Laugh, Cry or Ignore? "[T]he Voldemort of Years"

Global Times picked up on the 2024 prediction report by an organization calling itself Eurasia Group that has no offices in Eurasia unless London counts and is essentially an English organization founded and headed by Ian Bremmer and appears to be an investment house/advisor, although the Global Times author says it’s “a US-based global political risk research and consulting firm.” The Global Times op/ed decided to title itself “Because of the US, the world is entering ‘the Voldemort of years.’” Knowing a little Harry Potter is essential to understand the meaning of both titles. Without diving in too deeply, here’s a very brief explanation of the connection:

Nearly every witch or wizard dares not utter his name and refers to him instead with such monikers as "You-Know-Who", "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named", or "The Dark Lord"

Eurasia Group’s lead:

2024. Politically it's the Voldemort of years. The annus horribilis. The year that must not be named.

Three wars will dominate world affairs: Russia vs. Ukraine, now in its third year; Israel vs. Hamas, now in its third month; and the United States vs. itself, ready to kick off at any moment.

It lists the three in reverse order of their declared importance. The op/ed says:

In other words, the world is entering a year of grave concern - “the Voldemort of years” because of the US, as all three top risks are related to the US. It's fair to say the US is the source of global risks in 2024.

It would be fair to say the Outlaw US Empire since 1945 is the source of all global risks and debacles since that time, but we’re looking forward not back. With the International Court of Justice now dealing with South Africa and many other nations charging Occupied Palestine with Genocide of Palestinians, it appears very likely that conflict will soon be halted. Russia’s SMO will continue until its goals are met or Ukraine completely capitulates, which is very close to being the same thing. Eurasia Group describes its number one and lead problem thusly:

And then there's the biggest challenge in 2024 … the United States versus itself. Fully one-third of the global population will go to the polls this year, but an unprecedentedly dysfunctional US election will be by far the most consequential for the world's security, stability, and economic outlook. The outcome will affect the fate of 8 billion people, and only 160 million Americans will have a say in it, with the winner to be decided by just tens of thousands of voters in a handful of swing states. The losing side—whether Democrats or Republicans—will consider the outcome illegitimate and be unprepared to accept it. The world's most powerful country faces critical challenges to its core political institutions: free and fair elections, the peaceful transfer of power, and the checks and balances provided by the separation of powers. The political state of the union … is troubled indeed.

Lots of errors in that paragraph as it promotes the existing Establishment Narrative related to the US election. The op/ed seems to share this perspective along with some Chinese experts:

The US election has now become an either-or choice between "worse" and "the worst." Americans are helpless, yet they have no better choices. The election risk is rooted in the internal political division within the US, and the conflict of interests between the Democratic and Republican Parties has reached an irreconcilable point. The current political system in the US cannot bridge such contradictions and conflicts, leading to a political deadlock, which means that whoever takes office will not have the ability to point out a path for the US, Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times.

With the increasing polarization and social division in American politics, some polls show that Americans have a more open attitude toward using violence to achieve political goals. The US has increasingly become "the United States of Political Violence." Now, the US has become a country that makes the world worry. 

"When a country's internal risks reach a certain level, it is highly likely that the conflict will spill over. The US wants to shift its risks to other countries and divert domestic attention, making other countries share the pressure of its internal issues. This is terrifying," Lü said.

Given the reporting from both sources, one would expect there to be street battles happening while Congresscritters open carry guns as they did prior to the Civil War, but none of that’s the case. One can make the case that one major reason it appears “terrifying” is because a criminal cabal is at the head of the government again, which has been the case since 2001 if not before. The easy way to defuse part of the problem would be to impeach and convict Joe Biden and remove him as president as there’s ample evidence to do so. But you’ll note that I included Trump in that list of criminal administrations, which is also true. Since he wasn’t impeached AND convicted, he legally IMO cannot be barred from the ballot if he were to run as an independent. He can be barred by the Republican Party since it’s a private corporation and can nominate whoever it wants just like the Democrats. IMO, Mr. Lü’s analysis of the USA’s internal politics is quite incorrect as they’re both owned by the same group of Shadow Elites—the donors as they’re called by some—because the policies of both are essentially the same and have been since 1981.

Otherwise, the op/ed’s correct to pin the cause of current conflicts onto the Outlaw US Empire. Eurasia Group goes on to make the following statement:

We call this a G-Zero world, a world without global leadership. Where the United States, the world's sole remaining superpower, doesn't want to be the world's policeman, the architect of global trade, or the cheerleader of global values. And no other country is prepared to take that role for itself. We now see three major confrontations that are the direct result of our G-Zero world. By its nature, the G-Zero will cause more unsolvable conflicts in the years ahead—the only questions are where, when, and how destabilizing. And whether the resulting crises help fix the underlying problem with our “geopolitical recession” or only serve to make it worse.

The authors of this “analysis” sure don’t look very far outside the confines of the Western world. Global leadership is most certainly clear and coming from Eurasia, the group’s namesake, which is very ironic. China has set forth many global initiatives that are being adhered to by the Global majority of nations, and the same can be said of Russia. BRICS+ is now a more powerful leadership group than the G-7, while Eurasia is THE motor for the global economy. There are two other superpowers—Russia and China—and the causes of global strife are the direct result from the Outlaw US Empire imposing itself illegally as world policeman. As for global trade, ithe Empire’s illegal sanctions, embargoes, industrial espionage, illegal disruption of the WTO, and other attempts to cause dysfunction within the global trading system certainly don’t make it a champion of anything aside from what might be termed anti-values or better, immoralities and more ongoing violations of the UN Charter—all of which is why it’s an Outlaw.

Is there really a “Geopolitical Recession”? What’s happening is a rebirth of the geopolitical world with the rise of the Global Majority and formation of the Multipolar World to replace the illegal Unipolar “Rules-based Order” that’s dysfunctionaly reigned for far too long. What’s happening is the West’s now on the outside looking in as it becomes the Out-Group. China’s global initiatives are what’s driving the world and will make it a far sight better. Most important was Wang Yi’s declaration that China intends to make its Global Security Initiative become reality in 2024, which is somewhat of a Back to the Future sort of happening as the GSI is essentially an improved restatement of the UN Charter.

What the Eurasia Group displayed with its “analysis” is a degree of myopia that’s become commonplace for Western-centric institutions where they risk becoming there own Voldemorts as their products “must not be named.” And that goes for a host of them: Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, NY Times, Washington Post, Politico, and more. What I see them doing is gazing into their navels and ignoring the wider world in which they exist.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!