Jew World Order

The Summit for Democracy had its second forum on March 28-30 this year. The current US administration established the event in the second part of 2021, and it was held for the first time in December of that year. Because the Covid-19 pandemic was still active at the time, this event was held online a year and a half ago.

The second Summit for Democracy was held in a similar manner, but with the added benefit of coordinating some of the conversation processes that have arisen over the past two years using current communication tools. There is no obligation that the remarks stay confidential, especially if they take place in a short period of time and include leaders from several different countries.

And such countries, organized in a very diverse manner, numbered more than 120 this time. This already casts doubt on the viability of combining them all into a single concise definition. And if there is one linked with the name “democracy,” one cannot help but ask what type of action we have observed in the global informational and political spheres once again. It was briefly mentioned earlier in the NEO while addressing the first such event.

First and foremost, the difficulties involved with its preparation and implementation can only be justified by the fact that some political dividends will be obtained in the conflict between the Summit’s organizer and its primary geopolitical opponents. These dividends stem from the challenge of attracting as many individuals as possible to their side (still quite vague). That is why the aspect of a slight but noticeable increase in the number of participants in the second Summit compared to the first is given so much weight. It should attest to the inexorable triumph of history’s luminous side over the dark side’s dangers. The former, of course, is being represented by the United States, while the latter is being incarnated by its primary opponents, the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation.

In fact, the situation underlying the creation and implementation of the Summit under consideration is a parody of the unsophisticated dominant Hollywood dream factory scenario. With its view of the world in black and white, and of any large human communities as composed of “good guys and bad guys.” It is odd that there are adepts of identical ideas of the world order in Russia, with a reversing of the signs that identify its subgroups.

The obsessive expectation of a “final battle” is prevalent on both sides of the increasingly evident “front line” among proponents of this type of perspective. The weapons of this “battle” are regarded as a “global cure” for all international ailments.

It is vital to realize the fundamental difference between such a “black and white” approach to analyzing all that is going on in the modern world and PRC’s place in it. President Xi Jinping’s latest Global Security Initiative provides more evidence of this. This was proven on the platforms of succeeding summits, which deserve a separate commentary.

As for the aforementioned major task of the Summit’s organizers, its solution, that is, the successful sale of the proposed “product” in the international market of political services, is meant to be achieved through its designation by an appealing brand. The latter, in line with the “organizers’” goals, ought to have a favorable impact on the scatterbrained buyer’s hazy perceptions of his surroundings.

The word “democracy” frequently elicits favorable feelings, yet these feelings are rarely or never grounded in reality. Both historical and current. The term “Man and Citizen” referred to little more than one-third of the population in the ancient Greek polis, where the concept of “people power” was therefore inapplicable. The rest of the population was said to be “talking cattle.” Its aim included trimming stone blocks for a bowl of stew, which were then used by inventive architects to construct various “wonders of the world.” The key weapon for establishing diverse “democracy” procedures among citizens was the use of manipulative political technologies.

As is the case today, when they are widely used not just within “democratic” governments, but also internationally in the geopolitical struggles. Similar strategies have been successful in Ukraine, and the Second Summit for Democracy’s main theme was that country’s current state of affairs. It is worth noting that the inclusion of the current Ukrainian government in the list of “democracies” is itself a sign of the absurdity of the situation.

For a typical Ukrainian layman who occasionally traveled to developed (and less developed) “democracies” to perform menial labor, it was sufficient to “explain” all the riches perceived in them as a result of their “democratic structure.” And then suddenly, there was such a benefit for the “explainers”: a Ukrainian supporter of “democracy” (in steeply declining numbers, but nonetheless) was willing to serve as cannon fodder in the proxy conflict the Summit’s organizers were waging with one of their geopolitical rivals. Almost for the same bowl of stew that is now marked with the magic word “reparations.”

Ukraine’s situation, however, is more of an exception than the rule. Because the majority of the target nations of the political safari conducted by the primary organizer of this and other comparable events, evaluate their actual political goal setting in a cold and realistic manner. The favorable response to the invitation to participate in the Summit is mainly explained by the fact that it poses no significant danger to the relatively neutral positioning of the majority of the invited participating countries.

Eventually, it all came down to the necessity for a day or two to attract attention to the rubbish that the event’s hosts were spewing into their visitors’ ears. Among them were some colorful characters, such as Samantha Power, the former US ambassador to the United Nations. The guests’ patience is also justified by the fact that the organizer and its associates proclaimed their desire to lavish on economic development aid somewhat earlier.

So, one can suffer speakers’ utterances (many of whom should undergo a psychiatric assessment) as well as the presence of really singular persons among the visitors. According to the agenda of the full event released by the US State Department, the guests included “Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, leader of the democratic opposition, and Natalia Pinchuk, wife of imprisoned Nobel Laureate Ales Bialiatski, Belarus.” Simultaneously, the former was not labeled as “President of Belarus” this time.

This would be regarded as evidence of some common sense on the part of the Summit’s organizers. Yet, the emphasis on a “new normal” with its current focus on “values below the belt” casts some doubt on this. However, it is important to remember that Me too, an externally relatively innocent and in some ways even positive campaign, can be considered the beginning of the process of paying special attention to these “values” today. Which in turn might be understood as a modern development of the relatively old issue of equating women’s rights in a naturally divided humanity, with each gender having distinct essential roles and obligations.

Women’s rights were discussed at the Summit as a measuring stick of “democracy” (The Status of Women is the Status of Democracy). Without delving into the above maxim, we can only observe a strange trend that is becoming more pronounced: the better the position of women in a particular country corresponds to it, the worse the picture of the fulfillment of the commandment “Be fruitful and multiply,” and the more perfect the instruments of murder developed in it. This commandment, however, is probably certainly meaningless in the minds of the creators of this maxim.

Finally, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s remark in a plenary address that his country’s example demonstrates the “possibility” of the success of a democratically governed state is noteworthy. One of the most respected statesmen in the world today appears to be unsure about the relationship between a nation’s success (which is a worthy concern) and the claim that it is “democratic.”

India’s great neighbor, which (like Russia) was not invited to the Summit and where the event was quite adequately characterized as one of the technological methods of the general course of the US (that is the organizer of this event) aimed at maintaining its hegemonic position in world politics, demonstrates that such cause-and-effect linkage is not predetermined.

Vladimir Terekhov, expert on the issues of the Asia-Pacific region, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Сообщение Second “Summit for Democracy” появились сначала на New Eastern Outlook.

Source