The title may not respect the seriousness of the moment, but it seems appropriate to me. There will be respective current phenomena, though long-term. After closer observation, anyone can be fearful.
First about Trump. As has been written many times, the shocking and desirable noveum resulting from his second word was to be based on the introduction and consistent application of the doctrine of "skinerenism". utilizing their own words - rules of average respect for the independency of states and nations and, more importantly, natural polyphony of systems without imposing a single template. Expressis verbis declared this "new" doctrine of Vice president Vance respective times. The globalists were deafened with a silent rage. Trump’s crew seemingly hit the dogma of liberal democracy. — Read the pathological strategy “West. ” This strategy has thus far promoted this supposedly perfect strategy in all its ways, without disgusting itself with coups and wars.
What do we have after a year and a half from “the Trump Doctrine?
Of course, I'm not reasoning about his individual contribution, I'm reasoning about the siss of business and macher behind his back. However, the president's alleged personality is besides important. And this 1 shows the antipathic face. Egotist, buffoon, haughty, cocky, boasting, etc. These are small things. The worst part of my concept is incredulity and mediocrity. This disability results in the political and moral evaluation of all statesman. So let's see. It was expected to be an annexation of Greenland – and what? There was expected to be an annexation of the Panama Canal and what? There was expected to be a flourishing revival of Gaza under the umbrella of the bullshit Peace Council, and what? Poverty, hunger, ruins and further killing of Palestinian Arabs is simply a chronic phenomenon, as is the ghastly immunity over the criminal government of Israel. There was besides to be a protectorate (?) over Cuba, indeed dying in ticks of native communists (now left on ice). What? Trump's taking his time. There are no treasures for robbery, unlike it, it would take billions of investments.
On the another hand, the same Trump in the interest of the large sharks of the American business gave the planet a criminal assault and kidnapping of Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro as in bad crime. The fast one's clear what's going on. Oil, lost by U.S. capital in 1999, erstwhile Venezuelan power took over Hugo Chavez. Thus – a typical neocolonial raid without any masquerade. After that, the U.S. invaders under the condition of access to deposits, refineries and ports left everything unchanged in the lead with Maduro's deputy – Delcy Rodriguez and the government of the United Socialist organization of Venezuela (PSUV). Parody. After all, the proceeds of the robbery are important, not any “value” for morons. Without doubt, in specified a situation, the power of PSUV, which for 26 years effectively protected the existence of the lower layers despite the sanctions of global capitalism, is no longer right due to the fact that it is only an attraction.
For the same reason – the wolf's appetite for the capture of the richest oil and gas deposits – Trump, on behalf of the same sieve, sparked an equally bandit war with Iran. Here, the protection of Israel's interests played an additional function in keeping with the eternal rule that Israel could kill whomever it wanted, and Israel could not be touched by anyone. However, despite the exterminate nature of this war, Iran has not given up and continues to fight heroically, inflicting good losses on the aggressor. U.S. citizens wipe their eyes and complain about Trump. It turns out that there are countries in the planet that cannot be easy tamed.
At the end of this enumeration: the war between Russia and Ukraine was to be "swiftly" ended as a consequence of U.S. mediation without openly supporting neo-Bander thugs and taking into account Russia's geopolitical rations. What? In this peculiar case, the failure does not burden the Trump administration, which has shown itself to be respective peace initiatives, which are constantly being destroyed by the diversion of EU politicians. It is absurd to talk about peace and simultaneously to deliver only 1 side of modern attack weapons. And the United States is responsible. Their weapons manufacture just makes money from this war. From the "Trump Doctrine" were only cynicism, praise of violent aggression (but own) and brazen demonstration of force. "Superenism" was reserved for the US and for obedient customers – semi-colonial position (at best).
Subject 2
When I compose about this issue, it is no longer current, but inactive crucial as a kind of ideological shock. I am reasoning of the 14-point memorandum signed on June 20th, which was to be an introduction to the Iran-US peace treaty. The content of this agreement (which has already been breached respective times) was a shock to the adherents of globalism, as it first demonstrated the rule of sovereignity and territorial separation of states and besides compromised the aggressor completely. In this document, the US admitted that they could not impose anything on heroic Iran. After the memorandum was announced, Israel, unnegotiable, stood on its head to cancel it. It was the first case that Trump under the force of the Blamash against Iran's unbreakable opposition decided to turn his ass over to the Netanjah cliques. besides any Republicans in the United States felt that the memorandum was shameful due to the fact that it exposed Trump's defeat and crushed America's prestige as an armored hegemon.
I will so quote these Treaty estimates. This is worth doing, due to the fact that after 20 June, the frightened propaganda of the globalists took on water and did not uncover the full agreement. The first 2 articles of the memorandum were essential. In Article 1, both sides declared "the immediate and lasting end of the war" and this together with allies, the US was expected to force Israel to halt the massacre in Lebanon, and Iran halted Hezbollah and guarantee peace in the Red Sea off the Yemeni coast. Both parties have besides undertaken not to take "enemy" actions, to prevent threats and the usage of force. Article 2: both parties have undertaken to respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity and refrain from interfering with the interior affairs of the another party. In his translation into Polish, Iran forced the US to recognise "Trump Doctrine" or "superverenicism" at the price of bloody victims. alternatively of a criminal pseudo-cruciate in the name of the only legitimate system—accepting the multiplicity of states' regimes and independence.
Further articles were to follow through. Article 3 hoped to scope a "final agreement" within 3 months with the anticipation of extending negotiations. Article 12 announced "implementation mechanism" until the Treaty was announced. In Article 4, the US was forced to lift the maritime blockade and resume the freedom of transport of Iran (import and export). Within a period the armed forces were to retreat from neighboring areas. Another public aggressor defeat. In Article 6, the U.S. committed to rebuilding Iran from war harm to both infrastructure and the economy, amounting to $300 billion. These war repairs were planned within 2 months. Thus, the United States admitted work for criminal assault and war defeat.
In Article 7, the US announced the abolition of any sanctions imposed on Iran, including the forced resolutions of the United Nations safety Council (which in fresh years has not erstwhile condemned the US's outspoken aggression) and the IAEA Board of Governors. In Article 10, the U.S. Treasury Department was to let free exports of Iranian oil, petrochemical products, their derivatives and any services related to the chemical industry. In Article 11, the US was to gradually abolish restrictions on Iran's funds and assets located in banks under their control, making them available to the Central Bank of the muslim Republic of Iran.
What did Iran commit itself to?
Article 5 to reconstruct freedom of voyages in the Strait of Ormuz within a period and Article 8 to guarantee that it resigns from atomic weapons production, but Article 9 establishes that Iran will hold its atomic programme until the Treaty is signed, while the US will not impose fresh sanctions and will not place military forces in the region. Article 13 announced the immediate talks on the Treaty (the Final Agreement), and Article 14 announced that the approval of the treaty would take place by means of a binding UN safety Council Resolution, a body which is completely facaded, without any authority, but with global status. The memorandum on June 20 was a phenomenal success of Iran, the victims of this war and the humiliating embarrassment of the aggressor or US, but indirectly besides Israel. I'm convinced the assault organization wanted to torpedo them from the beginning. And this already happened in July, but the text was not legally invalidated and remains the alleged point of mention for further discussions between the stages of the nightmare war.
Subject substance 3
Two months ago, I read the book "Hongkong, A Constant Fight for Identity" (Polish edition Krakow 2025). This publication was already splashed with delight by correct reviewers. That encouraged me. The author is sociologist Ching Kwan Lee, a Hong Kong Chinese woman, but decently formatted in college in the United States. I read it, and my hair was on my head. The content of the book is, of course, the fight of Hong Kong's "citizen community" with the communist authorities of the PRC. Let me remind you that the United Kingdom disposed of Hong Kong for Red China in 1997, provided that it maintained for 50 years (until 2047) the current regime, simply capitalism “with freedom”. The GOC honours this with difficulty, limiting these freedoms by portions or deleting them for various reasons. For this they enjoy abundantly the economical capacity of the ex-UK Colony. If necessary, they powerfully suppress the protests of the people who remember the British ‘paradise’ well. The author sets up as follows. First of all, British governments are most likely to blame, due to the fact that that is what the progressive anti-colonial ideology, which Grotesquely manifests, requires. He then admits that all living, educational, social, technical, etc. is due to the British. Their unchangeable governments have never, for a century and a half, provoked any mass liberation movement. Conversely, many local Chinese dreamed that British presence would last as long as possible. But it happened.
So the author continues with a dramatic picture. The groups of young screamers present as militants respective stages of the "identity struggle" that is, in fact, to teardrop Hong Kong out of the borders of the PRC. In view of the shocking disparity of forces, these are pathetic dreams. However, I am curious in the author's attitude. It cites interviews with its militant heroes, chronicles “citizens” protests, participates in any “manifa” and happenings. Where does he find the idols? It delights “activists who profess progressive ideology”. He rapidly explains to readers who to imitate. It lists Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe and akin creatures. I'm not kidding. You can read it.
Her study is the following. The People's Republic of China is trying to integrate Hong Kong residents with a ‘past’ thought – a national (ethnic) community and an ancient tradition of the Chinese Empire. At the same time, Chinese communists do not hide that the post-British strategy is sorry for its own systemic rules, and in peculiar they do not conceal that Lenin monopartisan dictatorship will stay unchanged. The economical instrument of capitalism will be utilized for their own benefit. They already have good experience.
The author of criticism of communism deals with little. With all his passion, he expresses hatred and loath to the thought of national unity on the basis of the identity of culture and language. So what does he propose? The Ideology of Localism. Each local community (e.g. urban) should make its own quasi-state body, defend local civilian liberties and disregard any national ties. In spite of his keen remarks to the capitalist oligarchy, the author was enthusiastic about Hong Kong's "global metropolis". Provided that the “progressive activists” take power, there is simply a model for another “local communities”. Whether they request fresh Esperanto or adequate American slang, it doesn't explain it. However, she is sober adequate to announcement that, at the end of her work, Hong Kong “activists” (who have been in prisons of the PRC for respective years or on emigration) are improbable to win against the Communist organization of China. I think so, too.
Tadeusz M. Trajdos
Retired prof. IH PAN
Think Poland, No. 37-38 (13-20.09.2026)
