Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Polls. Show all posts

Wednesday, 4 November 2020

JOE BIDEN WITH A SLIGHT LEAD OVER TRUMP, AS PRELIMINARY RESULTS SHOW HEAVY CONTENTION

 South Front

In the early hours of November 4th, the vote for the US Presidential Election is being counted between incumbent president Donald Trump, and former Vice President Joe Biden.

As of 9:00 Central European Time, Joe Biden is in the lead with 49.8% of the vote and 236 electoral votes, compared to Trump’s 213.

Despite the preliminary results, Trump came out after his Texas and Florida wins and announced that he had achieved victory in the Presidential Election.

Joe Biden With A Slight Lead Over Trump, As Preliminary Results Show Heavy Contention

To secure victory and 4 years as president, the necessary number of electoral votes is 270.

In terms of swing states, Trump currently leads in Texas and Florida, both of which provide the most electoral votes.

Trump is also in a slight lead in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Michigan and Georgia, but counts are not finalized yet.

Joe Biden takes away Arizona and New Hampshire.

These are no final results yet, and it is quite possible that they will not be provided on November 4th.

Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin are expected to finalize their vote counting some time on November 5th.

From the preliminary results, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, there was a final burial of the residual respect for the “mathematical models” and polls of almost all American political technology and sociological companies, as well as trust in the “expert assessments” of the mainstream media.

Even if Biden wins, it will be a very tough win, just barely, as it seems.

And this does not fit with what the polls showed, especially since Biden lost miserably several states in which all mainstream polls gave him a colossal advantage, starting right with Florida, in which Trump received a record number of votes from “Latinos”, blacks and especially “Cubans”.

Polls missed all this or were originally aimed at purely manipulating the vote in order to suppress Trump voters.

In Ohio, judging by the exit polls (which actually give a very rosy picture for Democrats), 56% of workers’ union members voted for Trump, and this kind of hints at the fact that the American “deep electorate” is somehow not very enthusiastic about the LGBT-green-leftist agenda and accusations of racism. Polls also missed everything or were initially biased.

At the funeral of the industry of “polls and models” on Twitter, the button accordion was torn by Nassim Taleb personally, who three years ago publicly mocked the chief sociologist and modeler of the United States Nate Silver, and practice has once again confirmed his correctness.

The legendary “quantum” analyst of JP Morgan Marko Kolanovich joined the kicking of political charlatans, who also pointed out that all this pseudo-mathematical rubbish promoted by mainstream sociology was biased and unrealistic.

Now about bankruptcy. It is not yet completely obvious to everyone, but the most competent observers of international (and, in particular, American) political discourse – Chris Arnaid and Victor Marakhovsky – have already noted that the industry of “militant liberal irony” has suffered serious damage.

As Viktor Marakhovsky rightly noted “for a long time, the most promoted and, therefore, the most successful votes of Donald Trump were not at all the brightest and funniest ironists – but the most heart-rending, moreover, having the maximum number of “signs of voices that must be heard.” In other words, a crowd of hysterical minorities who are not very good at sarcasm simply because sarcasm is a product no, but still a critical analysis.”

Before everybody is the defeat of the “collective American Dudya”, and the victory will go to Biden (if at all) not due to total media domination and powerful propaganda, but thanks to the officials of the “deep state” who have stopped counting in key states and are now stuffing pre-prepared ballots for Biden in “voting machines” or in boxes for storing “mail ballots”.

It remains to find out whether another bankruptcy will be added to the funeral and bankruptcy – namely, the total loss of legitimacy of the American judicial system, which may and will have to determine the final winner of the electoral race.

More than 1000 people protesting US President Donald Trump descended on “Black Lives Matter Plaza” on the evening of November 3rd, just a block from the White House, while hundreds more marched through parts of downtown Washington, sometimes blocking traffic and setting off fireworks.

The demonstrations in Washington were largely peaceful, with people shouting, “Whose streets? Our streets!” and “If we don’t get no justice, they don’t get no peace!”

Groups of teenagers danced in the street as onlookers cheered. Large banners, including one reading “Trump lies all the time,” were unfurled.

The situation in the US is quite precarious, with either Presidential candidate winning having to deal with a largely divided population, with numerous issues.

It is, however, showing that the Trump administration, which evidently mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic, and several other issues, and has gathered so much American ire after months of Black Lives Matter protests, is still heavily contesting the vote.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

استطلاعات الرأي حول الرئاسة الأميركية… ما لا يُقال

 د. منذر سليمان وجعفر الجعفري

لا تزال معظم استطلاعات الرأي تشير الى تفوّق ثابت للمرشح الديمقراطي جوزيف بايدن على الرئيس ترامب في معظم الولايات، وخصوصاً الولايات المصنّفة حاسمة، وتشتدّ ضراوة الحملات الانتخابية بين المرشحين في عدد من الولايات التي استطاع ترامب انتزاعها من الديمقراطيين في الانتخابات الماضية.

ولاية فلوريدا تبدو ساحة المنافسة الأشد، إلى جانب 4 ولايات تشهد تركيزا من طرفي السباق (مشيغان، ويسكونسن، بنسلفانيا، ومينسوتا).

الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية تحسمها بضع ولايات من مجموع الولايات الخمسين، نظراً إلى طبيعة العوامل المؤسّسة للنظام الانتخابي، وأهمية دور مندوبي الولايات للهيئة الانتخابية المكونة من 538 عضو، يوازي كامل عدد أعضاء الكونغرس بمجلسيه. وتؤدي استطلاعات الرأي دوراً يتعاظم طرداً مع توظيف المؤسّسات الإعلامية لنتائجها، والمبارزة بينها على نشر «توجّه سياسي معين» يؤثر في الناخب ويوجهه إلى زاوية معينة.

استطلاعات الرأي، بشكلها المجرّد، تعطي تصوّراً تقريبياً لمرشّح محدّد في الحالة الأميركية الراهنة، وتؤشر على مدى حجم الدعم والتأييد، بتوظيف جملة عوامل تستقي منها حيثيات تعينها على استنتاجاتها، كحجم أموال المتبرعين، للدلالة على مدى تأييد برنامج انتخابي معين.

وتشوب هذه الاستطلاعات عيوب كثيرة، بدءاً من تباين المنهجية المعتمدة وطبيعة العينة البشرية وتوزيعها الجغرافي وفوارق مداخيلها الاقتصادية ومعتقداتها الدينية والسياسية، والأهم ربما مدى صدقية إجابات تلك العينة، والتي تثار حولها راهناً تساؤلات حقيقية حول إجابات البعض بعكس قناعاته ومشاعره الحقيقية.

للدلالة على تمايز الاستنتاجات وتباين صدقيتها، نستدلّ بدراسة حديثة أجراها «معهد كاتو» المرموق بالقول إنّ «ثلثي (2/3) الناخبين يقرّون بمناخ سياسي مسموم وبعدم الإفصاح عن جواب صريح، ويدلون بإجابة مقبولة اجتماعياً عوضاً عن ذلك». وشاطر المعهد أحد مسؤولي مؤسّسة «نورث ستار اوبينيون ريسيرتش» الجمهوري جون مكهنري رأيه، معبراً عن قلق من «نماذج جوابيّة ملتوية»، موضحاً أنها تدل على «ميل قوي لدى مؤيدي الرئيس ترامب إلى عدم المشاركة في الاستطلاع أو الإجابة عبر الهاتف».

الأجواء المشحونة بالتحيّز والعنصرية ضد الآخر انعكست على معظم مراكز استطلاعات الرأي، بإجماعها على أن «المرشح الديموقراطي جوزيف بايدن يتفوّق على خصمه الرئيس ترامب بنسبة قوية ومتماسكة».

في ولاية مشيغان، على سبيل المثال، جاءت نتيجة الاستطلاع مؤيِّدة لتفوق جوزيف بايدن بنحو 8.6% على خصمه الجمهوري، بينما أفاد استطلاع آخر أجرته مؤسسة «ترافيلغار» بتفوق الرئيس ترامب بنسبة 2%، 49% مقابل 47% لخصمه بايدن. ويتكرر المشهد في الولايات الحاسمة الأخرى بشكل خاص، ولا سيما في ولاية فلوريدا، إذ جاءت استنتاجات المؤسّسة الأولى بتفوق ترامب بنسبة ضئيلة هي 0.4%، مقابل نتائج «ترافيلغار» بتفوق الرئييس ترامب بنسبة 2.3%، أو 49% مقابل 47%.

بيانات عيّنات الناخبين تشكّل حجر الرحى في الاستطلاعات كافة ، والتي تتكوّن من مزيج من المعلومات العامة الرسمية والبيانات الخاصة لدى الشركات التجارية، لا سيما شركات بطاقات الإئتمان.

تتضمَّن البيانات الرسمية، بحسب تقرير يومية «واشنطن بوست»، معلومات تتعلّق بعنوان إقامة الناخب وبريده الالكتروني ورقم هاتفه أو هواتفه وانتسابه السياسيي، سواء كان ديموقراطياً أو جمهورياً، وبيانات جمعها ناشطو الحملات الانتخابية مباشرة، والاشتراك في الصحف والمجلات، وهي ظاهرها بريء وطبيعي، بيد أن تسخيرها لأغراض انتخابية يتم عبر جملة دوائر تحصل عليها بشكل «قانوني» كمرشح معيّن لمنصب محدّد يستخدمها في حملات دعائية للتأييد وجمع أموال التبرعات، ومن ثم يجري تصنيفها مجدداً لخدمة أهداف الحملات السياسية المتعددة، وتباع بشكل علني لمؤسسات تجارية تبني عليها وتغنيها بمعلومات إضافية، وهكذا دواليك. مثال على ذلك شركة «اكسبيريان الضخمة التي تتحكّم بتصنيف «المستهلكين بناء على قدرتهم الشرائية، ونسبة المخاطرة في قدرتهم على دفع الالتزامات المالية الشهرية»، وتضعها بتصرف المؤسَّسات المالية والتجارية والإلكترونية مقابل أجر مادي (27 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر 2020)

وبناءً على تلك الآليّة من البيانات، وتعزيزها ببيانات إضافية محدّدة تصل لنحو 1،500 عنصر، مثل «الحالة الشخصية، وحجم الديون الشخصية، ونوع السيارة او السيارات المسجلة، وعضوية الأندية، بما فيها الرياضية، والخلفية الدينية ومدى الميل للتمسك بها، وأهمية عنصر الخصوصية لدى الفرد أو مدى ثقته بشركات التقنية المتطورة وبيانات الهواتف الشخصية»، يجري عرضها بتصرف الحزبين وفي السوق لمن يدفع أكثر، وتتبادلها المؤسَّسات التجارية وتلك غير الربحية المتعددة، لتشكل «صناعة البيانات» والاتجار بها.

حملة المرشحة السابقة للرئاسة عن الحزب الديموقراطي إليزابيث ووران تُبلغ الناخبين في بياناتها بأنها «قد تتشارك البيانات الخاصة بالناخب .. مع مرشحين آخرين ومنظمات وحملات انتخابية ومجموعات ناشطة أو مع قضايا نعدّها حليفة وتتقاطع معنا في الآراء السياسية».

اللجنة المركزية للحزب الجمهوري أبلغت طاقم الصحيفة أعلاه «بالافتخار لاحتفاظها بقاعدة بيانات عريضة تشمل أكثر من 3،000 بند لكلّ ناخب»، والأمر عينه ينطبق على الحزب الديموقراطي ،وربما بقدر أقل أو أكثر، وتوضع بمجموعها تحت تصرف المرشح وحملته الانتخابية، سواء لمنصب محلي أو فيدرالي.

خطورة التصرف غير المقيّد بتلك البيانات عرضتها القناة 4 البريطانية في شهر أيلول/سبتمبر الماضي، للدلالة على ما أسمته الفضيحة التي حامت حول شركة «كامبريدج اناليتيكا » لتقصيها قواعد بيانات الناخبين من «فايسبوك» وتسخيرها لتعطيل قدرة الناخبين السود (الأفارقة الأميركيين) على الإدلاء بأصواتهم في العام 2016، خدمة لحملة المرشح الرئاسي دونالد ترامب.

عودة إلى الأرقام والنسب الشعبية المئوية للمرشحين، يتفوَّق جوزيف بايدن بنسبة 69% على منافسه الرئيس ترامب بنسبة 14% من أصوات السود الأميركيين. وبين ذوي الأصول اللاتينية، يتفوَّق بايدن بنسبة 65% مقابل 31% لترامب. وبين الأسيويين الأميركيين، يتفوَّق أيضاً بايدن بنسبة 62% مقابل 33%، وذلك بحسب استطلاع أجرته مجلة المال والأعمال «فوربس Forbes))»، 31 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر 2020.

وتشير المجلة إلى تفوق الرئيس ترامب على خصمه بين الناخبين البيض الشباب بنسبة 49% مقابل 47%.

لمتابعة نتائج الانتخابات الأولية خلال ليلة الفرز، ينبغي استقاء المعلومات الموثَّقة من جهاز كلّ ولاية على حدة، ممثّلة بالموقع الرسمي لما يطلق عليه «وزير خارجية» الولاية، ولا سيما في ظلِّ تضارب التكهّنات من قبل المؤ سَّسات المختلفة ومحطات التلفزة ليلة الانتخابات.

يتميّز ذلك الجهاز المحلي بسيطرته على كافة البيانات الانتخابية، سواء المباشرة أو بالبطاقات المسبقة وعبر البريد، والتي يجري فحصها وتسجيلها تباعا، وفق القوانين المحلية لكل ولاية على حدة، ومن ثم تعلن النتائج الرسمية. وعند هذه النقطة الفاصلة، يستطيع المرء البناء على نتائج وبيانات موثّقة، والتي قد تجد طريق حسمها النهائي أما المحاكم العليا لكل ولاية ابتداء، ومن ثم المحكمة العليا الفيدرالية.

نسوق ذلك للدلالة على محورية ولاية فلوريدا في السباق الانتخابي الرئاسي, والتي عادة ما تشكل نتائجها هوية رئيس البلاد المقبل، نظراً إلى ثقلها الانتخابيّ الثالث بعد كاليفورنيا وتكساس، وامتلاكها 29 صوتاً في الهيئة الانتخابية.

التاريخ السياسي للكيان الأميركي يؤكد أهمية كسب ولاية فلوريدا في الحسم المبكر للانتخابات الرئاسية، والتي خسرها مرشحان عن الحزب الديموقراطي، واستطاعا الفوز بمنصب الرئاسة، وهما جون كنيدي في العام 1960 وبيل كلينتون في العام 1992.

فلوريدا تحتوي على نسبة عالية من الناخبين المسنين والمتقاعدين، (26% من المجموع العام)، يمارسون دورهم ككتلة متراصة لا يستطيع أي مرشح تجاوزها. وقد فاز بها الرئيس ترامب في العام 2016 بتأييد 17% من تلك الشريحة، وهو يحظى بتأييد 59% مقابل 38% لخصمه من ناخبي الفئة العمرية 70 عاماً. وكذلك، تتضمّن شريحة قوية من الناخبين ذوي الأصول الكوبية المعادين للنظام الاشتراكي ، وهم يصوتون بغالبيتهم لصالح الحزب الجمهوري، (17% من المجموع العام).

المرشحّ الديموقراطي بايدن يعوّل أيضاً على الفوز بولاية فلوريدا وثقلها الانتخابي، لاعتقاده بأنها ستعزز حظوظه بشكل كبير، وتعفيه من عبء المراهنة على كسب ثلاث ولايات مركزية متأرجحة: بنسلفانيا ومشيغان وويسكونسن. وفي حال فشله في كسب ولاية فلوريدا، وهو احتمال قوي، يتعيَّن عليه الفوز بالولايات الثلاثة المذكورة إضافة إلى ولاية منيسوتا. في المقابل، لا يوجد طريق فعلي لفوز ترامب اذا خسر ولاية فلوريدا.

نسب تأييد بايدن في ولاية ويسكونسن مقلقة، بحسب استطلاع «ترافيلغار»، الذي يشير إلى تقدم بايدن بنسبة 47.5% مقابل 47.1%. بعض الاستطلاعات الأخرى ترجّح تقدمه على ترامب بنسبة 6.4%.

ليلة الانتخابات

في ظل «الجو الانتخابي المسموم»، تشكّل شبه إجماع عام على محورية الانتخابات الرئاسية للعام الجاري، وكذلك عدم التيقّن من إعلان الفائز في الانتخابات مع إقفال صناديق الاقتراع في أقصى الولايات المتحدة، بسبب فارق التوقيت، بعد العاشرة ليلاً بتوقيت العاصمة واشنطن، وذلك لأول مرة.

الرئيس ترامب لا يترك مناسبة دون التصريح بأن الانتخابات ستشهد تزويراً، وخصوصاً إذا لم يربح. وقد تعهّد المرشحان مسبقاً باللجوء إلى القضاء لحسم نتائج الانتخابات والطعن في بعض البيانات لأسباب تقنية بمعظمها، لكنَّ بعضها يؤشر على مهزلة حقيقية. مثلاً، أعلنت «مقاطعة بتلر» في ولاية بنسلفانيا فقدانها قوائم الانتخابات المبكرة لنحو 40،000 ناخب يوم 29 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر الجاري. ومن غير المستبعد تبادل الاتهامات لإقصاء وإتلاف بضعة آلاف أو أكثر من البطاقات الرسمية، قبل احتساب القوائم النهائية وإعلان نتائج الولايات بشكل رسمي، وهذا سيستغرق زمناً غير محدد المعالم.

التحذيرات من الاشتباكات في الشوارع خرجت عن نطاق التهديد اللفظي المجرد، وخصوصاً لمجموعات عنصرية من اليمين المتشدد مدجّجة بالأسلحة، ما استدعى من الأجهزة الأمنيّة الإعداد لخطط طوارئ، ومنها العاصمة، التي ستغلق شوارعها المحيطة بمنطقي الكونغرس والبيت الأبيض.

يومية «واشنطن بوست» أوردت «حجم القلق السائد بين الأجهزة الأمنية الفيدرالية من إمكانية اندلاع اشتباكات عنيفة، وخصوصاً اذا استمرت عملية فرز البطاقات الانتخابية لبضعة أيام دون أفق لحسم النتائج»، في ظل اقبال غير مسبوق على شراء الأسلحة الفردية بلغ 18 مليون قطعة لهذا العام، بحسب بيانات مكتب التحقيقات الفيدرالي.

أجهزة الشرطة المحلية في مدينة بورتلاند في ولاية اوريغون، في أقصى الغرب الأميركي، حذّرت من «نيّة مجموعات يمينية مسلّحة من التجمهر أمام صناديق الاقتراع يوم الثلاثاء بأسلحتهم أمام العامة». انزلاق البلاد إلى مواجهات مسلّحة بؤرية، ولو بوتيرة مضبوطة، هي أشدّ ما تخشاه المؤسَّسة الرسمية بكلّ تشعّباتها، السياسيّة والعسكريةّ والاستخباراتيّة، وستبذل اقصى الجهود لمنعها من التطّور والانتشار.

في المقابل، تتأهب الاجهزة القضائية في الولايات، وعلى المستوى الفيدرالي، للبت بالطعون والطعون المضادة قبل حسم النتائج، على خلفية وعود قطعها المرشحان الجمهوري والديموقراطي بعدم التقيد بالنتائج الأولية. عند هذا المفصل، تبرز أهمية إصرار الرئيس ترامب وقادة حزبه الجمهوري على تعيين آيمي كوني باريت للمحكمة الفيدرالية العليا، كضمانة إضافية للتصويت لصالحه.

استناداً إلى تلك المعطيات، نستطيع القول إن إعلان نتائج الانتخابات الرئاسية الرسمية سيستغرق بضعة أيام وربما أسابيع، وبعدم رضا أي من الفريقين. اما الرئيس ترامب، وبحسب جملة من العوامل والظروف وجمهور مؤيّديه، فقد أبلغ موظّفي حملته الانتخابية مسبقاً بالتأهب للعمل المتواصل طيلة شهر تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر، وامكانية استمراره في عقد مهرجاناته الخطابية، والطلب من كبار معاونيه الإعداد للسفر المتواصل لحشد قاعدته الانتخابية، وذلك بحسب نشرة «بوليتيكو» (30 تشرين الأول/اكتوبر).

يبدو أنّ الرئيس ترامب غير مستعد لقبول الهزيمة. وربما تحصل مفاجأة تشير إلى فوز وازن لأحدهما، مما يقلص من فترة الغموض والتوتر والانتظار التي ستعقب يوم الانتخاب.


فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Monday, 14 September 2020

Normalization between some Arab governments and ‘Israel’: Facts and figures

By Khalid Qaddoumi

September 14, 2020 – 16:3

The term itself says that something is not “normal”. It needs to be normalized, or something that was a taboo is converted into permissible. This is the situation of the relations between Arabs and “Israel” since the Palestinians’ catastrophe (Nakba) in 1948 when the “Israeli” occupation started. Hence, no doubt this topic is controversial and paradoxical.

A few ideas on the subject is given below:

(1) Where has the normalization process reached after 42 years of the first attempt at Camp David 1978?

In 1978 the Egyptian government forged its official diplomatic relations with “Israel” brokered by the United States government. On the 20th of January 2000, The Economist published an article titled “Israelis whom Egyptians love to hate.” The article endorsed the negative “Israeli” character portrayed by the cinema producers in Egypt. “Their women are sluttish schemers. Their men scowling thugs, prone to blood-spilling and to strange guttural barking,” the Economist said. Irrespective of decades of relations, the Egyptians still have their “unwelcoming” attitude to the newly imposed and alien “friend.”

In 2016 another study was published where Dr. Abdulaleem, the senior advisor to the Center of Pyramids for political and strategic studies, said, “Egyptians are least interested in any sort of normalization with “Israel”. The paper mentioned that such a relationship is only at the security apparatus level and few desks at the Egyptian Foreign Ministry. It is a “cold peace,” it wrote.

Alzaytouna’s study center conducted an opinion poll in 2019 about the popularity of the relations with “Israel” among some Muslim countries. The poll concluded that only 3% of Egyptians, 4% of Pakistanis, 6% of Turkish, and 15% of Indonesians may welcome some sort of relations with “Israel”. Many conditioned it after a just solution for the Palestinians.

The study stated that such a process has nothing to do with any fair demands of the Arab nations nor brought any benefit for peace attempts or any economic interests for the nations that the politicians tried to market their causes.

After Israel protested over a contract to sell American F35 jets to the Emirates, the former chief of the “Israeli” army Gadi Eizenkot told “Israel Hayom”: “in the Middle East (West Asia) your new friends may turn to be your enemy. Hence, the “Israeli” surpassing quality power (over the Arabs) is highly essential.”

An obvious “Israeli” skeptical mentality and policy towards Arabs prevents any type of so-called normalization.

(2) Money talks, or something else?

If we agree to the mentioned pragmatic notion, one may expect some economic boost even at the bilateral level between the Emirates and “Israel.” On the 8th of September 2020, the Minister of “Intelligence” of “Israel”, Eli Cohen, said that “In three to five years the balance of trade between the Emirates and us may reach four billion dollars.”

 First, why should a minister of “Intelligence” announce such economic news?

 Second, let us compare this balance of trade with the balance of trade between the Emirates and a neighboring country like Iran. In that case, the figure may exceed 13.5 billion dollars. Here one may say that something else other than “Money talks.”

 Many analysts refer to such a process as an intense and vital need for the current leaders in “Israel” and the U.S. to get re-elected.

 Netanyahu is facing corruption trials, and many riots and rallies are being held against him that may qualify the situation for a fourth election. On the other hand, Trump faces a series of fiascoes at different levels; his government’s disastrous approach to the COVID- 19 pandemic that infected millions, the racial discrimination, and the people in the streets protesting the police behavior against the civilians.

Bibi and Trump initiated such a process to safeguard their own endangered political future. In conclusion, one cannot bet on the viability of such a deal.

Other analysts see this deal to jeopardize the security and stability of the region.
Some “Israeli” commentators have accused Netanyahu of forging new relations with “countries that have no geopolitical importance like Bahrain and the Emirates but at the same time are neighbors to Iran,” which may lead to more escalation and expected violence in the region.

(3) Finally, what such normalization can benefit the Palestinians as the victims who are supposed to wait for the fruits of peace out of this deal? On the contrary, all the Palestinians, irrespective of their political affiliations, have refused and denounced this deal.

Even those who tried to reach a peace with Israel based on the 1993 Oslo accords, unequivocally rejected the deal to the extent that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party describing the process as “betrayal.” 

Other Palestinian factions, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who gathered lately in Beirut, announced their utmost discontent against the deal and consider it as a “reward for the “Israeli” criminals on their crimes.” 

The secretaries General of all Palestinian parties who convened in Beirut protested against the deal and called upon the Arab League to denounce it. 

In conclusion, the so-called “just solution” to the Palestinian issue cannot be achieved through such shortcuts of normalizations between Arabs and “Israel”. The Palestinians are the only side to decide their own destiny and no one else.
 

RELATED NEWS


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Tuesday, 30 June 2020

الاستطلاعات عدوّ ترامب الجديد

 الأخبار 
الثلاثاء 30 حزيران 2020


الاستطلاعات عدوّ ترامب الجديد
نفت حملة الرئيس بشدّة إمكانية انسحابه من السباق الانتخابي (أ ف ب )

بالرغم من مهاجمة دونالد ترامب للاستطلاعات التي أجرتها وسائل الإعلام الأميركية، أخيراً، فإنّ واقعاً جديداً فرض نفسه على الرئيس وحزبه الجمهوري، سببه تعاطي الإدارة مع «كورونا» والاحتجاجات… وترامب نفسهيواجه الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب تهديداً من نوع آخر، جسّدته موجة استطلاعات أجراها العديد من وسائل الإعلام الأميركية، أخيراً، من بينها شبكة «فوكس نيوز» المقرّبة منه، والتي أظهرت تخلّفه بشكل كبير عن منافسه الديموقراطي جو بايدن. وإن كانت هذه الاستطلاعات قد دفعت ترامب إلى وصفها بـ«الكاذبة»، إلّا أنّ ذلك لم يكن كافياً لإلغاء المخاوف التي تعتري الحزب الجمهوري بشأن المخاطر التي تصطدم بها فرص إعادة انتخابه.
وفق شبكة «فوكس نيوز»، فقد دفع هذا الواقع ببعض النافذين في الحزب الجمهوري إلى التساؤل عمّا إذا كان ترامب سينسحب من السباق الانتخابي، في حال لم تتحسّن أرقام الاستطلاعات. وبالرغم من تشكيك البعض في إمكانية حصول ذلك، فإن أحد هؤلاء النافذين قال للشبكة إنه «إذا استمرّت الاستطلاعات في التدهور، يمكنك أن ترى سيناريو حيث ينسحب»، بينما راهن آخر على أنّ ترامب «قد ينسحب في حال رأى أن من المستحيل أن يفوز».
الأسباب وراء هذه التكهّنات تعود إلى ما شهدته الأسابيع الأخيرة الماضية من انخفاض كبير لأرقام ترامب في الاستطلاعات، وسط الانتقادات التي طالت إدارته بشأن تعاملها مع جائحة «كورونا»، وردّ البيت الأبيض على التظاهرات والاحتجاجات، على خلفية مقتل جورج فلويد، في أواخر شهر أيار /مايو في مينيابوليس، عندما كان في عهدة الشرطة.
وفي هذا السياق، أظهر استطلاع أجرته شبكة «فوكس نيوز» أنّ الرئيس متأخّر عن بايدن بـ12 نقطة، بينما أفاد معدّل الاستطلاعات الصادر عن موقع «RealClearPolitics» بأنّ بايدن يتقدّم ترامب بحوالى 10 نقاط. وما يعطي هذه الأرقام أهمية أكبر، هو تقدّم بايدن في العديد من الولايات التي تشكّل ساحات معارك أساسية، بينما يظهر جنباً إلى جنب مع ترامب في ولاياتٍ طالما عُدّت معقلاً للجمهوريين، مثل تكساس.

أظهر استطلاع لـ«فوكس نيوز» أنّ ترامب متأخّر عن بايدن بـ 12 نقطة

وعن هذا الواقع بالذات، أوضح موقع «بوليتيكو» أنّ «انفجار» إصابات «كوفيد ـــــ 19» في ولايات «الحزام الشمسي» (المنطقة الممتدة عبر جنوب الشرق وجنوب الغرب من الولايات المتحدة) بات يشكّل عائقاً جديداً أمام آمال إعادة انتخاب دونالد ترامب، ما يفتح المجال أمام فرصة جديدة لجو بايدن والديموقراطيين في تشرين الثاني/ نوفمبر. وأشار الموقع إلى أنّ الحكّام الجمهوريين لولايات فلوريدا، وأريزونا وتكساس، اتّبعوا تعليمات ترامب القاضية بإعادة فتح ولاياتهم، بشكل سريع، بينما اعتمدوا نهجاً متساهلاً في إطار التباعد الاجتماعي. وبالرغم من أن من الصعب تقدير مدى خطورة الوضع بالنسبة إلى ترامب، فإنّ «بوليتيكو» لفت إلى أنّه «في حال خسر واحدة من الولايات الثلاث، تصبح إعادة انتخابه محكومة بالفشل».
في مقابل ذلك، نفت حملة ترامب بشدّة إمكانية انسحاب هذا الأخير من السباق الانتخابي، وانتقدت الاستطلاعات «التي اختزلت الناخبين الجمهوريين بشكل متعمّد». يأتي ذلك بعدما كانت حملته قد أصدرت مذكّرة، بعد الاستطلاعات الأخيرة، يوم الأحد، رفضت فيها الادعاءات بأنّ فرص إعادة انتخاب الرئيس كانت تواجه مشكلة. أمّا ترامب، فلم يلبث أن ردّ، في تغريدة عبر موقع «تويتر»، قال فيها: «آسف لإعلام الديموقراطيين الذين لا يفعلون شيئاً، ولكنّي أحظى بأرقام جيدة جداً في الاستطلاعات الداخلية للحزب الجمهوري». وأضاف: «تماماً مثل عام 2016، استطلاعات ذي نيويورك تايمز كاذبة! استطلاعات فوكس نيوز نكتة! هل تظنّون أنهم سيعتذرون منّي ومن مشتركيهم مجدّداً عندما أفوز؟ الناس يريدون القانون، والنظام والأمن».
مع ذلك، وفي ظلّ اقتراب الانتخابات الرئاسية، بعد أربعة أشهر، يتطلّع المهتمّون بشؤون الحزب الجمهوري وموظّفو حملة ترامب، إلى تحويل مسار الاستطلاعات السيّئة، عبر توجيه هدفهم إلى ما اعتبروه نقاط ضعف بايدن الرئيسية. من هذا المنطلق، تسعى حملة ترامب إلى التركيز على هفوات المرشّح الديموقراطي، إضافة إلى مهاجمته على اعتبار أنه «ناعمٌ» مع الصين، مشكّكين في صحّته العقلية، ومشيرين إلى أنه سيصبح رهينة يسار حزبه، إذا ما تمكّن من الوصول إلى البيت الأبيض.
كذلك، أفادت صحيفة «واشنطن بوست» بأنّ ترامب وفريق حملته يتجادلون حول كيفية إحياء جهود إعادة انتخابه الهشّة. وفي هذا الإطار، أشارت الصحيفة إلى أنّ عدداً من مستشاري الرئيس وحلفائه يدفعون بشكل خاص إلى إحداث تغييرات في حملته، بما فيها تغييرٌ كبير في الموظفين، وذلك بينما يسعون إلى إقناع ترامب بأن يكون أكثر انضباطاً في رسائله وسلوكه.
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Sunday, 8 December 2019

New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah



New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah
A reliable new Lebanese public opinion poll, conducted in November, showed that a large majority of the country’s Shia population retain positive views of Hezbollah even as major anti-government protests include many Shia participants for the first time.
According to the Washington Institute, David Pollock said this surprising finding casts doubt on speculation that Hezbollah might suddenly be in danger of losing its core constituency.
New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah
New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah
New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah
New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah
New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah
New Lebanon Poll: Most Shia Still Back Hezbollah


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Tuesday, 1 October 2019

Why France’s 20- and 30-somethings hate the Yellow Vests



Why France’s 20- and 30-somethings hate the Yellow Vests
It’s a question which needs be asked, but we can’t wait for the French media to answer it because they have almost totally stopped reporting on the anti-government movement for several months.
The first poll on the Yellow Vests since late March (“!”, and then “?”) finally came out two weeks ago. It was so eagerly gobbled up by a French media hungry for objective knowledge on the Yellow Vests that as many as two media talked about it. I missed it because I have already wasted a minimum of 3 hours of my life doing fruitless Google news searches for “Yellow Vest poll”.
The headline of Ouest-France newspaper, by far the most read Francophone paper in the world, was typically “negative-no-matter-what”: “A majority of France have had enough of the Yellow Vests”.
That’s a pretty bold statement considering that this majority is just 52%, which must be within the poll’s margin of error.
The headline could have fairly been: “A majority of France still supports the Yellow Vests despite all the state repression and media negativity”. Considering what a historic anti-government movement this is – the French have just avoided a 9th consecutive austerity budget expressly because of the Yellow Vests – objective journalism would have prioritised the “support” angle and not the “oppose” angle.
More poll tidbits to munch on for those who care about public opinion (which means you are obviously not a Western politician):
Vesters are now openly opposed by retirees (63%), executives/management (61%) and technicians/professionals (58%). However, they are openly supported by workers (52%), rural citizens (47%), the National Front party (64%) and the (true, not far-) leftist Unsubmissive France party (80%). Per the pollers: “The Yellow Vests remain popular with those segments of the population which were at the origin of the movement.
One final poll petit-four: 93% of those who support Macron’s party are against the Yellow Vests, while another recent poll showed that 98% of Macronistas think he is doing a good job. What this reminds us is that there is a hard-core Macronista base for whom he can absolutely do no wrong. I assumed such adoration was limited to 60+ year old single women dreaming of a winter-spring romance (an incredibly winter-spring romance), but it is a solid quarter of the population. This rate of genuine support is actually unchanged since the election in 2017: a quarter of France just adores this guy, no matter what, and apparently no amount of violence can change that.
Let’s get to the point of this column
One segment of society which does not support the Yellow Vests is the 20- and 30-something crowd.
This is based on my regular attendance at Yellow Vest demonstrations, and also many months of informally talking with this age group (of which I am quite nearly a part of). I’d like to pass on what I think are the reasons for their opposition:
  • We must remember that the Yellow Vests are primarily a middle-aged phenomenon – the average of those marching is probably 50 years old. This age group is the one which is most motivated because they are nearing retirement and they see just how bad austerity will make things for them. This generation will not do anywhere as well as their parents, and they are rightfully upset – they really had no chance to “succeed”: they found jobs (or can’t find any job) which will provide the personal nest egg which is required in the Anglo-Saxon system, which is the system that neoliberal austerity seeks to disruptively impose on France. The main problem is that French wages have always been far lower, and taxes quite higher, than their Western counterparts because the deal was that they’d have low wages but a much better social safety net. This deal has been terminated during the Age of Austerity, and Macron’s absurd, inhuman “one-size-fits-all” pension reform is the coup de grâce. Therefore, this segment of society – not professional, working class, low savings, not university educated, not thrilled with their job but still as vital to the functioning of society as you or me – is leading the revolt because they know that if they don’t… they will be working their low-paying job until they are 64 or their knees give out (whichever comes first), and then have a pittance of a pension to boot.
  • What about the young adult Parisians? Firstly, this is an old persons’ town – you have to have money to live within its highway walls. But are you talking about those who were raised in Paris? I guess you mainly referring to those who grew up in the rich Western areas – that place I go and look at like a tourist (seems nice over there), with all their fancy little kids and quiet and trees. People who grow up in these areas are rich – these are the very Macronista urbanites who are young, terrifying and want to eat their elders. They view Macron as their leader, God and role model. So young adult Parisians manning the barricades? Fuggetaboutit. This holds true for all of France’s cities.
  • What about the working class adult urbanites? Like in my area? Do you mean the Chinese, the Hasidic or the Arabs? All of these worker bees crammed into small, noisy apartments were likely turned off by the immediate and totally false smear that the Yellow Vests were racist. Also, the working class is often quite busy working.
  • What about the poor city suburbs, surely they are sympathetic? Indeed, the poor Muslim, Arab and Black areas are all totally sympathetic to the Vesters. However, they are not stupid – they know that if they go to the Vester demonstrations in any city the cops will absolutely, undoubtedly wage police brutality on them first. This truth is so very, very, very self-evident to Muslims and people of Color that we cannot even imagine that many of you cannot accept this, and we just turn and walk away when we start getting blamed for not leading the Yellow Vest charge. People from these areas have been totally marginalised… but when you need cannon fodder, then we get an engraved invitation? LOL, thanks, but no thanks. Nobody cares about the opinion of these areas/groups anyway, but I can report that the Vesters do indeed have their sincere moral support. Finally, Muslims and Blacks probably compose around 5-8% of France – if they did join en masse only 1 out of every 20 Vesters or so would be a non-White, anyway.
And here is the main reason why French Whites – who are the majority among the 20- and 30-somethings in France – do not support the Vesters.
  • I was surprised at the immediate antipathy for the Yellow Vests among the young White French adults I talked with in Paris, but who are the young White French adults in Paris? These are the primarily the people from small towns who are creative types and who move to the urban areas in order to flee the small-town culture, people, mores and activities they found so very stifling. The Yellow Vests are a primarily rural movement, and – as I have described their primary social-class makeup – France’s young urbanites seem to view the Vesters as the older classmates/bullies who made fun of them for being arty and weird and urbanite-aping back in their small town – many 30-somethings in Paris moved expressly to get away from these types! Therefore, it is unthinkable for them to side with the Yellow Vests, and after only the very first couple of demonstrations Parisian young adults seemingly all turned against the Yellow Vests, in my experience. These Parisian young adults see a faded, generic, poorly drawn forearm tattoo on many a Vester, and then they look at their own fancy tattoo (a Chinese character, a magic symbol, or some emblem of personal motivation or social defiance) and they think: “To hell with those White Trash – I never got invited to their parties and I want to lead a different lifestyle.”
So there you have it in a nutshell. Many French people actually made the move to the big city from the small town because they fundamentally resent the people who primarily compose the Yellow Vests.
There are other reasons:
  • Paris attracts young adults from all over the world – where are they? The Western expatriates living in France feel similarly or even more hostile than their French counterparts, in my experience. Many absurdly view Yellow Vests as outright reactionaries, mainly because they have absolutely no idea what the hell they are talking about when it comes to “French culture + class struggle”. These Western White expats simplistically view Vesters as extensions of their own “Brexiteers”, “basket of deplorable American rednecks”, etc., and do not feel the need to dig any deeper than such a superficial comparison – many of these immigrants would have a hard time understanding even if they tried, such is their unfamiliarity with a class lens. Bottom line: they are not about to stop the “Western expat party” and get tear gassed for any Yellow Vest, that is certain.
  • France, contrary to Anglophone media claims, is not a socialist country: aristocratic snobbery permeates and runs amok in the culture here as only it can on the Old Continent. It’s worse in Paris, but “I reject you first” is the initial war a French person declares upon meeting someone. The young adult urbanites in France have not at all been inculcated with class warfare and class solidarity, but identity politics: they identify with their fellow “bobos” (bourgeois bohemians), hipsters, artists and pretty young people. Have a shoulder tattoo I can’t see and not a wrist tattoo? Not cool enough. Next please. Swipe left. Je m’en fous.
  • France was an individualist country even before the rise of neoliberalism, I imagine, but rapacious neoliberalism surely leads to a fundamental lack of sympathy: Young urbanites here simply cannot imagine – nor do they try to – the grim future which 50-year old Yellow Vesters know to be a rapidly encroaching fact.
  • Furthermore, young people are dumb, (If you were paying me for this I’d look it up and provide the link but you’ll have to just take my word for it): I read a recent poll which said that something like 10% of young French people think Macron’s radical reforms will not actually reduce their own pensions, LOL! Sure… you’ll be the one who is special. Vesters are old enough to know better to get involved with this movement.
Given all these facts, we must realise that these urbanites want revenge on the class which primarily composes the Vesters – they don’t want to see them win, and they have repeatedly told me they don’t want them marching anymore in their hipster paradise areas of Paris.
I use the strong word “revenge” because I have found this to be a hugely important motivator in Western capitalist society. These young (smug, stupid, classist, fake-leftist/rabid neoliberal) anti-Yellow Vesters want not only a huge chunk of the pie, but they also to show all the people they left behind what a big shot they lost.
This is not hyperbole – this is what “competition” truly is. Western society (being anti-socialist and rabidly individualist) is fundamentally predicted on competition, and thus these types of feelings can be found plastered on billboards as a form of encouragement.
Finally, it is not “cool” to be a Vester in the French mainstream, and 20- and 30-somethings in the West prize “cool” above all. If you think famous actors, musicians, artists, thinkers, ballplayers, etc. are showing up/have ever showed up to Yellow Vest demonstrations… you must think these people don’t fear losing their social status more than anything – then they would have to get a real job.
“But Ramin,” you object, “how can cool people not be at the Yellow Vest demonstrations when YOU are there?”
Thank you. It seems paradoxical, indeed, but there’s an easy explanation: I turn 42 next week.
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of “I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China”.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Monday, 21 January 2019

The Russian pension chicken is coming home to roost… (UPDATED)

The Russian pension chicken is coming home to roost… (UPDATED)
January 18, 2019
[This article was written for the Unz Review]
According to RT, citing a Levada Center poll,
Over 50 percent of Russians are disappointed in the government of Dmitry Medvedev, which, they believe, is unable to curb growing prices and provide jobs for people, a new poll has revealed.  Some 23 percent said they were absolutely sure that the government must resign, with another 30 percent telling Levada-Center that they were also leaning toward this opinion.  This means that a total of 53 percent would like the country to have a new cabinet. Trust in the government has crumbled since September, when only 23 percent advocated its resignation. Meanwhile, the proportion of people who believed the government should stay in charge was 40 percent, with 14 percent expressing full confidence in the cabinet, and 26 percent saying that resignation wouldn’t be the best idea.
Source: http://www.levada.ru/en/ Jan 15th 2019 (details here: https://www.levada.ru/en/ratings/)
This was very predictable and, in fact, I did predict just that when I wrote “A comment I just saw on the YouTube chat of the inauguration was succinct and to the point: “Путин кинул народ – мы не за Медведева голосовали” or “Putin betrayed the people – we did not vote for Medvedev”. This is going to be a very widely shared feeling, I am afraid (…) Medvedev is unpopular and that most Russians hoped to see a new face. Yet Putin ignored this public sentiment. That is a very worrying sign, in my opinion“.  In a subsequent article I wrote that “it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin’s personal ratings will begin to go down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real opposition“.
Think about it in this way: we know from ALL the past elections that the pro-Western segment of the Russian population is somewhere around 1-3% (that is why they cannot make it into the Duma).  But let’s generously give that hardcore, liberal, opposition 5%, for argument’s sake.  So if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if 5% of Russians are hardcore pro-Western liberals, then who are the remaining 48%?
Or in this way: if 53% of Russians want a new cabinet, and if Putin’s approval rating is still somewhere in the 65% range, who are those Russians who like Putin but dislike the Medvedev government?
There is an easy cop-out argument which I´ve often offered to explain away this fact:
Levada Center is officially classified as a “foreign agent” under Russian law.  This makes sense: for one thing, Levada Center receives most of its financing from abroad, including the USA and even the Pentagon!  Furthermore, Levada is staffed by liberals (in the Russian meaning of the word which really means “pro-US”) whose biases are also reflected in their work.  However, while this is all true, Levada is still credible enough to be cited even by Russian officials.  Finally, the kind of results Levada publishes are often generally similar to the finding of the official VTsIOMpolling institution, not down to the percentage point, but often reflecting similar trends (check out the VTsIOM English language page here: https://wciom.com/).  So the fact that Putin is much more popular than Medvedev or that the majority of Russian people are unhappy with the government really is not in doubt.
So regardless of the actual numbers, it is clear that the Russian government is only popular with those whom it allows to make a lot of money (corporations and various millionaires and billionaires) and that everybody else strongly dislikes it.
And yet, recently Putin was asked if he was happy with the government and his reply was “on the whole, yes“.
This type of political yoga is hard to sustain in the long term: if Putin is the champion of the interests of the common people, and if most common people feel that the government cares more for millionaires and billionaires, then how can the President say that he is “on the whole happy” with the government?
It is truly a crying shame that the basics of Marxism-Leninism is not taught in schools and colleges any more (even some self-described “Communists” are clearly clueless about what Marx, Lenin or even Hegel taught!).  Not because the solutions advocated by Marx and his followers are so universally effective, but because one can use the Marxist-Leninist conceptual toolkit to better understand the world we live in and, one can do this without necessarily endorsing the solutions offered by Marxism.  For example, in the West at least, very few people are aware of this very simple Marxist-Leninist definition of what a state, any state, really is.  According to Lenin, the state is simply an “apparatus of coercion and violence by which the ruling class governs the society“.  Specifically Lenin wrote:
In essence, the state is ruling apparatus created from the human society. When such a group of people appears, one which is only concerned with ruling over others, and which for that purpose needs a coercion apparatus which can force people to obey by means of jails, special units, armed forces, etc, – that is the moment when the state appears (Lenin, collective works, vol 39, page 69).
From a Marxist point of view, any state is always and by definition the dictatorship of the ruling class, which is a good thing, at least according to the Marxists, when this ruling class is the workers and people, and a very bad thing when the ruling class is the plutocracy.
In the post-modern West, where political discourse has been reduced to a particularly nauseating form of intellectual flatulence, the very notion of “class” and “class warfare” has been fully replaced with vapid (pseudo-) identity politics which completely obfuscate all the real issues and problems our world is dealing with.  Thus, by removing the concepts and categories needed to understand the nature of the struggle which is taking place internationally, but also inside each of the countries currently living under the AngloZionist yoke, the leaders of the Empire have deprived the people they rule over from the means to understand why and how they are oppressed.  All that nonsense about “gay” rights, gun control, #meetoo, the many sex scandals, the struggle for racial identity (White or Black or any other), abortion, drugs and all the rest of the crap we are fed on a daily basis by the AngloZionist propaganda machine are primarily a distraction to keep the eyes of the general population from the real issues.  In a way, this zombification and re-direction to fake topics serves exactly the same function as the red cape of the bullfighter: to keep the bull busy with trying to gore a harmless red piece of cloth while completely missing the real cause of his suffering and eventual death.
From that point of view, the Russian people are much better informed and have a much better understanding of what is going on.  For example, while in the West the people define “democracy” as “people power” (or something similar), in Russia the joke is that “democracy is the power of the democrats” which, in Russia, is a general codeword/euphemism for “pro-US wealthy liberal” who want to turn Russia into some kind of “bigger Poland” or something equally uninspiring.
Various pro-Western “intellectuals” like to say that this is an old Russian pathology: to say that the Czar (President) is very good, but his court (the Ministers) are bad and that this makes absolutely no sense. These are the folks who go as far as denying the existence of a struggle between what I call Eurasian Sovereignists (roughly Putin supporters) and Atlantic Integrationists (roughly Medvedev and the “economic block” of this government).
The folks who deny this remind me of something Berthold Brecht once wrote after the 1953 uprising in Berlin in a short poem entitled “The Solution”: (emphasis added)
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers’ Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
This deep alienation from the Russian masses, this notion that the Russian people have, yet again, failed to heed the “wise words” of the “progressive intelligentsia” and other (mainly financial) “elites” has plagued the Russian ruling classes since Peter I and is still at the very core of their worldview.  Believe you me, the Russian “liberals” and the folks in the West who deny that there is any 5th column in Russia are psychologically and politically joined at the hip: neither one of them can accept this.  Furthermore, both the Russian “liberals” and the western believers in the values of “democracy” and “free market capitalism” share exactly the same worldview: they want the Russian people to become “Europeans” not in a geographical sense, of course (geographically speaking most Russian live in the European part of Russia), but culturally!  This is what the Popes wanted, this is what the French Freemasons wanted, this is what the Nazis wanted, and this is what the AngloZionists want.  That dream to turn Russians into Europeans while totally cleansing them from any “Russian-ness” is what united *all* the invaders of Russia over the centuries.
But the “stubborn” Russian people just don’t seem to “get it” and, for some totally mysterious reason, they always resist all these “benevolent” western attempts at “civilizing” them.
This is exactly what we see today: Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists try as hard as they can to *sovereignize* Russia; in other words, they want to make Russia *truly* Russian again.  Sounds basic, but that is categorically unacceptable to the Russian plutocrats and to their supporters in the West.  Thus any kind of defense of the Russian-ness of Russia is immediately and contemptuously dismissed as “national leftism”, “nationalism” or, God forbid!, “monarchism”.  And when the person trying to make the argument that Russia ought to be Russian uses Marxist concepts or categories, these arguments are also dismissed out of hand as an “outdated rhetoric of a system which has failed and discredited itself”.  What they fail to realize is to say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was due primarily/solely to the Marxist or Communist ideology is just as stupid as blaming the current collapse of democracy in the USA on the writings of the Founding Fathers rather than on the SOB politicians who are destroying this country day after day after day.  Tell me: when the USA finally bites the dust, will you simply declare that “democracy is dead” and that the “collapse of the USA proved that democracy is not a viable regime”?  So yes, the Soviet Union did indeed collapse, broken into 15 pieces by its own ruling elite (the Nomenklatura), but the ideas contained in the Marxist-Leninist ideology have not only not been “defeated” – they have not even been challenged (more on this issue here).
But, thank God! most Russians are still not willing to be incorporated into the “European cultural Borg collective“, at least not in the cultural sense.  And in spite of 300 years of oppression by various pro-western regimes (with various degrees of russophobia, not all were equally bad), the Russian people still want to remain Russian, not just by speaking a language, but by having a ruler and a regime in power which they feel defends their interests and not the interests of the ruling class. They want to live in their own civilizational realm, and not the kind of post-Christian intellectual desert the West has become.
Many decades of rabid russophobia by the rulers of the AngloZionist Empire have convinced the Russian people that they have no friends in the European or North American ruling elites and that true freedom comes through liberation, not submission.  That, and the appalling example of the consequences of the “Euromaidan” in the Ukraine.
At the end of the day, it is not about GDP or the availability of cheap consumer goods.  At the end of the day, it all depends on real, moral, ethical, spiritual and civilizational values.  This was true 1000 years ago and this is still true today.  At least in Russia.
It is very important to keep a close eye on this trend: the appearance of slowly but surely growing (truly) patriotic opposition (as opposed to the CIA-paid clowns in the Russian liberal camp).  As for the “official” opposition (LDPR, KPRF and the Just Russia), they might decide to grow a few teeth, initially small, baby teeth only, but if this trend accelerates, they might decide to look a tad more credible.  Until now the rather lame and ridiculous LDPR & KPRF parties are just a collective form of court jesters with no real opposition potential.  Just look at how the KPRF, thoroughly discredited by their crazy choice of the millionaire Grudinin for candidate, jumped onto the pension reform PR-disaster to suddenly try to launch a referendum.  This would never have happened in the past.
The political landscape in Russia is becoming more complicated, which is both good and bad.  It is bad because Putin’s personal political credit suffers, however modestly for now, from his continuous inability to purge the Kremlin from the 5th columnists, but it is also good because if things get bad enough Putin will have no choice but to (finally!) get rid of at least the most notorious 5th columnists.  But fundamentally the Russian people need to decide. Do they really want to live in a western-style capitalist society (with all the russophobic politics and the adoption of the terminally degenerate “culture” such a choice implies), or do they want a “social society” (to use Putin’s own words) – meaning a society in which social and economic justice and the good of the country are placed above corporate and personal profits.
You could say that this is a battle of greed vs ethics.
The future of Russia, and much of the world, will depend on the outcome of this battle.
UPDATE: well, just as I was mentioning that the fact that Levada Center and VTsIOM mostly agree, at least on trends, the Russian media is now reporting that the latter now also is reporting a drop in the popularity of Putin.  And just to make things worse, the Russian authorities have deported an (in-)famous anti-Nazi Ukrainian journalist, Elena Boiko, to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine in spite of the fact that Boiko had requested political asylum in Russia.  Now, Boiko is a very controversial person for sure (and, personally, not *at all* my cup of tea), but the sole fact that Russia would deport ANY anti-Nazi activist to the Nazi-occupied Ukraine is disgusting and revolting.  And, sure enough, the bovine-excreta is already hitting the proverbial fan as now members of the Duma, journalists and various personalities are demanding explanations for this absolutely stupid and deeply immoral act.  Sadly,  can only agree with Nikolai Starikov who speaks of a “liberal revanche” following the “Russian Spring” of 2014.  If this kind of nonsense continues we will see a further deterioration of Putin’s personal rating along with a gradual degradation of the Russian political environment.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!