The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Protest movement against corruption in the Philippines

Duterte’s case in ICC encourages Filipinos to hold thieving and ruthless ruling dynasties accountable for their crimes


17/12/2025

The Philippines is now rocked by a growing protest movement against massive corruption.  The corruption scandal involves misappropriated funds intended for flood control projects, with reports of “ghost” projects and substandard construction. This scandal has led to the resignation of several high-ranking officials and sparked widespread protests across the country. The trail of corruption begins with President Marcos Jr. and leads all the way down. Amidst this acute crisis, Filipinos are emboldened to demand accountability from the thieving and brutal political dynasties ruling the country.

As the political crisis of the ruling political dynasties worsens, a majority of Filipinos favor the pursuit of former Philippine President Duterte’s case of crimes against humanity in the ICC (International Criminal Court) and the country’s rejoining the ICC.

Notwithstanding pressures, ICC pursues Duterte’s case.

On 10 February 2025, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC applied for an arrest warrant against Duterte for the crimes against humanity of murder, torture, and rape. The ICC Pre-Trial Chamber I (“the Chamber”) assessed the material submitted by the Prosecution and found reasonable grounds to believe that Duterte is individually responsible as an indirect co-perpetrator for the crime against humanity of murder, allegedly committed in the Philippines between 1 November 2011 and 16 March 2019.

The warrant of arrest against Duterte was issued by the Chamber on 7 March 2025. On 12 March 2025, he was surrendered to the ICC after being arrested by the authorities of the Republic of the Philippines in accordance with the warrant of arrest.

The initial appearance of Mr. Duterte took place on 14 March 2025.  He appeared in the hearing via video link, as authorized by the Chamber. On 8 September 2025, Pre-Trial Chamber I postponed the commencement of the confirmation hearing in the case, which had been initially scheduled to start on 23 September 2025. This was followed by a request  from the defense of Duterte for an indefinite adjournment of the proceedings, alleging that he is not fit to stand trial, leading the majority of the Chamber to consider that a limited postponement of the hearing on the confirmation of charges was warranted to allow sufficient time to adjudicate the request and related matters.

The ICC said that should the Pre-Trial Chamber confirm the charge, it will then commit the case for trial before a Trial Chamber, which will conduct the subsequent phase of the proceedings: the trial itself.

The Pre-Trial Chamber has rejected the request of the defense team of former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte for interim release. In its decision, released October 10, the Pre-Trial Chamber said Duterte’s detention “continues to remain necessary.”

The Chamber said Duterte’s continued detention is necessary to ensure his appearance at trial, since the latter, “from his initial appearance, contested his arrest and detention, qualifying it ‘as a pure and simple kidnapping.’”

Also mentioned to support its decision are the various speeches given by Duterte’s daughter, Vice President Sara Duterte, about the idea of “breaking Mr. Duterte out of the ICC Detention Centre,” and attempts to delegitimize the Court’s proceedings against Mr. Duterte, citing collusion between the Court and the government of the Philippines as well as the use of “fake witnesses.”

The decision was influenced by concerns that his release could pose risks, including potential escape, endangerment of witnesses, and the possibility of committing further crimes.

Duterte’s defense team has claimed that he is physically and mentally unfit to stand trial due to cognitive impairments.  The chamber plans to conduct a separate assessment of his mental fitness to stand trial, indicating that the current medical findings do not negate the necessity of his detention. The International Criminal Court has cleared a key hurdle in the ongoing proceedings against detained former president Rodrigo Duterte, with the Pre-Trial Chamber I saying the ICC retains jurisdiction over the crimes against humanity case.

On October 24, the Chamber unanimously decided that the international tribunal has jurisdiction over the alleged crimes committed in the Philippines from Nov. 1, 2011, to March 17, 2019. The names “Dela Rosa” and “Aguirre” were mentioned in the heavily redacted Pre-Confirmation Brief submitted by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) dated Sept. 22 and made public on Sept. 23 in relation to the crimes against humanity charges filed against former president Rodrigo Duterte before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Sen. Ronald dela Rosa, an incumbent member of the Philippine Senate, was the first Philippine National Police (PNP) chief during the Duterte administration and was the chief implementer of Duterte’s bloody war on drugs. “Dela Rosa promised that they would ‘immediately’ implement a ‘scaled up’ version of the Davao model. If someone fights back, they’ll die. If nobody fights back, we’ll make them fight back.’ ‘Produce blood. Instill fear’,” the document said.

Last year, the OTP tagged Dela Rosa and four other retired and current police officers as “suspects” for alleged involvement in the deaths of thousands of people in Duterte’s drug war.  At the moment, the Philippines is rife with rumors that Dela Rosa has been issued a warrant of arrest by the ICC.  Philippine Ombudsman Jesus Remulla fanned this speculation by confirming that an ICC warrant of arrest for Dela Rosa has already been issued. Senator Dela Rosa is now making himself scarce to avoid being arrested and sent to the ICC to face charges.

Lawyer Vitaliano Aguirre, Duterte’s first secretary at the Department of Justice, was quoted by the document as saying that the “new administration’s program was to do everything to stop drugs, crimes, and corruption—we will choose to kill these drug lords.”

The International Crime Court (ICC) weathered pressures from Duterte supporters in the Philippines and in its headquarters at The Hague, Netherlands. On October 1, 2025, the Philippine Senate (dominated by Duterte’s allies) passed a resolution asking the ICC to consider placing former president Rodrigo Duterte under house arrest on humanitarian grounds. In the Philippines, supporters of former president Rodrigo Duterte gathered in a show of unity and frustration over what they described as continued government silence regarding the latter’s situation abroad. During this time, at the Hague, noisy Duterte supporters held demonstrations calling for their leader to be repatriated to the Philippines.

A sophisticated network of fake social media accounts sprang to the impassioned defense of former Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte after he was sent to the International Criminal Court to face charges over his bloody drug war.

On the other hand, there is growing support for holding Duterte to account for his crimes at the ICC. The Duterte Panagutin Campaign Network was launched by human rights defenders and victims of Duterte’s bloody fake war against drugs to fight for justice and hold Duterte and cohorts accountable.  Since its launching in November 2024, it has conducted information campaigns to counter fake news and narratives promoted by Duterte supporters.  It has also organized protest actions to promote its advocacy.

On March 18, 2025, activists from various countries in Europe held a rally at the ICC to demand justice. The Duterte Panagutin Campaign Network – Europe was formed in the Hague, Netherlands, on Duterte’s 80th birthday on March 28, 2025. The network asserts that Duterte’s arrest is not the end of our struggle. For them, true justice means disarming and dismantling the entire system of impunity that enabled these atrocities to happen.

In the Philippines, on the same day, protestors also demonstrated, calling for justice for Duterte’s victims. On September 21 and 23 rallies were held at the ICC to demand justice for victims of Duterte’s anti-drugs campaign. 

Duterte’s case at the ICC is a win for Filipinos fighting for justice and impacts the ICC’s global reputation.

Duterte’s arrest, detention, and trial at the ICC is a big achievement in the Filipinos’ fight for justice.  Holding Duterte accountable for his crimes in the Philippines is impossible because of his power and influence in the government.  His daughter, Sara Duterte (though facing serious corruption charges), is still the incumbent vice president, and the majority of members of the Senate are his allies.  

Moreover, former Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary Remulla admitted that “The cases that we are speaking about were filed by their families in the ICC because they could not get justice in the country…” The ICC has been firm in implementing its mandate, notwithstanding the legal antics of Duterte’s defense counsel, British-Israeli Nicholas Kaufman.  (This is the same Kaufman who delivered Israel’s threat to ICC Prosecutor Karim Khan, who was then chief prosecutor on Duterte’s case, to back off from the Gaza case or “They will destroy you, and they will destroy the court.”)

Duterte’s case in the ICC is significant: he is the first Asian leader and a former president of the Philippines to be tried by the tribunal. As a close ally and client state of the U.S., it inspires a global democratic movement to fight for justice.

In a blatant display of U.S. exceptionalism and unilateralism, it imposed sanctions against the ICC because of the case against Netanyahu, and it does not want to be accountable for its crimes against humanity.

The United Nations is against US sanctions on ICC officials, which undermine the independence of the tribunal and justice for victims. The European Union is also critical of US sanctions against the ICC. “The ICC holds perpetrators of the world’s gravest crimes to account & gives victims a voice,” according to von der Leyen. “It must be free to act without pressure.

19 December 2018: Revolution in Sudan

This week in working class history


16/12/2025

On 19 December 2018, the Sudanese government announced that the price of a loaf of bread would triple, from one Sudanese pound to three. Similar price rises followed for other basic goods, on the recommendation of the IMF. The subsequent protests were not merely economic, but a revolt against the 30-year rule of the dictator Omar al-Bashir. In Atbara—a marginal town but historically a centre of militant rail workers—protesters burned down the offices of Bashir’s National Congress Party.

The Atbara protests quickly spread to several cities, including the capital, Khartoum. The main organising force was the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), a coalition of members from 17 banned trade unions, including teachers, doctors, engineers, pharmacists and other white-collar workers. The SPA was supported by youth and women’s organisations. On 25 December, it mobilised thousands for a march on the presidential palace in Khartoum. The march was met with tear gas, rubber bullets and live ammunition.

In April 2019, protesters began an indefinite sit-in around military headquarters. On 11 April, Bashir was removed from power. The army dissolved parliament and attempted to retain control, announcing that a Transitional Military Council would rule during a so-called “transitional” period. Protesters again took to the streets, forcing the council’s leader, Awad Ibn Auf, to resign. The movement continued, culminating in a general strike on 28–29 May, followed by another strike two weeks later.

On 3 June, in what became known as the Khartoum massacre, government forces killed over 100 protesters at the sit-in in Khartoum, raped men and women, and threw dozens of bodies into the River Nile. Yet the protests persisted. In August, opposition leaders negotiated a rotten power-sharing agreement with the military council. On 25 October 2021, a military coup dissolved the transitional government and abducted civilian ministers and revolutionary leaders.

The success of the counter-revolution led to war between the Rapid Support Forces—successors to Bashir-backed Janjaweed militias—and the Russian-backed Sudanese Armed Forces. Neither faction represents the revolutionary moment of 2018. That legacy survives instead in the neighbourhood-based resistance committees that emerged after a split within the SPA. Initially organising mutual aid during Covid, these committees are now developing an independent political programme. The Sudanese revolution is not over.

Apartheid cemented in the shadow of genocide

The overlooked front of the war: the judicial system


15/12/2025

The opening of the winter session of the Knesset of Israel on October 28, 2024.

As the genocide in Gaza rages on, Israel’s ultra-right government is using the chaos of war to further entrench the apartheid regime both in Israel proper and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Since October 2023, more than 30 new laws have been passed that deeply infringe on fundamental rights, criminalise Palestinian life, and shift Israel’s legal order decisively toward an authoritarian ethnonationalist regime. 

Over the past two years, the extremist Netanyahu government has dramatically expanded the institutionalised apartheid against the Palestinian people. From October 2023 to July 2025, the Knesset passed more than 30 laws targeting the basic freedoms of Palestinians and subjecting millions to collective punishment. This is the conclusion of a new report published by the Israeli human-rights organisation Adalah, which focuses on legal protection for Palestinians. The “cumulative effect” of this flood of racist laws is “to further entrench and deepen Israel’s regime of apartheid and repression over all Palestinians under its control—both in Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, Adalah writes.

Collective punishment: Deportations by ministerial decree

This barrage of racist and discriminatory laws joins dozens that came before it, through which successive governments since the founding of the state have degraded Palestinians to second-, third- and fourth-class citizens—now numbering over 100 in total. The cluster of apartheid laws rushed through since the start of the genocide covers a wide range of political and social domains. “Beyond criminalizing legitimate political, social, and cultural expression,” Adalah writes, the new laws authorise the state to carry out streamlined deportations, further restrict Palestinian marriages or family reunifications, withdraw funding from schools, cut social-security benefits, lower the threshold for detentions, and restrict access to critical media.

The “Deportation of Families of Terrorists Law”, passed in November 2024, allows the government to deport family members of persons deemed “terrorists” by the state—even if they are merely suspected of “terrorism”. Such deportation orders can remain in place for decades. It is obvious that the principle of individual culpability, fundamental to any bourgeois legal system, is being replaced by the concept of collective guilt: what matters is not a person’s own actions but who their family are. And it is not the courts—already under political fire—that decide, but the interior minister by a mere administrative decree: an increasing concentration of executive powers as befits an increasingly authoritarian state. During the reading of the bill, it was made explicitly clear that no one should assume that the families of Jewish “terrorists” would ever be targeted—for example, the relatives of the fascist who murdered Yitzhak Rabin: No, this criminal deportation law applies exclusively to Palestinians.

Orwell’s thought police

Freedom of expression and press freedom—already severely eroded—have been further mutilated: “The only democracy in the Middle East” now draws freely from Orwell’s thought police. A new law criminalises the “denial of the events of October 7, 2023”. Yet, to this day, the Netanyahu government refuses to appoint an official commission of inquiry or publish an “official narrative” of the events of that day, Adalah notes. The far-right government also blocks a UN investigation into allegations of sexualised violence allegedly committed by Hamas and other groups on that day. More than two years after the attack, it remains unclear to what extent the Israeli military implemented the “Hannibal Directive” on October 7—and thus how many of the deaths that day were caused by Israeli forces deliberately bombing their own people to prevent their capture.

The law criminalises a vague “denial” without clarifying what the object of this denial even is—arbitrariness and abuse are built in by design. “The law is designed to cultivate fear, stifle public debate, and suppress discussion on a matter of public concern,” Adalah concludes. Mere expressions of opinion or questioning of the executive’s nebulous narratives are criminalised. A special task force imprisoned hundreds of Palestinians inside Israel in the first weeks after the attacks for “likes” and posts on social media.

Shielding the public from reality

Another extremely dangerous law criminalises the consumption of certain media that the Israeli state dislikes. Anyone who indulges in the “systematic and continuous consumption of publications of a terrorist organization” faces up to one year in prison. Such consumption, the law claims, may “create a process of indoctrination—a form of self-inflicted ‘brainwashing’”, ultimately increasing “the desire and motivation to commit an act of terror to a very high level of readiness”. Again, everything is deliberately left vague, nothing is specified, leaving room for anything—and everything.

It is obvious that the targets here are not the fascists and demagogues on Channel 14—the home channel of Netanyahu’s Likud party—or other genocide-aligned outlets in the Israeli media landscape. It is Al Jazeera and similar platforms, which show a more realistic picture of the often-indescribable crimes committed by their government to those who are willing to see, and which have already been heavily criminalised. In May 2024, all Al Jazeera operations were banned inside Israel, and even their reporting in the occupied territories was prohibited. Netanyahu thus aligns himself squarely with notorious despots, mass murderers, and war criminals such as Egypt’s torturer-in-chief el-Sisi, Saudi Arabia’s butcher MbS, or his Emirati partner-in-crime MbZ. Under the current circumstances, the government is aggressively attempting to extend the Al Jazeera ban to other international media organisations; even the Israeli liberal daily Haaretz is being attacked wherever possible.

Multi-front war: Palestinians as targets

Other aspects of the more than 30 new apartheid laws include, among others, the intensification of discriminatory allocation of state resources and social benefits, the systematic denial of fair trials, violations of prisoners’ rights, and the firing of teachers or the defunding of Arab schools on the grounds of their alleged “terror support”. In November, the Knesset passed a first reading of a bill introducing the death penalty exclusively for Palestinians. The fascist Israeli police minister Itamar Ben-Gvir appeared at a committee meeting on this bill wearing a pin on his lapel—a modified version of the yellow ribbon for the hostages: in this case, showcasing a yellow noose. “A legal system organized along ethnic lines that denies fundamental rights to a racial group constitutes a crime under the 1973 Apartheid Convention,” Adalah concludes soberly. With the recent wave of apartheid legislation, “the Knesset has and continues to ingrain recognition of Jewish citizens as the sole collective entitled to the full spectrum of individual and collective rights, and to further codify in Israeli law a regime of Jewish ethno-national supremacy”.

Since the ultra-right government took office in December 2022—a coalition that includes self-described fascists—everyday anti-Palestinian racism in Israeli society has exploded, fuelled and encouraged by the government itself. The escalating discrimination against Palestinians has also served to unite deeply fractured political parties: several of the new apartheid laws were passed with the support of opposition parties.

Israel is waging a multi-front war against Palestinians with tailor-made weapons for each front: In Gaza, the population is being physically annihilated by means of genocide. In the West Bank, containment, displacement, disenfranchisement, and apartheid are the tools of choice, in close collaboration with settler fascists whose pogroms and raids contribute to ethnic cleansing. Inside Israel-proper, the fight, by now, largely takes the form of lawfare—the political weaponisation of the bourgeois legal system. The fourth front is outsourced territorially and is gratefully embraced by Israel’s allied right-wing governments in the West, above all in the USA, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. They use the opportunity to sharpen their own authoritarian profiles, attacking Palestinians in the diaspora with batons, tear gas, and prison cells.

Emboldened, equipped, and shielded by its last allies—collaborators—in the West, the Israeli state is escalating its brutal violence against Palestinians on all fronts. What remains is an utterly unrestrained government whose frenzy against an enemy marked for destruction pushes the boundaries of the conceivable every single day.

“161” or how we should think of anti-fascism

Approaches to anti-fascism


14/12/2025

Antifa graffiti on a brick wall

161. AFA. anti-fascism.

Nowadays we are on the verge of collapse—collapse of everything we know about political activism, peace, and the seemingly stable system of international relations. We are closer than ever to the moment where new forms of fascism and feudalism will appear and the only way we can prevent this is by moving.

At first it sounds strange but in order to escape the cage of this new-wave, right uprising we have to move towards the revival of Antifa movements around the world and talk about the troubles around such uprisings. The far-right is on the rise and we have to worry about it, because at the same time the left is far from its glory.  But what exactly is anti-fascism and how do we understand it?

For some reason or another, it’s not easy to answer this question. To make it easier we have to start from some theory of anti-fascism as a concept. And for that, Simone Weil is a useful starting point. But first, I should offer a brief biographical overview of Weil to better understand her ideas. Weil is a French philosopher, university tutor, revolutionary, Marxist and last but not least, a well-known antifascist, who lived until the early 1940s.

 The only great spirit of our time, as Camus called Weil, states that “The relative security we enjoy in this age, thanks to a technology which gives us a measure of control over nature, is more cancelled out by the damages of destruction and massacre in conflicts between groups of men.” This is applicable to our current epoch and is a perfect example for the repetitiveness in human history.

Today we think we govern ourselves, others, and nature justly, but the reality doesn’t show the same. There is a significant alienation from labor, thought, and reason that fuels xenophobia, racism, fascism, and hatred. This alienation is accompanied by an intellectual decadence, which makes this issue even harder to solve. By admitting this, we are forced to confess that we have no other choice—we have to fight.

As Hannah Arendt argues in her concept of the banality of evil, fascism does not always emerge through monstrous figures but through ordinary individuals who stop thinking critically. This transforms anti-fascism into an ethical duty—an active refusal to become passive instruments of oppression.

HOWEVER, anti-fascism is not an absolute solution. It is not a panacea; rather it is more of a proto-concept. It does not give a solution to any of the described difficulties—though it is an exemplary first step, it won’t be enough. And proof for such a controversial statement can be found in Weil’s work. She states that anti-fascism in the popular narrative stands for “anything rather than fascism; anything including fascism, so long as it is labelled communism.” If we need to objectify Weil’s definition, we can illustrate anti-fascism as an ouroboros—a snake eating its own tail.  

Herbert Marcus helps us understand this confusion through his idea of “repressive tolerance.”  He points out that tolerant societies allow intolerant ideologies to flourish until they destroy democracy from within. anti-fascism thus becomes a protective boundary—a sui generis dedication not to extend tolerance to the utmost.

Fast forward to today we can see that fascism is not dead, it is here, but in new forms. Raging Zionism, neo-fascism, and different far-right ideologies are here to stay.

As Walter Benjamin noted, fascism turns politics into aesthetic spectacle, using symbols, images and myth-making to seduce the masses, to look more attractive to them. Today’s far right weaponizes digital culture and social media the same way. Through performative  violence, visual propaganda, and viral narratives. Effective anti-fascism has to therefore dismantle not only the ideology, but also the spectacle that sustains it.

We might say that anti-fascism itself is not the solution in its current form. We have to decide whether or not we want a better future. Fighting for new Antifa movements is the only way we can manage the crisis.

In order to make a difference we have to develop this ornate conception. We have to give it form and content. Trump’s witch hunt against Antifa, the lessons from working and stable antifascist movements such as Greece’s, and, last but not least, rethinking the ideas of political theorists like Emma Goldman, Simone Weil, Gramsci, and Ernest Barker can all serve as catalysts.

Antonio Gramsci in particular provides a pivotal framework. His theory of “cultural hegemony” reveals that fascism thrives when dominant groups shape the norms of society. Fascism becomes possible when cultural and intellectual spaces surrender. anti-fascism must operate not only in the streets, but in classrooms, media, literature, and collective imagination. It must build counter-hegemony—alternative structures of meaning that are based on solidarity, equality, and critical thought. This involves creating institutions, networks, and cultural practices that challenge the ideological rise of this neo-fascist wave. Without this cultural struggle, political resistance will always be incomplete.

Jean-Paul Sartre deepens this by reminding us that in moments of moral crisis refusing to act is itself a choice, a choice that supports the oppressor. Anti-fascism therefore, I think, becomes a form of responsibility; a form of commitment.

Only through continuing the fight can we keep ourselves, our societies, and our rights. We fight; therefore we are. Conceptualize, create, unite.

Propaganda, absolute evil, and cultural imperialism

In the West, fantasy triumphs over reality

Today, Hitler symbolises absolute evil: evil without moral restraint, a force capable of perpetrating the most unthinkable crimes, and which can only be defeated by brute force: war. Many politicians and leaders have been compared to Hitler. This comparator is recurrent when denouncing cruelty or authoritarianism. The idea that Putin is the new Hitler of our time has a special appeal and makes sense to many fed by the Western propaganda machine. This identification is with absolute evil. Another great ‘teaching’ from the indoctrination industry of Hollywood: evil is not negotiated with, it is fought. This is the hegemonic narrative that we hear repeated daily in the Western media, supposedly to justify excessive militarism in Europe. 

The brainwashing machine of the Western press feeds this idea that we live in a world of heroes and villains. They decide who the villains are and who the heroes. And from this perspective, the ‘West’ and its political leaders are the good guys in this story. And mind you, they are not just ‘good guys’ and ‘well-intentioned’, but ‘heroes’ – who oppose the real-world villains represented by „autocrats“ and dictators, such as Putin, Maduro, and Xi Jinping. We can definitely discuss how democratic the societies are in which these leaders rule. Still, this tendency to permanently recall the evil that drives those leaders is like equating reality with a fantasy. It is another sign of the infantilisation of Western politics, which paints a picture of good versus evil, like a Hollywood script. In this script, interests do not drive international politics; there are no nuances, no grey areas. The evil leaders want to destroy the Europeans who so vigorously defend morality and human rights in the world. It is heroic Europe that defends itself against the Russian invader, or so they claim.

Upholding the idea of absolute evil represented by Putin and the leaders of the „other side“ goes hand in hand with the supposed moral superiority of the West. Similarly, militarisation, surveillance, and repression against the internal enemy are justified and necessary to control forces threatening European integrity.  

One side note, the idea of evil represented in a person or group of people is a fantasy, or at least a distorted projection (See Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil). In analysing the Nazi bureaucracy, Arendt showed that this banality and cruelty are expressed in less spectacular ways. Cruelty becomes part of everyday life, in the bureaucratisation of crime, and the routinisation of murder. The Nazis perfectly embodied this type of regime.  It was not so necessary for its officials to fiercely hate Jews (or anyone they considered ‘worthless’). Instead, they had to perform their duties well, follow orders, and demonstrate obedience to the system. Crime is not only driven by hatred, but by obedience and silent complicity.

 In an irony of history today, the trivialisation of evil, the systematisation of crime, and the routinisation of murder are unambiguously expressed in Israel’s genocidal policies against the Palestinian population. Israeli State terror is expressed in its rampant army that exposes its crimes on social media; in its legal system that maintains apartheid and surveillance in the occupied Palestinian territories; in the legalisation of violence and rape against Palestinian prisoners; in the fanatical settlers who attack Palestinians in the West Bank daily. All these and many other examples show the routinisation of state-led violence. Without a doubt, fascism reigns in that country and is accepted by a large part of its population. It is, they say, a necessary path to ‘resolve’ the Palestinian question and build ‘Greater Israel’.

But the „evil“ that the Western ‘free world’ is fighting is Putin. Meanwhile, Netanyahu is assured impunity. This is typical Western hypocrisy, to which we are sadly accustomed. Despite the apparent brutality of the Israeli regime, Western elites have done their utmost to ignore the genocide in Gaza, while presenting leaders like Putin as the absolute evil.

But this narrative in the West presents problems. Where does Donald Trump fit in? The liberal progressive view is that he is considered a dangerous ally of these ‘other’ autocratic leaders. His attempts to end this conflict may have momentarily saved Europe from a major conflagration with Russia  (doomsday clock). Trump’s decision to dismantling USAID shows one big difference between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to the projection of imperial power. Trump reveals the true face of a decadent, indebted, and financialised empire that has opted for threats, brute force, and military force as a method of negotiation and persuasion. The best example of this shift is the just-released National Security Strategy, which outlines new pathways to global hegemony and a renewed Monroe Doctrine.

Europe, clings to the kind of soft power that Trump wiped out in one fell swoop. European leaders have never had any problems with the imperialist policies of their great master. They were willing to go to war in the name of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’,  with a few exceptions such as Iraq. Europe has been a trustworthy partner for US hegemony. Europe’s eagerness for war, not only makes it indistinguishable from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) but also ensures the continuity of its position as a loyal subject of the empire. European leaders are confused and resent having lost their great ally. While Trump shows his true face as the ‘great master,’ relentless and cruel to his allies and lackeys. In fact, Trump and his administration’s contempt for Europe is undeniable.

But Europe could still save itself if it chose more wisely with whom to ally in this new multipolar order. Perhaps now is the time to rethink its relationship with the master and pursue its own goals. Those may not necessarily align with Washington’s interests, but do align with those of its own citizens. Perhaps a little rebellion against ‘Daddy’ Trump would even restore some dignity to this bunch of obedient children.

But Europe remains stubbornly stuck in its fantasy world. Instead of learning the lesson that, in geopolitics, it’s all about interests — and not morality, as the Germans love to think — they prefer to portray Trump as an idiot manipulated by the superior intelligence of Putin and Xi. But despite their criticism of Trump for his attempts to end the war in Ukraine, they remain obedient buyers of everything the American military-industrial complex has to offer—new war toys for when Russia supposedly invades Europe in 2029.

Unmasking American cultural imperialism

The general public, especially in Europe, needs to understand how American cultural imperialism operates in the world. This colonisation of the mind is manifested in the crude distinctions between good and evil that permeate Western politics today, which requires the continued demonisation of Russia and China.

Meanwhile, the United States projects a heroic image of defending superior values as the German sociologist Bernd Hamm writes:

“The US has successfully managed to implant into the brains of perhaps the majority of human beings a self-portrait of brave heroes fighting fiercely for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law wherever there is a need to fight. Reality, however, cannot be further away from that. In fact, and certainly after the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it has been the most ruthless, most egomaniacal, most brutal actor, the real rogue state.”

(Hamm, Cultural imperialism. 2005: p.20).                 

Cultural Imperialism is an expression of soft power. And we know and should have in mind all the images of heroism, kindness, and goodness that the empire projects through its propaganda machine while destroying whole societies in the name of “freedom” and “democracy”. 

I write these lines from a Latin American standpoint, with only a minimum of historical memory, knowing what the empire has done in the past and what to expect from it. Latin America has always suffered intimidation, harassment, and attempts to destabilise its economies and provoke ‘regime changes’ – a euphemism for military coups followed by cruel dictatorships. For that, there will always be local leaders willing to do “that” job, pursuing the empire’s interests. Today’s ‘sons of bitches’ of the West, the Netanyahus, Al Jolani’s, Corina Machado’s, and Selenesky’s, will be protected by Washington and its allies until they are no longer of use to them.

In Europe, the brainwashing of the cultural imperialism industry also involves the complicity of its elites. This ensured them juicy profits when a new market was opened by force, at gunpoint. The entry of Chinese capital into Latin America has exasperated the European political elite. One effect of multipolarity seems to be that the so-called “developing” world no longer looks to Europe as its great example. In fact, many will ask themselves – What is wrong with Europeans? Have they not realised that the world has changed? 

I know it is a little unfair to talk about “Europe” as a homogeneous bloc, as we must differentiate between the political elite and its citizens. Its political elite, which is desperately trying to drag Europe into another war, is very unpopular. At least in Germany, we slowly see public resistance to preparations for war. But given the intensity of NATO propaganda to lead Europe into a direct confrontation with Russia, it is not enough. Especially compared to other historical moments, such as the „eighties“, when the peace movement was strong and loud.

Within this propaganda war, politics goes hand in hand with the mainstream media. While in the West, the media claim to report ‘facts’ and ‘truth’, while accusing their enemies of the opposite. That is, the Russians and the Chinese spread misinformation, manipulate, distort, and lie. Supposedly, the Chinese feed us algorithms through TikTok that expose the crimes of the Israelis in Gaza and the West Bank, or show that Russia is winning the war. But we should ask why European leaders are so desperate to silence independent journalists, podcasters, and uncomfortable interviewers. Europe has a problem with the freedom of opinion it claims to uphold. There is a brutal contrast between what Social Media exposes and what the so-called Western media tells us. To control the narrative in the West, political powers seek to control digital platforms such as Telegram or TikTok.  As these images do not align with the narrative being peddled in Europe, Brussels’ desperation to control it is already palpable (see the Chatcontrol project).  

We must not forget that the goal of Western propaganda is to demonise and dehumanise the “enemy”.  It seeks to prove that a war against Russia is necessary, even if it destroys Europe once again. To counter this, we must unmask these attempts to portray Russians as ‘barbarian hordes’, Chinese as the ‘growing eastern threat’, migrants as ‘eternal foreigners’, Palestinians as ‘the usual terrorists’, and the left as the ‘internal enemy’. Let’s begin by not falling into that trap.