Distinction Matter - Subscribed Feeds

UK Supreme Court Rules that the Legal Definition of a Woman Is Biological

Paul Craig Roberts

The UK Supreme Court has ruled that in British Law the terms “woman” and “sex” are biological terms and do not include men who identify as “transgender.” The Court ruled that people with “transgender recognition certificates,” whatever that is, are excludable from biological single-sex spaces.

There are interesting aspects of this case that deserve comment. The case was brought by Scottish women’s rights groups against the Scottish government’s imposition of men who declare themselves to be women on biological women’s spaces. What has become of the Scottish people that they put in office a deranged, crazed government that forces biological women to accept men into their private spaces simply because the deranged man declares himself to be a woman? How did Scotland get a deranged government that in earlier times would have been hung off the nearest lamp posts, if not drawn and quartered in the public square? What has gone wrong with the Scottish people that they are unable to make intelligent and moral choices about those they empower to govern them?

We see a similar collapse of historic peoples in Ireland where the Irish people have put in power a government that forces ethnic Irish citizens who can barely put food on the table to support massive inflows of third-world immigrant invaders who are totally destroying the character and quality of Irish life. What has gone wrong with the Irish people that they put in power a government determined to destroy them?

Another interesting aspect is that the LGBT+ alliance is breaking up.  The Scottish lesbians took the side of the women’s rights groups against the alleged “transgenders.” A lesbian spokesperson said that lesbians were tired of being called “far-right bigots” for refusing to accept men into lesbian groups.

The UK Supreme Court has declared “transgender recognition certificates” to be legally meaningless. What precisely is, or was, a “transgender recognition certificate?” It was an effort to use a piece of paper to give authority and reality to a self-declared new sex that does not exist in nature, or if it does only as a freak abnormality.

What the “transgender movement” is, or was, really about is an expansion of the cultural marxist “march through the institutions.” Another normal meaning is destroyed–sex. With the destruction of male/female, chaos is introduced into hospital wards, rape crisis centers, changing rooms, sports teams.

What is extraordinary is the number of Western government officials at every level who fanatically supported the “transgender movement.”  For example, in Virginia a public school administration covered up the rape of a young girl in a school female shower/toilet area by a male allowed access because he declared himself to be a female. The corrupt school administrators were so committed to “transgenders rights” that they covered up a rape and tried to destroy the father who complained of the rape of his child.

This demonstrates how deep  the hold of evil on Western civilization has grown to be. When liberal public school administrators in America are so corrupt that they aid and abet the rape of the young girls in their schools, and cover it up, we know our society is terminably ill.

Can Trump renew such a sick and despoiled country?

Science which has long been eliminating humanity now takes a huge step forward

https://www.unz.com/jtaylor/were-all-eugenicists-now/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/gene-edited-cows-humans/5686682 

The tycoon intends to personally lead the fight against what he sees as a looming demographic “apocalypse,” the report claims

Elon Musk wants to populate the Earth with a “legion” of high-intelligence children to prevent the collapse of human civilization due to a global decline in birth rates, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing sources.

An investigation by the paper focused on what it described as a “harem drama” surrounding Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency and a close ally of US President Donald Trump. According to the report, the billionaire has had at least 14 known children with four women – although the actual number could be much higher. However, his relationships with the mothers reportedly often involve hush-money payments and heated parental disputes.

At the heart of Musk’s reproductive drive lies his “dark view” of the future in which humanity could perish as a species due to poor demographics, the WSJ claims. “He is driven to correct the historic moment by helping seed the earth with more human beings of high intelligence,” the report says, citing people familiar with the matter.

Ashley St. Clair – one of the women Musk allegedly had an affair with and who claims to be the mother of one of his children – showed the WSJ a message purportedly sent by the billionaire. In it, Musk allegedly referred to his offspring as a “legion” – invoking the ancient Roman military units known for expanding imperial reach – and insisted on making even more babies with other women. “To reach legion-level before the apocalypse,” he reportedly said. “We will need to use surrogates.”

The WSJ claims that Musk has used his platform X to recruit potential mothers, often one whom he has never met in person, but who enjoy a high-profile social status.

In 2021, Musk said that low birth rates were “one of the biggest risks to civilization.” “If people don’t have more children, civilization is going to crumble,” he said at the time.

However, Musk’s private life has drawn criticism. His daughter Vivian Jenna Wilson, who cut ties with him and has come out as transgender – a move Musk has criticized – has called the billionaire a “serial adulterer.” He is also involved in a custody dispute with Canadian pop star Grimes, who has alleged that he withheld one of their children from visiting family for several months.

Incoming Chancellor Friedrich Merz earlier said he wants to supply Taurus missiles to Kiev, despite the outgoing government ruling out the move

The UK would support Germany if it decides to give long-range Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine, The Telegraph reported on Wednesday, citing British government sources.

London has long backed arming Kiev with the German-made weapons, which have a 500km range and are capable of striking targets deep into Russian territory, the report stated. Moscow has warned that supplying long-range missiles to Kiev and allowing it to strike Russian territory will be considered an escalation of hostilities.

“We continue to work with our partners, including Germany, to equip Ukraine as best we can to defend its sovereign territory,” a British foreign policy official told the outlet, commenting on the potential Taurus deliveries.

The report follows recent remarks by incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who signaled he was willing to supply Taurus missiles to Kiev.

“I have always said that I would do it,” Merz told German state broadcaster ARD on Sunday.

“Our European partners are already supplying cruise missiles… The British are doing it, the French are doing it, and the Americans are doing it,” he added, referencing the UK’s Storm Shadow and France’s Scalp missiles respectively.

The move must be agreed upon with Berlin’s European partners, Merz said. His CDU party has said the missiles could be used to strike Russian command centers and supply routes, including the Kerch Bridge to Crimea.

Merz’s stance contrasts sharply with that of outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who has repeatedly refused to give Kiev Taurus missiles and warned that the move could escalate the conflict and draw Germany directly into war with Moscow.

Merz is expected to take office in May, once his Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Scholz’s Social Democrats (SPD) finalize a coalition agreement. CDU defense spokesman Roderich Kiesewetter told The Telegraph that the missile delivery issue “remains a point of contention” in coalition talks.

SPD members have expressed concern over the Taurus’ range and power, arguing it poses a greater escalation risk than British or French systems. Party leader Matthias Miersch this week suggested Merz might change course once he receives classified intelligence on the missiles.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, an SPD member, has previously stated there are “many good arguments” against the delivery, citing confidential national security concerns.

Moscow has repeatedly warned that Western arms supplies won’t stop it from achieving its goals in the Ukraine conflict and that such deliveries only drag out the conflict and hinder peace efforts.

The rooster is, for many of us, a goofy figure: the strutting male of a bird species not known for its brains or courage. And for Christians, the rooster bears the dubious distinction of being the other half of the unfortunate duo involved in denying Christ three times the night of His betrayal. And yet, it seems like chickens were very much on Jesus’ mind in the lead-up to His passion.

Source

The bloc has reportedly backtracked on the restrictions to retain leverage in trade talks with Washington

EU officials have stepped back from plans to include a ban on Russian liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports in an upcoming sanctions package against Moscow, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

The decision, one official told the agency, was driven by internal opposition, uncertainty over replacing the supply, but also concerns that a ban could weaken the EU’s negotiating power with the US.

The 17th package is part of broader efforts by the EU to pressure Russia over the Ukraine conflict. Sanctioning Russian LNG now could strip the bloc of a key bargaining chip in ongoing trade talks with Washington, an unnamed EU official told Reuters.

The European Commission is reportedly seeking to use energy imports, including LNG, as leverage to persuade the US to lift tariffs on EU goods.

US President Donald Trump has repeatedly urged the EU to increase purchases of American gas. Some EU officials see this as an opportunity to negotiate the rollback of 25% tariffs on EU steel and aluminum, reinstated in February. Enforcement of the tariffs was delayed by a 90-day pause to allow time for negotiations.

Last week, EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic met with US officials in Washington for initial talks. The commission described the meeting as a “scoping exercise” and said the US must still clarify its demands.

The idea of banning Russian LNG was previously floated during talks on the EU’s 16th sanctions package, adopted in February 2025, but was dropped following discussions in January due to reported opposition from member states.

Some countries, including France, Spain, and Belgium, continue to import significant volumes of Russian LNG, accounting for 85% of Europe’s Russian LNG imports, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA).

While pipeline gas imports from Russia have declined since 2022, the EU’s imports of Russian LNG have increased. In 2024, Russia accounted for 17.5% of the bloc’s LNG supply, making it the second-largest source after the US, which held a 45.3% share.

The European Commission is currently drafting a roadmap to end dependence on Russian energy by 2027, with the plan expected in early May.

In February, Russia’s first deputy energy minister, Pavel Sorokin, told RT during India Energy Week in New Delhi that the country is ramping up its LNG production and exports despite international sanctions. He said Russia could boost LNG shipments to India, noting the “competitive pricing” and stressing that Moscow will continue to trade with its partners despite growing pressure from the US and its allies.

President Trump recently claimed that the country possesses weapons “nobody has any idea” about

The US possesses technology that can “manipulate” and “bend time and space,” White House innovation czar Michael Kratsios has claimed.

Kratsios delivered the remarks at the Endless Frontiers Retreat in Austin, Texas, just weeks after being confirmed as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

He emphasized President Donald Trump’s ambition to usher in a new “golden age of America,” which includes fostering scientific research and the application of cutting-edge technologies. According to Kratsios, the US can emerge as a global leader by making “smart choices” regarding public funding and deregulating innovation.

“Our technologies permit us to manipulate time and space. They leave distance annihilated, cause things to grow, and improve productivity,” he stated, without elaborating. Later in his speech, Kratsios insisted that overcoming the “sclerosis of the state” would enable Americans to achieve “scientific discoveries that will bend time and space, make more with less, and drive us further into the endless frontier.”

Trump himself has recently alluded to advanced technologies not yet revealed to the public. Last week, he claimed China would hesitate to escalate trade tensions with the US partly due to the existence of secret weapons in the American arsenal.

READ MORE: US has secret weapons – Trump

“We have weaponry that nobody has any idea what it is, and it is the most powerful weapons in the world that we have. More powerful than anybody even, not even close,” he told journalists in the Oval Office.

In March, Trump announced the development of a sixth-generation fighter jet, which he described as “the most lethal aircraft ever built.” Boeing was awarded the contract for the project, he noted.

The Jewish state reportedly intended to conduct strikes on nuclear sites next month

US President Donald Trump has rejected Israel’s proposal to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, the New York Times reported on Wednesday evening, citing White House officials and others familiar with the matter. Trump reportedly chose instead to pursue a new deal with Tehran.

According to the NYT, Israel had drafted plans to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities in early May, aiming to delay its ability to develop a nuclear weapon by a year or more. After considering a combination of airstrikes and commando raids, the Jewish state reportedly proposed “an extensive bombing campaign” that would have lasted more than a week. Israeli officials had hoped that the US would not only greenlight the operation but also actively support it.

Trump, however, shot down the plan earlier this month, following a “rough consensus” in the White House. Vice President J.D. Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard were among the top administration officials who reportedly raised concerns that the strikes would “spark a wider conflict with Iran.”

Iran and Israel exchanged strikes in April and October of last year, marking the most dramatic escalation between the regional rivals.

Trump tore up the 2015 UN-backed agreement on Iran’s nuclear program during his first term in office. He accused Tehran of secretly violating the deal and reimposed sanctions. Iran responded by rolling back its own compliance with the accord and accelerating its enrichment of uranium.

Last month, Trump threatened to bomb Iran “if they don’t make a deal,” to which the Islamic Republic vowed not to bow to pressure. Despite the belligerent rhetoric, the US and Iran held the first round of talks in Oman on Saturday. The negotiations took place in a “productive, calm and positive atmosphere,” Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said.

Oh yes, we’ve noticed… 

Dr. Kwasniewski Reacts to Novus Ordo Watch Critique: I Don’t Engage Sedevacantists!

Earlier this month, yours truly joined Louie Verrecchio for a video podcast to respond to a recent article by Dr. Peter Kwasniewski regarding papal authority and the Sacred Liturgy. The video was released on Apr. 4 on Verrecchio’s channel and a day later on Novus Ordo Watch’s:

• The Pope and the Breviary: Response to Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (Video)

On Apr. 6, Kwasniewski published a comment on Facebook and on Twitter explaining that people had asked him if he was going to respond, which he answered in the negative because “I do not engage sedevacantists.”… READ MORE

Friedrich Merz should not give Kiev long-range weapons, the leader of the Social Democrats has warned

Incoming German Chancellor Friedrich Merz will be swayed from delivering Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine once he begins to receive classified intelligence briefings on the matter, Matthias Miersch, the leader of the Social Democrats (SPD), has said.

Berlin ruled out giving Ukraine the long-range weapon system, which has a range of 500km, while the SPD led the last German government.

Following an historic election defeat in February which saw the right-wing Alternative for Germany (AfD) surge,  Merz's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) and Miersch's SPD began talks to form a government.

Speaking to the n-tv news channel on Wednesday, Miersch criticized Merz’s readiness to deliver the Taurus and risk open confrontation with Russia.

“We have always been against it,” Miersch said. “I assume that Friedrich Merz, once fully informed by [intelligence] agencies, will reassess the issue clearly. We will then make the decision together,” he added.

“I assume that we do not want to contribute to an escalation or become a party to the war – the very reason we chose not to deliver the Taurus [to Ukraine]. And I assume it will remain that way,” Miersch said.

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius, an SPD member, earlier said there are “many good arguments” against sending the missiles, and some of them cannot be discussed in public.

Speaking to ARD on Sunday, Merz confirmed that he would like to supply Taurus missiles to Kiev. “Yes, that was exactly what I meant – not that we would intervene in the war ourselves, but that we would be equipping the Ukrainian army with such a weapon.”

He suggested that Kiev could use it to strike the bridge connecting Crimea with mainland Russia. Roderich Kiesewetter, the CDU’s defense spokesman, argued that the Taurus would help Ukraine “destroy Russian supply lines and command bunkers.”

The missile debate is unfolding as US President Donald Trump works to broker a Russian-Ukrainian ceasefire through shuttle diplomacy.

Moscow has warned that no amount of Western arms deliveries will prevent it from achieving its goals in the conflict. The Taurus will “not bring any changes to the battlefield,” Russia’s ambassador to Germany, Sergey Nechayev, said on Wednesday.

They would, however, make Germany directly involved in the conflict, as “Ukrainian soldiers… cannot operate the long-range weapon” without Berlin’s help, Nechayev said.

Charles Taylor has said (following Max Weber) that a defining feature of our “secular age” is its “disenchantment.” In past ages of faith, religion suffused public culture, so that belief in the supernatural—an “enchanted” realm beyond everyday, sensible reality—was as easy as breathing. Roadside shrines, processions through towns and fields, and bells calling the faithful to prayer made God’s presence evident to everyone. But those days are long gone. Science has unmasked the mysteries of nature, narrowing the field of the miraculous to the vanishing point. The global economy demands more of our attention for work; consumerist marketing inclines our thoughts more to the things we can buy; and we do as we please with the material world thanks to technologies that our forebears never imagined. It is harder for us to find the space in the cosmos where God operates, and temptations to vice press more insistently. 

In this disenchanted world, faith might seem almost impossible. Rod Dreher suggests that, through “experiences of wonder,” we must “illuminate [our] religious imagination,” so that once again religious belief will become second nature. Some might conclude that they need to turn away from disenchanted contemporary society—taking up farming to get more in touch with nature, moving to a less secular country, or leaving ordinary life altogether on a quest for mystical experiences. To find where God is hiding, many people consider doing something extraordinary.

But what if we don’t need to go so far? What if God is hiding in plain sight—not in supernatural wonders, but precisely in our world’s disenchantment? That, I submit, is an important lesson of the death of Jesus, which Christians once again commemorate this week.

The Lonely Man

The Gospels might seem to depict the most enchanted moment in history, when a man walked the earth who was closer to God than anyone before or since. The lame walked, the dead came back to life, and men heard the greatest wisdom ever spoken. “God has visited his people!” many exclaimed, as they came in droves to see, hear, and touch the wonderworker of Nazareth. 

Jesus’s persona exuded a sense of the divine presence. “I know that you always hear me,” he once prayed aloud to God. In the midst of busyness, he could be seized with joy and shout, “I thank you Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” His parables revealed a mind as fascinated with the sublimest truths as with the humblest material realities; he saw God’s influence pervading every corner of the universe. His love for God overflowed into love for his fellow man. He preached and healed for hours, pouring himself out with pity for the multitudes: to him they were “like sheep without a shepherd.”

But occasionally he revealed another side of himself. After seeing countless miracles, sometimes the crowds still would not believe. Then he might complain, “Oh faithless and perverse generation! How long will I be with you? How long am I to put up with you?” At other times, when his Apostles misunderstood one of his sayings—despite knowing him so well for so long—he asked, disheartened, “Do you still not understand?” “Do you still not know me?” And despite his compassion for people, he once admitted to feeling “constrained” in the world.

He found much of humanity disappointing. He chided people for their “little faith,” because they would only believe if they saw “signs and wonders.” He admonished them for not trusting God even though they, “wicked though you be,” knew how to love their own children. He reminded them that they owed it to God to be as holy as they could; so that when they had done his will, they should say, “We are useless servants; we have done what we ought to have done.” He was reluctant to trust men because “he knew what was in man.” True, he “marveled” at the centurion for his faith, and he called Peter “blessed” for the same reason, but these were exceptions that proved the rule.

To the end he was, in the words of Alban Goodier, “a lonely Man,” torn between tender love for his creatures and disgust at their selfishness, in a way no one else fully understood. His heart, with its infinite capacity to give, sought to slake its thirst on the least show of love from others; yet he received indifference or even hatred. “Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened and I will give you rest!” he pleaded, but he was ignored and cast out. Even his constant vision of God did not save his heart from breaking as he hung dying on a cross, to the point that he cried, “My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?” 

Far from being enchanting, his death was the greatest tragedy in human history. Today, in light of the later success of Jesus’s message, we might find it hard to imagine how catastrophic his end seemed at the time. One day he arrived in Jerusalem to the acclaim of thousands; a week later he was rejected by the human race, despite the preparation of millennia of prophecies and of the moral law written on men’s hearts.

Jesus of Nazareth, despite his boundless love of God and humanity, did not walk the earth with an unalloyed enjoyment of God’s enchanting action in the world; his joy was always darkened by sorrow. 

Descent to Hell: The Path to Life

He did triumph in the end, the story goes, but not by overwhelming men with an unmistakable show of glory; he overcame the dark night of a disenchanted, godless world by entering fully into that darkness—by suffering humiliation and torture. Why did he do this? Because the true obstacle to men’s faith in God was not their lack of spiritual perception or experience, but their knowing, free choices against God and his law—their sins. 

This point is hard for us to get. As John Henry Newman said, sin is “natural” and “familiar to us.” Living for pleasure, wealth, and our egos can seem normal, because we all do it all the time (although we might use less embarrassing terms for it, like “self-respect,” “defending my rights,” “giving myself a break,” etc.). To God, however, sin, especially if it be grave and deliberate, is, as Newman says, “woe unutterable.” It “is the mortal enemy of [God’s] All-holy” being. It “is that . . . which, could the Divine Governor of the world cease to be, would be sufficient to bring it about.”

Sin just is to choose to live without God—or rather, to live as though God were absent (no one in fact can exist without God): it is precisely to choose the disenchanted attitude of our age, and we all do so continually. Because man is free, his choices mold his existence; they cannot simply be undone. Although man needs God to exist, now, after sin, he cannot stop turning away from God; he is permanently restless and disoriented. 

But Jesus, Christians believe, because of the boundless power of his love, was able to live in that disenchanted nature—feeling “as though” God were absent—and to love God anyway, beyond measure. He did this even though he was saddened by life more than any of us can be: being perfectly conformed to God, his soul was perfectly sensitive and vulnerable, able to suffer more than any of us could. He chose to suffer although, unlike us, he had no obligation to do so; he sought as much suffering as his human frame could take, unlike us who resist all pain, even that which our misdeeds have earned. He lived as we do in every way except sin, so that he could take all that was in man, even his wounds caused by sin, and direct it to God—by loving to the point of being wounded for his love. He “descended to hell,” as the Apostles’ Creed puts it, as part of the new path he forged to heaven—but without ever passing through hell’s gates by doing evil. Our nature was bent toward nothingness by our choice to hate God; by his choice to love God in that nature, Jesus made that bend a turn toward eternal life. 

By his death Jesus pioneered a new path to being God’s children—the path of suffering to which he has called his followers ever after. Before the early Christians could convert their neighbors, they had to endure centuries of persecution at their hands. Before the light of the age of St. Francis of Assisi came the darkness of the age of St. Benedict. And the darkness gave way to light because men did not curse it. Rather, through their prayers, penance, and service to others—leaving their comfortable communities to evangelize their worldly neighbors—they learned how to find God where he seemed far off. 

God-with-Us

Jesus said, echoing the Jewish scriptures, that friendship with God comes not from extraordinary experiences, but from living with a “pure heart,” as he did, doing God’s will even when one’s feelings point the other way. One must turn away from evil and order one’s life according to truth and charity, no matter the cost, trusting that God will bring our trials to an end when the time is right. If one does not experience the enchantment of God in his life, he should try doing God’s will anyway—as he knows best in conscience (aided by prayer)—and then perhaps he will find God. If the world is far from God, then if we do God’s will in the world, God will be there through us. As John of the Cross, theologian of the “dark night of the soul,” once said, “Where there is no love, put love there, and then you will find love.” 

If we wait to give ourselves to God until we experience supernatural enchantment, we risk waiting a lifetime and leaving the world—and ourselves—little better than when we entered it. If we want to leave the best legacy we can in this life, we should follow Jesus’s example by loving the truth and our fellow men, even when we don’t feel like it. That means embracing pain—something especially difficult for us in these times of material abundance, when we flee suffering and the tedium of ordinary life. Resisting excessive love of comfort is a challenge in every age, and a duty for anyone who wants to lead a good life. But we are more likely to give up the fight if we devote our attention more to religious experience than to religion’s essence: giving all our thoughts, desires, and deeds to our Creator.

Christians, as they commemorate Jesus’s death, should particularly examine their consciences on these points. Do they complain resentfully about the world, or do they embrace this disenchanted, secular age as the form in which Jesus has chosen to meet them—hidden in the painful experience of God’s absence? Rather than recoil from the bitterness of living in a godless era, do Christians strive to find God in that bitterness—mercifully coming to meet them when they feel most alone? 

God is with us—not just in mystical consolations, but in all our sufferings, even the most mundane. If we took this truth seriously, our secular age would in good time be transformed. From the wounds of its disenchantment, springs of strength, justice, and concord would flow into the world—just as from the wounds of the resurrected Jesus, new life flows into all who answer the call to come, follow him on the way of the Cross.

Image by Renáta Sedmáková and licensed via Adobe Stock.

Pope Francis has dissolved the conservative Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (SCV), an international Catholic lay community that also includes about a hundred priests. Once again, the actual or perceived failure of individuals in the intra-Church directional conflict provided the lever for the welcome dismantling of the opposing side on a completely different level. The dissolution of the Sodalitium cannot be understood without considering the open properties that remain in Latin America.

The dissolution was announced yesterday by the Vatican Press Office and also disseminated by the secular media with obvious satisfaction. The reason given was the failure of the founder, who is accused of severe sexual abuse, although no formal proceedings, let alone a conviction, have taken place in any secular or ecclesiastical court.

What is being concealed: The dissolution decisively resolved a decades-long power struggle in the Church in Latin America, as the Sodalitium represented a counter-movement to Marxist liberation theology.

The Vatican Press Office published the decree of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life, which, however, bears no date, leading to initial assumptions that it was dated yesterday. In fact, the dissolution had already taken place on March 29th, a few days after Francis' return from the Gemelli Clinic to the Vatican. This was announced yesterday by the Sodalitium itself.

The dissolution followed years of investigations involving serious abuse allegations against the founder, as well as alleged financial irregularities within the community. The wording of the statement released yesterday is as follows:

"Upon conclusion of an investigation ordered by Pope Francis on July 5, 2023, to verify the validity of the accusations of various responsibilities attributed to Mr. Luis Fernando Figari and numerous other members of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae, it was decided to dissolve the Societies of Apostolic Life of the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae and the Marian Fraternity of Reconciliation, as well as the Associations of the Faithful of the Handmaids of the Plan of God and the Movement of Christian Life.

The corresponding decrees of dissolution, issued by the Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life and expressly confirmed by the Holy Father, have recently been notified."

The SCV was founded in Peru in 1971 as a movement for spiritual renewal within the Catholic Church. It developed into an international community with a broad global presence. Over the years, however, increasing concern grew regarding the internal practices of the community. At least, that is the generally vague portrayal.

In reality, the matter goes deeper, with two levels to be distinguished: the Sodalitium and its significance for the Church in Latin America, and the personal actions of its founder.

The Background

Let's take a step back. During the Cold War, Latin America became an ideological and geopolitical battleground between the two power blocs. The Soviet Union at that time sought to lead the decolonization movement and thereby expand its influence. This was particularly true for Africa and Asia. In Latin America, while not the primary focus, communist propaganda attempted to introduce such elements, but the main issues were stark social disparities and, in particular, a major adversary, the USA, which, since the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904, claimed the entire American continent as its sphere of interest and exercised dominance there.

Thus, political forces that had sympathized with European fascism or even National Socialism before 1945, primarily as a chance to break free from US encirclement, switched to the communist side after 1945, as the Soviet Union alone seemed a promising counterplayer to the USA. This phenomenon also occurred within the Catholic Church. A particularly well-known example of this shift is the Brazilian Archbishop Hélder Câmara, but Pope Francis himself, albeit in the wake of a lingering movement, is personally involved through his sympathies for Peronism.

Within the Church, against the backdrop of these political and social conflicts, Marxist-influenced liberation theology emerged, aiming to unite Christianity and socialism. Peru was a core region: There, in 1971, the Dominican Gustavo Gutierrez gave the movement, which had been active since the early 1960s, its powerful name: Liberation Theology.

In the same year, also in Peru, Luis Fernando Figari, a layman strongly motivated by personal faith, founded the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae (SCV), which, in contrast to the Marxist liberation theologians, sought to provide less a political but more a religious response. Social and political answers had to arise from personal conversion, the conviction held, which is why everyone had to start with themselves.

Peru had been ruled since a military coup in 1968 by General Juan Velasco Alvarado. As the leader of the Peruvian Revolution, he pursued a decidedly left-wing course. Velasco took a critical stance against the USA and sought closer ties with both the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. In his numerous fundamental reforms, Velasco was supported by liberation theologians. The Church in Peru was deeply divided by the overall developments.

The founding of the SCV, like Opus Dei, met the needs of many Catholics aligned with the traditional order. Thus, the SCV was not only a movement of spiritual renewal but, from the beginning, if not directly, a counter-movement to liberation theology.

While liberation theology found great and often favorable media support in Western Europe, the SCV remained largely unnoticed for a long time but was perceived in Latin America as a conservative bulwark against leftist subversion of the Church – by both sides.

The conservative orientation in Catholic doctrine, the emphasis on the hierarchical structure within the Sodalitium, the recognition of ecclesiastical authority, the strong spiritual focus, the rejection of leftist ideologies and revolutionary aspirations, and the defense of Catholic identity made the SCV one of several conservative magnets in Latin America. Thus, the Sodalitium became a Catholic reference point and attracted numerous young men seeking a clear Catholic identity in contrast to the spreading progressive tendencies in the Church. The SCV maintained schools in several countries and had direct influence on at least one university founded by it in Peru. In 2002, Figari was appointed Consultor of the Pontifical Council for the Laity by Pope John Paul II.

With the election of Pope Francis, liberation theology circles in Latin America saw the opportunity to decide the decades-long power struggles in their favor. This primarily included the suppression or complete elimination of disliked communities, such as Opus Dei, the SCV, the Instituto del Verbo Encarnado, and the Heralds of the Gospel, to name a few.

Pope Francis himself comes from Latin America and is very familiar with the conditions there. Above all, he supports the fight against markedly conservative communities out of his own conviction.

The Scandal and the Dismantling

Around 2010, internal allegations of psychological and homosexual abuse by Figari against young men of the Sodalitium reportedly became known. Publicly, this happened only several years later. Figari continues to deny the allegations. In 2010, at the age of 70, he resigned from the leadership of the SCV, of which he had been the Superior General since 1971. Outwardly, the resignation was presented as a voluntary withdrawal; internally, it is said, there was pressure due to unspecified allegations. Thus, his figure remained untouched within the community for the time being. He no longer had formal influence but continued to enjoy great respect and thus informal influence over the community's houses.

In 2011, the General Chapter elected the former Vicar General Eduardo Regal Villa as the new Superior General. Like his predecessor, Regal is also a layman. Although the SCV also includes priests, it is fundamentally a lay movement, which is why the leadership of the community was also in lay hands. During Regal's tenure, the abuse allegations against Figari intensified and likely led to Regal's resignation.

In 2012, Alessandro Moroni Llabrés was elected as the new Superior General.

In 2015, the book "Mitad monjes, mitad soldados" ("Half Monks, Half Soldiers") by former SCV member Pedro Salinas, in collaboration with a Peruvian journalist, was published. He accused Figari of psychological violence during his time as Superior General and claimed, albeit vaguely, to have been a victim of psychological and physical abuse himself in the 1980s. He reported homosexual abuse, which he accused Figari and some others of, from hearsay.

The Peruvian Public Prosecutor's Office initiated preliminary investigations, which were archived in 2017 because they were substantially insufficient or already time-barred, but above all because no victims came forward. Subsequently, five alleged victims filed a criminal complaint for forming a criminal association and kidnapping, which is why another prosecutor reopened the investigation in 2018 amid polemics against his colleague who had archived the case. The politicized media accompaniment apparently played the largest role, suggesting that there was a cover-up even in the judiciary. However, the new investigations, despite being pursued for eight years, also had to be archived without result in 2024.

Pope Francis, however, had initiated ecclesiastical investigations in parallel in 2015.

In 2015, Pope Francis sent Bishop Fortunato Pablo Urcey, Prelate of Chota in Peru, as Apostolic Visitor.

In 2016, the Sodalitium declared that an internal investigation had confirmed the allegation of sexual abuse and that Figari was therefore declared persona non grata. Based on the visitation report, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith imposed sanctions on Figari for sexual abuse, psychological abuse, and unethical behavior. Figari emphasized his innocence and spoke of a campaign to discredit his person and the Sodalitium.

In 2017, the SCV leadership declared that it accepted the Roman judgment and that Figari was no longer a member of the Sodalitium, as he had lost all rights and duties as a member. Based on the aforementioned conviction, the Roman Congregation for Religious imposed a series of penalties on Figari: he was expelled from the community, he had to lead a life of penance and seclusion in an assigned place (Rome); he was no longer allowed to return to Peru and he was not allowed to have contact with the community. Figari complied with the measures.

In 2018, Pope Francis sent Msgr. Noel Londoño, Bishop of Jericó in Colombia, as Papal Commissioner with full powers to lead, supervise, and reform the SCV, although the community's leadership formally remained in office, but the final decision on all matters rested with Londoño. Figari's appeals against the Roman measures were rejected.

In 2019, a new Superior General was elected: José David Correa González took office.

In 2022, the homo-activist and Pope's friend Juan Carlos Cruz, inexplicably a member of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors, demanded the dissolution of the Sodalitium. This move fueled doubts about the motives of the papal actions in the SCV case.

In 2024, the Vatican expelled ten members from the SCV. Some were accused of abuse of various kinds, especially psychological. Mainly, the Vatican decision stated, the individuals had contributed to maintaining Figari's "system" and its cover-up. Figari himself was also expelled, as, according to the justification, there had been no formally legally valid expulsion decree until then. Emeritus Archbishop José Antonio Eguren of Piura was also expelled. No guilt is discernible in the case of other expelled individuals. The accusation that they had "endangered the credibility and integrity of the Church" is very broadly worded. The fact is that there were efforts to save the SCV, not least to prevent the ecclesiastical balance from tilting further to the left. An appeal against the expulsions was prohibited by Francis.

In 2025, the Sodalitium and all affiliated associations were dissolved.

Necessity or Revenge?

Figari had resigned in 2010, his influence had been minimal since 2012 and non-existent since 2016. He has not been in the community for almost ten years. Therefore, the question arises whether the dismantling of the Sodalitium is really a necessary and appropriate measure. The repression applied since 2015 is seen by secular and ecclesiastical media as a "turning point in the Church's handling of internal abuse scandals" and demonstrates "the Vatican's willingness to hold even influential members accountable." However, this interpretation is precisely where the reading falters. The fact is that under Francis, a strict selection takes place in the fight against abuse: abuse is actively and unilaterally fought, then all the more loudly, when it can be used to eliminate conservative intra-Church opponents. Were revenge thoughts ultimately the real driving force behind the Roman interventions against the SCV?

The purge that Francis has carried out in Latin America is considerable. A look at the four conservative communities mentioned above paints a clear picture. Opus Dei was made compliant through some targeted measures (withdrawal of the legal status for the Work of God and the episcopal dignity of the Superior General) and massively weakened in Peru by the retirement of Cardinal Cipriani Thorne; the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae was dissolved, and the Instituto del Verbo Encarnado and the Heralds of the Gospel were placed under Apostolic Commissars. The accusations that were taken as the occasion (or pretext?) vary greatly. What these communities have in common, however, is that there are old, open scores to settle and that they stand in the way of the Bergoglian agenda.

Since 2024, the Vatican has prohibited the Sodalitium from holding its planned General Chapter and conducting new elections. Thus, Correa remained in office as Superior General until the canonical dissolution, but was under the constant supervision of the papal commissar, who was somewhat euphemistically called a delegate. Since the appointment of the commissar , no significant decisions could be made in the SCV without Vatican approval.

Summary

In the long shadows of the ecclesiastical directional conflict, the Sodalitium Christianae Vitae was an uncomfortable thorn for many – conservative, loyal to the Pope, committed to doctrine, hierarchical. For the representatives of a progressive theology, not least in the circle of Pope Francis, it was a thorn in their side. The lever for an open dismantling was apparently provided by one of their own: Luis Fernando Figari, founder and charismatic leader. His alleged moral failure ultimately became the target that had been sought for years and, through the election of Francis, could be used against the SCV from above with the full papal authority. Thus, the alleged misconduct of the individual became a triumph of the opposing side over an entire community – not through persuasive power, but through the weakness of the opponent. The conservative side did not fall behind due to a loss of arguments, but due to actual and alleged personal failure.

Text: Giuseppe Nardi

Image: SCV/VaticanMedia/MiL (Screenshots)

Trans: Tancred vekron99@hotmail.com

AMDG

Washington’s rupture with longtime allies over Ukraine has shattered the global order, Francois Bayrou has said

French Prime Minister Francois Bayrou has accused the US of abandoning the values of the democratic world, saying Washington’s sudden pivot toward closer ties with Russia has undermined the trust of its allies and shaken the global order.

In remarks delivered on Tuesday, Bayrou said the US, once seen as the linchpin of the "alliance of free nations" and a guarantor of international law, had abandoned core Western values. He added it was “shocking” that a country long seen as a pillar of the global order “could suddenly side with the aggressor.” 

Moscow and Washington have been engaged in negotiations since US President Donald Trump took office in January. The two countries have held several rounds of high-level talks focused on a possible peaceful resolution to the Ukraine conflict and also on restoring bilateral relations.

Some EU members and Kiev have expressed concern about what they perceive as Washington being on Russia’s side in the Ukraine conflict. Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky claimed this week that “Russian narratives are prevailing” within the Trump administration. The White House, meanwhile, has accused Zelensky of making “absurd” statements.

The French prime minister cited pressure on Ukraine “to surrender immediately to the demands of his aggressor under the threat of being cut off from all military aid” as evidence of a dramatic shift in US policy.

Trump publicly clashed with Zelensky in February at the White House, accusing the Ukrainian leader of disrespect, ingratitude for past US aid, reluctance to seek peace with Russia, and “gambling with World War III.” 

Trump later claimed Zelensky was attempting to push through a long-term aid deal, and temporarily froze military assistance to Kiev.

In his speech, Bayrou also criticized Trump for dismantling decades of cooperation by launching a global trade war “without warning,” striking both rivals and allies alike with sweeping tariffs.

He described the resulting fallout as a “cyclone” that undermined international law and economic stability.

Bayrou added that the French government urgently needs to reduce its budget deficit to confront a “tsunami of destabilization” caused by Trump’s tariffs.

Washington’s tariff spree will eventually backfire on itself, Xia Baolong has said

A senior Chinese official has slammed US President Donald Trump’s “extremely arrogant and shameless” tariffs against Hong Kong, a special administrative region of China. Xia Baolong, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, added that “the US peasants” would “wail before the 5,000-year-old civilization.” 

Xia’s comment is the latest in a war of words between the US and China, following Vice President J.D. Vance’s remark earlier this month that the US borrows from “Chinese peasants to buy things those Chinese peasants manufacture.” Beijing slammed the comment as “ignorant and disrespectful.” 

In a televised speech on Tuesday, Xia condemned Trump’s decision to impose high tariffs on Hong Kong, despite it “being the largest source of the US trade surplus.” 

“The US isn’t after our tariffs but our very survival,” he said. “The US has repeatedly contained and suppressed Hong Kong … and this will eventually backfire on itself.”

The official went on to say that bullying tactics have never succeeded against the Chinese people, including those from Hong Kong.

“Pressure, threats and blackmail are not the right way to deal with China,” Xia said. “Let those peasants in the United States wail in front of the 5,000 years of Chinese civilization,” he added.

His words were echoed by Foreign Ministry Spokesman Lin Jian on Wednesday.

“If the United States really wants to solve the problem through dialogue and negotiation, it should give up the extreme pressure, stop threatening and blackmailing,” he told journalists.

The tariff standoff with Beijing comes amid a broader US campaign targeting dozens of countries. While most of the elevated tariffs were paused for 90 days, China was excluded from the reprieve. The total tariff on Chinese goods has been hiked to 145%. In response, Beijing imposed 125% tariffs on imports of American goods and restricted exports of minerals essential for high-tech manufacturing.

Washington and London are currently negotiating a tariff agreement

The administration of US President Donald Trump wants the UK government to repeal hate speech laws in order to secure a trade deal between the two nations, the Independent reported on Wednesday, citing claims by sources close to US Vice President J.D. Vance. 

In a recent interview, Vance spoke of his admiration for the UK and expressed optimism about the negotiations.

Washington and London are “working very hard on a trade deal” within the new US tariff regime, he told the British website UnHerd on Tuesday. 

However, the sources reportedly claimed to the Independent that Vance’s optimism on a trade deal “is a way of putting further pressure on the UK over free speech.” 

“If a deal does not go through, it makes Labour look bad,” they reportedly said. 

“No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that.” 

The UK government has rejected claims that the US has imposed a free speech ultimatum. The subject “is not a feature of the talks,” a Downing Street source told the newspaper. 

The UK’s hate speech laws have led to a significant number of arrests. In 2023, UK police detained over 12,000 people – approximately 33 per day – for online messages deemed offensive or distressing under the legislation, according to The Times. Critics among civil liberties groups argue that these laws are vague and infringe on free speech. 

Vance has previously criticized European leaders for retreating from democratic values. During a speech at the Munich Security Conference in February, he accused them of censoring speech and suppressing opposition parties, warning that the greatest threat to democracy comes from within. 

The UK has been spared the worst of the massive wave of levies imposed by Trump earlier this month. The country faces a 10% tariff on all goods and 25% on steel, aluminum and automotive imports. The two countries are currently negotiating a new trade agreement during the 90-day pause in the tariff hike issued by the Trump administration.

The US president’s first international trip this term will be to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE – three pillars of his foreign policy

US President Donald Trump is planning a visit to Saudi Arabia in May, his first international trip since the beginning of his second term as president.

Saudi Arabia has been considered a potential venue for talks between Trump and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. Notably, delegations from both Russia and the US have already held meetings in Riyadh.

Despite these diplomatic contacts, the White House has so far refrained from officially disclosing the goals of Trump’s visit. According to Axios, the main objective of the trip is to strengthen partnerships with the countries of the Persian Gulf and to discuss ways to stabilize the situation in the Middle East.

It is worth noting that Saudi Arabia was also the destination of Trump’s first foreign visit during his initial term as president in 2017. At the time, the choice of Riyadh was seen as a symbolic gesture, underscoring the strategic importance of the region for Washington.

Sources cited by Axios indicate that the trip was originally scheduled for April 28 but was postponed to mid-May. It is reported that the Saudi side initially hoped to host the American leader after a ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine had been established, which would have given the visit additional weight in the context of global peace efforts.

There is nothing surprising about the fact that Donald Trump’s first overseas visit in his second term will take place in the Middle East. Moreover, Saudi Arabia will only be the first stop on a tour – visits to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are also planned. These countries today form a kind of political and economic triangle of influence in the Persian Gulf region and have become key partners for Washington amid a shifting global geopolitical landscape.

Trump’s chosen route reflects not only the current diplomatic priorities of the US but also a deeper shift in the global positioning of American foreign policy. Unlike the EU – where the attitude toward Trump remains cautious, if not openly critical – the Gulf states are demonstrating a willingness for dialogue and even close cooperation. These countries and Trump share a pragmatic outlook: an interest in regional stability, economic growth, energy cooperation, and the containment of regional rivals such as Iran.

Today, the Gulf countries are no longer simply oil monarchies; they are fully-fledged players on the international stage. Saudi Arabia is advancing a large-scale modernization program known as Vision 2030, aiming to diversify its economy and strengthen its geopolitical agency. Qatar, despite its small size, has become an influential mediator in regional conflicts and plays an active role in humanitarian and diplomatic affairs. The UAE, for its part, positions itself as a hub for technological innovation and logistics, aspiring to become the “Singapore of the Middle East.” These nations have long transcended their regional importance and now actively shape agendas not only within the Middle East but on the global stage as well.

The contrast with the EU is stark. US relations with the bloc are currently experiencing a period of strain. Washington is frustrated with the lack of a unified foreign policy stance in Brussels, internal crises in key EU member states, and a limited willingness to engage in practical matters of international security. Still reeling from energy and migration crises, Europe faces challenges in internal cohesion and declining economic competitiveness. Against this backdrop, its significance in US strategic planning is gradually giving way to more dynamic and resource-rich partners.

Thus, Trump’s focus on the Middle East is not only a logical continuation of his course toward a pragmatic alliance with politically convenient and economically significant states but also a signal of a reassessment of traditional centers of power. While Western Europe today is becoming a zone of uncertainty, the Gulf countries are islands of stability, ambition, and opportunity – assets the Trump administration seeks to convert into geopolitical dividends.

One of the key factors defining the foreign policy priorities of Donald Trump’s second term is a pronounced economic pragmatism. Trump’s team is essentially an alliance of politicians and business figures, many of whom came to the White House from the corporate world, where efficiency and profit are the main benchmarks. That’s why the interest in the Gulf states is driven not only by geopolitical considerations but also by deep economic motivations.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are not just security allies – they are among the wealthiest nations in the world, possessing vast sovereign wealth funds that diversify assets globally. For Washington, this presents an opportunity to attract significant investment into the US economy – from infrastructure and technology to real estate. Gulf-based funds are already actively involved in financing American companies, startups, and financial institutions, and Trump, with his background in real estate and finance, sees these nations as strategic investors with whom deep economic partnerships – not just political ones – must be built.

Moreover, energy will be a central focus of Trump’s visit and negotiations. Despite rising domestic oil and gas production, the US remains interested in keeping global energy prices relatively stable and, ideally, low. This is especially important amid efforts to combat inflation and promote economic growth domestically. The Gulf states – major producers of oil and gas – play a key role in setting global energy prices. Therefore, Washington is seeking to coordinate strategic approaches to energy market regulation with them.

Beyond direct control over oil supplies, these states hold significant influence within OPEC and have strengthened their positions in the global energy landscape through investments in refining, transport, and new technologies, including hydrogen and LNG (liquefied natural gas). The US interest goes beyond simply buying resources – integration of American energy and petrochemical companies into large-scale infrastructure and industrial investment projects in the region is also vital.

Strategically, closer economic ties with the Gulf allow the US not only to maintain favorable conditions for its own economy but also to compete with China, which in recent years has been actively expanding into the region through trade, investment, and technology agreements.

Donald Trump’s upcoming visit to the Middle East in May cannot be viewed solely through the lens of diplomatic protocol or the traditional strengthening of alliances – it is a trip rich with strategic, economic, and geopolitical substance. The chosen itinerary – including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates – reflects not only Washington’s regional interests but also the broader architecture of Trump’s foreign policy priorities, built around power, influence, and economic gain.

Against the backdrop of growing tensions between the US and Iran, Trump is seeking to solidify America’s position in the region through an even closer alliance with the leading Arab monarchies. In recent months, Iran’s rhetoric and actions have intensified, raising serious concerns in Washington. The possibility of open – albeit limited – conflict is being openly discussed both among experts and within the US establishment. In this context, the Gulf states – long-standing opponents of Iran – are Trump’s natural allies. Joint efforts to contain Tehran, coordination on defense policy, the development of joint military initiatives, and potential participation in a regional security framework will all be important topics of discussion in Riyadh, Doha, and Abu Dhabi.

However, Trump’s regional strategy goes far beyond merely containing Iran. One of the key objectives of his trip is to advance his plan for normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world – a continuation of the so-called Abraham Accords initiated during his first term. Trump sees himself as the architect of a unique shift in Middle Eastern politics, in which countries historically hostile to Israel began moving toward rapprochement in exchange for security guarantees, investment, and US diplomatic mediation. Given the current escalation of the conflict between Israel and the Gaza Strip, Trump is seeking the support of Arab leaders to formulate a new approach to the Palestinian issue.

Essentially, the aim is to create a new regional consensus: Washington is offering Gulf leaders not just participation in the peace process, but the opportunity to become full-fledged architects of it. Achieving this would require a delicate balance between Israel’s interests and the need to address the Palestinian position – a challenge by any measure. Nevertheless, Arab countries – particularly the UAE and Qatar – have sufficient political clout, financial resources, and channels of influence to play the role of mediators, provided their involvement aligns with their own strategic interests and international standing.

All of these diplomatic, strategic, and economic goals are interlinked. The Trump administration, heavily composed of business-minded figures, sees the strengthening of economic ties with the Gulf not only as a way to attract investment into the US but also as a tool for influencing the regional agenda. Mutual interest in stable energy markets, high-tech cooperation, and shared approaches to regional security creates a foundation for deep, long-term cooperation.

In this light, Trump is heading to the Middle East with a comprehensive agenda: countering Iran, promoting a new model of Middle East peace, forging economic partnerships, and reinforcing his own political standing both internationally and domestically. His bet on the Gulf leadership reflects a broader reassessment of US foreign policy priorities: as the EU today loses trust and strategic relevance, the countries of the Persian Gulf are not merely emerging as alternatives, but as a new center of gravity for American policy in the East.

On the economic front, the Trump administration expects tangible outcomes from the visit: the signing of new trade deals, expansion of American corporate presence in the region, and stimulation of investment flows into key sectors of the US economy – from energy to advanced technologies and the defense industry. For Trump, whose political instincts are deeply rooted in business, foreign policy is closely tied to commercial interests, and the Middle East, in this model, is viewed as a market of opportunity, a resource partner, and a source of financial liquidity.

Politically, the visit serves a dual purpose. First, it is meant to demonstrate to the international community that the US remains capable of setting the agenda in one of the world’s most volatile and strategically important regions. Second, it sends a message to the domestic electorate: Trump is positioning himself as a strong leader who knows how to negotiate, expand American influence abroad, and secure the country’s economic interests through a diplomacy of strength and strategic deals. Altogether, this trip is far more than a symbolic diplomatic gesture – it is a multilayered initiative aimed at reinforcing US influence in a new global order defined by calculation, pragmatism, and control over key resources.

Washington reportedly still views a resource deal with Kiev as a way to recover funds spent on supporting the country

The US continues to insist that Ukraine should pay it tens of billions of dollars as part of a resource deal in compensation for American assistance in the conflict with Russia, but has scaled back its initial assessment of the final amount, Bloomberg reported on Wednesday, citing sources.

Washington and Kiev have for weeks been discussing a resource deal – a concept first floated by Vladimir Zelensky last year – which would grant the US access to Ukraine’s deposits of rare earths.

Following a round of talks in Washington last week, officials from the administration of US President Donald Trump cut their estimate of American assistance to Kiev from more than $300 billion to about $100 billion, Bloomberg sources said. Ukraine itself assesses total aid US during the conflict with Russia at just over $90 billion.

However, US officials still view the resource deal “as an opportunity to recoup costs in Ukraine through profits” received from a joint fund, the size of which is still unknown, a Bloomberg source claimed. Ukraine has consistently rejected the idea that US aid constitutes a debt, insisting that assistance was provided unconditionally.

Kiev is also pushing for future US investment in the joint fund, although Trump’s team has been reluctant to entertain the idea while insisting that previous American military support should be counted as Washington’s contribution, the article said.

READ MORE: Kremlin comments on delays to new election in Ukraine

Asked to comment on the state of the negotiations, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Bloomberg that the sides “are very, very close” to finding a consensus, and that the agreement “could even be signed as early as this week.”

The two sides were close to signing a deal in late February, with the ceremony widely expected to take place during Zelensky’s visit to the Oval Office. However, the event devolved into a public spat, with Trump accusing Zelensky of disrespect, ingratitude for past US aid, reluctance to seek peace with Russia, and “gambling with World War III.”

You can only support the current manifestation of late-stage capitalism, if you believe that massive inequality of wealth is necessary to wealth creation, or if you believe that the total amount of wealth is unimportant so long as a very small minority are extremely wealthy.

“Trickledown economics” is at heart simply a statement of the idea that massive inequality of wealth is necessary to wealth creation. There is no evidence for it.

The truth is, of course, that the poor ultimately benefit only from the economic activity of the poor. But not nearly as much as the rich benefit from the economic activity of the poor.

Taking money off the poor does not lead to an increase in wealth creation. If you look at the billions the Labour government is seeking to remove from the disabled, that is not only money taken away from them, it is money taken out of the wider economy.

It seems astonishing that the Labour Party has forgotten the entire message of Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake. But then, the Labour Party expelled Ken Loach for opposing the genocide of Palestinians.

Those on benefits have a much higher propensity to spend than the more wealthy elements of society as they have no choice; they need to spend all their income to survive and enjoy a minimal acceptable standard of living. This income is spent on the local goods and services they need, again to a much higher degree than that of wealthier people.

Much of this spend benefits the landlord class, but it is almost all within the UK economy and it has a multiplier effect on economic activity. All of this is pretty obvious. By simply taking this money out of the economy (and it has no real relationship to taxes and revenue) the government is reducing the overall size of the economy.

This austerity is the opposite of pro-growth. It is absolutely anti-growth. It achieves the precise opposite of the alleged goal of Labour’s economic policy.

All this is designed to reduce the fiscal deficit, allegedly. But reducing economic activity will reduce revenue. It is a death spiral. If the aim were actually to reduce the fiscal deficit, taxing those who have money would be far more sensible than taking money from those who do not.

But actually that is not the object at all. The object is to convince the neoliberal finance system that this is a safely neoliberal government, willing to hurt the poor and leave the wealthy untouched.

That system brought down Liz Truss for failing to acknowledge orthodoxy on the fiscal deficit. The strange thing is that Truss was actually right on the non-importance of this shibboleth. Where she was wrong was in a desire to decrease still further taxation on the wealthy, rather than increase spending on the poor; but her attitude to deficit was not wrong.

A higher deficit only leads to an increase in interest rates if you wish to seek to maintain the value of your currency in international markets. But like so many of these economic targets, the justification of this is a matter of convention more than reason. I have seen massive swings in the value of sterling over my lifetime, which have had little impact on the UK’s steady economic decline, although a habitual tendency to over-valuation has contributed to the wipeout of British manufacturing industry.

We now have Rachel Reeves wedded to Gordon Brown’s doctrine on fiscal spend, that led to the horrors of PFI and paved the way for austerity. Yet when the Establishment want to bail out the bankers, unlimited money can simply be created, and when they want to boost the military, unlimited public spending is immediately possible.

New Labour’s economic policy is Thatcherism, pure and simple.

The truth is we do not really need economic growth. The UK economy produces enough wealth for everybody to live free of poverty and in real comfort. The problem is the distribution of that wealth. We live in a society where, astonishingly, 1% of the population own 54% of the wealth.

You can argue about the precise statistic but the massive inequality is clear. The cause of poverty is inequality. The answer is to reduce inequality in a variety of ways – not only by progressive taxation but also by changing the ownership structures of enterprises.

The purpose of reducing poverty and increasing comfort for the majority is to spread happiness. Eternal economic growth is not a necessity for this. Happiness is not merely derived from possession of stuff, and owning more stuff is not the panacea.

Happiness arises from comfort, good relationships, active and engaged minds and a balanced society. A society which prioritises the libertine wealthy over caring for its disabled can never be balanced and can never be happy.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: craigmurray1710@btinternet.com

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

The post Starmer’s Thatcherite Economics appeared first on Craig Murray.

As 320 Palestinians were massacred last night, most of them women and children, we live in a world where it is accepted as legal that Trump2 is genocidally Zionist because he received a $100 million donation from Miriam Adelson to be so.

In addition to which Adelson is the second largest donor to AIPAC, which openly pays hundreds of other elected and potential US politicians to be genocidally Zionist too.

This is Western democracy.

My previous article demonstrated how the argument – now used against Mahmoud Khalil – that the First Amendment only applies to US citizens, was also employed by the Biden administration in extradition proceedings against Julian Assange.

It surprises me how very often the Assange case proves revealing of the internal workings of power in the USA.

When the CIA wished to bug Julian Assange on Ecuadorean diplomatic premises in London, and to look into the possibility of kidnapping or murdering him there, they decided to operate through a cutout for such a diplomatically fraught move.

That CIA cutout was Sheldon Adelson, multi-billionaire late husband of Miriam Adelson. Adelson’s fortune had come from a Las Vegas casino and property empire.

You are probably aware this is not, in general, the most respectable and free-from-organised-crime area of economic activity.

US President Donald Trump awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Doctor Miriam Adelson at the White House in Washington, DC, on November 16, 2018. – The Medal is the highest civilian award of the United States. (Photo by SAUL LOEB / AFP) (Photo credit should read SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images)

There is a lazy stereotype that the control over crime in Las Vegas lies with the Italian mafia.

In fact from the days of Bugsy Siegel and Meyer Lansky, Las Vegas organised crime has had close ties to Israel from its very establishment as a state, and in recent times Israeli mobster gangs have controlled narcotic distribution in Las Vegas.

Allow me to point out that the first of those two links is to the Jewish publication The Tablet, and the second is to an American Jewish magazine called Forward, and not the British far-right publication of the same name.

Adelson hired a private security company named UC Global, headed by a former Spanish marine named David Morales, to conduct the illegal surveillance for the CIA. As one of subjects of the illegal surveillance, I gave evidence last year to the court case in Madrid in which David Morales, head of UC Global, is criminally charged.

This case seems to ramble on forever, but last week there was a new development as David Morales was charged with forging documents in the case, for which a new trial is opening. He allegedly fabricated emails from the Ecuadorean Ambassador commissioning the spying.

The CIA commissioned the activity from Adelson during the first Trump presidency, but notably the Biden administration condoned this and defended it during the Assange extradition proceedings.

It is yet a further example of the meaningless nature of democracy in uniparty America, of the power and reach of the ultra-wealthy, and of the fascist links between big business and secret state agencies.

———————————

My reporting and advocacy work has no source of finance at all other than your contributions to keep us going. We get nothing from any state nor any billionaire.

Anybody is welcome to republish and reuse, including in translation.

Because some people wish an alternative to PayPal, I have set up new methods of payment including a Patreon account and a Substack account if you wish to subscribe that way. The content will be the same as you get on this blog. Substack has the advantage of overcoming social media suppression by emailing you direct every time I post. You can if you wish subscribe free to Substack and use the email notifications as a trigger to come for this blog and read the articles for free. I am determined to maintain free access for those who cannot afford a subscription.

Click HERE TO DONATE if you do not see the Donate button above

Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.

Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:

PayPal address for one-off donations: craigmurray1710@btinternet.com

Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:

Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB

Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a

The post The Rot at the Core of “Democracy” appeared first on Craig Murray.