems - sea-based intercontinental ballistic missiles of the Trident type - with tactical W76-2s with comparatively low explosive power (estimated at eight kilotons[29]). [30] (This was first done in 2019 on the USS Tennessee, a nuclear-powered carrier submarine.[31]) Early warning systems could not distinguish whether a strategic carrier system - as an exception, so to speak - was “only” carrying a tactical warhead.[32]
    • Wolfgang Richter, a former Bundeswehr colonel who worked for the SWP for several years and currently at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, has presented the most profound assessment of the US-German deployment coup to date. It is publicly accessible, so only three of his central statements are reproduced here, which Richter also underpins in detail:
      First - The deployment of long-range US medium-range weapons in Germany would have “the potential to alter the strategic balance between the US and Russia, significantly reduce the chances of reviving nuclear arms control and further intensify the political and military confrontation between NATO and Russia.”[33]
      Secondly - “With the bilateral deployment notification, Germany is deviating for the first time from its traditional course of not allowing itself to be singularized and sharing the risks of politically sensitive and momentous decisions with other allies.”[34]
      Thirdly - “It also remains unclear how the authority to command the deployment of conventional long-range weapons from Germany with strategic effects in Russia is to be regulated in future. Will their deployment remain a purely national decision of the USA, will Germany have a say, or should their deployment only take place in an alliance context and after an alliance vote? Should the former rule apply, Germany would have its fate at the mercy of the strategic interests and decisions of the USA in the event of a conflict."[35]

    However, the latter would not be a novelty. Germany has already been in this situation for decades - through its so-called nuclear sharing: the provision of German fighter bombers as delivery systems for US nuclear bombs, the deployment of which is decided solely in Washington[36].

    PS: Also during the NATO summit in Washington, the defense ministers of Germany, France, Italy and Poland signed a declaration of intent to develop weapons that can precisely hit enemy targets at depth. Specifically, this involves a land-based stand-off weapon with a range of up to 2000 kilometers that can be deployed not least from mobile platforms. This so-called LCM (Land Cruise Missile System) is to be derived in part from cruise missiles that have already been developed, such as those used by France on warships and by Germany using aircraft[37].

    [1] - For more detailed information, see Bulletins 4/2024 and 9/2024.

    [2] - German Bundestag, Documents 2024 - accessed on 08/08/2024.

    [3] - How else could the peculiarity of the German government's policy be interpreted, on the one hand contributing the main share of Western aid to Ukraine alongside the USA and on the other hand financially enabling tens of thousands of male Ukrainian refugees in this country to evade their compulsory military service at home?

    [4] - The decision provided for the stationing of new land-based US medium-range nuclear systems in Western Europe: 464 Tomahawk cruise missiles (range up to 2500 kilometers) and 108 Pershing II ballistic missiles (range up to 1800 kilometers). The cruise missiles were deployed in Belgium, the FRG, Great Britain, Italy and the Netherlands; the Pershing IIs were intended exclusively for the FRG.

    All systems could reach targets in the former Soviet Union. The Pershing-II, with its ability to take out Soviet military and political command and control centers as far as Moscow with a warning time of well under ten minutes, was not only classified by Moscow as a first-strike weapon to prevent the USSR from launching a devastating counter-attack in time in the event of a surprise nuclear attack by the USA, i.e. to nullify Moscow's previously assured second-strike capability. At the time, Moscow did not have comparable military capabilities vis-à-vis the USA.

    At the same time, the NATO Double-Track Decision included an offer to the USSR to enter into arms limitation and disarmament negotiations on land-based medium-range weapons and, in the event of a treaty agreement, to re-examine NATO's need for rearmament.

    Corresponding Soviet-American negotiations did take place, but were unsuccessful. Deployment began at the end of 1983.
    With the Soviet-American INF Treaty of December 8, 1987, a double zero solution was finally agreed: The land-based medium-range weapons of both sides with a range of 500 to 5000 kilometers were completely disarmed, and corresponding systems were banned worldwide for both sides.

    At that time, however, the USA also had Tomahawk air- and sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles. These were neither the subject of the INF Treaty nor of later Russian-American arms control and disarmament agreements.

    [5] - Cf. Joint Statement from United States and Germany on Long-Range Fires Deployment in Germany, whitehouse.gov., July 10, 2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [6] - Cf. Alyona Zadoroshnaya: Russia is forced to create a pressure point near the USA, RT DE, July 12, 2024 - accessed on August 7, 2024.

    [7] - For example, the Berliner Zeitung (online), 11.07.2024 - accessed on 07.08.2024.

    [8] - Joint Statement from United States and Germany ..., op. cit.

    [9] - Walter-Borjans (SPD): Die Debatte über die Stationierung von US-Raketen führen, Deutschlandfunk, 30.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [10] - Exactly one month before the Bundestag's stationing decision, on 22 October 1983, the peace movement mobilized hundreds of thousands of protesters from all sections of the population in Bonn's Hofgarten and a total of 1.3 million people nationwide on that day. Cf. “22. November 1983: Bundestag confirms decision on NATO Double-Track Decision”, Federal Agency for Civic Education, 21.11.2018 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [11] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung (online), 20.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [12] - Tagesschau (online) 21.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [13] - Deutschlandfunk (online), 15.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [14] - Cf. “Putin announces Russia's reaction to US long-range missiles in Germany”, RT DE, 28.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [15] - For more details on this weapon system, see Wolfgang Richter: Stationierung von U.S. Mittelstreckenraketen in Deutschland, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, July 2024, p. 3 - accessed on 08.08.2024

    [16] - Cf. David Wright / Cameron Tracy: Hypersonic weapons are mediocre. It's time to stop wasting money on them, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 12, 2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [17] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung (online), 29.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [18] - Wolfgang Richter, op. cit. p. 2.

    [19] - Claudia Major: Europe needs the US medium-range missiles, Handelsblatt (online), 19.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [20] - Constantin Lummitsch: “Sahra Wagenknecht und die AfD schüren falsche Ängste”, Chrismon (online), 17.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    [21] - In an interview in 2013, the officer on duty at the time, Colonel Stanislav Petrov, described the specific course of events at the Soviet command and control center on 25 September 1983: “The alarm went off at around 0.15 a.m., completely unexpectedly. We had often rehearsed this, but now it was serious. All the festive lights came on, the sirens blared and the screens flashed in big red letters: 'Missile launch with maximum probability'. It was a shock, like a bolt from the blue. I was the duty officer, the oldest and highest ranking, the others were junior officers who were responsible for arming the missiles. They were confused and looked at me. They were all waiting for my decision. [...] I doubted the information. The computer reported a single missile. We had expected the enemy to strike massively. The American hawks have said this often enough: we will strike first, if necessary, with a mass launch. This would destroy about half of the Soviet population and important infrastructure. [...] I made my first report after two minutes. I had that much time to analyze the situation. I reported a false alarm, and while I was still on the phone with the General Staff, the computer reported a second missile launch and then a third, fourth and fifth. The siren went off again, which my superior heard directly over the phone. But I said: “This is also a false alarm. I'll clarify what's happening here and then get back to you. [...] 17 minutes later, the radar systems reported that there were no missiles approaching. [...] After three and a half months, we found out that the observation satellites had probably interpreted sunbeams reflecting off the earth's surface as a missile launch, and over an American military base of all places. Such blinding [...] by the sun was extremely unlikely, but not impossible.” (Stefan Locke: “Der rote Knopf hat nie funktioniert”, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 18.02.2013 - accessed on 07.08.2024.)

    [22] - Quoted from Alyona Zadoroshnaya, op. cit.

    [23] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung, July 27/28, 2024, p, 23.

    [24] - “Putin announces Russia's reaction ...”, op. cit.

    [25] - Quoted from Berliner Zeitung, July 30, 2024, p. 13.

    [26] - See in detail Blättchen 4/2019 and Blättchen 5/2019.

    [27] - Quoted from Julia Smirnova: Russland nutzt Syrien als Testgebiet für neue Waffen, Die Welt, 14.10.2015 - accessed on 08.08.2024. - A few years later, the USA used a nuclear-armed land-based Kalibr version as a pretext to terminate the INF Treaty. They claimed that the cruise missile had a range of more than 500 kilometers and was therefore a violation of the treaty. Russia repeatedly denied this, but only offered an on-site inspection after some hesitation. The USA did not respond ...

    [28] - See Claudia Major, op. cit.

    [29] - See Hans M. Kristensen / Matt Korda: Nuclear Notebook - United States nuclear weapons, 2023, thebulletin.org, January 16, 2023 - accessed 08.08.2024.

    [30] - See in detail Blättchen 4/2020.

    [31] - See Hans M. Kristensen / Matt Korda, op. cit.

    [32] - See in detail Blättchen 4/2020.

    [33] - Wolfgang Richter, op. cit. p. 2.

    [34] - Ibid, p. 8.

    [35] - Ibid, p. 9.

    [36] - See in detail Blättchen 11/2020.

    [37] - Cf. Thomas Gutschker: Eine neue Waffe, die Moskau treffen könnte, faz.net, 11.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024 - and Markus Fasse: Raketen-Alternative zum “Tomahawk”, Handelsblatt (online), 16.07.2024 - accessed on 08.08.2024.

    ________________________________________________________________

    Paths of anti-fascism. Marxist study week 2024

    By Milan Nowak
    [This article posted on August 22, 2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.isw-muenchen.de/online-publikationen/texte-artikel/5285-marxistische-selbstverstaendigung-wege-des-antifaschismus-2.]


    Marxist Study Week in Frankfurt discussed causes and the fight against right-wing developments in the EU, Germany and America

    Background: Right-wing development

    Fascism researcher Reinhard Opitz wrote in his essay “What is right-wing? What are right-wing tendencies?”, which appearedin the second issue of Marxistische Blätterin 1980 , that ‘left-wing movements or forces’ are those that ‘push towards the next objectively possible degree of realization of democracy at their time or work towards it selectively’.
    Right-wing movements or forces, on the other hand, are those that “push back behind the relative historical degree of realization of democracy already achieved at their time or even just the scope for articulation of democratic (left-wing) forces”.

    Two questions also arise acutely for the left here:
    What are the causes of the development of the right?
    And how can Marxists not only analyze them, but also combat them?
    An attempt to find adequate answers to these questions was made by the Marxist Study Week in Frankfurt am Main from August 12 to 15 with over 50 participants. Since 2008, the conference has been organized by the journal Marxistische Erneuerung, the Heinz Jung Foundation and the Institute for Social-Ecological Economic Research, isw. The conference kicked off on Monday last week with a panel discussing historical legal developments.

    Stefan Bollinger looked back more than 100 years and spoke about the counter-revolution from 1848/49 to Kaiser Wilhelm II. Frank Deppe looked at the Weimar Republic and Silvia Gingold spoke about renazification in West Germany from 1945 and the occupational bans that affected her. Protests and solidarity committees demanded democratic rights for those affected. However, according to Gingold, the danger of occupational bans still exists today. She referred to the ongoing repression against Palestine solidarity and the peace movement as well as the Ministry of the Interior's plans to ban “extremists” and “enemies of the constitution” from practicing their professions. The only effective protection of the constitution, said Gingold, was a broad democratic public.

    Philipp Becher, following fascism researcher Reinhard Opitz, recognized the shift to the right as an expression of an integration crisis in bourgeois society. The liaison between capitalism and parliamentary democracy is not a historically normal case, the class rule of the bourgeoisie is not bound to any form of state, he explained and reminded the audience that democratic elements of bourgeois society are fought for and realized by the labour movement. In an alliance with social liberals, it was important to “seize every seed” - but to maintain one's independence as a Marxist.

    Another panel dealt with international legal developments.
    Ingar Solty interpreted the rise of the “Bonapartist” Donald Trump as the result of a hegemony crisis in the USA, which has its economic basis in the impoverishment of broad sections of the population since the Volcker Shock in 1978. Trump's possible re-election would mean an intensified authoritarian restructuring of the state. Sabine Kebir pointed out the political flexibility of Italy's head of government Giorgia Meloni, who is cleverly maneuvering within the EU, but is also strictly Atlanticist against Russia and China. In return for her loyalty to foreign policy, the EU and the USA gave her free rein in Italy against the welfare state, women's rights and refugees.

    Andrés Musacchio explained the rise of Argentinian President Javier Milei as a result of the weakness of a crisis-ridden but also inconsistent Peronist left and an economic elite interested in capital flight and selling out. Milei is rapidly destroying social, scientific and cultural institutions while expanding the military and the police. Cornelia Hildebrandt gave an overview of legal developments in the EU.

    Gerd Wiegel explained the causes and dimensions of the development of the right in Germany.
    Andreas Fisahn discussed the role of the bourgeois right in the fight against fascism, specifically on the basis of the debate about an AfD ban and legal remedies against its Thuringian state and parliamentary group leader Björn Höcke. Working groups dealt with topics including political education in the fight against the right, the fight for a humane asylum policy and the question of a new popular front strategy.

    A final plenary session with Violetta Bock, Andrea Hornung and Wiegel discussed current ways of anti-fascist politics.

    The Marxist study week was praised by the participants as insightful. The analysis of anti-feminist forces would have been a good addition, as was noted by the participants. In addition, the economic causes should be examined more closely. The presentation of the next issue of the journal Marxistische Erneuerung on September 29 on the topic of “Zeitenwende: Authoritarian capitalism - FRG economy under the pressure of geopolitical machinations” will follow on from this.

    In its presentation, the Socialist Democratic Student Association recalled a quote from Bert Brecht's “Life of Galileo”:

    “When truth is too weak to defend itself, it must go on the attack.”

    ______________________________________________________________________

    The betrayed people

    The fate of the Palestinians can be compared to that of the North American Indians. Those who were not expelled remained as the “underclass” in their own country. Part 1 of 2.

    “There is no Palestinian people,” said former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. The political background to this statement seems clear. Where there is “no one”, you can settle with confidence. And if there are somehow people in the coveted territory, they don't have to be taken so seriously or even recognized as equals. The regret of Western countries over the ongoing expulsion, subjugation and discrimination of Palestinians by the “Jewish state” has always been limited. In fact, the Palestinians have all the characteristics of a separate people: their own traditional territory, culture and language. In historical considerations, it is usually mentioned in a double pack: “Israel/Palestine”. It is time to tell the eventful history of this people before ever larger parts of it perish in a hail of bombs.

    by Viktoria Waltz

    [This article posted on 8/22/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.manova.news/artikel/das-betrogene-volk.]


    “From sea to shining sea” - sound familiar?

    This phrase is part of the American dream of “manifest, irrevocable destiny”! “Manifest Destiny” was a term coined by the journalist John O'Sullivan in the mid-19th century to legitimize the expansion of America by settlers from east to west, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, which began in the early 19th century (1).

    “‘All men are created equal’, this famous sentence from the American Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776, was revolutionary in the age of feudalism and colonialism (...) They committed themselves to human rights, the separation of powers and democracy - a highlight of the Enlightenment.”

    But land hunger and finally gold drove away and cheated the indigenous population of all promises and treaties and finally almost completely destroyed them despite fierce resistance, an “ethnocide” (2).

    Were the Palestinians just lucky that the fraud against them only took place in the 20th century and was not so easy to carry out in the face of global international public opinion and a few enshrined global “human rights”?

    Did all barriers of morality and humanity have to be torn down internationally in order to make the crime in Gaza possible in the 21st century?

    Jeshajahu Leibowitz, professor at the University of Jerusalem and editor of the Hebrew Encyclopaedia, whom Ezer Weizmann called “one of the greatest personalities in the life of the Jewish people (...) for many in Israel as the spiritual conscience”, judges the saying “There is no Palestinian people” coined by Golda Meir, the former Israeli foreign minister and prime minister, and repeated to this day: “This is genocide!”

    And regarding the Jewish claim to the land, Leibowitz asks: Is the “... the covenant between God and Abraham described in the 15th chapter of the book of Genesis, which includes the promise of land” be considered ‘a historical fact’ today? and concludes:

    “Four Tannaim and Amoraim hold the opinion that, of course, the gift of land had already been redeemed for the sake of the merits of the forefathers and had thus expired” (3).

    So is the “Manifest Destiny” of the Jewish people “from the sea to the river” deniable?

    The Israeli founding fraud - not the first

    The “Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel of May 14, 1948” states, among other things, analogously as above:

    “It will guarantee to all its citizens, without distinction of religion, race or sex, social and political equality” (4).

    None of this has been fulfilled to date, on the contrary.

    Until 1967, the entire remaining Palestinian population in Israel was under a military regime and has been subjected to extensive discrimination ever since: as Palestinians, as “non-Jews” and as Arabs, they are second-class citizens.

    The greatest betrayal of the promise made in the constitution is the systematic expropriation of Palestinian property, above all their private and communal ownership of land and soil, down to a few percent. The continued “land hunger” of the State of Israel now extends - as claimed more than a hundred years ago - “from the sea to the river”, now fulfilled in 1967 by the military occupation of East Jerusalem, including the Old City and the West Bank, all the way to the Jordan River (5).

    A look at the history of the beginnings.

    Fundamental events before and during the First World War

    These were turbulent times at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries: The power struggle of the major industrialized nations on European soil for global access to the land, people and resources of the old empires in Eastern Europe and the Middle East leads to the First World War; the United States of America intervenes in world affairs for the first time and has been involved ever since; Colonial peoples and the many nations under the old empires, Tsarist Russia, the Habsburg Danube Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire strive for independence and nation-statehood; the Russian Revolution, the founding of the League of Nations and the peace negotiations of the victorious powers in Versailles herald a turning point - with promises, disappointments and ultimately new sources of conflict. It is the time of modern nation-state movements.

    From subject to citizen

    "For centuries, many peoples in Europe had often not only been distributed, but also lived under distributed rule. The transformation of popular consciousness into national consciousness is to be seen as a consequence of the modern development of society in the social, cultural, legal, economic and political spheres" (6).

    Among the peoples striving for independence at that time were the Palestinian people - in line with the peoples and nations of the other Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire: Greater Syria, which at that time comprised today's Jordan, Syria and Lebanon in addition to Palestine.

    Weaknesses, missed opportunities and hopes

    Contrary to the general Western and above all Zionist view, the Palestinian people also possess the typical characteristics of a separate people. They have lived for centuries in a definable area, the “Holy Land”, and feel that they belong to it; they have their own language, Palestinian Arabic with various dialects; and they have a folk art that belongs only to them.

    Palestinian personalities, religious, political and cultural, can be traced back a long time (7).

    The region of Palestine at the end of the 19th century

    Palestine, the “Holy Land”, is part of the “Levant” and the “Fertile Crescent”. For thousands of years, the “Holy Land” has been a coveted transit area for European, Arab and Far Eastern peoples, a land bridge between Europe and the Middle and Far East. They have all left their mark there. Since the Arab conquest in the 7th century, Palestine has been part of the Arab cultural area.

    From 1516 until the end of the First World War, i.e. for four centuries, the area of Palestine belonged to the Ottoman Empire as “Greater Syria”, with increasing autonomy as an Arab province, combined with Syria and Lebanon as well as today's Jordan, then Trans-Jordan. It became a territory of today's size through the definition of the British Mandate by the League of Nations “from the Middle Sea to the Jordan River”.

    As the “Holy Land of Palestine, the region of origin of the three Abrahamic religions, it has been a pilgrimage destination for believers from Europe, Africa and the Middle and Far East for centuries. Cities such as Nablus, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Hebron and above all Jerusalem became popular places of early pilgrimage tourism for Jews, Christians and Muslims. Some of these pilgrims and dreamers stayed, as evidenced by the various neighborhoods in the historic Old City of Jerusalem, the African, the Armenian, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, the Jewish and so on.

    In the 19th century, the Palestinians were predominantly Muslim, with larger proportions of Christians, especially in the cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth, and a small proportion of remaining non-Zionist Jews, especially in the Galilee and Jerusalem, Mizrahi as they are distinctively called in Israel. They were considered Palestinians until the end of the Ottoman Empire and were all Ottoman citizens, regardless of their religion, most of whom had lived in the Holy Land for centuries (8).

    Economic, social and political life

    At the end of the 19th century, Palestine was once again a prosperous country, exporting mainly agricultural goods and already integrated into the world market. The famous Jaffa oranges, figs, olives and wheat were exported to Europe from the international ports of Jaffa, Haifa and Akka. Dates from Gaza competed successfully with those from Jidda or Doha. The “Baedeker” of 1912, for example, expressly praised the “fertility of many regions with their orange groves, olive plantations and grain fields” in Palestine. Even before the First World War, the export of oranges to Europe reached 1,608,570 crates worth 297,700 pounds” (9).

    Jerusalem, the social and religious center, was and still is a transshipment point for all kinds of luxury products from the neighboring Arab countries, from the entire “Orient”. In the bazaars of the Old City, interested traders or curious visitors can find everything their heart desires: silk fabrics from Damascus, daggers from Yemen, the finest camel leather from Saudi Arabia and, of course, products from local crafts, for example pottery and glassware from Hebron, the famous olive soap from Nablus, woven baskets, embroidery and woven goods from the rural markets of the Bedouins and villagers (10).

    Palestine was rural until the beginning of the 20th century.

    Socially and legally, the rural area was dominated by so-called “absentee landlords” and politically represented by a small urban elite, the “notables”, in the old large cities of Gaza, Akka, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nablus or Hebron. These were extended families such as the Husayni, Nashashibi, Dajani, Abd al-Hadi, Tuqan, Nabulsi, Khoury, Tamimi, Khatib, Ja'bari, Masri, Kan'an, Shaq'a, Barghouthi, Shawwa, Rayyes, Khalidis and others who, like the Khalidis for example, can trace their Jerusalem presence and importance back to pre-Ottoman times. They held the central posts of the Ottoman administration in Palestine and were in charge of Islamic institutions, from the Mufti to the mosques, the “Auqaf”, the authority of Muslim land ownership and the “Zakkat”, i.e. the distribution of charitable donations. They also sent deputies to the later parliament in Istanbul. They were the recognized representatives of the people without a mandate, mediating between the people and the authorities.

    Only in the up-and-coming coastal towns of Haifa, Jaffa and Akka had an independent merchant bourgeoisie and an urban working class emerged by the end of the century. Modernity had arrived here, with books and newspapers, clubs, cinemas, theaters and salons, and the national question in particular was already the subject of articles and debates.

    However, the majority of the elites still saw themselves as being tied to the Ottoman Empire, from which security and order had emanated for more than 400 years and from which they had always benefited. Their cultural identity was Arab and the Muslim majority felt that they belonged to the Ummah, the global Muslim community.

    After the end of the Ottoman Empire and the seizure of the land by the European powers and the Zionist movement, the pre-modern social structure and the elite tied to the authorities in particular became the weakness of the Palestinian people in the struggle for independence and statehood (11).

    Palestinian folk art

    Palestinian embroidery is unique and inimitable!

    The finest embroidery adorns the women's traditional costumes made from home-spun and hand-dyed silk or wool. Every region, indeed almost every village, has developed its own unique shapes and colors. From a distance, anyone on the street can tell you where this woman on the opposite side with her typical dress comes from. In Ramallah, for example, the women embroider black and white linen fabric in cross-stitch, while in Bethlehem it is customary to use cord stitch, and so on (12).

    Moreover, only in Palestine were and are there typical songs, dances such as “dabke” or dishes such as “maqlube”, the “upside-down” or “zataar” made from the local wild thyme. Typical dialects point to their places of origin. The “distinguished” Jerusalemites simply omit the “Qaf”, “Al Quds”, “The Holy One”, the Arabic name for Jerusalem in their dialect is Al Uds, while in Gaza the Q is pronounced as a hard G, so it becomes “Al Guddes”; west of Bethlehem, endings with -ki like -ci become ch, as in Italian with Medici or as in Crete with Theodorakis, “kif halik?”, “Wie gehts?” becomes “tschief halitsch?” and so on.

    The “Palestinian Hikaye”, “Narrated history, especially of women”, has been registered by UNESCO as intangible cultural heritage under the number 0124 (13).

    The influence of Europe and the arrival of modernity

    None of the Christian sections are missing, at least in Jerusalem, with a monastery or a church - and a diplomatic representation “to protect their pilgrims”. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem, with its various sections, altars and underground vaults, reflects this diversity of faiths, Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Armenian and so on, especially at Easter - and also their disunity.

    In the 19th century, however, religion no longer plays a role. Since the slowly declining star of the Ottoman Empire (“The Sick Man on the Bosphorus”), countless European institutions, especially in Jerusalem, have been bustling about in the “Holy Land” alongside the embassies.

    The “Orient” has long been the object of European attempts to exert influence. The Suez Canal accelerated world trade and England was interested in a secure land bridge to British India. The oil in Iran and Iraq was also a lure. There is still no talk of gas under the Mediterranean coast.

    The modernization of land law demanded by the foreign powers became a key. Muslim endowment land, “Waqf”, which still prevails to a large extent in the Old City of Jerusalem, for example, could not be sold. With the general modernization and especially the Land Code of 1858, a cadastralization of land ownership slowly began and, in addition, the acquisition of so-called “state land” was also possible for non-Muslims, i.e. foreigners. Due to this modernization and the new law, the city and the country “owe” facilities such as hospitals, schools, archaeological research facilities and even the post office to the English, Germans, French or Italians, even the Americans of the time.

    Palestinian society also benefited from these diverse institutions in the late 19th century, as the Ottoman government now established secular schools and various educational institutions. After all, this gave many circles access to a modern education system in contrast to Islamic and Koranic schools, even if not all citizens (14).

    When the Old City of Jerusalem could no longer cope with the growth in population and economy, new modern residential areas were built in the “New City” to the west of the Old City at the turn of the century and the wealthy moved out of the Old City and into villas in the style of the new era. Bauhaus and Art Deco are popular.

    European political ideas, desires and demands for independence and democracy also move in. In addition to the salons and clubs mentioned above, the first national organizations emerge, such as the first Palestinian women's organization in Akka in 1903. However, these are often branches of the Arab parties that emerge in Istanbul, which, like the Patriotic Society based in Jerusalem in 1908, are often a branch of the Patriotic Ottoman Party (CUP), which represents Muslims, Christians and (Ottoman/Mizrahi) Jews together and takes a secular stance; a Palestinian youth organization also emerges in 1910. Most of these parties and associations still saw themselves as Arab national movements within the Ottoman Empire. A small communist party was also founded, in which non-Zionist Jews and Arabs were united.

    Even the young generation of notable families took part in the congresses in Damascus on the question of independence and separation from the Ottoman Empire.

    In particular, newspapers such as Al Quds in Jerusalem, Al Najah in Nablus, Al Muqtabas in Akka, Filistin in Jaffa, Al Carmel in Haifa and so on spread the debate on the national question. The visible beginnings of Zionist immigration, land purchases and colonies are thematized as a threat to Palestinian national development. Corresponding petitions are submitted, representatives of various cities and regions speak in Istanbul, and a first formal debate on the dangers of Zionism is held in parliament. Restrictions on the purchase of land by non-Ottoman Jews and protection against the sell-out and expropriation of entire village communities were repeatedly discussed. Reports of clashes between Palestinian farmers and new Jewish colonists are increasing everywhere.

    The government does react: with increased taxes on new purchases. In addition, it prevents the sale by auction of public, state-owned land, which had been customary until then, and restricts Jewish immigration and the granting of Ottoman citizenship.

    In 1911, Najib Nasser publishes the first analysis in Arabic on the subject of “Zionism, its history, its aims and its significance for Palestine”. Aref al Aref, the editor of the newspaper Filistin writes on January 25, 1913:

    “If the present state of affairs continues, Zionism will take over the rule of our entire country, village by village, town by town, and tomorrow all of Jerusalem will be sold.”

    With the beginning of the First World War and the entry of the Ottoman Empire in August 1914 on the side of Germany, however, there was no longer any pardon for “apostates”. Arab nationalists, including Palestinian representatives, members of the Decentralization Party, who had demanded the separation of the Arab territories from the Ottoman Empire in 1912, were publicly hanged, such as Salim Ahmed Abdul Hadi from Jenin in Beirut in 1915 or the Mufti of Gaza at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City (15).

    Conclusion

    The identity of the Palestinians is a product of the era of the declining Ottoman Empire and the growing desire for independence throughout the Arab part of the empire. Everything intensified with the emergence of Zionism, the first waves of immigration, the first land purchases, settlers and colonies.

    However, the Palestinians are not yet sufficiently organized to meet the major challenges that lie ahead of them, are divided about where the journey can take them, are dependent on the hierarchical structures and the elites, and have little political training. They were faced with increasing paternalism from European powers and a strong, well-organized and politically experienced Zionist movement - without the corresponding opportunities to make an impact. The systematic deception of the Palestinian people by the world powers, England, the dependent Arab states and Zionism began with the First World War.

    Part 2 deals with the development of Zionism.

Posted by The ego dies and the self is born at 5:16 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest

No comments:

Post a Comment

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Views Today

285,708

Blog Archive

  • ►  2025 (153)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (31)
    • ►  April (30)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ▼  2024 (470)
    • ►  December (31)
    • ►  November (30)
    • ►  October (32)
    • ▼  September (134)
      • Sheepish Rut
      • Operating Vibration
      • Mind Programming
      • Conditioned Dead Zones
      • Cascading Stories
      • Oneness Energy
      • Life Lessons
      • Another View
      • Nobody Looking Morality
      • False God Attachment
      • Expansion of Stillness
      • Divine Unity
      • Sheepish Reaching
      • Desires Lure
      • Mind Approved Lunacy
      • Take or Give Mind State
      • Natural Truth
      • Compulsive Reaching
      •  ‘Loser’ Trump blows debate: Harris wins 2024’s bi...
      •  Issuu.com for Instant Enlightenment and Instant A...
      •  Housing Affordability: Challenge and Contexthttps...
      •  Crisis Beyond the Bubble by Tomasz Koniczhttps://...
      •  The Disordered Soul and Presidency of Donald Trum...
      •  A Peace policy for the 21st Centuryhttps://freetr...
      • Internal Spirit
      • Harmonic Aspirations
      • Perimeter of Love
      • Divine Truth Guidance
      • Migration researcher Jochen Oltmer: “Labor migrati...
      •  Reports on the anniversary of the Normandy landin...
      •  https://www.oekumenisches-netz.de/wp-content/uplo...
      •  “Cognitive warfare” – Clarifying remarks on a pro...
      •  Is Europe facing a nuclear inferno?by Oskar Lafon...
      •  Germany: Fascism is Booming Von Tomasz Konicz ...
      •  The next turning pointBy the editorial team of Ge...
      •  ‘A downward spiral toward extremism’: How Project...
      •  Journalist Ben Norton discusses his experience li...
      • Health dictatorship without diseasesIn the future,...
      •  Times Have Changed in 2024!by Marc Batko[Many tra...
      •  20 Neoliberal Myths    by Marc Batko[These myths ...
      • Too big to fail, too weak to leadby Ingo Schmidt[T...
      •  Return to democratic idealsExcerpt: Jason Stanle...
      •  Oceania vs. EurasiaIn the face of crumbling econ...
      •  Capitalism can’t overcome the laws of physicshttp...
      •  Open and Closed Societiesby Marc Batko (marc1seed...
      •  "This is the only way to end the confrontation be...
      •  In his dissenting opinion, Stevens argued that t...
      •  Who decides on scarce resources?Democracy on dry ...
      • Adolph Trump and Genocide Joe: Race, Blood, Vermin...
      •  The end of omnipotenceThe West and the SCO summit...
      •  What Russia proposed in Istanbul in March 2022by ...
      •   Ways out of Permanent Stagnation by Marc Batko...
      •  Recognize a divided Ukraine "for the time being" ...
      • We are the world. We are the people. We are NATO....
      •  The conspiracy bundleOn his 70th birthday, Mathi...
      •  China's “overcapacity”The West envies China's ec...
      •  Fight or flightDonald Trump is in the ascendancy...
      •  The mad lead the blindThe ruling elites and the ...
      •  “A new era” at universitiesby Michael Klundt[This...
      •  Michael Hudson On finance, real estate and the p...
      •  Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks and insu...
      •  Biden's war recordby Erhard Crome[This article p...
      •  China's political signals and programmatic: moder...
      •  WriteSign in
      •  Trump v. United States: Are Presidents Now Kings?...
      •  Resistance and submission: being inspired by Diet...
      •  Rising rents – solution refused[This article pos...
      • From It’s Not Over: Learning From the Socialist Ex...
      •  Interview with retired US colonel Ann Wright: “I...
      • Good understandingDiplomacy and dialogue can defu...
      •  The advertising societyAdvertising and marketing...
      •  “Ukraine has been a geopolitical figure on the wo...
      •  Jürgen Habermas on the Ukraine war “The West has ...
      •  Trump's Newspeak - Center for Progressive Reformh...
      • Gangster capitalism and nostalgic authoritarianism...
      •  1984 and all that Hideous StrengthWhy the skills ...
      •  “Christianity is not the religious padding of a b...
      •  The EU should focus on diplomacy and cooperation ...
      •  Manipulation: Why we fall for fake news - and can...
      •  Think and act logically for peace!Five fields of ...
      •  Punishment is needed againby Andreas Urban[This ...
      •  2084: Orwell revisited in the age of Trumpby Tom ...
      •  Teaching in the Time of Trump by Benjamin Justice...
      •  Neoliberalism cannot create industrial policyWhat...
      •  Around the mountainCapitalism has reached its nat...
      •  Observation case: protection of the constitutionT...
      •  The negligible restThe USA is sticking to its uni...
      •  Netanyahu's dangerous game: on autopilot into cha...
      •  Michael Hudson On finance, real estate and the p...
      •  Letters to the editor on "With 'Hurray' into sel...
      •  Beijing calls for cooling of Ukraine crisis[This ...
      •  Utopia of a multipolar world order: How Asia coul...
      •  United in propagandaMainstream media emphasize R...
      •  The new Thirty Years' WarGermany is in the hands ...
      •  Migration as a weaponMass migration can destabil...
      •  Israel's army watched as settlers attacked and se...
      •  The Disordered Soul and Presidency of Donald J. T...
      •  Dangerous shifting of blameA closer analysis of ...
      •  The implosion of narrativesThe narratives and act...
      •  The threat of a pandemicAs long as the WHO is ve...
    • ►  August (30)
    • ►  July (31)
    • ►  June (30)
    • ►  May (31)
    • ►  April (30)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (29)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2023 (364)
    • ►  December (31)
    • ►  November (31)
    • ►  October (31)
    • ►  September (29)
    • ►  August (31)
    • ►  July (31)
    • ►  June (29)
    • ►  May (31)
    • ►  April (30)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2022 (368)
    • ►  December (32)
    • ►  November (30)
    • ►  October (31)
    • ►  September (30)
    • ►  August (31)
    • ►  July (31)
    • ►  June (30)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (30)
    • ►  March (31)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (32)
  • ►  2021 (407)
    • ►  December (31)
    • ►  November (30)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (30)
    • ►  August (30)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (28)
    • ►  May (32)
    • ►  April (41)
    • ►  March (60)
    • ►  February (28)
    • ►  January (31)
  • ►  2020 (748)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (28)
    • ►  October (29)
    • ►  September (29)
    • ►  August (30)
    • ►  July (72)
    • ►  June (89)
    • ►  May (78)
    • ►  April (92)
    • ►  March (95)
    • ►  February (86)
    • ►  January (91)
  • ►  2019 (1010)
    • ►  December (95)
    • ►  November (89)
    • ►  October (77)
    • ►  September (93)
    • ►  August (93)
    • ►  July (92)
    • ►  June (89)
    • ►  May (94)
    • ►  April (93)
    • ►  March (72)
    • ►  February (57)
    • ►  January (66)
  • ►  2018 (767)
    • ►  December (64)
    • ►  November (65)
    • ►  October (70)
    • ►  September (67)
    • ►  August (63)
    • ►  July (61)
    • ►  June (63)
    • ►  May (55)
    • ►  April (66)
    • ►  March (68)
    • ►  February (62)
    • ►  January (63)
  • ►  2017 (545)
    • ►  December (71)
    • ►  November (53)
    • ►  October (66)
    • ►  September (71)
    • ►  August (73)
    • ►  July (74)
    • ►  June (41)
    • ►  May (66)
    • ►  April (30)
Replica Life. Watermark theme. Powered by Blogger.