Global Analysis from the European Perspective. Preparing for the world of tomorrow




Which of the Western Christian religious leaders would even dare to think?

On November 28 this year, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church (roughly an equivalent of the head of the Church of England), gave a speech at the 26th World Russian People’s Council. Here are the points that he addressed:

  1. War in Ukraine. Patriarch Kirill views the conflict as the hostilities between two fraternal nations, hostilities that are fuelled by the managers of the world who pursue the policy of divide and rule. One of the goals of the war is to instil fear in people so as to make them obedient and compliant. Christians, said Patriarch Kirill, are, however, not afraid of the end of the world because Christians are awaiting the end of the world and the final judgment, the victory of good over evil.
  2. Neo-paganism. A phenomenon that is taking root in Russia and although it is as yet a marginal trend, it nonetheless poses a threat to the existence of the nation. It is not merely Russia but also Ukraine, which are fraught with neo-pagans who – in the case of Ukraine – are so strong as to form their own military units. Their ideology or set of beliefs is very similar to Nazism.
  3. Russophobia, a phenomenon that is produced in many universities. Patriarch Kirill posed a question why universities paid by the whole Russian nation produce so many individuals who dislike, despise or hate Russia. Similarly, he posed a question why there are so many books for children and adolescents that disseminate ideas that target the family, morality and all traditional values.
  4. Abortion. Patriarch Kirill repeated as many times before that pregnancy termination was evil and that it ought to be forbidden by law. He praised the many local initiatives acting against abortion.
  5. Excessive alcohol consumption. A problem that Russia has been beset with and continues to be so. The head of the Russian Orthodox Church called on taking up measures to curb this pernicious phenomenon.
  6. Immigration. Patriarch Kirill said that too large a number of non-Russian, non-Orthodox immigrants with a different cultural code was a threat to the very existence of the Russian nation and Russian or orthodox civilization. He also exposed proponents of immigration as individuals who do not care about people from outside Russia but want to enrich themselves employing cheap labour.

Which of the Western Christian religious leaders would as much as think about saying anything against immigration? Against abortion? Against schools and universities that produce people who dislike, despise or hate their own national heritage? 

Milei shows central bankers how to do it right

Argentina’s President Javier Milei, whom we praised in our article in February this year for his sober views and realpolitik, is showing his clout. Since he has been in office (exactly one year), applying radical measures, he has brought inflation in Argentina sharply down. At the beginning of his term of office, monthly inflation stood at 25.5 %, but it has now fallen to 3.5 %. This success is based on a comprehensive “shock program”, which included far-reaching cuts:

  • Reduction in government spending: Milei halved the number of ministries and laid off numerous civil servants. Subsidies, for example for energy and transportation, as well as social benefits such as food subsidies and support for soup kitchens were also cut.
  • Monetary and fiscal policy: Argentina’s national currency, the peso, was devalued and a strict austerity program was introduced to reduce the budget deficit. The aim was to achieve a balanced national budget.
  • Market-oriented reforms: Milei was guided by ultra-liberal principles, aiming for a drastic reduction in the state apparatus and greater deregulation.

The FED or the ECB take years to get inflation under control, surrounded by crowds of employees, in their towers in Frankfurt (ECB) and Basel (BIS), in their bunkers in Fort Knox, cut off from reality, with the media serving them, convincing the public of the efficiency, caring and reasonableness of central bankers, leading us from one crisis to another. The ECB can do nothing about the deepening recession in Germany. An Argentinean who is going against the tide, a showman whom all the Western media despised a year ago and predicted his quick downfall, has succeeded. Against all odds. Though he is on the side of Ukraine and Israel in their conflicts, though he speaks out against the BRICS, Venezuela, Iran, Russia and China, nonetheless he argues against woke culture and all left-wing ideas for social transformation. Note that he was the first head of state Donald Trump met with (informally) after his election. While Trump is a protectionist who will try to control the US market with administrative measures, Milei is an opponent of liberalism and open markets. After 20 years of socialist government in Argentina, came a man who keeps his promises: he is putting an end to socialism and its failed ideas. First in the economy, then in all areas of life. One man, one word.

What do stats say?

First and foremost note that the stats that we are going to look at below are taken from the International Monetary Fund website. In other words, they are neither Russian nor Chinese propaganda. As the year 2024 is running to its end, the IMF has made predictions about the annual projected real GDP. That is, what is projected is the remaining one last month of 2024 because the data from the preceding eleven months are available.

The data show that the growth of GDP of the G7 countries ranged between 0.0 (zero) and 2.8. The United States’ growth is that of 2.8, while that of Germany – Europe’s economic powerhouse! – hit zero, nada, nil, naught, nix. Japan with its 0.3 is following in Germany’s footsteps, while the GDP of such countries as France, Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada oscillates around 1.0:

  1. United States 2.8
  2. Canada 1.3
  3. United Kingdom 1.1
  4. France 1.1
  5. Germany 0.0
  6. Italy 0.7
  7. Japan 0.3

What do stats tell us about the growth of the GDP of the five original BRICS countries? South Africa can boast 1.1, which does not come as a surprise, Brazil is just better off than the United States. Russia’s GDP stands at 3.6 – more than that of the United States by a large margin – while China’s and India’s – with 4.8 and 7.0 respectively – dwarfs that of the United States:

  1. India 7.0
  2. China  4.8
  3. Russia 3.6
  4. Brazil 3.0
  5. South Africa 1.1

If we compile a list that combines the G7 (in blue) and the five original BRICS (in red) countries in descending order, that’s what we get:

  1. India 7.0
  2. China  4.8
  3. Russia 3.6
  4. Brazil 3.0
  5. United States 2.8
  6. Canada 1.3
  7. United Kingdom 1.1 = France 1.1 = South Africa 1.1
  8. Italy 0.7
  9. Japan 0.3
  10. Germany 0.0

The BRICS countries take the first four places. What is more remarkable, Russia and China are doing very well despite the numerous sanctions and tariffs. Surprisingly(?), Belarus with its GDP of 3.6, and Serbia with its GDP of 3.9 – both non-EU states – are doing better than the G7 countries and better than Poland (3.0) and Czechia (2.3) – both the EU member-states whose GDP is among the highest in the Union.

Even Asiatic and African countries can boast higher GDPs than the G7 states:

  • Vietnam 6.1
  • Uzbekistan 5.6
  • Iran 3.7
  • Kazakhstan 3.5
  • Nigeria 2.9
  • Zimbabwe 2.0

Notice Iran – another country that has been beset with sanctions for decades – and Zimbabwe, known rather for its hyperinflation, with a GDP higher than that of the United Kingdom, Canada, Italy, France or Germany.

Haven’t we been told again and again that combining European states into one big economic organism would be beneficial to them all? It doesn’t seem it is. Haven’t we been told again and again that sanctions would ruin Russia and Iran? It doesn’t seem they have.

Gefira 88: Protection or protectionism?

In modern states, the control of those in power over the population is becoming ever greater. This applies not only to China or countries that are described as dictatorships by Western rulers, but to Western countries themselves. The EU countries have long since joined the ranks of the “surveillance states” by passing laws that enable mass surveillance and grant the security and intelligence services greater powers. The leftist terror of virtue knows no mercy in the West, so that in the modern version of George Orwell’s “thought crime”, people can be convicted for acts that have little to do with the actual crime (with crimes being redefined and acts or attitudes that were previously considered normal now being condemned all at once). The terror of virtue punishes anyone who thinks, writes, speaks or acts differently from the mainstream. And all this under the banners of protecting citizens, under the banners of fighting against imaginary enemies, against racism, misogyny, anti-vaccinationists, climate deniers, Putin’s trolls, diesel drivers, carnivores, North Korean hackers, right-wing extremists – the list of enemies is longer than in any dictatorship before. So we must defend our rights. Fight for freedom of speech again. We should not focus too much on the dilemma of left or right. The Democrats or the Republicans. No. This election is not the most important. We should pay attention to the ideas of libertarianism.

 

Gefira Financial Bulletin #88 is available now

  • Protection or protectionism?
  • Data protection and Climate protection 3
  • Protection from terrorism or the whole truth about Hamas
  • Real Estate Investment Trusts

Put up a fight or throw a farewell party?

By a guest author.

Is it fundamentally not simple to see? 

Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union the world was divided into two hostile blocs, and no one knew how that protracted conflict between West and East would resolve: would there be World War Three? Would the Cold War last forever? Would there be a string of proxy wars between the two political systems like that in Korea or that in Vietnam? Lo and behold, the Soviet Union, this terrible monster, this evil empire, laid down its arms, and                                                                                                                   

  1. let go of all the central European states i.e. disbanded the Warsaw Pact (the military counterpart of NATO) and the Comecon (the economic counterpart of the EEC, the precursor of the European Union);
  2. dissolved the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics itself;
  3. threw away Marxist-Leninist ideology;
  4. accepted capitalism with everything that this socio-economic system offers;

and while Russia – the Soviet Union’s successor – surrendered herself to the West, her President Boris Yeltsin famously said ‘God save America’ in Congress.

The astounded, mesmerised, astonished world heaved a deep sigh of relief and entertained high hopes about the peaceful future. The German rock band Scorpions encapsulated the atmosphere of that time in their winds of change song, which won enormous popularity across the Old Continent. Almost overnight events occurred that no one thought were possible. A miracle. Communism collapsed with not a single shot being fired. Annus mirabilis, indeed. That was day one. What happened on day two?

On day two all Central European countries flocked to NATO. They flocked to NATO to be protected from… well, from whom? There was no Soviet Union, there was no communist colossus, there was no hostile state in the east. European Russia had shrunk to the territorial size it had during the reign of Peter I three centuries earlier, its industry was in shatters, it had huge demographic problems, it was torn by factional feuds while the state property was appropriated by individuals, not infrequently of alien ethnicity, and its armed forces were weak and demoralised. So, what protection did the central European countries need? Still, they became NATO members.

As if that was not enough, on day two the CIA began supporting Chechen rebels and operating in the Caucasus, to name just a few areas, while NATO began deploying missiles to Poland and Romania with the ridiculous story that they were there to protect central Europe against… Iranian attacks! I rubbed my eyes and did not believe my ears when I heard that justification for the deployment of missiles as it was provided to us via the many media. Stupid, isn’t it? They should have come up with a better pretext, but there you have it.

Consider this historical event this way. A wild-west little settlement. The Russki posse on one side, the Yankee posse on the other. The gunslingers of both are holding their guns levelled at their opponents. The moment lasts all eternity until the Russki posse decides to give up. For whatever reason – psychological pressure, bad weather, the calculation of their chances of (not) prevailing in the shoot-out, whatever – the Russki posse lowers their hands, drops their guns, unbuckles their belts and throws them away. The Yankee posse emerges victorious. What do you think the Russki posse expects in return? Yes, you guessed it right. They expect a similar gesture. Right? But no. The Yankee posse not only does not lower their guns; no, they take over the members of the Russki posse (Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians etc.) and even take over Russki’s brother known as Ukraine and they begin to pit them all against the Russki. That’s what it all was about.

As far as I can search my memory, in between 1991 and 2022 I never heard or read in the media anything even slightly positive about Russia and things Russian. Anything to do with Russia was described as bad, ugly, repulsive, stupid, ridiculous, backward – you name it. Not one single positive piece of information about that country or its nation. Not one. I still remember the item of news just prior to the opening of the Winter Olympic Games in Sochi that the toilets in hotels for the athletes were constructed in such a way as to have two toilet bowls per cabin i.e. as to force people to – sorry for the word – defecate side by side without an intervening partition wall. And you know what? My compatriots believed in it. Eagerly.

My compatriots – just as the Western intellectuals – defended Khodorkovsky in his conflict with President Putin because Khodorkovsky was Putin’s enemy, and the enemy of our enemy is our friend. Never mind that a personage like Khodorkovsky in my own country would have been hated by the majority of people because they would have all figured out – and rightly so — that his enormous fortune was the result of theft, deceit, murder and all other kinds of crime. Still, anybody was regarded as saintly and a hero so long as he opposed Putin. Much the same story repeated itself with my compatriots wholeheartedly supporting Ukrainians, a nation otherwise commonly disliked in my country.

My countrymen – just like Western citizens – were all in favour of Navalny because he was – yes, you guessed it right – anti-Putin. They knew nothing about him: it was enough that he was anti-Putin to view him as a hero. No common sense applied. You remember how Putin tried to poison Navalny? It all bordered on the surreal and the absurd: the otherwise monstrous and effective KGB turned out to be unable to kill one dissident; Navalny’s wife demanded that her unconscious husband be transferred to Germany for treatment; the Russian government docilely agreed, knowing full well that German doctors would find the traces of poison in Navalny’s body; the traces of poison were found, of course!, but still Navalny came back to Russia after his recovery only to be killed a few months later in prison, this time successfully! My oh my, how foolish it all can be and still people accepted all this as pure truth!

Then came day three. The West began penetrating Ukraine and Belarus. The West began to turn those two Russian nations into anti-Russia. Just like that. It was like pitting Canada against the United States or setting New Zealand against Australia. It really is as absurd as that. The three states – Belarus, Ukraine and Russia – stem from one medieval Rus’, just like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are historical offshoots of the United Kingdom, and just as people in last mentioned countries generally speak English, so do people in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine generally speak Russian.

No, Ukrainians do not speak Ukrainian for the most part. There are a few millions of them in my country, I happened to work with some of them, and I have my ears wide open. And you know what? Maybe two, maybe three out of every hundred speak Ukrainian or something that is a mix between Ukrainian and Russian. Maybe two, maybe three out of every hundred! Yet, my government pretends not to notice this fact, and the newspapers or a television channel dedicated to the refugees from Ukraine as well as all the inscriptions and legend in shops, means of public transport and offices are printed in Ukrainian. Now to bring my point home: since almost all those Ukrainians speak Russian – Russian is their mother tongue – so what my government is doing is comparable to having a huge refugee population from Ireland and addressing all of them in the Irish language rather than English! That’s how downright foolish it all is, that’s how mendacious the powers that be are, that’s how the managers of the world create ‘reality’.

It’s not merely that Ukrainians speak Russian: Ukrainian children (just as Belorussian children) when they study at school about the beginning of the history of their nation, they learn about the same legends and the same first rules as Russian children do. Again, let me bring my point home: there is almost no such historical overlap between Polish and Czech history. Never mind, Leonid Kuchma, Ukraine’s second president, made a name for himself authoring a book entitled Ukraine is not Russia. The title says it all what the book is about. Now, if Ukraine were not Russia, no one in his right senses would speak about it not being Russia, let alone write a whole book to prove it! Do we have books like France is not Germany or vice versa? This title alone proves how much Ukraine is Russia.

Which is one of the reasons why so many Ukrainians (Russians) fled the country and did not want to defend it. If they were ‘Ukrainians-not-Russians’, they would have defended Not-Russia against Russia, but somehow they don’t want to. I see them in my city everywhere around. Young, sporty men. On the one hand it is morally reprehensible: their mates are dying in the trenches or losing limbs, while these sporty guys are in safety. On the other hand I understand them: they are not going to kill Russian brethren, they are not going to kill people speaking the same language, professing the same Orthodox Christian faith, writing in the same script, sharing the same legends, having close or distant relatives on either side of the border. Oleksandr Syrskyi, Ukraine’s commander-in-chief, an ethnic Russian, with both his parents and a brother living in Russia, is a glaring and telling illustration of the problem! For reasons known to himself he decided to fight against his own nation: millions of others decided otherwise.

Russians – like all those central and eastern European nations – have a huge inferiority complex towards the West. Go open Leo Tolstoy’s war and peace in the Russian original and you will see huge chunks of text written in French. Why? It’s not simply because sometimes the author presents the French characters speaking in their language; it is also and predominantly because Russian upper classes would speak French now and again, because Russians (and Poles, and Romanians, and, and, and) were enamoured of France and anything French; today they love English and anything having to do with the Anglosphere. Why am I saying this? I’m saying this to show that the West knowing about this inferiority complex could have controlled Russia ad infinitum if only the control were measured, moderate and mild; if only the West were not throwing its weight about as it has, as it is, as it invariably will. Sadly, the West threw its weight around and we are facing the sad result.

Hey, even a Navalny at the helm of the Russian state would have reacted to Ukraine being drawn into NATO in a way similar to what Putin did! How can you fail to see it? A putsch in Kiev, an attempted putsch in Minsk, the Baltic states as NATO members, missiles in Poland and Romania, constant political turmoil in the Caucasus – which Russian leader would remain passive? I didn’t want to repeat this banal comparison that many others keep using, but I feel compelled to do so: what would Washington do if Russia or China were about to draw Mexico and Canada to a military pact hostile to the United States? What would the Hill do if a Russian Nuland or a Chinese Pyatt were openly instigating putschists in Ottawa or Mexico City? We know what Washington would do. Why then are we so surprised at what Moscow has done? Quite apart from whether you like Putin or not, quite apart from whether you like Russia or not: apply just plain thinking like in a game of chess. Beijing must have applied such thinking, and must have been watching what had been happening to the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation, and they must have drawn the only right inference: surely, we might let go of Tibetans, Uyghurs and Mongols – why not?  these are alien nations – but we can’t: the moment we let them go, they will flock to a NATO or an AUKUS, and become springboards for Western penetration and aggression. (Notice in passing the geopolitical similarity of the crescent made up of the Baltic States, Belarus and Ukraine west of Russia and that made up of Mongols, Uyghurs and Tibetans west of China.)

Notice also this hubris: Americans say that losing control over Taiwan, which is located thousands of miles across the Pacific away from the United States, threatens their national security; now Russians must not say that having Ukraine, which is located next door, controlled by Americans threatens their national security. Gee… how biased one needs to be to say that!?

When you listen to Western leaders you cannot get rid of the impression that they are obsessed with Putin. Putin, Putin, Putin is the word that they love to hate. I’m sure they have Putin-dolls which they punch with voodoo pins. I think they would readily bless Russia with the whole of Ukraine if only in return they could lay their hands on Putin to court-martial him, to humiliate him, and to hang him. Putin, Putin, Putin – a sickly obsession. The Western leaders simply indulge in the Orwellian two minutes of hate of Putin, who in their eyes is second only to Hitler. Before Putin there were a few others, with one especially imprinted on my memory: Serbia’s President Slobodan Milošević. He, too, was an incarnation of all evil, while Serbs – and only Serbs – were to blame for anything and everything. Saintly Albanians and Bosnians, not so saintly Croats, and those devils – Serbs! At that time I did not need to delve into the Balkan conflict very much to realise one thing: Milošević must have thrown a monkey wrench in the works of the powers that be. This glaring, enormous bias against little Serbia was enough to make me wonder.

So, how would the managers on the Potomac react to Mexico or Canada being drawn into a military bloc hostile to the United States? No Russian attentive to the world of politics and ideologies fails to notice that the West is hostile to Russia. What of the RAND think-tank publications, what of others – they make no bones about it: Ruthenia delenda est. These aims are declared openly with conferences taking par during which Russia’s territory is being divided into over twenty political entities with nonenot a single one – of them bearing the name Russia. don’t Russians know about it? Of course they do! Such conferences are not kept secret, after all. so they react accordingly. “We are not interested in a world without Russia,” said the Russian president. “We are not interested in a world without Poland, France, Hungary, the United States…” would say any patriotic president, would he not? So what’s so strange about it? If they want to subjugate you, to enslave you, to annihilate you, you put up a fight.

Or maybe you throw a farewell party?

 

 

Trump nemesis

Overjoyed because of his election win Donald Trump said that God had a reason when he had saved his life during the almost successful assassination. The spectacular victory in the presidential race is almost as miraculous as miraculous was his survival when milimeters decided about his fate. The assassination was designed as a desperate act to remove Donald Trump as a candidate, since all other measures had failed. Instead, the attempted assassination enhanced his stature. Shots with Trump shouting Fight! Fight! Fight! and his defiant posture will come down in history just as shots showing American soldiers raising the American flag on Iwo Jima. In fact, these two images have already been put side by side. The resemblance is striking.

The left-leaning democrats with artists and intellectuals of all sorts in attendance called Donald Trump names, set legal traps for him, gave him bad press, fear-mongered about a new Hitler being about to take control over the United States, and what not. All this misfired and backlashed in direct proportion to the amount of effort put into smearing him and dragging his name through the mud. As the biblical adage goes: He who digs a pit will fall into it. They dug, and they fell in. Miserably.

It is not that Donald Trump is an ideal president. Far from it. Yet, in comparison with Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Hillary Clinton and all the rest he is like one of the common Americans. True, he is a billionaire, not a man in the street, but the way he talks, the way he behaves, the way he mingles with people make him look like one of the many millions of ordinary Americans who in their heart of hearts are fed up with the leftist newspeak about the many genders, about inclusiveness and diversity, about open borders and the perniciousness of patriarchy, about all that ideological crap.

The attempt on the part of the democrats to split society into warring factions along the lines of sex or gender, race and moral laxity turned out not to be sufficient. Sure, the left have made headway in their direction: after all only a little less than half of the American society cast their votes for Harris, that is for racial and gender wars to be continued, for open borders to be even more open, for the de-funded police to be even more de-funded, for moral laxity that sells the murder of infants under the guise of human – nay, women – rights and health protection.

Think about it for a moment. Think about a political rally one of the main topics of which is to guarantee termination of pregnancy. Picture to yourself all those rabidly mad women who feel entitled not only to be free to terminate the life of the little ones, but also to have it financed by the state, that is also by those for whom such practices are anathema. Think about such rallies taking place fifty, eighty or a hundred years ago. Very few participants would have approved; rather, the overwhelming majority would have been shocked. Nobody is shocked today. That’s where we are.

Vote for the candidate who guarantees termination of pregnancy! Vote for the candidate who guarantees ‘marriage’ to be contracted between same-sex individuals. Vote for the candidate who will guarantee that same-sex couples will have the right to adopt children. Above all, cast your vote for a candidate who is of colour – a newspeak phrase – and a woman. Never mind the candidate’s intellectual qualities, never mind the candidate’s experience, never mind the candidate’s track record of achievements, never mind the character of the candidate: all you are expected to mind is that the candidate is a she and that this she is of colour.

You haven’t voted for Kamala Harris? You must be a misogynist and a racist. You have voted for Donald Trump? You must be a fascist and an advocate of patriarchy. It’s as simple as that.

This is, notice, the democracy that the entirety of the globe should look up to and copy. This is the political system that Americans want to have replicated not only in Europe, but also in Afghanistan or Venezuela, in Syria and North Korea, in Ukraine and in Belarus. A political system that divides society like a sharp knife into parts whose members hate each other intensely; a political system that produces election campaigns with physical (murder, attempted murder) and character assassinations (the political opponent is an incarnation of Hitler). The rest of the world ought to adopt the American system because it is oh so wonderful!

Donald Trump has won and soon he will have to deal with Emmanuel Macron, Keir Starmer, Olaf Scholz and Ursula von der Leyen who despise him, who hate him, who scorn him. He will have to deal with the American civil servants most of whom sabotaged his first term in office. He will have to deal with all the mainstream media that are not going to evaporate, but, rather, undermine his presidency at every turn.

Donald Trump will have learnt his lesson from the four years of the first term. Has he learnt enough?

If only a few believe the journalists…

…then there will probably be a coup soon, because if the people do not believe the rulers and their mouthpieces, the end of the rulers will come soon. The situation is comfortable for the functioning of the so-called democracy when there is one party or ruling group that rules and is in total conflict with the other, opposition party or with the group that aspires to power. At that time, the leading domestic media are usually on the side of the “right”, on the side of those in power, while the alternative or challenging media are on the side of the opposition. The situation is comfortable (perhaps at present in Georgia or Venezuela) for the voters/citizens, because they themselves choose who is right, i.e. where the truth is. The current situation in the USA is different: fewer and fewer people trust the media at all, regardless of whether it is the leading or alternative (independent?) media.

Source: Tippinsights

The reason for this is most likely the glaring discrepancies seen in the Democratic and Republican narratives. According to a study by the Watchdog Media Research Center, coverage of Kamala Harris was 84% positive, while that of Trump was 89% negative (statistics include CBS, NBC and ABC). The Democratic candidate also received 66% more airtime.

What is the reason for these disparities? The big corporations that are part of the current establishment want to maintain the status quo, which means, among other things, continued Democratic rule. It also means the impoverishment of the middle class, the division of society through wars of ideas, the destabilization caused by the migrant crisis, the chaos caused by tolerating riots and shoplifting while cutting funding for the police. Disunited and confused communities are much easier to control – changing such a state of affairs would not benefit the establishment.

Then there is the main tool of the leading media: the polls. The average voter has only limited access to information. What can voters use as a guide when deciding who to vote for? The polls! From a psychological point of view, people want to belong to the group of winners. This is why the power of published election polls is so great. How can we defend ourselves against this, i.e. check the reliability of these media? For example, by confronting them with the bookmakers’ bets. This business is based on pure statistics – if the bookmaker’s odds do not correspond to reality, he automatically has to incur heavy losses. If we look at today’s ABC NEWS poll results (as of 01.11.24), we see that Harris is in the lead.

Source: ABC News

Quite the opposite is the data coming in from various bookmaker sites, according to which Trump is the favorite. The chart below shows that the Republican candidate can count on an average of over 60% support, while his opponent can count on barely 40% (as at 01.11.24).

Source: Realclearpolling.com

Polls have been wrong in predicting the winner of presidential elections in the past. In 2016, during the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, the polls pointed to the Democratic Party candidate – while it was the right wing that won. One reason for this “surprising” turn of events could have been the electoral system in the US, which creates the possibility that the candidate who received fewer votes from citizens, but more electoral votes, which are decisive, wins.

After examining the methodology used to create the polls disseminated by the ABC, one can conclude that the results are created in an unclear and complicated manner, despite the claim of transparency. The support beam presented to us is not an answer to the basic question “Who do you want to vote for in the presidential election?”, but to a series of questions inserted in different polls. The results are then analyzed and processed. This creates a lot of room for abuse and freedom of interpretation.

Today’s leading (media) are not free from influences and dictates. But if you believe Google’s results, take a look at the following graphic as the punchline of this article:

Theft of the evidence of the senses in broad daylight

Theft of the common sense, theft of the evidence of that your senses provide your brain with, theft of you faculties of reasoning, theft in broad daylight. What do we mean? The fact that the media’s bias is absolutely out of their own control. A simple example. The media tell you about the polls concerning the two candidates running for president, and they inform you credibly that the vote for either candidate is shared roughly fifty-fifty. Yet, in the same breath, the same media will show you a street poll in which they will ask, say, ten people about who their favourite candidate is, and all of them will turn out to be in favour of the candidate that a particular media endorse. Weird, isn’t it?

Why are the media people incapable of controlling themselves? Why are they incapable of being consistent? Is it dictated by the intense hatred of the other candidate? Is it dictated by a very low esteem that they hold their readership or their audiences in? Surely, there are a lot of the readers or viewers or listeners who will not notice this glaring bias. Surely there are a lot of the listeners or viewers who will fail to see this discrepancy. Surely, some of the viewers or readers will, but then they share the same intense hate towards one of the candidates and so they just cannot but indulge in this one-sided narrative. For all that, however, there are some media savvies who will be repelled by that kind of unfairness. There are some among the readers, the listeners, the viewers who have a capacity for reasoning, for remembering, for comparing. If they spot recurrent discrepancies, they will become sceptical about the information that they are fed by the media. There will also be some who will challenge the warped presentation of reality and they may pass their scepticism and criticism of the media onto others, thus slowly spreading the seeds of doubt, disbelief, and eventually total rejection of the official sources of information, a process that currently seems to be in full swing across the Western world.

A media outlet exercises an enormous power over the consumers of the information. It is not easy for an average man to catch them lying. It is the media that have access to sources of information and it is the media that have all those technological gadgets with which to put news pieces together in such a way as to create the narrative that is desired by the owners of the media. Yet, from time to time, they will get lost in their own invented narrative, they will eventually expose themselves for what they really are: tools for the manipulation of public opinion. One thing that can easily throw media credibility into doubt is the internal discrepancy or the internal contradiction contained in the messages, or – in plain English – the lie that they give to themselves.

Again: why say that roughly half the country is for, while the other half is against a given candidate and then ‘corroborate’ the stats with a street query in which all or almost all pollees voice their support for one of the candidates only? One wonders what’s the intellectual framework of such journalists or those who have those journalists do their job. Can’t they control themselves? Is it that they lack basic mental faculties or is it that they hold the entirety of the consumers of information in utter contempt? They certainly regard themselves as custodians of the political and moral backbone of the citizens; they certainly assume that the vast majority of the consumers of information do not have the capacity for working out answers, for doing thorough research, for grappling with huge amounts of data. That’s understandable. One is tempted to use it and… abuse it. But why provide the readers, listeners, viewers with evident discrepancies and contradictions? 

gif loading

We are quoted by:

 
Menu
More