Agony of Sorrow

在敘利亞不斷殺戮"異教徒"的朱拉尼，歐洲領袖居然可以跟他談笑風生，完全沒有"人權問題"的疑慮。
Despite his ongoing slaughter of "infidels" in Syria, Julani is now being received with open arms by European leaders—apparently, "human rights" are no longer an issue.

People are, for the most part, forgetful. Take the current Syrian leader, al-Julani, for example. He was once a prominent figure in both al-Qaeda and ISIS, and not long ago was responsible for massacres of Christians. Yet now, he stands side by side with Western leaders, even meeting with figures like Macron. It's truly unbelievable.

This reminds me of a conversation I had a few years ago with a Swede. When I mentioned the atrocities committed by Ukraine in the Donbas region and the background of the Maidan Revolution, he claimed he had never heard of any of it—and insisted it was all just conspiracy theories. These events happened only 10 years ago, yet they've already been completely forgotten. It shows just how powerful the media truly is—not only in shaping what we remember, but also in determining what we forget.

人們大多是健忘的。就拿現在的敘利亞領導人朱拉尼來說，他過去曾是基地組織與伊斯蘭國的領導人，不久前才剛大規模屠殺過基督教徒，如今卻能與美國和歐洲的領導人站在同一陣線，甚至與像馬克宏這樣的人物會面，這實在令人難以置信。 這讓我想起幾年前與一位瑞典人交談時，當我提到烏克蘭在頓巴斯地區的暴行以及廣場革命的背景時，他竟然說從來沒聽說過，還堅稱那些都是謠言。明明這些事件才發生沒多久，卻能被遺忘得一乾二淨，這足以說明媒體的力量有多強大——它不只決定我們記得什麼，更決定我們會「遺忘」什麼。

--------------------

https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=1347952

格達費的嘆息與被西方世界所牽連的利比亞。

誰為「美國優先」買單？戰後秩序的顛覆與歐洲被迫承擔的代價

“Who Pays for ‘America First’? The Overturning of the Postwar Order and the Cost Imposed on Europe”

二戰後建立的國際經濟秩序，原本建立在｢自由貿易｣、｢自由投資｣與｢主權平等｣之上，而這套秩序正是美國在自身工業與金融最強盛時所推動的。然而，如今美國已不再具備當年的產業基礎，卻試圖徹底顛覆自己親手建立的體系，轉而推行一個以「美國優先」為核心、對盟友具有強制性的單極秩序。

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/16q7wMMxmZ/

今天諾貝爾和平獎的獲獎者是瑪麗亞·科琳娜·馬查多。除了她在委內瑞拉的"人權活動"外，她還因支持以色列在加薩的種族滅絕、支持美國殺害委內瑞拉漁民以及一再呼籲對委內瑞拉進行軍事入侵以推翻（並可能殺害）該國民選政府而臭名昭著——這體現了她在自己國家煽動分裂的言論。這與友好交流和和平會議截然相反，是對軍事暴力的直接呼籲。

瑞典諾貝爾基金會應該停止這種挪威式的瘋狂行為了！

Today’s prize winner is Maria Corina Machado. Beyond her human rights activism in Venezuela, she is known for her support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, support for the US murder of Venezuelan fishermen and repeated calls for a military invasion of Venezuela to depose (and presumably kill) the elected government there – an expression of her divisive agitation in her own country. Far from fraternisation and peace conferences, this is a direct call for military violence.

It is time for the Swedish Nobel Foundation to stop to this Norwegian madness.

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1NB7To1Xd3/
The article I wrote two years ago. 兩年前我的貼文。
歐洲轉向極右翼，例如法國，比利時，荷蘭，瑞士，瑞典與丹麥，反映的是歐洲經濟的困境、民生的危機。
在瑞典，堅決反對移民、反對多元文化主義的「瑞典民主黨」是議會中的第二大黨，支持著右翼聯合政府。
荷蘭大選，飽受爭議的極右派政治人物，懷爾德斯(Geert Wilders)贏得勝利。他以反伊斯蘭著稱，提倡要關掉荷蘭所有的清真寺。
法國的勒龐、意大利的五星運動都在向政治權力中心發起衝刺，最後義大利的梅洛妮(Giorgia Meloni)當選義大利總理。
英國的脫歐、歐陸的極右翼興起，關鍵之一就是難民和穆斯林問題。
但是這些難民、穆斯林是從哪裡來的呢？
英國有大約400萬的穆斯林人口，主要來自其前殖民地，今天的巴基斯坦、孟加拉國和印度，21世紀開始，還有來自戰亂地區的難民。
法國的穆斯林人口有840萬人，主要來自於他們的在非洲的前殖民地，而這些殖民地素來不平靜。
德國的穆斯林主要來自於20世紀60年代的勞務移民(以土耳其人為主)和自20世紀70年代以來至今的幾波政治、戰爭難民。
瑞典的穆斯林大部份來自戰亂地區如阿富汗、伊拉克、敘利亞、黎巴嫩、索馬利亞、非洲剛果、以及烏克蘭。
我們可以看到，21世紀以來，許多的難民來自於阿富汗、伊拉克、敘利亞、黎巴嫩，當然還有自從2022年以來的烏克蘭難民。
而這些戰爭是誰引起的？難民是誰製造的？
顯而易見，就是由美國(還有美國所帶頭領導的北約)。
在各地發動戰爭、製造大量難民的美國，因為遠離戰場，孤懸海外，且在長期的邊境管控之下，穆斯林人口只有345萬，50％的穆斯林是在本土出生和成長，而另外50％是外國出生的。
美國製造難民，歐洲替美國收拾善後，美國卻不斷從歐洲吸血。
俄烏戰爭(更正確地說，是北約與俄羅斯的戰爭)爆發後，烏克蘭難民大量逃往歐洲；歐洲必須不斷地挹注金錢與武器給烏克蘭；歐洲資產出逃(主要是到美國)；歐洲被迫不能向俄國購買能源，造成能源短缺，被迫以高價購買能源，身為能源生產大國的美國大發利市，從歐洲賺了大筆外匯；歐洲武器供應給烏克蘭之後，自身又必須向美國購買新的武器... 美國還一不作二不休，破壞了北溪管道。
在這樣的情況之下，美國2023年Q3經濟成長率高達4.9%，歐洲卻接近於0。
經濟成長受挫，能源價格高漲，通貨膨脹嚴重，還得金援軍援烏克蘭，這時候排外的極端主義自然會興起，穆斯林也就自然成為眾矢之的。
這個情況剛好給了中國極佳的契機 - 這把中東以及其他穆斯林國家推向了中國，讓中國更加鞏固全球南方領袖的地位。
我對歐洲的前途，並不看好。
Europe is turning towards the far right, as seen in countries such as France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, and Denmark. This shift reflects the economic challenges and social crises in Europe.
In Sweden, the "Sweden Democrats," a party strongly opposed to immigration and multiculturalism, is the second-largest party in parliament and supports a right-wing coalition government.
In the Netherlands, controversial far-right politician Geert Wilders gained victory in the elections. He is known for his anti-Islam stance and advocates for the closure of all mosques in the Netherlands.
In France, Marine Le Pen's National Rally and Italy's Five Star Movement are making a push towards the political center, with Giorgia Meloni winning the position of Prime Minister in Italy.
The rise of Brexit in the UK and far-right movements on the continent can be attributed, in part, to issues related to refugees and Muslims.
But where do these refugees and Muslims come from? In the UK, the Muslim population is approximately 4 million, primarily from former colonies such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India. Since the 21st century, there has also been an influx of refugees from conflict zones.
In France, the Muslim population is around 8.4 million, mainly from their former colonies in Africa, which have historically been unstable.
In Germany, Muslims primarily come from the labor migration of the 1960s (mainly Turks) and subsequent waves of political and war refugees since the 1970s.
In Sweden, most Muslims come from war-torn regions such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Ukraine.
It is evident that since the 21st century, many refugees come from Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Ukraine since 2022.
And who is responsible for these wars and the creation of refugees? It is clear that the United States (and NATO led by the United States) plays a significant role.
The US, which initiates wars and creates a significant number of refugees, has a Muslim population of only 3.45 million. Fifty percent of Muslims in the US are born and raised domestically, while the other 50% are foreign-born.
The US creates refugees, and Europe is left to deal with the aftermath, while the US continues to benefit from Europe.
After the outbreak of the Russo-Ukrainian war (more accurately, the war between NATO and Russia), a large number of Ukrainian refugees fled to Europe. Europe had to provide financial aid and weapons to Ukraine, assets fled Europe (mainly to the US), Europe was forced to stop buying energy from Russia, causing energy shortages and having to buy energy at high prices. As a major energy-producing country, the US profited from Europe by earning a large amount of foreign exchange. After supplying weapons to Ukraine, Europe had to purchase new weapons from the US. The US also disrupted the Nord Stream pipeline.
In this situation, the US had a high economic growth rate of 4.9% in Q3 2023, while Europe's growth rate was close to zero.
With economic stagnation, soaring energy prices, severe inflation, and the need to provide financial and military aid to Ukraine, it is natural for xenophobic extremism to rise, with Muslims becoming the target.
This situation has provided China with an excellent opportunity, pushing the Middle East and other Muslim countries towards China and further consolidating China's position as a global leader in the South.
I am not optimistic about the future of Europe given these circumstances.

當前的歐洲，正陷入一場深層的危機。這場危機並非完全來自外部壓力，而是一場自我設計、自我束縛的衰落。它體現在經濟、制度與地緣政治多個層面，逐步削弱了歐洲自身的活力與自主性。

首先，歐洲在對外政策上的選擇顯示出「地緣政治優先、經濟理性讓位」的特徵。凍結主權資產、限制外來投資、切斷技術供應鏈等舉措，看似出於安全考量，實際卻在破壞自身的產業根基。

能源供應受限、製造業外移、供應鏈斷裂，使歐洲的經濟結構日益脆弱。

其次，歐洲長期陷入金融化與去工業化的陷阱。歐元體系的嚴格財政規範，使各國難以靈活運用貨幣與財政政策刺激生產。在這樣的制度下，資金更多流向金融投機而非實體經濟，導致生產力停滯、就業減少、社會貧富分化加劇。

同時，歐洲越來越依賴軍事開支維持經濟活力，一種「軍事式的凱恩斯主義」逐漸成形。戰爭與軍備被視為刺激經濟的手段，但這種成長是短暫而虛假的。它耗費大量資源，扭曲產業結構，無法帶來真正的創新與繁榮。

更深層的問題在於內部裂痕。歐盟與北約雖表面一致，但各國對於制裁、軍援與能源政策的立場分歧明顯。一旦外部衝突結束，缺乏共同敵人的歐洲恐將失去凝聚力，內部矛盾隨之浮現。

歐洲的衰落並非外力使然，而是自身制度與戰略選擇的結果。過度依賴地緣政治而忽視經濟現實，過度信奉金融市場而忽略工業基礎，過度追求安全而犧牲自主發展。歐洲以「理性」之名行自限之舉，以「安全」之名削弱自身，最終使衰落變成一場自我導向的命運。

Europe today is caught in a profound crisis—one that is not solely caused by external pressures, but rather by a process of self-inflicted decline. This crisis, rooted in the realms of economics, governance, and geopolitics, reflects how Europe has gradually constrained its own vitality and autonomy.

First, Europe’s foreign policy choices reveal a tendency to prioritize geopolitics over economic rationality. Freezing sovereign assets, restricting foreign investment, and severing technology supply chains may appear to serve security interests, yet in practice they undermine Europe’s own industrial foundation. Energy shortages, the relocation of manufacturing, and the disruption of supply chains have left Europe’s economic structure increasingly fragile.

Second, Europe has long been trapped in financialization and deindustrialization. The strict fiscal rules of the eurozone make it difficult for member states to use monetary and fiscal policies flexibly to stimulate production. Under such constraints, capital flows mainly into financial speculation rather than productive industries, leading to stagnating productivity, job losses, and growing social inequality.

At the same time, Europe has become increasingly reliant on military spending to sustain economic activity—a form of “military Keynesianism.” War and armament are treated as tools for economic stimulation, but such growth is short-lived and illusory. It consumes resources, distorts industrial structures, and fails to foster real innovation or lasting prosperity.

Deeper fractures also exist within Europe itself. Though the EU and NATO appear united, member states are clearly divided over sanctions, military aid, and energy policy. Once external conflicts subside, Europe may lose the cohesion derived from a “common enemy,” and internal contradictions could resurface with force.

Ultimately, Europe’s decline is not the result of external coercion but of its own institutional design and strategic choices. It has prioritized geopolitics over economic reality, financial speculation over industrial strength, and the illusion of security over genuine autonomy. In the name of “rationality,” Europe has limited itself; in the name of “security,” it has weakened itself. Its decline, therefore, is not a fate imposed from outside, but a self-directed descent.

-------------------

見 邱 世卿老師的貼文有感：

這就是，只有歐盟可以發布虛假訊息的意思 -- 所有報導都必須來自中央廚房，即使這些年來已經被證實，歐盟以及北約是發佈最多假訊息的源頭。

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/17XE6rNww1/
In essence, this suggests that only the European Union is permitted to control the narrative—every report must come from a centralized “information kitchen.” Over the years, however, it has often been the EU and NATO themselves that have been accused of spreading questionable or misleading narratives.

From the early tales of the “Heroes of Snake Island” and the “Ghost of Kyiv,” to later battlefield claims that contradicted earlier reports, the information flow surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war has repeatedly exposed the inconsistencies of Western media coverage. These episodes highlight an uncomfortable truth: much of what was labeled as “disinformation” elsewhere has, at times, originated from the very outlets that claim to defend truth and democracy.

French President Emmanuel Macron’s recent remarks urging Europeans to “turn away from social media” and rely instead on “traditional national media” reveal a troubling shift in Europe’s attitude toward free expression. On the surface, his call for “trusted sources” sounds responsible—who could oppose reliable journalism? Yet beneath the rhetoric lies a familiar pattern: the desire of political elites to monopolize information and control the narrative.

Macron’s proposed “European protection and regulation plan” echoes George Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth rewrites reality in the name of stability. By labeling independent voices and online platforms as “dangerous” or “foreign,” European leaders risk creating a digital environment where only state-approved narratives can exist.

Ironically, many of the false or misleading stories that shaped public opinion in recent years—from battlefield legends to oversimplified war propaganda—did not come from obscure websites or anonymous accounts, but from mainstream Western outlets themselves. The problem, then, is not the existence of misinformation, but who gets to decide what counts as “truth.”

The promise of a free Europe was once grounded in open debate, skepticism, and pluralism. If Europe now moves toward a system where algorithms and bureaucrats determine which voices are permissible, it will not be protecting democracy—it will be extinguishing it.

A society that fears information cannot claim to be free. Europe should remember that Orwell’s dystopia was not a prophecy about others— it was a warning about them theyselves (or all of us).

這就是，只有歐盟可以發布虛假訊息的意思 — 所有報導都必須來自中央廚房，即使這些年來已經被證實，歐盟以及北約是發佈最多假訊息的源頭。
俄烏戰爭從一開始的蛇島勇士、基輔之鬼、老婦用罐頭打下無人機，到後來的戰場態勢，顯然一再被現實打臉，甚至前後互相矛盾。這些事件凸顯了一個令人不安的事實：許多被其他地方貼上「假訊息」標籤的內容，有時恰恰來自那些聲稱捍衛真相和民主的媒體。

法國總統馬克宏近期敦促歐洲人“遠離社交媒體”，轉而依賴“傳統國家媒體”的言論，揭示了歐洲對待言論自由態度的令人擔憂的轉變。表面上看，他呼籲「可信資訊來源」似乎合情合理——誰會反對可靠的新聞報道？然而，在這番言論背後，卻隱藏著一個熟悉的模式：政治菁英渴望壟斷訊息，掌控輿論。

馬克宏提出的「歐洲保護與監管計畫」與喬治‧歐威爾的《1984》遙相呼應，書中真理部以維護穩定之名篡改現實。透過將獨立的聲音和網路平台貼上「危險」或「外國」的標籤，歐洲領導人有可能創造出一個只有官方認可的敘事才能存在的數位環境。

諷刺的是，近年來塑造公眾輿論的許多虛假或誤導性訊息——從戰場傳說到過度簡化的戰爭宣傳——並非來自鮮為人知的網站或匿名帳號，而是來自西方主流媒體本身。因此，問題不在於假訊息的存在，而在於誰來決定何為「真相」。

自由歐洲的承諾曾經建立在公開辯論、懷疑精神和多元化的基礎上。如果歐洲如今走向一個由演算法和官僚決定哪些聲音可以被接受的體系，那麼它不是在保護民主，而是在扼殺民主。

一個害怕資訊的社會不能自詡自由。歐洲應該記住，奧威爾筆下的反烏托邦並非預言他人，而是警告他們自己。

格達費的嘆息與被西方世界所牽連的利比亞。

https://home.gamer.com.tw/creationDetail.php?sn=1347952

作者：雙│2011-06-29 15:10:13

　　在去年的１１月３號，也就是西元２０１０年１１月３號那天，美國聯準會為了挽救自２００８年金融海嘯就一直處於疲軟狀態的失業率以及國內經濟，推出了令無數亞洲以及東方國家為之跳腳的二次量化寬鬆政策。而就在美國一邊大力收購美國公債好令美元貶值，一邊指控中國為匯率操縱國的同時，這項令全球陷入通膨危機的經濟政策，也悄悄地在中東與非洲埋下了「茉莉花革命」的種子。

　　由於自從二戰之後，美元就一直作為法定的國際貨幣至今，所以美幣的貶值勢必會衝擊到以美元計價的石油以及各項糧食作物，因此在美元貶值、國際油價攀升，還有俄羅斯大火以及澳洲暴雨等噩耗以及衝擊之下，國際糧食的價格開始節節攀升，而糧食價格的高漲除了使不少缺乏道德良知的商人趁機中飽私囊外，也令大多數糧食皆仰賴外國進口的非洲國家面臨糧食短缺的嚴重問題。

　　而第一個爆發的，就是現在被軍政府所掌控的埃及，再來就是利比亞。

　　先讓我們來談談利比亞，以及這個飽受戰火摧殘的土地的前世今生。

　　位於地中海南岸的利比亞曾經古羅馬帝國的領土，同時也是阿拉伯帝國的一部份，而這塊全國只有２％適合耕種，糧食有超過百分之九十五都仰賴外國進口的貧瘠之地，在１９１１年被義大利佔領淪落成西方國家的殖民地之後，有整整五十年都處抗爭以及動亂之中。而作為一個有超過百分之八十的居民都信仰伊斯蘭教的國家，這塊土地上的居民有著超乎想像的強悍與韌性。

　　從１９１１年到１９５１年的獨立，利比亞人民與義大利的抗爭起碼持續了四十年之久。而在這不算短的抗爭歲月之中，熱情洋溢的義大利鎮壓利比亞的手段可說是花樣百出，而且殘酷的程度絕對不輸二戰中的納粹。

　　在伊斯蘭教裡，戰士的靈魂如果要升天遺體必須要保持完整，而義大利對付利比亞的各種手段中最為人所「津津樂道」也最令人髮指的，就是將眾多利比亞將士以及反抗軍領袖從一萬英尺的高空往下拋棄的屠殺，而在這些慘遭殺害的領袖之中，其中一名就是現今的利比亞領導人──格達費的祖父。

　　當然，除了這些令人深惡痛絕的直接殺戮之外，封井以及斷絕外援等惡劣行勁義大利自然也沒少過，在這短短的四十年之間，光是有記載的死亡人數就超過了八十萬人，更不用說那些還來不及誕生或列為失蹤的眾多生命。然而，即使面對這樣子的絕境，利比亞還是挺了過來，並在１９５１年的１２月２４日在聯合國的安排之下獨立。

　　從上述的歷史來看，這塊土地的民族可以說是超乎想像的強悍，而這永不妥協的韌性，也是日後令國家陷入動盪的重要原因之一。

　　先前提到利比亞在１９５１年獨立，然而聯合國這個組織其實並沒有大家所想的那樣善良與公正，作為聯合國決策國之一的英國讓利比亞獨立其實是為了能名正言順的參與石油的探勘，而在１９５３的時候，英國石油公司就已經握有利比亞超過百分之八十五的探勘權，而從義大利到英國，儘管方式不同，西方列強對利比亞的壓榨全都看在格達費的眼裡，對深愛利比亞這個國家的格達費來說，徹底讓利比亞脫離西方的控制才是國家真正復甦的關鍵，於是有著雄心壯志的革命軍領導就這麼加入了利比亞的軍隊，並悄悄等待讓利比亞真正獨立的那天。

　　１９６９年的８月３１號，格達費趁著利比亞國王伊德里斯一世出國訪查時發動革命，而對於這個為西方列強馬首是瞻的領導，格達費沒有絲毫的同情或是憐憫，更沒有讓他回國的打算，因此這位被西方所扶植的伊德里斯一世，就在無法回到故鄉的情況下度過了晚年，結束了他的一生。

　　好了，解決了無能的領導，這下該換那些不停在蠶食利比亞的西方了。在革命成功的隔年，也就是１９７０年的１月，格達費將英國石油公司徹底趕出了利比亞，然而這項舉動卻遭利比亞人民以及其他阿拉伯國家一致反彈。原因很簡單，因為利比亞本身沒有開採石油的技術，而將英國石油公司趕出利比亞這個莽撞的行為，會令高度仰賴石油的利比亞陷入經濟困局。

　　然而格達費就是格達費，在被西方國家冠上瘋狗一詞前，英雄兩字可不是叫假的，１９７０年的九月，格達費在缺乏奧援的情況下成功開採了石油，為利比亞後來的繁榮奠定了基礎，而這也令格達費在一夕之間成了各阿拉伯國家眼中的英雄，鞏固了他之後的領導人地位。

　　在１９８６年，格達費部署在錫德拉灣海岸的飛彈觸怒了美國，美國認定這個在秘密培養恐怖組織的國家在海岸線部署武器是為了箝制美國在地中海的制空權，因此在１９８６年的四月十五日，美國以打擊恐怖主義之名空襲了利比亞，也令本來就相當厭惡西方的格達費從此與西方結下了梁子。

　　１９８８年，泛美航空１０３號班機在蘇格蘭邊境的洛克比上空發生爆炸，而同樣是搞破壞，格達費隱藏線索的功力並沒有美國ＣＩＡ那樣好，透過各種管道，美國確定了格達費就是洛克比空難的主謀，並在１９９１年通過聯合過對利比亞發動包含經濟在內的封鎖與外交一系列制裁。

　　事情發展到這裡，格達費與西方國家之間看似已經結下了血海深仇，不過在２０００年之後格達費對西方國家釋出的一連串善意也令利比亞與西方的關鍵開始逐漸改善，而之所以要在討論利比亞的茉莉花革命之前提到這些，是為了要讓各位理解，被西方媒體所污名化的格達費其實並不如報章雜誌上所述是個「瘋狗」，而是個曾經懷抱過雄心壯志的過氣英雄。

　　回到２０１１年，因聯準會二次量化寬鬆政策而起全球性通貨膨脹，令有超過百分之九十五的糧食都仰賴外國進口的利比亞陷入危機，人民對已經統治利比亞將近六十年之久的格達費感到厭煩，儘管利比亞人民的生活水平在北非是數一數二、儘管利比亞政府的效率與貪腐情況都比週遭阿拉伯國家要好上許多，但因量化寬鬆政策而起的通貨膨脹卻成了壓垮格達費的最後一根稻草，也令這位英雄做出了錯誤的決定。

　　我不知道格達費是在什麼樣的心境下做出鎮壓人民這個殘酷的決定，但是對於一生都在與西方國家抗衡，最後決定順從西方國家的格達費來說，在晚年還要被美國陰這麼一把恐怕是他始料未及，國家的地理位置令他成了通貨膨脹的代罪羔羊，而作為罪魁禍首的美國此刻仍大力譴責他的鎮壓人民之舉。國外的資產被凍結，生活的細節被放大檢驗，就在全世界都在唾棄他的這個瞬間，他仍在領導人的位置奮戰不懈，他自稱為永遠的革命家，但是他的革命卻早就在過去結束。

　　有人說，他現在是在作困獸之鬥。有人說，他鎮壓人民的手段兇殘且令人髮指。但是就算格達費真的在戰至最後的一兵一卒之後戰死或是下台，利比亞就能迎來真正的民主嗎？看看位於班加西的東利比亞（東西分裂已成定局），主宰臨時政府利比亞共和國的，竟然是格達費過去的舊屬，這批曾在格達費底下辦事的官員真的能理解什麼叫做民主嗎？格達費的統治結束之後能保證不是另一個極權政府的開始嗎？看看穆拉巴克下台之後的埃及，犧牲了百之分之七的ＧＤＰ成長換來的是更加跋扈的軍政府，這不禁令我對利比亞的未來憂心忡忡，但無論如何，有件事是可以肯定的──那就是作為罪魁禍首的美國，此刻仍要全世界為他的失敗買單，而利比亞絕對不會是最後一個。

南非經濟衰敗的原因（以後種族隔離時代為核心）

一、制度轉型後的治理失靈

政策理想與現實落差
種族隔離結束後，南非試圖透過鼓勵本地黑人參與經濟來促進平權，但部分政策（例如對外資企業雇用本地人、技術轉移的高要求）在執行上流於形式或操之過急。這使得外資面臨高風險、高成本，難以在當地持續經營，導致：

外資退卻或觀望

就業機會未有效擴張

德國總理 Friedrich  Merz 稱普京是「或許是當代最嚴重的戰犯」

 

在評論俄烏戰爭時，Bono 暴露出他的短視與無知，而在Gaza 事件中，他更顯示出他的虛偽與雙標。Bono 就是個沽名釣譽的投機份子。
When commenting on the Russia-Ukraine war, Bono exposed his short-sightedness and ignorance, and during the Gaza incident, he further revealed his hypocrisy and double standards. Bono is nothing more than a self-serving opportunist seeking fame.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/roger-waters-bono-israel-gaza-b2498979.html

Roger Waters與Bono同為國際知名的音樂人，但在政治立場與世界觀上卻天差地遠。Waters以其深厚的歷史素養和對國際局勢的冷靜分析著稱，敢於挑戰西方霸權，長期支持巴勒斯坦人民，揭露美國及以色列的軍事與殖民政策。他在烏克蘭、加薩等議題上立場一貫，展現出少數藝人所擁有的理性與道德勇氣。 相對地，Bono雖高舉人道主義旗幟，卻常被批評為情感主導、立場搖擺。他對美國戰爭與以色列暴行多保持沉默，甚至重複西方媒體的敘事，忽視受壓迫者的聲音。他的人道關懷淪為政治表演，成為西方權力的文化裝飾品。 Waters是一位有骨氣的知識分子，而Bono則是體制的代言人。在真相與政治正確之間，兩人做出了截然不同的選擇。

Roger Waters and Bono are both internationally renowned musicians, but their political positions and worldviews could not be more different.
Waters is known for his profound historical insight and calm, analytical approach to global affairs. He boldly challenges Western hegemony, has long supported the Palestinian people, and openly criticizes the military and colonial policies of both the United States and Israel. On issues such as Ukraine and Gaza, his stance has remained consistent, demonstrating a rare combination of reason and moral courage among artists.

In contrast, Bono, while waving the flag of humanitarianism, is often criticized for being emotionally driven and politically inconsistent. He has remained largely silent on U.S. wars and Israeli atrocities, and often repeats Western media narratives, ignoring the voices of the oppressed. His humanitarian image has become a form of political performance—more cultural decoration for Western power than genuine resistance.