Aside from the obviously glaring physical similarities between one of the last, true-blue, and greatest US Presidents in American history, Andrew Jackson, such as both of their honest, forthright, direct, and straightforward verbal delivery styles as well as their flaming red fiery hair and piercing blue eyes, there are other, more subtle, but essential similarities as well:
(1) both are dedicated “America firsters,” and care more about the welfare and condition of the United States and its citizenry, than with stupid foreign wars and foreign entanglements designed to weaken and exploit America’s money, troops, and good will;
(2) both are “pro-morality,” grounded in Christian foundations and beliefs, rather than the “Luciferian” doctrines of progressivism which seek to challenge and ridicule fundamental and common sense American value systems, now apparently being defended today by only one other leader in the world, Russian President Vladimir Putin;
(3) both are being viciously attacked by international deep state bankers, wherein Andrew Jackson’s greatest achievement and victory according to himself, was when he said “I killed the banks” – referring to his monumental accomplishment of not renewing in 1833 the Second Bank of the United States, the country’s national bank, fore-runner of the Federal Reserve established in 1913 by the same evil forces – Jackson used his executive power to remove all federal funds from the bank, in the final salvo of what is referred to as the “Bank War” – today Donald Trump is under seige and attack by these very same international bankers, who desperately want to keep him out of office for fear that he will repudiate or renegotiate their usurious and inflated 23 Trillion Dollar Debt;
(4) Andrew Jackson, the epitome of the frontiersman, objected to the bank’s unusual political and economic power, and to the lack of congressional oversight over its business dealings, and this is the same power structure that Donald Trump is railing against;
(5) Andrew Jackson, known as “obstinate and brutish” but a “man of the common people,” called for an investigation into the bank’s policies and political agenda as soon as he settled into the White House in March 1829 – to Jackson, the bank symbolized how a privileged class of businessmen oppressed the will of the common people of America, and he made clear that he planned to challenge the constitutionality of the bank, much to the horror of its supporters – in response, the director of the bank, Nicholas Biddle, flexed his own political power, turning to members of Congress, including the powerful Kentucky Senator Henry Clay and leading businessmen sympathetic to the bank, to fight Jackson – today, the bankers employ the mainstream media and “useful idiot protected classes,” such as organized and mafia-like extremist feminists, extremist black lives matters groups, extremist minority groups, and extremist homosexual groups to blaspheme, attack, defame, slander, libel, entrap, intimidate, threaten and harass Donald Trump, instead of the bankers using their previously bought off congressmen and senators (and presidents) to do their dirty work;
(6) Both were victims of attempted assassination (Andrew Jackson with the physical attempt by a stupid ineffective gunman on the steps of the US Capitol) and Donald Trump both physically as well as by the political character assassination in today’s Mainstream Media, using the false and hollow allegations that Donald Trump is somehow a racist, homophobe, anti-semite, or anti-feminist misogynist, with all of these false attacks coming from, originating with, paid for, and funded by the very same, elitist, hypocritical, deep state international bankers;
(7) both defended the honor of their wives after they were attacked – In 1806, Andrew Jackson killed a man in a duel over a matter of honor regarding his wife Rachel when they called her a “bigamist,” while Donald Trump aggressively defended the honor of his wife Melania when she was defamed, slandered, and libeled in the press as an “illegal immigrant, a “prostitute” or whatever other character assassination they tried to use against her – Andrew Jackson said that he could forgive those who insulted him, but that he would never forgive the ones who attacked his wife;
(8) both Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump enjoyed plurality in both electoral and popular votes against all major candidates, but both were undermined and attacked by the mainstream media and members of the Congressional House of Representatives and the Senate, owned by the international central bankers;
(9) both were heavily involved in purchasing land and making real estate deals – In 1794, Jackson formed a business with lawyer and planter John Overton “for the purpose of purchasing lands as well as those lands without as within military bounds” – Donald Trump is arguably the most famous and well respected real estate developer and land purchaser the world has ever known – and Andrew Jackson was one of the three original investors who founded the entire city of Memphis, Tennessee, in 1819;
(10) in the midst of the rampant institutionalized racism and discrimination of his times, Andrew Jackson was actually considered a “trailblazer” in race relations and actually went against the grain to treat minorities with greater respect and freedom than his contemporaries, while Trump also treats minorities very well within his Trump Organization as well, in stark contrast to the nonsensical and false attacks he receives on a daily basis by the Mainstream Media that he is somehow a “racist;”
(11) Andrew Jackson is associated with “Jacksonian Democracy,” or the spread of democracy by passing political power from established elites to ordinary voters, and “The Age of Jackson” shaped the national agenda and American politics like Thomas Jefferson, such as “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none” – which further typifies Donald Trump’s desires to work with Russian President Vladimir Putin and other nations to destroy ISIS, rather than provoking them into World War 3, also wishing to work with other nations to make America liked, and the world, a better place for all of earth’s people;
(12) Jackson advocated Republican values held by the Revolutionary War generation, and his presidency held a high moralistic tone with a limited view of states rights and the federal government – Jackson feared that monied and business interests would corrupt republican values, and Donald Trump echoes these same exact sentiments in all of his speeches;
(13) Jackson believed that the president’s authority was derived from the people, and his choice of Cabinet Members, instead of choosing party favorites or establishment types, instead selected “plain businessmen,” while Trump also favors businessmen over career politicians and establishment figures;
(14) Andrew Jackson was plagued by horrifically false and defamatory rumors that he was somehow misogynistic and “against womens’ virtues” in such ridiculous scandals as the “Petticoat Affair,” or “Eaton affair,” – and the organized extreme feminist conspiracy (owned and controlled by international bankers) attacking Trump is based on the same false and hollow types of character assassinations, designed to discredit both him and his candidacy;
(15) Donald Trump famously has been declaring for nearly 30 years that “foreign nations need to pay their dues to the United States” for such things as military protection, as well as calling for them to honor better trade deals – in 1834, the non-payment of reparations by the French government drew Andrew Jackson’s ire and he became impatient, and in his December 1834 State of the Union address, Jackson sternly reprimanded the French government for non-payment, stating that the US federal government was “wholly disappointed” by the French, and demanded that Congress authorize trade reprisals against France;
(16) Foreign nations were also routinely chagrined by Andrew Jackson’s “America-first” policies and willingness to disparage and antagonize foreign countries “taking advantage of America,” and feeling insulted by Jackson’s words, the French people demanded an apology – in his December 1835 State of the Union Address, Jackson refused to apologize, just like Master Deal-Maker Donald Trump when irritating foreign nations such as the United Kingdom and Mexico with his “America-first” words, with Andrew Jackson stating that he had a “good opinion of the French people and his intentions were peaceful,” but that he believed that the French government was purposely stalling payment – the French government accepted Jackson’s statements as sincere and in February 1836, American reparations were finally paid;
(17) Both Andrew Jackson and Donald Trump have been viciously and falsely accused of having a quick temper – of Andrew Jackson a famous historian named Brands said: “His audacity on behalf of the people earned him enemies who slandered him and defamed even his wife, Rachel…he dueled in her defense and his own, suffering grievous wounds that left him with bullet fragments lodged about his body” – however, other historians such as Remini stated that Jackson was in control of his rage, and used it (and his fearsome reputation) as a tool to get what he wanted in his public and private affairs – Brands also noted that Andrew Jackson’s opponents were terrified of his temper: “Observers likened him to a volcano, and only the most intrepid or recklessly curious cared to see it erupt…his close associates all had stories of his blood-curling oaths, his summoning of the Almighty to loose His wrath upon some miscreant, typically followed by his own vow to hang the villain or blow him to perdition…given his record – in duels, brawls, mutiny trials, and summary hearings – listeners had to take his vows seriously” – all of this could honestly have been written about Donald Trump himself;
(18) As was said above, both cut dashingly tall and large figures, and both sported a shock of bright, unruly, and fiery red hair and deep blue piercing eyes – Andrew Jackson was an imposing figure, standing at 6 feet, 1 inch (1.85 m) tall (very tall for that time period), and weighing between 130 and 140 pounds (64 kg) on average – Trump is virtually his twin.
Will Geneva Be Any Different Than Helsinki?
Any meeting between the leaders of Russia and the U.S. is inevitably an important international event. At some point in history, such summits decided the fate of the entire world, and the world held its collective breath as it followed Kremlin-White House talks on strategic arms or the two sides seeking agreements on urgent regional problems or any political signals coming from the superpower capitals prior to another round of negotiations.
The bipolar era has long been gone, and the Russia-U.S. relations are no longer the principal axis of international politics, although the suspense over bilateral summits remains. As before, the two countries are engaged in “top-down” interaction. Summits give the initial impetus to Moscow and Washington’s cumbersome bureaucratic machines, then diplomats, military personnel and officials start their assiduous work on specific issues, collaboration between the two countries’ private sectors and civil society perks up, the media gradually soften their rhetoric, bilateral projects in culture, education and science are gradually resumed.
Still, there are annoying exceptions to this general rule. In particular, the latest full-fledged Russia–U.S. summit in Helsinki in July 2018 failed to trigger improvements in bilateral relations. On the contrary, Donald Trump’s meeting with Vladimir Putin in Finland’s capital aroused massive resentment among the anti-Russian Washington establishment. Ultimately, on returning home, the U.S. President had to offer awkward apologies to his supporters and opponents alike, and relations between the two countries continued to rapidly deteriorate after the summit.
Surely, nobody is willing to see another Helsinki scenario in June 2021, this time in Geneva. Yet, do we have good reason to hope for a different outcome this time? To answer this question, let us compare Donald Trump and Joseph Biden’s approaches to Russia-U.S. summits and to bilateral relations at large.
First of all, in Helsinki, Trump very much wanted the Russian leader to like him. The Republican President avoided publicly criticizing his Russian counterpart and was quite generous with his compliments to him, which inevitably caused not only annoyance but pure outrage in Washington and in Trump’s own Administration. Joe Biden has known Vladimir Putin for many years; he does not set himself the task of getting the Russian leader to like him. As far as one can tell, the two politicians do not have any special liking for each other, with this more than reserved attitude unlikely to change following their meeting in Geneva.
Additionally, in Helsinki, Trump wanted, as was his wont, to score an impressive foreign policy victory of his own. He believed he was quite capable of doing better than Barack Obama with his “reset” and of somehow “hitting it off” with Putin, thereby transforming Russia if not into a U.S. ally, then at least into its strategic partner. Apparently, Biden has no such plans. The new American President clearly sees that Moscow-Washington relations will remain those of rivalry in the near future and will involve direct confrontation in some instances. The Kremlin and the White House have widely diverging ideas about today’s world: about what is legitimate and what is illegitimate, what is fair and what is unfair, where the world is heading and what the impending world order should be like. So, we are not talking about a transition from strategic confrontation to strategic partnership, we are talking about a possible reduction in the risks and costs of this necessarily costly and lengthy confrontation.
Finally, Trump simply had much more time to prepare for the Helsinki summit than Biden has had to prepare for Geneva. Trump travelled to Finland eighteen months after coming to power. Biden is planning to meet with Putin in less than five months since his inauguration. Preparations for the Geneva summit have to be made in haste, so the expectations concerning the impending summit’s outcome are less.
These differences between Biden and Trump suggest that there is no reason to expect a particularly successful summit. Even so, we should not forget the entire spectrum of other special features of the Biden Administration’s current style of foreign policy. They allow us to be cautiously optimistic about the June summit.
First, Donald Trump never put too much store by arms control, since he arrogantly believed the U.S. capable of winning any race with either Moscow or Beijing. So, his presidential tenure saw nearly total destruction of this crucial dimension of the bilateral relations, with all its attendant negative consequences for other aspects of Russia-U.S. interaction and for global strategic stability.
In contrast, Biden remains a staunch supporter of arms control, as he has already confirmed by his decision to prolong the bilateral New START. There are grounds for hoping that Geneva will see the two leaders to at least start discussing a new agenda in this area, including militarization of outer space, cyberspace, hypersonic weapons, prompt global strike potential, lethal autonomous weapons etc. The dialogue on arms control beyond the New START does not promise any quick solutions, as it will be difficult for both parties. Yet, the sooner it starts, the better it is going to be for both countries and for the international community as a whole.
Second, Trump never liked multilateral formats, believing them to be unproductive. Apparently, he sincerely believed that he could single-handedly resolve any burning international problems, from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to North Korea’s nuclear missile programme.
Biden does not seem to harbor such illusions. He has repeatedly emphasized the importance of multilateralism, and he clearly understands that collaboration with Russia is necessary on many regional conflicts and crises. Consequently, Geneva talks may see the two leaders engage in a dialogue on Afghanistan, on the Iranian nuclear deal, on North Korea, or even on Syria. It is not at all obvious that Biden will succeed in reaching agreement with Putin immediately on all or any of these issues, but the very possibility of them discussed at the summit should be welcomed.
Third, Trump was not particularly fond of career diplomats and, apparently, attached little value to the diplomatic dimension of foreign policy. The Russia-U.S. “embassy war” had started before Trump—but not only did Trump fail to stop it, he boosted it to an unprecedented scale and urgency.
Sadly, the “embassy war” continues after Trump, too. Yet President Biden, with his tremendous foreign policy experience, understands diplomatic work better and appreciates it. Practical results of the Geneva summit could include a restoration of the diplomatic missions in Washington and Moscow to their full-fledged status and a rebuilding of the networks of consular offices, which have been completely destroyed in recent years. Amid the problems of big politics, consular services may not seem crucial but, for most ordinary Russians and Americans, regaining the opportunity for recourse to rapid and efficient consular services would outweigh many other potential achievements of the Geneva summit.
From our partner RIAC
“Choose sides” is practically a bogus idea for US military partners
“Choosing sides” is practically a non-starter for US military allies such as Japan and South Korea. These nations, first and foremost military allies of the US, are forging cordial and productive ties with other countries based on military alliances with the US. The nature and level of partnerships varies greatly from those of allies, despite the fact that they appear to be quite heated at times.
Military concerns have been less important in the postwar period, but economic concerns have been extremely heated, social and cultural interactions have been close, and the qualitative differences between cooperative relations and allies have gotten confused, or have been covered and neglected.
Some unreasonable expectations and even mistakes were made. In general, in the game between the rising power and the hegemony, it is undesirable for the rising power to take the initiative and urge the hegemony’s supporters to select a side. Doing so will merely reinforce these countries’ preference for hegemony.
Not only that, but a developing country must contend with not only a dominant hegemony, but also a system of allies governed by the hegemony. In the event of a relative reduction in the power of the hegemony, the strength of the entire alliance system may be reinforced by removing restraints on allies, boosting allies’ capabilities, and allowing allies’ passion and initiative to shine.
Similarly, the allies of the hegemonic power are likely to be quite eager to improve their own strength and exert greater strength for the alliance, without necessarily responding to, much alone being pushed by, the leader. The “opening of a new chapter in the Korean-US partnership” was a key component of the joint statement issued by South Korea and the United States following the meeting of Moon Jae-in and Biden. What “new chapter” may a military alliance have in a situation of non-war?
There are at least three features that can be drawn from the series of encounters between South Korea and the United States during Moon Jae-visit in’s to the United States: First, the withdrawal of the “Korea-US Missile Guide” will place military constraints on South Korea’s missile development and serve as a deterrence to surrounding nations. The second point is that, in addition to the Korean Peninsula, military cooperation between the US and South Korea should be expanded to the regional level in order to respond to regional hotspots. The third point is that, in addition to military alliances, certain elements in vaccinations, chips, 5G, and even 6G are required. These types of coalitions will help to enhance economic cooperation.
Despite the fact that Vice President Harris wiped her hands after shaking hands with Moon Jae-in, and Biden called Moon Jae-in “Prime Minister” and other rude behaviors, the so-called “flaws” are not hidden, South Korea still believes that the visit’s results have exceeded expectations, and that Moon Jae-in’s approval rate will rise significantly as a result.
The joint statement issued by South Korea and the United States addresses delicate subjects such as the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. Of course, China expresses its outrage. It is widely assumed that this is a “private cargo” delivered by Biden’s invitation to Moon Jae-in to visit the United States.
Moon Jae-in stated that he was not pressured by Biden. If this is correct, one option is that such specific concerns will not be handled at all at the summit level; second, South Korea is truly worried about the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea concerns and wishes to speak with the US jointly.
South Korea should be cognizant of China’s sensitivity to the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea concerns. When it comes to China-related concerns, the phrasing in the ROK-US joint statement is far more mild than that in the ROK-Japan joint declaration. Nonetheless, the harm done to South Korea-China ties cannot be overlooked.
South Korea highlights the “openness” and “inclusiveness” of the four-party security dialogue system, which allows South Korea to engage to some extent. South Korea will assess the net gain between the “gain” on the US side and the “loss” on the Chinese side. China would strongly protest and fiercely respond to any country’s measures to intervene in China’s domestic affairs and restrict China’s rise.
Political Violence and Elections: Should We Care?
The next Sunday 6th of June, the Chamber of Deputies along with 15 out of the 32 governorships will be up for grabs in Mexico’s mid-term elections. These elections will be a crucial test for the popularity of the president and his party, the National Regeneration Movement (MORENA). They currently hold majority in the Lower Chamber of the national Congress, and these elections could challenge this.
Recent national polls indicate that the ruling party, MORENA, is still the most popular political force in Mexico, and they are poised to win not only several governorships, but also several municipalities. They are also expected to maintain control of the Lower Chamber, although with a loss of a few seats. In order to ensure MORENA keeps its current majority in the Congress, they have decided to pursue an electoral alliance with the Green Party (PVEM) and the Labout Party (PT). It is expected that with this move, they will be able to ensure the majority in the Chamber of Deputies in the Congress.
There is, however, another aspect that is making the headlines in this current electoral process: The high levels of political and electoral violence, The current electoral process is the second most violent since 2000. The number of candidates that have been assassinated is close to 30% higher than the mid-term electoral process of 2015. More than 79 candidates have been killed so far all across the country.
Insecurity in Mexico has been an ongoing issue that has continued to deteriorate during the administration of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO). AMLO has continually criticised his predecessors and the valid problems of their approaches to insecurity in Mexico along with the War on Drugs policy. However, to date, he has yet to offer a viable alternative to tackle the security problems he inherited. During his campaign, AMLO coined the phrase “abrazos no balazos” (hugs not bullets) to describe his approach toward improving security in Mexico. He believed that to successfully tackle the worsening crisis of insecurity, the structural conditions that forced people to commit crimes had to be addressed first: Namely inequality, poverty, low salaries, lack of access to employment etc. To date, insecurity in Mexico continues to worsen, and this had become evident during the current electoral process.
This nonsensical approach to insecurity has resulted in the first three years of his government reaching over 100,000 murders, along with the nearly 225,000 deaths as a result of the pandemic.
What should be particularly worrying in this spiral of violence, is the prevalence of political and electoral violence during the current process. Political violence represents not only a direct attack on democratic institutions and democracy itself, but it also compromises the independence, autonomy, and integrity of those currently in power, and those competing for positions of power. It affects democracy also because political violence offers a way for candidates to gain power through violent means against opposition, and this also allows organised crime to infiltrate the state apparatus.
Political violence is a phenomenon that hurts all citizens and actors in a democracy. It represents a breeding ground for authoritarianism, and impunity at all levels of government. This limits the freedoms and rights of citizens and other actors as it extinguishes any sort of democratic coexistence between those currently holding political power and those aspiring to achieve it. Political violence also obstructs the development of democracy as it discredits anyone with critical views to those in power. This is worrying when we consider that 49% of those assassinated belong to opposition parties. This increase in political violence has also highlighted AMLO´s inability to curtail organised crime and related violence.
Assassination of candidates is only the tip of the iceberg. Organised criminal groups have also infiltrated politics through financing of political campaigns. Most of electoral and political violence tends to happen an municipal levels, where it is easier for criminal groups to exert more pressure and influence in the hope of securing protection, and perpetuate impunity, or securing control over drug trafficking routes. This should be especially worrisome when there is close too government control in certain areas of the country, and there is a serious risk of state erosion at municipal level in several states.
Kenya Receives $750 million Boost for COVID-19 Recovery Efforts
To reinforce Kenya’s resilient, inclusive and green economic recovery from the COVID-19 crisis, the World Bank approved $750 million in...
World Bank Supports Croatia’s Firms Hit by COVID-19 Pandemic
Tamara Perko, President of the Management Board of the Croatian Bank for Reconstruction and Development (HBOR) and Elisabetta Capannelli, World...
Assessing the trends of Globalization in the Covid Era
Coronavirus largely represents acceleration in existing globalization trends, rather than a full paradigm shift. Globalization has ebbed and flowed over...
Zimbabwe’s Economy is Set for Recovery, but Key Risks Remain
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in Zimbabwe is projected to reach 3.9 percent in 2021, a significant improvement after a...
Carl Schmitt for the XXI Century
For decades, the scholars of international relations have confused the term “New World order” in the social, political, or economic...
Educating Women in Pakistan: A Necessity For National Development
Education is fundamental to the success of any nation. Almost every developed nation recognizes its importance and lays great emphasis...
How has Russia’s economy fared in the pandemic era?
Authors: Apurva Sanghi, Samuel Freije-Rodriguez, Nithin Umapathi COVID-19 continues to upturn our lives and disrupt economic activity across the world....
Economy2 days ago
Is Bangladesh falling into a China’s Debt-Trap Like Sri-Lanka?
Economy3 days ago
Rare Earth Elements: Elements of the New trade war
Europe2 days ago
Failed Diplomacy: A hot tension between Spain and Morocco
New Social Compact2 days ago
Global Health Security: The need for collective action
East Asia2 days ago
Taiwan: The First and Oldest ‘Thorn’ between China and the West
Intelligence2 days ago
Uranium is being traded freely in the open market in India
Middle East2 days ago
Powershift in Knesset: A Paradigm of Israel’s Political Instability
New Social Compact3 days ago
Sindh Compulsory Marriage Act 2021 in Pakistan