We remember that tonight starting from 21.20 the entitled episode will air on RAI3 “DIO, HOMELAND AND FAMILY”, within which we will also be there “Christ the King-Tradition” in a deferred service from Verona, filmed in October 2018, after the approval of the motions discouraging abortion in the City Council. Tomorrow, Instead, one of our delegations will be the protagonist of a French documentary that will be filmed, in part, in Verona by a crew that will broadcast it in February. Our Matteo Castagna's book on the topic of globalism and sovereignism continues to be talked about, even at a European level. There is already talk of a possible translation into English. Its pink, they will flourish…A.M.D.G.
Of Umberto Bianchi

Source: Heretically
There is a lot of talk about the new slowdown in the world economy. Trump's tariffs are said to have put the Chinese giant in difficulty. It is also said that, but, the same Chinese giant was already crossing, of his own, a period of difficulty, determined by a significant decrease in imports, and therefore of internal consumption itself, accompanied by an equally significant decrease in exports combined with, reported several times, poor efficiency of state-owned companies.
At the last G20 it was launched in a clear and peremptory way, the alarm about the current situation in China, seen as an element of strong destabilization and slowdown of the world economy. Compounding the whole situation is the fact that China represents, like Germany and Japan, one of those countries whose trade balance was until now unbalanced entirely in the direction of exports and which, with the aim of rebalancing global trade balances, had had to stimulate its internal market through an increase in imports. Now the duties promoted, in addition to those listed, by the Trump administration, they did nothing but highlight a pre-existing situation.
There was clearly no shortage of the usual crocodile-like IMF advice, all hinged on a phantom "harmonization" of monetary policies, based on a certain asymmetry of these, therefore Third World countries would do well to devalue their currencies, in order to encourage its exports, while Westerners (EU in particular…) they should proceed with more caution, so as not to compromise their delicate geoeconomic balances. All in the name of the chant demonizing any form of protectionism of individual national economies, seen by the IMF commissioners as smoke and mirrors.
Advice and warnings given almost as if to exorcise US President Trump's latest outburst, against the increase in the cost of money, launched by the Federal Reserve and harbinger of many problems for the internal growth of the USA. This is an event, which he saw for the first time, Perhaps, a US president taking such an open and harsh stand against a measure from one of the world's largest public financial institutions. Which brings us to a reflection, which goes beyond the narrow technicalities of macroeconomics.
The progressive and so far unstoppable trend towards the financialisation of economies around the world, accompanied by that to emit pervasively, in the city and the world, without limits and boundaries, securities which do not correspond to a real value, infecting healthy economies with the virtual betting craze, harbingers of recurrent and violent economic and financial crises, it begins to show its limits and find voices of dissent, even in the upper echelons of politics and the world of economics. Se, initially, this dissent, it had taken shape in single individuals linked to the world of economic theory and in equally single political individuals, often relegated to a marginal and sometimes demonized role, internationally, for some time now, things seem to have taken a different turn.
A creeping discontent has taken hold in the most advanced nations of the industrialized world, Europe and the USA in the lead. Generated this, by neoliberal policies centered on a mix of substantial cuts in social spending, oppressive taxes, high cost of living and growing unemployment, accompanied by a policy of encouraging the "migration" phenomenon, in order to replace the working classes of individual nations, with an amorphous mass of dispossessed people from the poorest areas of the planet, with infinitely lower costs and totally devoid of that ability to claim rights inherent to working conditions. The whole thing, not without the addition of the unfortunate practice of delocalisation which allows entire activities to be transferred outside one's national borders, in order to produce at much cheaper costs, thanks to an infinitely lower cost of labor. The whole thing, to the detriment of those working classes who, to date, they risk finding themselves suddenly deprived of their jobs, without being able to say or do anything, if not to declare the closure of the business.
All of this, has determined a notable consensus among those who, to date, can be defined as "populist" type formations. These movements, on whose nature, we have already had the opportunity to deal more extensively and in depth elsewhere. What on which, Instead, we want to pay attention , it is the "transversal" and "supranational" modality in which this scenario is taking shape. And the contrast between President Trump and a certain "democrat"-led US financial establishment , it is the most evident sign of this. The signal of an asymmetric war played on multiple fronts and with multiple facets , no holds barred.
Se, on the one hand, from a formal point of view, regarding the geostrategic chessboard, disagreements on some issues have worsened between the USA and the Russian Federation (Crimea issue, management of the Syria "affair"., sanctions on Iran, Cuba and other trifles…) on the other it seems that, an indelible, but a solid ideological thread links the figure of Trump to that of Vladimir Putin, both animated by an attitude of quiescence, if not even, of ill-concealed sympathy towards the most prominent exponents of the new European populist wave, like Marine Le Pen or Salvini. This is a sensation, including the investigation by the US judiciary into alleged Russian support for Trump's electoral campaign, seems to be the litmus test.
Which suggests a transversal ideological axis that seems to relate the various souls of European populism to the current US administration and Putin's Russia, not without the disturbing presence of Brazil, passed by the progressive management of the trabalhista Lula, to the populism of a Bolsonaro. To this strange and confusing axis, at a geopolitical and geoeconomic level, they seem to oppose China, India and some of the tigers of South East Asia , tend to be advocates of increased globalisation. The same Arab and Islamic world is found, until now, faced with the difficult and highly contrasting situation of a generalized drop in the price of oil, alongside the increase in production of that same oil by the USA which, in this way, they would end up significantly diminishing the geopolitical and geoeconomic role of the latter.
The recent conflicts with Saudi Arabia on the subject of human rights, following the kidnapping and murder of journalist Jamal Kashoggi, accompanied by an increase in human rights propaganda in that country, they are proof of what has been said. The same contrasts with Erdogan's Turkey, that arose starting from the story of the attempted coup of 2016, until arriving at the duties of August of the year just ended on Turkish aluminum and steel, up to the disagreements over the management of the problem of the presence of Kurdish militias in Syria, against the fundamentalists of Daesh, they are a further demonstration of what has been stated so far. Globalization galore has so far worked entirely in favor of the latter countries which now, Instead, with the feared Trumpian policy of bilateral agreements, could be seriously questioned.
Two opposing transversal and supranational fronts. Two ways of understanding economic and political relations, equally opposed. Sovereignty versus Globality. Of the two, the Sovereignist one, seems to be the most confusing instance. A nebula of often conflicting positions, ranging from the nationalism of a Marine Le Pen, to the conservatism of an Orban, to the two-headed populism of our yellow-green government, to Trump's protectionism, up to the reactionary and confused populism of the Brazilian Bolsonaro and beyond, the sovereignist and identity galaxy, it is a messy pile of positions and instances, often at odds with each other. Identitarianism and Sovereignty, in a confusing and incoherent way, they seem, today more than ever, represent the litmus test of the failure of Liberalism, currently conjugated in a progressive sauce, to show us the beginning of a way out of that Globalist Tower of Babel within which I am, to date, our destinies are locked up and in which, still , the mass media system and a large part of an "embedded" global political and economic establishment place their illusory hopes on.
A creeping world civil war goes, so, predicting itself. A fight that, contrary to the instances represented by the great ideological narratives of the 19th and 20th centuries, was initially born animated by purely pragmatic motivations, that is, a significant part of the representatives of global politics and economics are, at some point, realized the objective limits of liberal capitalism, which has shown its nature of uncontrollable and destabilizing volatility and have decided to put the brakes on and make robust and decisive corrective measures, to the entire system.
The whole thing, not without meeting, but, of decisive internal conflicts, focused precisely on the socio-economic ways of managing the global phenomenon. On the one hand, the unlimited opening of markets and borders, in the name of unbridled liberalism, on the other more closure, more barriers, perhaps in the name of a rediscovered and adapted Keynesianism (and the provisions of our government on citizenship income seem to go precisely in this direction...sic!).
The same contemporary populist and sovereignist phenomenon, if analyzed in its totality, is characterized by an incipient dose of “liquidity”: it is the result of insecurity, fears, resentment e , as we have already mentioned, not of well-defined ideological demands. A “liquid” and therefore changeable phenomenon, fickle and contradictory in many of its expressions, not yet characterized by its precise identity and what if, should be limited to a simple arrangement of practice, under the direction of the immutable Strong Powers, it would risk frustrating any serious attempt to bring about a substantial change and reversal of perspectives, such as to undermine and overthrow the New World Order.
Because of this, now more than ever, it is necessary to push the accelerator of ideological clarification, trying to give a soul and a precise and coherent identity, at least as regards the two fundamental pillars of Identity and Sovereignty, in their deepest meaning of total recovery of the supremacy of Politics, as a Science of the Individual and the Community, at the moment Techno Economic, which would return to the function of a mere instrument, capable of serving the purposes of the Individual and the Community and not vice versa, as we have seen so far.
Which would certainly lead us to lose some traveling companions, perhaps animated by too much inconsistency, confusion or bad faith or, more prosaically, from all three things together. Better to proceed in smaller numbers then, but with clear ideas and a precise objective, rather than groping, within a confused and incoherent Brancaleone Army. It's the last chance we have left, to free ourselves from the dictatorship of the Global Monster