What’s wrong with trump?

A major impediments to our understanding is our belief in Americanism. For example, though we don’t express is out loud, we subliminally believe that all knowledge is expressed in English.

And anything written or spoken in any foreign language is a waste of words.

That of course is untrue, but out our actions bespeak it.

Of course, it is true that all things can be translated into English and that could, theoretically, be the answer to the lack of understanding.

But unfortunately, we don’t readily find translations of everything, far from it. Take, for example, the translation of the many reports by Alkhanadeq that I have provided lately.

You found information in this that you may not have found in the Western media.

Like the fact that Iran has rejected the nuclear enrichment limitations that form the basis of American and Israeli demands. This enables you to conclude with certainty that we are on a collision course with Iran and will either be seeing action or, just as likely, will see Trump back down.

His only action so far has been to send another aircraft carrier. But how many aircraft carriers does it take to mass-murder millions of people? A few nuclear warheads is all, and that can be done quite efficiently.

And really, what is the purpose of this except to scare the Iranians and show the Israelis that we are trying.

But as Iran has said, the only thing scarier than an aircraft carrier is a weapon capable of sinking an an aircraft carrier.

And as far as I know, that is the easiest task of all.

There are 2 easy ways to sink and aircraft carrier: 1. Get above the carrier and sink it with hypersonic missiles, and 2. Get below the carrier and sink it with torpedoes.

Trump is putting his most valuable assets in a shooting gallery.

But we must understand Trump’s position. If he refuses to carry out Israel’s demands he will be the first US president since Kennedy to refuse. And to refuse might lead to the same fate as Kennedy. It’s not so simple when you have put yourself in the unenviable position of defending Israel or else. And that, unfortunately, is every president’s goal. Not just Trump’s. Every one of them.

And that means doing exactly as you are told, or in other words, murdering millions of people or else.

Trump clearly does not want to do this, and is trying to scare Iran but that, unfortunately, won’t work.

But that does not prove anything about Trump.

That doesn’t prove he’s stupid or, the opposite, that he’s cunning, or crazy or demented or anything else. It only shows that he’s in an impossible position.

And that shows he is the president of “Christian” Zionists who believe the Bible suddenly does not teach love but hate, hatred for “the other” and that is the new interpretation of the book. And we have to hate the Palestinians and love the Jews, the genocidal Jews.

That is the new doctrine.

And it is part of the unipolar world order. The hegemonic belief that makes the US path the only possible way, capitalism is the new god.

And yet this is just the opposite of what the Chinese have, and the doctrine of socialism that makes China the only economic power.

And that means we must hate China. And dream of some day nuking it.

Those are your only 2 choices, and that is what is wrong with Trump. Not that he’s demented. He’s suffering from the same disease as the rest of the West, the disease that makes us want to kill our friends before we find out that they aren’t our enemies. He, like the rest of the West, wants to kill the Chinese because like the rest of the West, or rather the ruling class, he loves capitalism because it made him extremely wealthy. And you can’t be in the ruling class unless you are very wealthy,

And that led him to hate socialism, although that is the only fair system.

But he doesn’t want fair, he wants death to socialism, and an increasingly unfair capitalist state.

He’s perfectly normal for this western world.

He hates Venezuela and Cuba. We are expected to hate Cuba and Venezuela. They believe in the working man.

That is an evil teaching in the West. But is that not normal in the West? He just happens to take it to extremes and he reveals the ugliness that was there all the time just beneath the surface.

And he shows us that that is who we really are.

It’s not Trump. It’s us.

We don’t need a new Trump. We need a new us.

ttps://noticiabrasil.net.br/20260216/china-nao-adotou-receita-para-sucesso-vendida-ao-brasil-e-se-deu-muito-bem-diz-elias-jabbour-47926275.html

Translation from Portuguese. Why Portuguese? The paper just happens to focus on Brazil because, like China when the Chinese conceived of the plan for converting China into the most successful world economy, it is a developing nation. The author wants his country to develop along the same lines as China. It it follows the same pattern, he expects it to become one of the richest on earth,

But for this to happen, he believes we must develop a new way of analyzing socialism.

China didn’t adopt the recipe for success sold to Brazil and did very well, says Elias Jabbour.

The latest book by geographer and researcher Elias Jabbour, former consultant to the presidency of the New Development Bank (NDB), the “BRICS bank,” in Shanghai and current president of the Pereira Passos Institute (IPP) in Rio de Janeiro, entitled “Socialism in Power: Governance, Classes, Science and Planning in China,” is scheduled for March 2026.

The work, co-authored with Australian philosopher Roland Boer, proposes an in-depth analysis of the Chinese development model, responsible for one of the most stable growth rates in modern history. Jabbour and Boer discuss how China, from one of the world’s poorest countries, transformed itself into the second-largest global economy, building an internationally renowned industrial and scientific base.

The book addresses central themes such as governance, social classes, science, and strategic planning, offering the reader a detailed perspective on what socialism in power means in contemporary China.

On Mundioka, a podcast by Sputnik Brasil, Elias Jabbour highlights the main elements of the Chinese model that have allowed this growth in various areas, how governance and planning interact with the country’s social issues, and how socialism in China balances with scientific and industrial innovation.

New theory of socialism

Jabbour begins by saying that contemporary China represents a phenomenon that escapes the traditional categories of social sciences. [my highlighting here and herinafter] According to him, Western theories are incapable of explaining the level of development achieved by the Chinese, who followed a socialist model amidst a dominant capitalism worldwide.

The researcher argues that the experience requires a profound conceptual update to understand the case, since China combined elements of state planning, market, and technological innovation in an unprecedented way, creating its own institutional arrangement. “Urban mobility within China is much greater today than it was 20 years ago [...] China has moved about 200 million people from the countryside to the city in the last ten years.”

“It’s like Brazil. Without creating a single favela and putting 200 million people in the city, and that means having housing, jobs, and basic sanitation for 200 million people.”

The author also highlights that his new book seeks to advance this debate by incorporating philosophical and political categories capable of accounting for Chinese governance. For him, socialism is not an idealized abstraction, but a historical form linked to the exercise of political power and the construction of a national project.

Chinese ‘forecasting machine’

Regarding China’s level of planning, Jabbour attributes it to the relationship between state coordination and the intensive use of technology, citing the use of Big Data solutions, artificial intelligence, 5G, and advanced computing. According to him, this gives the country the ability to organize itself more efficiently than in the last 20 years.

Above all, he summarizes this process by saying that the country has created a “forecasting machine”: a technical and human apparatus capable of anticipating economic bottlenecks and acting before they turn into structural crises. Jabbour states that this combination of planning and technology would allow China to operate on a scale that defies conventional understanding.

“In 2035, they will reach the level of development of a nation like Belgium, for example. Of a welfare state with complete Chinese characteristics.”

The expert also highlights the Chinese railway system, which, since 2009, has seen the construction of 45,000 km of tracks. From four cities with subways, the country has grown to 45 cities served, with trains reaching speeds of 120 km/h.

What Brazil can learn

When comparing Brazil and China, Jabbour attributes the divergence between the two countries to the economic choices made from the 1990s onwards. The two countries were more or less at the same level of economy in the 1980s.

He argues that Brazil followed the precepts of the Washington Consensus to the letter – reducing the role of the State, privatizing strategic assets, greater trade openness – while China adopted the opposite path, preserving a strong role for the State.

“What I can say is this: China did not adopt the recipe for success that was sold to Brazil, and they did very well,” summarizes the researcher.

The main obstacle for Brazil, in his assessment, is political. “Our challenge is to form another political majority that understands that Brazil needs to reposition itself in the world.” Without this consolidated political base, there would be no conditions to sustain a long-term national project.

For him, the strategic axis of this reconstruction must be industry. “The fight for reindustrialization is a fight to reposition Brazil in the world,” he says. Reindustrialization would be a condition for social mobility, strengthening sovereignty, and confronting structural inequalities.

Jabbour also criticizes free trade agreements, specifically the trade agreement between Mercosur and the European Union. In his view, these agreements deepen the country’s peripheral condition. He advocates a strategic relationship with China, focused on rebuilding production chains, and not on the mere export of commodities. Without planning and strategic sophistication, Brazil would remain vulnerable.

Despite seeing socialism as having a historically superior form to capitalism, Jabbour does not believe it is possible for Brazil to have the subjective conditions for the implementation of a socialist system. In his view, the country does not have a national development project, something that should be consciously addressed by the left wing.

“I find it very strange: a left that calls itself left-wing, but it’s not nationalist, for example. A left that calls itself left-wing, but it’s not developmentalist. So, if it’s not nationalist, it’s not developmentalist, it’s a wrong thing. Because being left-wing in the periphery of capitalism is, first and foremost, defending the sovereignty of the country.”

Multipolarity and the end of US hegemony

When analyzing the international scenario, Elias Jabbour rejects the interpretation that the world is already consolidated as multipolar. For him, the current reality is one of unstable transition. “What exists today is not a multipolar world [...] what exists is chaos in the world today,” he states. According to the professor, there is a tendency towards multipolarity, but it is still in formation, amidst open disputes between major powers.

Jabbour associates this moment with the relative decline of the United States, but warns that this process does not occur peacefully. He argues that the loss of hegemony tends to be accompanied by an intensification of violence and conflict. “The trend is indeed towards a multipolar world […] but accompanied by absurd violence,” he says, characterizing the historical behavior of retreating powers. For him, imperialism has as a structural trait the aggressive response to the loss of space.

As an example of this dynamic, he mentions the conflict in Ukraine, which, in his view, was not only against Russia, but also a way to weaken Germany. According to Jabbour, it is a “proxy war against Germany,” which would have contributed to relocating German production units to the United States.

He also highlights the recent approval of more than 600 billion dollars for the American military budget, comparing the volume only to the period of the Korean War, as an indication of a reindustrialization strategy combined with the maintenance of global military power.

Despite the scenario of instability, Jabbour sees China as a structuring pole of the transition. He describes the country as a commercial powerhouse — “it’s the country that trades the most with the world” —, an industrial powerhouse — “35% of the world’s industry is in China” — and a financial powerhouse, stating that China has become “the world’s largest net creditor,” surpassing the IMF and the World Bank.

Still, he insists that the new order is not yet a given: what exists is a historical trend toward multipolarity, built slowly, amidst disputes, national reindustrializations, and still inconclusive geopolitical rearrangements.

“Multipolarity is coming slowly, gradually, and insecurely, but it is coming.”