EXTRAORDINARY AH Teaching from Spiritual Hierarchy
  NEW READERS! Read Here First
  Supporting AH
  Leadership of AbundantHope
  Regional AH Sites
  Other Sites with AH material
  Contact Us
  Becoming A Messiah
  Mission Ideas
  System Busting
  Cleric Letter/English
  Translations of Cleric Letter
  AH Member Writings
  Brian's Poetry
  John Taylor
  Telepathic Messages
  Jess Anthony
  Lucia G
  Targeted Messages
  Light Flower
  Changing The Face Of Religion
  - Phoenix Journals - PDF in German
  Candace on Religion
  Other Spiritual Pieces
  Spiritual Nuggets by the Masters
  Phoenix Journals
  Phoenix Journals - PDF
  Telepathic Messages PDF books
  Selections from the Urantia Book
  CMGSN Pieces
  David Crayford and the ITC
  Health and Nutrition
  Podcasts, Radio Shows, Video by AH
  Political Information
  True US History
  Human/Animal Rights
  The Miracle That Is Me
  911 Material
  Books - eBooks
  government email/phone #'s
  Self Reliance
  Alternative News Sources
  Art and Music
  Foreign Sites
  Health and Healing
  Human/Animal Rights
  Vegan Recipes
  Translated Material
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Jess
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Candace
  Gekanaliseerde berichten Anderen
  Canal Jess
  Par Candace
  Other Channels
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Candace)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (Jess)
  Telepathische Nachrichten (div.)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Candace)
  AH Mitgliederbeiträge (Jess)
  Spirituelle Schätze
  Translations - Candace
  Translations - Jess
  Translations - Others
  by Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Anfitriones Divinos
  Bitácoras Fénix
  Creadores-de-Alas (WingMakers/Lyricus)
  Escritos de Candace
  Escritos de Otros
  Telemensajes de Candace
  Telemensajes de Jess Anthony
  Telemensajes de Otros
  By Candace
  By Jess
  By Others
  Korean Translations
  Hungarian Translations
  Swedish Translations

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Political Information Last Updated: May 19, 2017 - 9:56:22 AM

Basic Income and the Left: The Political and Economic Problems
By David Bush with comments by Ron
May 22, 2017 - 6:24:33 AM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page Share/Bookmark

Basic Income and the Left: The Political and Economic Problems

David Bush

Should the Left and labour support a demand for a Basic Income (BI)? This simple question has provoked a fervent and confusing debate. The discussion over BI touches on real political and economic anxieties. The attack on the social welfare state, the depreciating power of organized labour and an economy producing increasingly low-wage precarious jobs have led many to search for alternative mechanisms and policies to address these problems. It is no wonder that BI with its promise of streamlined access to minimal economic security has attracted many adherents on the Left.

Discussing BI with clarity is made difficult because of the sweeping scope and abstractness of the issue. Debates over BI necessarily involve an analysis of capitalism, the state, the nature of automation and theories of social change. [Ron: These are secondary issues. Arguably the primary issue is: What are sovereign human beings and what are their needs and potentials? Once it is understood that humans are spirit beings having a physical experience then all the problems associated with human life on this planet can be assessed in their proper context.] Another added difficulty in debating BI is that the policy has many different variants. Proponents of BI have been able to deflect criticism by creating a division between good BI and bad BI. Instead of a concrete debate about the economic and political aspects of BI, it is discussed as an ideal separated from the messy business of material reality. [Ron: IF BI is not approached from a human spiritual perspective NO satisfactory solution can be found.]. The strategy of those advocating BI centres on crafting policies in a vacuum and hoping governments enact them. [Ron: NO! Governments are created by humans and are typically corporations that have no real existance. Hoping "governments" will "enact" BI policies implies that those who covertly own and/or control government corporations determine the policies under which  sovereign human communities and societies must exist.].

This romantic idealism has stymied serious analysis of the policy from the Left. Taking a step back and looking at the economic and political logic of BI, I hope to show that however well-meaning the policy is, it is economically flawed and a politically dangerous demand for the Left to adopt. [Ron: WTF does the author mean by "the Left"?! This discussion needs to be about the ideas and requirements of REAL people NOT fabricated non-entities. At best, using the term "the Left" is lazy word pushing.].

Costing BI

The three major forms of BI are: targeted, universal (UBI), and negative income tax. All of these have numerous permutations in regards to coverage, relation to other programs and the designated amount of money going to individuals. The targeted form, which is what is being rolled out in Finland and being proposed in Ontario looks to give designated low-income earners a single monthly cheque instead of them accessing social welfare provisions. UBI aims to give everyone a single monthly cheque regardless of their income. The negative income tax model essentially ensures everyone under a designated income amount is raised to that through a dispersal of cheques.

The first question we should ask is, what are the basic costs of these models? [Ron: No. The question is WHY is BI or a welfare payments regime needed at all?]. Looking at Ontario, Michal Rozworski has pointed out the cost of the universal model, even when set at a low rate, is exorbitant.

“Giving every Ontarian even $15,000 annually would cost $207-billion, just over 25% of provincial GDP. Even limiting basic income to everyone over 15 years old would still come out to $172.5-billion. Increase the basic income amount and the cost rises in tandem. Even a $10,000 per person annual basic income would cost a bit more than what Ontario currently spends on everything else put together.

“To implement a $15,000 basic income, while getting rid of welfare, but keeping things like education, healthcare and higher education, would still mean raising an additional $200-billion in revenues. That's more than double the $91-billion Ontario is able to raise in taxes today.”

Universal coverage, set at extremely low rates, even if other social welfare provisions are cut, still requires the raising of massive tax revenues. David MacDonald of the CCPA notes that even to universally distribute just a $1,000 cheque to Canadians per year, without cutting any social programs, would mean raising $29.2-billion a year in new revenue (roughly equivalent to 14 per cent of existing federal revenues), even after accounting for claw backs and tax backs of revenue. MacDonald notes this would achieve at best less than a 2 per cent reduction in the poverty rate in Canada, which he says would “be quite wasteful” when considering the amount of money spent.

The negative income tax model, which essentially is a targeted transfer of wealth to the poor, would also be highly expensive. To set the negative income line at $21,000 (if you are earning below that amount you would receive a cheque to boost you to that level), would require somewhere between $49-billion to $177-billion in new revenue depending on how many other social programs were left in place. But what if other social programs were cut, wouldn't this allow rates to be set higher?

The CCPA study, “The Policy Makers Guide to Basic Income,” answers that question conclusively, “broadly speaking, cancelling existing income transfer programs in favour of a single basic income results either in dramatically higher levels of poverty, or ethically and politically unsupportable compromises where seniors are pushed into poverty to lift up adults and children.”

The targeted model is more cost efficient, but the very nature of targeting small populations through means testing is little different than what already exists. More money in the hands of people who need social assistance, with less red tape, is undoubtedly a good thing. But the targeted BI model and small-scale experiments really do not make the case for wider adoption. There is no reason to think this is more efficient or politically possible than strengthening existing social programs.

The BI and the Logic of Capitalism

The [Ron: alleged] goals for a left-wing version of BI are to eradicate or minimize poverty, to ensure consumer demand, redress inequality and to empower workers by providing a guaranteed minimum level of income for all citizens. The idea is to create a social policy, which allows workers to have the financial means to meet their basic needs without necessarily accessing the labour market. This would give workers more power and confidence to demand better pay and working conditions from employers.

[Ron: Bollocks! Arguably, BI and UBI would amount to welfare for bankers and corporatist capitalists. Why? Because, if everyone receives a government subsidy more people could apply for usurious loans and work for lower wages. They could also drive for Uber or work for Task Rabbit at even lower wages because UBI subsidises the meager pay checks of the sharing economy. Ditto as regards working for all other employers. Currently the owners and top managements of manufactures, TECH companies and other employers KEEP the profit created by replacing human workers with robots, machines and electronic devices. UBI will create even less pressure to pay living wages to employees, contractors and non employee employees generally.]. BI would ultimately give workers alternatives and autonomy , [Ron: No it wouldn't. BI and UBI will simply result in prices increasing to absorb the subsidies provided to workers and non-workers] while also ensuring those, who for whatever reason are unable to work, can access the material means for a decent life.

[Ron: BI and UBI are simply more ubiquitous forms of social welfare payments made by BIG Governments. IF Governments merely increase such payments without the humans in the societies being governed collectively developing appropriate spiritual attitudes to life the universe and everything (the basis upon which all human life depends), the result will simply be increased inflation and increasing poverty and social degradation for more and more people. The reason for our world's current global dystopia is that humanity is losing its spiritual foundations due to the depradations of the money meme and its bastard children - Capitalism, Fascism and Communism. Humans on this planet need to rethink their whole ethos and change it. BI and UBI constitute thinking at the same level that has created our current global dystopia. Such thinking cannot solve problems created at the same level. Humanity on this planet MUST evolve to a higher level of consciousness in order to solve these problems and survive.].

Outside of the very real costing problem, the logic of BI falls short. Capitalism operates on the extraction of surplus labour from workers. Workers sell their potential to work on the labour market and employers put them to work, paying them a wage that is less than the value they produce with their labour. This surplus labour is ultimately the source of profits. Capitalism needs workers. Much of the history of capitalism centres around the creation of a working class that is more or less reliant on selling its labour power for a wage in order to live.

If workers in large enough numbers are able to sit outside of the labour market and sustain their basic needs, capitalism would cease to function. BI naively assumes that capitalists and the state would not respond politically and economically to the changing market condition of labour. The logic of capitalism would push capitalists to, at the very least, raise wages and increase prices on goods and services. The ultimate goal would be to compel workers back into the labour market, and make them dependent on selling their labour power in order to live. As Thom Workman and Geoffrey McCormack note:

“The fact that workers – even those who are fond of their jobs – sell their labour power to employers out of necessity is the bottom-line reality that must be preserved through social policy. The cultivation of genuine alternatives for working people, perhaps in the form of alternative communities tied to the land (history abounds with such experiments) or in the form of legislation guaranteeing annual incomes which permit families to live modestly but with greater dignity, would have the effect of undermining capitalism by undermining its coercive labour supply.”

Those advocating BI want to leave the basic mechanism and relationships of capitalism in place, but alter the dynamics of the labour market. Capitalists would still own business, property and control finance. The idea that capitalists or the state would simply allow workers to achieve BI at a rate that would meaningful alter the balance of class forces or mess with the central coercive function of the wage labour market is a fantasy.

More than simply costing too much, the economic vision of BI is incompatible with the logic of capitalism.

Politics and the State

The major political problem with BI is that it views that state as a neutral apparatus governing relations between workers and employers. The state is, when stripped down to its core essence, a reflection of the interests of the ruling class. The state relies on the smooth functioning of capitalism and its policies aim to achieve this (balancing the competing interests of capitalists and placating any possible rising working class movement). The state, its bureaucracy and the political class, have no real interest in upending capitalist social relations and the basic functioning of the labour market.

The capitalist state [Ron: Is actually a Fascist, corporatist state which] is used to push policies that facilitate the continual accumulation of profits by capitalists and foment stability (there are of course differences about how best to do this). A progressive version of BI runs counter to the basic objectives of the state.

[Ron: This necessarily implies that the basic objectives and structures of the state in the future must be changed to ensure that societal governance is transparently in the hands of the whole community whose governing agents MUST ensure that the proper interests of ALL members of the community are protected.].

Wages and the State

Faced with a period of systemic slow economic growth it is not hard to imagine that the state could adopt a version of BI that aims to subsidize low-wage work. Indeed, in places like the United States this is the defacto situation with Walmart workers surviving only by accessing food stamps. A modest BI, of say $10,000 (which would not be enough to empower workers to stay out of the labour market for long), would essentially be a top-up of wages for low-wage employers. It would be a weapon for employers to keep wages low, as they could argue there is no need to pay workers more because of BI. In this scenario why would employers not just pay the minimum wage if there was a BI top up? [Ron: In other words, BI, UBI and welfare payments generally constitute a taxation funded subsidy to corporate Capitalists.].

BI as a wage subsidy for employers would have the effect of distancing workers’ labour from their wages. Instead of being paid directly for their work, part of the wage of workers would come from their own tax dollars in the form of BI. Workers are powerful because of their social location in relation to production. But having the state subsidize employers’ wages clouds the relationship between workers, employers and their profits. Instead of pushing against employers in relation to their profits, workers would have to formulate their demands in terms of a social wage. This would have the effect of obscuring class division, exploitation and capitalist social relations in society. [Ron: That is, BI is just another aspect of "divide and conquer" ideology.]. A state subsidy of wages could easily disempower workers as a class relative to employers by blunting the class struggle and turning it into a technocratic argument over the level the state should subsidize employers’ wages.

Added to this very real possibility, is likelihood that the state would use BI to attack public sector unions. Workers who staff and administer social programs could easily loose their jobs if services were cut to make way for BI, which is why public sector unions like OPSEU oppose it. Other public sector workers would also face increasing pressure of concessions to wages and benefit as the state would scramble to minimize costs to pay for BI. Governments would likely pit public sector wages and benefits against BI for the public. If BI subsidized low-wage employers this would have the effect of putting added downward pressure on all unionized workers.

Political Struggle and BI

The debate over the social usefulness of BI is largely conducted in the realm of abstraction. Policy is dreamed up, calculated, and debated with next to no appreciation of how the political struggle could and would shape the proposed policy.

By subtracting the political from the equation of BI, its proponents treat the economy as a neutral object that can be simply rearranged. This approach engages in the worst kind of academic idealism that shuns any serious political analysis. As John Clarke notes:

“I've yet to see, quite bluntly, any serious attempt to assess what stands in the way of a progressive BI and what can be done to bring it into existence. It simply isn't enough to explain how just and fair a given model would be if it could be adopted. In order to credibly advance BI as the solution, there are some questions that must be settled.”

As parts of the Left flirt with idyllic visions of BI, the right-wing is busy actually using the renewed interest to push their own political agenda. In Finland, the right-wing government is supporting BI, which is now in its testing phase, as a way to rollback the social welfare state and curb the power of trade unions.

In Ontario, the Liberal government is moving ahead with its BI pilot project. The pilot project would put a select group of low-income people on a BI. The Liberals have been using this idea to delay any meaningful action toward reducing poverty in the province. As Clarke argues:

“If the concept is being advanced in Ontario by the very provincial government that has led the way in program reduction and austerity, it is not because they want to reverse the undermining of income support, the proliferation of precarious employment and the privatizing of public services but for the very opposite reason. They are looking with great interest at the possibility of using Basic Income as a stalking horse for their regressive social agenda and it will be the version that Bay Street has in mind that will win out over notions of progressive redistribution.”

Rather than raising the rates for social assistance, increasing the minimum wage or spending more on social services the government is touting its BI experiment. The Liberal's advocacy for BI also comes at the same time as the Changing Workplaces Review, a full-scale review of all labour law in the province. By propping up BI the Liberals are looking to stoke confusion and division amongst those pushing for paid sick days, a $15 minimum wage and stronger union rights. The Liberals are not alone in this effort.

In its effort to weaken labour laws, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has made support for BI one of its key proposals in the Changing Workplace Review. This of course is not some noble gesture, BI in reality dovetails perfectly with its worldview.

BI is not just a left-wing idea, it has also long been advocated for by parts of the right-wing, such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek. The goal is to use BI to do away with the social welfare state. Instead of social programs, citizens are given minimum cheques by the state and then purchase their social needs on the market. BI will not be used to decommodify social relations, but used to desocialize state services.

Pushing Paper, Not Moving People

Many of BI's Left proponents are not just failing to challenge the right-wing versions of the policy, they are getting in bed with them. Rather than treat them as attacks on labour and the social welfare state, they are treating them as tentative first steps toward a better BI. Earlier this year, Guy Standing one of the main academic boosters of the BI, went to the World Economic Forum in Davos Switzerland to sell the idea to the world's elites. He is also pushing the extreme right-wing Modi government in India to institute UBI. It is no wonder that Tory politicians like Hugh Segal, who is leading Ontario's Basic Income pilot project, have adopted Standing's beyond left and right policy frame and analysis.

BI advocates are not aiming to build a social movement around these ideas, rather their goal is to persuade policy makers. The self-activity of workers in the process of achieving BI is at best reduced to voting for the issue during an election. BI is left to experts to calculate and implement. The problem is what is dreamed up in the laboratories of social policy is very far removed from the needs of workers. Instead of trying to create a political pole for the working class by empowering workers, unaccountable BI experts aim to substitute their visions for the voice of workers.

The version of BI that we are likely to get will reflect the balance of class forces. So when BI advocates focus on pushing policy papers rather than moving people it portends trouble. For this reason BI is not some sort of transitional demand which aims to push the envelope of what is possible under capitalism in order to build a working class movement to go further. Its wonkish approach to policy construction and appeal to experts fits seamlessly within the current political structures.

The very same forces that make it difficult to win improvements in current social programs, would not be magically abolished by the implementation of BI. In many ways BI presents more favourable conditions for employers and the government to attack social programs, as it is much easier to shape new social policy, than it is to rollback existing ones.

Beyond Basic Income

The political reality of BI is that the capitalist class will never support a version that will strengthen the hand of workers. All BI proposals imagine a capitalist class that will retain full control over businesses and property in society and not react when vast amounts of resources are given to workers.

Those BI supporters who acknowledge that existing proposals of BI are lackluster or even regressive, hold onto the idea a good BI is still worth fighting for. The problem with the division between real world BI proposals and ideal theories of a positive BI, is that the latter makes the former possible.

[Ron: This entire debate smacks of the Theatre of the Absurd! Robots and other forms of technological and electronic development are eliminating huge numbers of humans from the paid workforce and this tendancy is accelerating. This debate is worse than fiddling while "Rome Burns"! The problem is a spiritual one. Humanity HAS to evolve to a higher level of consciousness that enables all concerned to SEE that the answers to unemployment, underemployment, poverty  and maldistribution of the planet's human and physical resources is a spiritual and moral issue and that failure to resolve it is preventing the planet and ALL of its inhabitants both human and animal, from experiencing abundance.].

A progressive vision of BI speaks to the real desire to address the rise of precarious work, to make welfare less punitive, and to have justice for those who can never be part of the labour market.

We need to understand that BI is neither politically nor economically possible under capitalism. This is not to consign ourselves to defeat and inaction. Burying the idea of BI as a viable strategy to respond to inequalities and injustices of capitalism allows us to focus on strategies that can help us build the power we need to achieve economic justice and dignity for all. •

David Bush is a Ph.D. student at York University. He is active with the Fight for $15 and Fairness club at York University. This article first published on the Hammer Hearts blog.

[Ron: Humanity's current dystopic problems cannot be solved using the level of thinking that created them. Humans are spirit beings having a physical experience. Essential human characteristics are the possession of mind (thinking ability) and free will. This article examines BI and UBI from the perspective of the level of thinking that has created our global dystopia. in particular, it assumes that the money meme, Capitalism and Big Welfare Governments are valid mechanisms for furthering human life and development. They aren't. Currently this planet and its inhabitants are experiencing increased energy frequencies coming from the centre of the galaxy which are upgrading DNA and hence consciousness. The DNA of all individuals having at least a 51% orientation towards serving (loving) others will benefit from these incoming energies and they can choose to increase their consciousness so that they can stay with the planet rather than going elsewhere to continue their evolvement at the lesser levels of consciousness that our materialist money meme, Capitalist and consumerist orientated world provides.

In effect, our future no longer needs our slave labour and free range serfdom. Yet almost noone wants to have a serious discussion about it and what it means. Humans are less productive than the cheaper machines replacing them to a point that not only do we fail to justify more jobs and higher wages, we can no longer justify the jobs and wages that we have now. Unlike what happened in the first and second industrial revolutions, technology isn’t making our work faster or more productive, its replacing the need for most mundane human work altogether. BUT, instead of seeing this prospect as a problem we should be embracing it as the dawn of a Golden Age of abundance in which we will have true human freedom to do and be what each of us chooses. However, to achieve that blissful status we need to accept the responsibility entailed in individual and community self governanceIn particular, we will need to learn to govern ourselves and share with and care for everyone else. That requires that we deprogram ourselves from the socially engineered dominant global materialist ideology that is based on the money meme, selling our ingenuity and labour (ie ourselves) for money; and dependence on Big Governments to provide for our welfare and to make all our decisions without us having any meaningful input into the process.

Acceptance of BI and UBI would constitute humanity's final "sellout" of independence and freedom in return for a giant government dole. It would amount to acceptance of servitude to the Talmudic New World Order since Talmudists control governments AND the corporations that will own the machines that will produce the goods and services needed to sustain our existance.

The alternative will be a Golden Age accessed by all who choose to develop higher consciousness which will involve sharing, caring and acceptance of responsibility for self and, where appropriate, all others. In contrast to the current dystopic centralisation meme involved in Globalisation, in most cases this future will involve "going local" for almost everything, at least initially. Localisation is the mechanism that can free us from debt (and eventually the money meme), corruption, control, fear, sickness, ignorance, skill-lessness, isolation and loneliness. Genuine local community life will enable us to discover true neighbourlyness and real value in what we eat, buy, learn and do.

The only reason that the advent of technology and robots etc poses a problem for global human society is that the technology is owned by a tiny group of private individuals who use interlocking shareholdings to own and control the technology owning corporations, AND that tiny group of plutocrats keep all the profits from the use of that technology when ALL of that profit should be equitably shared with the rest of humanity. Under our current unlawful legal system, profits created by technology and robots are NOT earned by the personal efforts of those who own them. That situation is what must be changed. Folk who refuse to see that are part of the problem.

To get a grip on the actual situation causing the angst creating the alleged need for BI and UBI see eg: The Permanent Unemployment & Underemployment Economy - ].


The Permanent Unemployment & Underemployment Economy -

Don’t let propaganda for the ‘looming cashless society’ deceive you. See:

Private Cities, Freedom Cells, Free Communities are the Solution to Hegemony. See:

Going Local For EVERYTHING: Taking Back the Country and Our Lives. See:


Why Is There Suddenly Such A Huge Push For “Mark Of The Beast” Technology? See:

The Future Of America? – More Than Half Of All U.S. Adults Under Age 30 Now Reject Capitalism. See:


4 Celebrated Freedoms that Now Require Permission or Privilege to Enjoy. See:

There’s a way to teach children without colonising their minds: the lifelong way of the indigenous people of Mexico. See:

Russian officials propose bill to grant every citizen one hectare of farm and forest land to use for self-sufficiency. See:

From Albrecht To Monsanto: A System Not Run For The Public Good Can Never Serve The Public Good. See:

May 24 From The Green Revolution To GMOs: Living In The Shadow Of Global Agribusiness. See:

The corporate stranglehold on food and agriculture. See:

Global Agribusiness, Dependency and the Marginalisation of Self-Sufficiency, Organic Farming and Agroecology. See:

Agrihoods: The Self Sufficient Alternative to Suburbia. See:

Permaculture and the Myth of Scarcity. See:

The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil II. See:

The Cuba diet: What will you be eating when the revolution comes? See:

Cuba's urban gardens. See:

The Power of Community, How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. See:

Farming and Gardening after Stasis:The Global Garden of Eden. See:

Let Me Tell You About Thailand's Rice Farmers. See:

The Gospel of Consumption and the Better Future We Left Behind. See:

Self-Sufficiency: A Local Solution to a Global Problem. See:

The Russians Prove Small Scale Organic CAN Feed the World/ See:

Building Our Own Future - Literally. See:

Getting Off Money. See:

The 2nd Money Question. See:

Citizens United v. FEC: Corporate Personhood Must be Eliminated if Humanity is to Survive. See:

All writings by members of AbundantHope are copyrighted by
©2005-2017 AbundantHope - All rights reserved

Detailed explanation of AbundantHope's Copyrights are found here

Top of Page

Political Information
Latest Headlines
Trump’s Israel Love Offensive Might Carry a Hefty Price Tag
Is the FED setting up Trump as the scapegoat for the engineered collapse?
Hannity Signals Imminent End of Fox News Channel Program
So What's with the 22 ?
Iran: Socialism’s Ignored Success Story
Manchester Bombing: The Papers, The Speculation and the Click-Baiting
Dmitry Orlov: Trump, Financial Crisis and the New Cold War
Macron prepares Enabling Act to Slash Contracts, labor rIghts in France
Donald Trump against Jihadism
Washington’s Newly Rediscovered Time-Tested Approach Towards Saudi Arabia
Dmitry Orlov - Seizing the Mid-Collapse Moment
America Arms The Kurds And Terrorists, Turks Bomb Kurds And Assist Terrorists: What Side Is Everyone On?
Eurasian Economic Transformation Goes Forward
Libya - Massacre At Brak al-Shatti May Trigger Larger Civil War
The Geopolitical Copernican turn and the American Inquisition
Trump Plans to Shower Israel With Love, but It Might Be a Honey Trap for Netanyahu
Why Trump’s Western Wall Visit Is Actually Bad News for the Israeli Right
22 Dead, 50+ Injured After Reports of ‘Explosions’ At UK pop concert
Islamic State claims Manchester concert bombing