A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See
EDITOR’S CHOICE | 16.02.2017

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See


It is not very often that a documentary film can set a new paradigm about a recent event, let alone, one that is still in progress. But the new film Ukraine on Fire has the potential to do so – assuming that many people get to see it.

Usually, documentaries — even good ones — repackage familiar information in a different aesthetic form. If that form is skillfully done, then the information can move us in a different way than just reading about it.

A good example of this would be Peter Davis’s powerful documentary about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Hearts and Minds. By 1974, most Americans understood just how bad the Vietnam War was, but through the combination of sounds and images, which could only have been done through film, that documentary created a sensation, which removed the last obstacles to America leaving Indochina.

Ukraine on Fire has the same potential and could make a contribution that even goes beyond what the Davis film did because there was very little new information in Hearts and Minds. Especially for American and Western European audiences, Ukraine on Fire could be revelatory in that it offers a historical explanation for the deep divisions within Ukraine and presents information about the current crisis that challenges the mainstream media’s paradigm, which blames the conflict almost exclusively on Russia.

Key people in the film’s production are director Igor Lopatonok, editor Alex Chavez, and writer Vanessa Dean, whose screenplay contains a large amount of historical as well as current material exploring how Ukraine became such a cauldron of violence and hate. Oliver Stone served as executive producer and conducted some high-profile interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin and ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The film begins with gripping images of the violence that ripped through the capital city of Kiev during both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 removal of Yanukovich. It then travels back in time to provide a perspective that has been missing from mainstream versions of these events and even in many alternative media renditions.

A Longtime Pawn

Historically, Ukraine has been treated as a pawn since the late Seventeenth Century. In 1918, Ukraine was made a German protectorate by the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Ukraine was also a part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 signed between Germany and Russia, but violated by Adolf Hitler when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941.

German dictator Adolf Hitler

The reaction of many in Ukraine to Hitler’s aggression was not the same as it was in the rest of the Soviet Union. Some Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis. The most significant Ukrainian nationalist group, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), had been established in 1929. Many of its members cooperated with the Nazis, some even enlisted in the Waffen SS and Ukrainian nationalists participated in the massacre of more than 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar ravine in Kiev in September 1941. According to scholar Pers Anders Rudling, the number of Ukrainian nationalists involved in the slaughter outnumbered the Germans by a factor of 4 to 1.

But it wasn’t just the Jews that the Ukrainian nationalists slaughtered. They also participated in massacres of Poles in the western Ukrainian region of Galicia from March 1943 until the end of 1944. Again, the main perpetrators were not Germans, but Ukrainians.

According to author Ryazard Szawlowksi, the Ukrainian nationalists first lulled the Poles into thinking they were their friends, then turned on them with a barbarity and ferocity that not even the Nazis could match, torturing their victims with saws and axes. The documentary places the number of dead at 36,750, but Szawlowski estimates it may be two or three times higher.

OUN members participated in these slaughters for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, wanting Ukraine to be preserved for what OUN regarded as native Ukrainians. They also expected Ukraine to be independent by the end of the war, free from both German and Russian domination. The two main leaders in OUN who participated in the Nazi collaboration were Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was a virulent anti-Semite, and Lebed was rabidly against the Poles, participating in their slaughter.

After the war, both Bandera and Lebed were protected by American intelligence, which spared them from the Nuremburg tribunals. The immediate antecedent of the CIA, Central Intelligence Group, wanted to use both men for information gathering and operations against the Soviet Union. England’s MI6 used Bandera even more than the CIA did, but the KGB eventually hunted down Bandera and assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Lebed was brought to America and addressed anti-communist Ukrainian organizations in the U.S. and Canada. The CIA protected him from immigration authorities who might otherwise have deported him as a war criminal.

The history of the Cold War was never too far in the background of Ukrainian politics, including within the diaspora that fled to the West after the Red Army defeated the Nazis and many of their Ukrainian collaborators emigrated to the United States and Canada. In the West, they formed a fierce anti-communist lobby that gained greater influence after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Important History

This history is an important part of Dean’s prologue to the main body of Ukraine on Fire and is essential for anyone trying to understand what has happened there since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. For instance, the U.S.-backed candidate for president of Ukraine in 2004 — Viktor Yushchenko — decreed both Bandera and Lebed to be Ukrainian national heroes.

Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and Nazi collaborator

Bandera, in particular, has become an icon for post-World War II Ukrainian nationalists. One of his followers was Dmytro Dontsov, who called for the birth of a “new man” who would mercilessly destroy Ukraine’s ethnic enemies.

Bandera’s movement was also kept alive by Yaroslav Stetsko, Bandera’s premier in exile. Stetsko fully endorsed Bandera’s anti-Semitism and also the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Stetsko, too, was used by the CIA during the Cold War and was honored by Yushchenko, who placed a plaque in his honor at the home where he died in Munich in 1986. Stetsko’s wife, Slava, returned to Ukraine in 1991 and ran for parliament in 2002 on the slate of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party.

Stetsko’s book, entitled Two Revolutions, has become the ideological cornerstone for the modern Ukrainian political party Svoboda, founded by Oleh Tyahnybok, who is pictured in the film calling Jews “kikes” in public, which is one reason the Simon Wiesenthal Center has ranked him as one of the most dangerous anti-Semites in the world.

Another follower of Bandera is Dymytro Yarosh, who reputedly leads the paramilitary arm of an even more powerful political organization in Ukraine called Right Sektor. Yarosh once said he controls a paramilitary force of about 7,000 men who were reportedly used in both the overthrow of Yanukovych in Kiev in February 2014 and the suppression of the rebellion in Odessa a few months later, which are both fully depicted in the film.

This historical prelude and its merging with the current civil war is eye-opening background that has been largely hidden by the mainstream Western media, which has downplayed or ignored the troubling links between these racist Ukrainian nationalists and the U.S.-backed political forces that vied for power after Ukraine became independent in 1991.

The Rise of a Violent Right

That same year, Tyahnybok formed Svoboda. Three years later, Yarosh founded Trident, an offshoot of Svoboda that eventually evolved into Right Sektor. In other words, the followers of Bandera and Lebed began organizing themselves immediately after the Soviet collapse.

The neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol on a banner in Ukraine

In this time period, Ukraine had two Russian-oriented leaders who were elected in 1991 and 1994, Leonid Kravchuk, and Leonid Kuchma. But the hasty transition to a “free-market” economy didn’t go well for most Ukrainians or Russians as well-connected oligarchs seized much of the wealth and came to dominate the political process through massive corruption and purchase of news media outlets. However, for average citizens, living standards went down drastically, opening the door for the far-right parties and for foreign meddling.

In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was strongest among ethnic Russians in the east and south, won the presidential election by three percentage points over the U.S.-favored Viktor Yushchenko, whose base was mostly in the country’s west where the Ukrainian nationalists are strongest.

Immediately, Yushchenko’s backers claimed fraud citing exit polls that had been organized by a group of eight Western nations and four non-governmental organizations or NGOs, including the Renaissance Foundation founded by billionaire financial speculator George Soros. Dick Morris, former President Bill Clinton’s political adviser, clandestinely met with Yushchenko’s team and advised them that the exit polls would not just help in accusations of fraud, but would bring protesters out into the streets. (Cambridge Review of InternationalAffairs, Vol. 19, Number 1, p. 26)

Freedom House, another prominent NGO that receives substantial financing from the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), provided training to young activists who then rallied protesters in what became known as the Orange Revolution, one of the so-called “color revolutions” that the West’s mainstream media fell in love with. It forced an election rerun that Yushchenko won.

But Yushchenko’s presidency failed to do much to improve the lot of the Ukrainian people and he grew increasingly unpopular. In 2010, Yushchenko failed to make it out of the first round of balloting and his rival Yanukovych was elected president in balloting that outside observers judged free and fair.

Big-Power Games

If this all had occurred due to indigenous factors within Ukraine, it could have been glossed over as a young nation going through some painful growing pains. But as the film points out, this was not the case. Ukraine continued to be a pawn in big-power games with many Western officials hoping to draw the country away from Russian influence and into the orbit of NATO and the European Union.

Ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych

In one of the interviews in Ukraine on Fire, journalist and author Robert Parry explains how the National Endowment for Democracy and many subsidized political NGOs emerged in the 1980s to replace or supplement what the CIA had traditionally done in terms of influencing the direction of targeted countries.

During the investigations of the Church Committee in the 1970s, the CIA’s “political action” apparatus for removing foreign leaders was exposed. So, to disguise these efforts, CIA Director William Casey, Reagan’s White House and allies in Congress created the NED to finance an array of political and media NGOs.

As Parry noted in the documentary, many traditional NGOs do valuable work in helping impoverished and developing countries, but this activist/propaganda breed of NGOs promoted U.S. geopolitical objectives abroad – and NED funded scores of such projects inside Ukraine in the run-up to the 2014 crisis.

Ukraine on Fire goes into high gear when it chronicles the events that occurred in 2014, resulting in the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych and sparking the civil war that still rages. In the 2010 election, when Yushchenko couldn’t even tally in the double-digits, Yanukovych faced off against and defeated Yulia Tymoshenko, a wealthy oligarch who had served as Yushchenko’s prime minister.

After his election, Yanukovych repealed Bandera’s title as a national hero. However, because of festering economic problems, the new president began to search for an economic partner who could provide a large loan. He first negotiated with the European Union, but these negotiations bogged down due to the usual draconian demands made by the International Monetary Fund.

So, in November 2013, Yanukovych began to negotiate with Russian President Putin who offered more generous terms. But Yanukovych’s decision to delay the association agreement with the E.U. provoked street protests in Kiev especially from the people of western Ukraine.

As Ukraine on Fire points out, other unusual occurrences also occurred, including the emergence of three new TV channels – Spilno TV, Espreso TV, and Hromadske TV – going on the air between Nov. 21 and 24, with partial funding from the U.S. Embassy and George Soros.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Pro-E.U. protests in the Maidan square in central Kiev also grew more violent as ultra-nationalist street fighters from Lviv and other western areas began to pour in and engage in provocations, many of which were sponsored by Yarosh’s Right Sektor. The attacks escalated from torch marches similar to Nazi days to hurling Molotov cocktails at police to driving large tractors into police lines – all visually depicted in the film. As Yanukovich tells Stone, when this escalation happened, it made it impossible for him to negotiate with the Maidan crowd.

One of the film’s most interesting interviews is with Vitaliy Zakharchenko, who was Minister of the Interior at the time responsible for law enforcement and the conduct of the police. He traces the escalation of the attacks from Nov. 24 to 30, culminating with a clash between police and protesters over the transport of a giant Christmas tree into the Maidan. Zakharchenko said he now believes this confrontation was secretly approved by Serhiy Lyovochkin, a close friend of U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, as a pretext to escalate the violence.

At this point, the film addresses the direct involvement of U.S. politicians and diplomats. Throughout the crisis, American politicians visited Maidan, as both Republicans and Democrats, such as Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut. stirred up the crowds. Yanukovych also said he was in phone contact with Vice President Joe Biden, who he claims was misleading him about how to handle the crisis.

The film points out that the real center of American influence in the Kiev demonstrations was with Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland. As Parry points out, although Nuland was serving under President Obama, her allegiances were really with the neoconservative movement, most associated with the Republican Party.

Her husband is Robert Kagan, who worked as a State Department propagandist on the Central American wars in the 1980s and was the co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the 1990s, the group that organized political and media pressure for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Kagan also was McCain’s foreign policy adviser in the 2008 presidential election (although he threw his support behind Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race).

Adept Manipulators

As Parry explained, the neoconservatives have become quite adept at disguising their true aims and have powerful allies in the mainstream press. This combination has allowed them to push the foreign policy debate to such extremes that, when anyone objects, they can be branded a Putin or Yanukovych “apologist.”

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Thus, Pyatt’s frequent meetings with the demonstrators in the embassy and Nuland’s handing out cookies to protesters in the Maidan were not criticized as American interference in a sovereign state, but were praised as “promoting democracy” abroad. However, as the Maidan crisis escalated, Ukrainian ultra-nationalists moved to the front, intensifying their attacks on police. Many of these extremists were disciples of Bandera and Lebed. By February 2014, they were armed with shotguns and rapid-fire handguns.

On Feb. 20, 2014, a mysterious sniper, apparently firing from a building controlled by the Right Sektor, shot both police and protesters, touching off a day of violence that left about 14 police and some 70 protesters dead.

With Kiev slipping out of control, Yanukovich was forced to negotiate with representatives from France, Poland and Germany. On Feb. 21, he agreed to schedule early elections and to accept reduced powers. At the urging of Vice President Biden, Yanukovych also pulled back the police.

But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.

On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”

Calling a Coup a Coup

But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin in Kyiv, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016.[State Department Photo)

Not everyone in Ukraine agreed with the new regime, however. Crimea, which had voted heavily for Yanukovych, decided to hold a referendum on whether to split from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. The results of the referendum were overwhelming. Some 96 percent of Crimeans voted to unite with Russia. Russian troops – previously stationed in Crimea under the Sevastopol naval base agreement – provided security against Right Sektor and other Ukrainian forces moving against the Crimean secession, but there was no evidence of Russian troops intimidating voters or controlling the elections. The Russian government then accepted the reunification with Crimea, which had historically been part of Russia dating back hundreds of years.

Two eastern provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk, also wanted to split off from Ukraine and also conducted a referendum in support of that move. But Putin would not agree to the request from the two provinces, which instead declared their own independence, a move that the new government in Kiev denounced as illegal. The Kiev regime also deemed the insurgents “terrorists” and launched an “anti-terrorism operation” to crush the resistance. Ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi militias, such as the Azov Battalion, took the lead in the bloody fighting.

Anti-coup demonstrations also broke out in the city of Odessa to the south. Ukrainian nationalist leader Andrei Parubiy went to Odessa, and two days later, on May 2, 2014, his street fighters attacked the demonstrators, driving them into the Trade Union building, which was then set on fire. Forty-two people were killed, some of whom jumped to their deaths.

‘Other Side of the Story’

If the film just got across this “other side of the story,” it would provide a valuable contribution since most of this information has been ignored or distorted by the West’s mainstream media, which simply blames the Ukraine crisis on Vladimir Putin. But in addition to the fine work by scenarist Vanessa Dean, the direction by Igor Lopatonok and the editing by Alexis Chavez are extraordinarily skillful and supple.

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)

The 15-minute prologue, where the information about the Nazi collaboration by Bandera and Lebed is introduced, is an exceptional piece of filmmaking. It moves at a quick pace, utilizing rapid cutting and also split screens to depict photographs and statistics simultaneously. Lopatonok also uses interactive graphics throughout to transmit information in a visual and demonstrative manner.

Stone’s interviews with Putin and Yanukovych are also quite newsworthy, presenting a side of these demonized foreign leaders that has been absent in the propagandistic Western media.

Though about two hours long, the picture has a headlong tempo to it. If anything, it needed to slow down at points since such a large amount of information is being communicated. On the other hand, it’s a pleasure to watch a documentary that is so intelligently written, and yet so remarkably well made.

When the film ends, the enduring message is similar to those posed by the American interventions in Vietnam and Iraq. How could the State Department know so little about what it was about to unleash, given Ukraine’s deep historical divisions and the risk of an escalating conflict with nuclear-armed Russia?

In Vietnam, Americans knew little about the country’s decades-long struggle of the peasantry to be free from French and Japanese colonialism. Somehow, America was going to win their hearts and minds and create a Western-style “democracy” when many Vietnamese simply saw the extension of foreign imperialism.

In Iraq, President George W. Bush and his coterie of neocons was going to oust Saddam Hussein and create a Western-style democracy in the Middle East, except that Bush didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Moslems and how Iraq was likely to split over sectarian rivalries and screw up his expectations.

Similarly, the message of Ukraine on Fire is that short-sighted, ambitious and ideological officials – unchecked by their superiors – created something even worse than what existed. While high-level corruption persists today in Ukraine and may be even worse than before, the conditions of average Ukrainians have deteriorated.

And, the Ukraine conflict has reignited the Cold War by moving Western geopolitical forces onto Russia’s most sensitive frontier, which, as scholar Joshua Shifrinson has noted, violates a pledge made by Secretary of State James Baker in February 1990 as the Soviet Union peacefully accepted the collapse of its military influence in East Germany and eastern Europe. (Los Angeles Times, 5/30/ 2016)

This film also reminds us that what happened in Ukraine was a bipartisan effort. It was begun under George W. Bush and completed under Barack Obama. As Oliver Stone noted in the discussion that followed the film’s premiere in Los Angeles, the U.S. painfully needs some new leadership reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, people who understand how America’s geopolitical ambitions must be tempered by on-the-ground realities and the broader needs of humanity to be freed from the dangers of all-out war.

How Muslims saved jews during the Nazi occupation of Paris

The Great Mosque of Paris that saved Jews during the Holocaust

Stop Everything You Do and Listen to this Rabbi!!!

Is he a ‘holocaust denier or a truth seeker? I let you judge

Judea Declares War on Trump

November 09, 2016  /  Gilad Atzmon

Introduction by GA:

Back in 1933, long before Hitler imposed a single restriction on German Jews, the leaders of worldwide Jewry declared a war on  Hitler’s Germany. Some argue that the German animosity towards Jews in the 1930’s, that led to the Holocaust, cannot be realised without taking into consideration the Judea war against Germany.

Seemingly some Jews never learn the lesson. Performing the symptoms of  Pre Traumatic Stress disorder the Jewish Chronicle is already at war with the next American president.  



The JC Leader: Trump Triumphant. So What Now?

By Leader, November 9, 2016

It is not an accusation, merely a statement of fact, to describe Donald Trump as a racist, misogynist bully. That such a man can be elected as President of the United States is deeply chilling.

For Jews, there is one specific aspect of his ascendency that is so worrying. His campaign was self-consciously antisemitic. One of his main themes was that a global elite was conspiring against ordinary Americans. This is not only a classic antisemitic meme; the examples cited by Mr Trump were all – every one of them – Jewish, such as George Soros and the President of the Federal Reserve. Anyone who denies this element to Mr Trump’s campaign is living in a self-deluded fantasy.

Fantasy may be an apposite word. Perhaps the past few decades, when the US preserved a global order that destroyed prejudice rather than cementing it, was merely a short-lived fantasy.

With our history, that is a desperate prospect.

Many of us have always looked to the US as a beacon of freedom. When the Third Reich looked unstoppable and Britain stood alone, it was the US that then sacrificed so many of its sons to defeat the Nazis. In the Cold War it was the US, through Nato, that ensured the Soviet Union was held in check. And in recent years Nato has helped preserve the long-delayed freedom of Eastern Europe from the Warsaw Pact.

All that is now threatened. Mr Trump cites Vladimir Putin as a role model and believes Nato no longer has a purpose. The message is clear: far from standing up to an aggressive tyrant, he will willingly acquiesce in that aggression.

For Jews, these are worrying times. We have already been scapegoated by Mr Trump, so it is no supposition to suggest that worse may be to come. History shows that when bullies take charge, they turn on the Jews.

Hitler, Hillary, and the Media

Posted on October 30, 2016

Figuring out who the latest Hitler is can sometimes be a challenge. Some people think it’s Hillary Clinton. Hillary, for her own part, believes its Vladimir Putin; and the media are stridently trying to convince us that the new Hitler is Donald Trump. But the media don’t have many fans today–either on the right, where they are referred to disparagingly as “the liberal media,” or the left, for which the words “mainstream media” have become a supreme insult comparable to calling someone an ignoramus and the offspring of a lipstick-wearing sow–and the more they trash Trump, the more admirers the media win for him.

Of course, the Nazis lost the war, and history is always written by the victors, which means some of the Hitler analogies we’re hearing today may be a little off the mark. Maybe even a lot off the mark. But here, to try and make proper sense of it all, are two Swedish radio hosts.

​Ernst Nolte-The Last German

In his book Heidegger and the Jews, the French philosopher François Léotard contends that history may promise to narrate the past, but what it does instead is conceal our collective shame. American history conceals slavery and genocidal American militancy, Brits attempt to cover their imperial crimes and Jewish history covers the astonishing fact that Jews are uniquely skilled in bringing disasters on themselves. The real historian, according to Léotard, is the one who unveils the shame and exposes it to the light. The real historian is a philosopher – an essentialist who introduces logos to an epoch that initially conveys itself as ‘irrational.’  Like a psychoanalyst, the real historian removes layer after layer of repressed shame aspiring toward reason, coherence and the truth.

Professor Ernst Nolte, who died last Thursday (93), was a real historian. This makes sense, during the Second World War, Nolte was a student of the great Martin Heidegger.

Nolte was probably the first post war academic to break taboos against equating Nazism with Bolshevism. He was immediately denounced by the conventional academic institutions as an ‘apologist for Hitler’ and a ‘Holocaust denier.’ However, most of Nolte’s findings that were revolutionary in the 1960-80s are now accepted by most historians as a valid understanding of German National Socialism.

Nolte, found himself in a ferocious battle with the academic establishment in 1986 for suggesting that the Germans’ inclination towards National Socialism was a natural response to the ‘existential threat’ posed by Bolshevism.  He also compared Hitler’s brutality towards Jews and other minorities with Stalin’s mass killings. Nolte was correct that Stalin’s brutality towards mass populations predated Hitler’s oppressive measures towards people he identified as enemies of the state.  “Did the ‘Gulag Archipelago’ not exist before Auschwitz?”  Nolte asked in his 1986 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) article.

Nolte attempted to examine German shame in a search for logos in German modern history. In fact, that logos is more relevant now than ever. Nolte realised in the 1960s that fascism was the great anti-movement: it was anti-liberal, anti-communist, anti-capitalist, and anti-bourgeois. It opposed modernity. It is Nolte’s inclination towards logos in understanding fascism that helps us interpret the popularity of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump.  Both men are regarded by their followers as a counter force to the mommonite/oligarch establishment.

Unlike Wilhelm Riech and the Frankfurt School enthusiasts who came to the ludicrous conclusion that Germans favoured National Socialism over Marxist revolution because they were ‘sexually repressed’ and inclined towards authoritarianism, Nolte bravely revisited the past and discovered that it made a lot more sense than most of us were willing to admit at the time.

As one might predict, being a real historian didn’t make Nolte’s life easy. Immediately after the publication of his FAZ article he became subject to an orchestrated onslaught led by Jewish academics and others.  One of Nolte’s bitterest enemies in Germany was the notorious Frankfurt School shabbos goy Jürgen Habermas who accused Nolte of “grossly apologetic tendencies.” If history were left to Habermas and his Frankfurt School idols we would still blame German sexual repression for WWII and the rise of Hitler.

Professor Nolte wasn’t an admirer of Hitler.  He consistently condemned Nazism. However, Nolte did react with interest to Fred Leuchter and Germar Rudolf ‘s reports that questioned the scientific possibility of the homicidal use of the gas chambers in Auschwitz.  If history is there to narrate the past, such a narrative must evolve and shift as time passes, more facts come to light and we can reconsider what happened and rewrite the past accordingly.

The real historian is a person who transcends temporality and introduces rationality where it has been lacking. Nolte replaced the absurd notion of ‘collective authoritarian psychosis’ with historicity. He did it all by essentialism. Thus, Nolte, the real German Historian was quicker than others to see Israel for what it is.  In his 1991 book “Historical Thinking in the 20th Century,” he referred to Israel as an“extraordinary state” and warned that it could become fascist and commit genocide against Palestinians.

To his last day Professor Nolte was unrepentant, he said what he believed to be true.

Emigre Super Bloc – Clinton’s Jihadis | Will the Super Delegates Vote YES to More Terrorism?

July 19, 2016

by GH Eliason

Emigre Super Bloc – Clinton’s Jihadis | Will the Super Delegates Vote YES to More Terrorism?By the end of this section, you will understand Islamic terrorism better than most analysts. Where it came from, where it’s going,who’s driving it there will be to a large degree answered. The background detail makes this poignantly clear.

Can we trust American politicians that already know these things, like the idea of them, and throughout the primary cast their superdelegate vote to make sure terrorism becomes a fixture in our world? How about in our own country?

Can we trust “party delegates” or presidential candidates that openly welcome known terrorists to their presidential conventions as honored guests, bomb innocent people for them, and give a green light to genocide and breaking federal laws because their bloc votes and money elect the next president?

Will the “Super Delegates” vote YES to more terror against Americans and the world? What am I talking about?

Come on, we’ve all heard of the Albanian power bloc vote haven’t we? Albania is sometimes known as America’s 51st state and boy do they take the elections seriously. Their bloc vote concentrated in a few geographic areas makes a big impact.

“...will be seeking to convince more than 400,000 Albanian Americans to vote for the Illinois senator…The Albanian American community lives in states such as New York, Massachusetts, Florida and Michigan, and the candidates are not leaving anything to chance considering that the 2000 presidential elections were decided by only 561 ballots from Florida.
Today according to their representative lobby, the AACL, that number has increased to 750,000 bloc voters in those four states and California. Who are the Albanians?

In their own words the AACL “has been devoted to educating the public, the press, and the parliaments of the world about the unique role that Albanians played in rescuing every Jew who either lived in Albania or sought asylum there during the Nazi Holocaust.”

This is at first glance quite literally amazing! A little country which today has a population of 2.7 million people gave Jewish refugees asylum while under Nazi SS occupation and said no to Adolf Hitler. Ukraine, France, and Poland could learn a lot here.

Benjamin Netanyahu pointed out that “Albania was the only country in Europe where the Jewish population after World War II was greater than it was before the war. He goes on further to say Our(Israel and Albania) friendship goes back to Albania protecting Jews from Nazis.”

Is this the one democratic, freedom-loving, and humanitarian state in Europe that single-handedly stopped the holocaust inside its borders?

As the sometimes maligned and often inebriated poet Thin-Head Pete once said; “Geowgey, my spidey senses is tingling on dis!!

What Benjamin Netanyahu is describing as a basis of friendship gets truly bizarre. It turns out the Albanians had nothing to do with saving the Jews in Albania during WWII. Adolf Hitler’s policy did. Hitler parsed between some of the nationalities of Jewish peoples.

The Nazis made sure, with few exceptions, that the Nuremberg laws could be applied only to Jews, not to those other Semites, the Arabs, nor to Turks and Persians—which paradoxically allowed certain communities of Jews in Muslim regions to also survive the Shoah [ like Jews in Albania!]. -THE NAZI ROMANCE WITH ISLAM HAS SOME LESSONS FOR THE UNITED STATES-By David Mikics -Tablet Mag-Jewish Arts and Culture

Is Netanyahu and Israel a friend to or supporter of Adolf Hitler because Hitler stopped the Holocaust in Albania? Of course not. But if the Albanians weren’t killing the Jews in Albania, or keeping them alive, what were they doing during WWII?

They were part of Waffen SS Battalions that were considered some of the most proficient torture and killing machines of WWII. They were the Albanian Skenderbeg Division (also known as the 1st Albanian) which was part of the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian).

The Albanian Skenderbeg Division as part of the SS Handschar was led by the Ustase, who were the most vile killers of WWII. The Ustase made the Bandera look outright friendly.

While the 1st Albanian didn’t kill the Jewish population on this scale in Albania, Mr. Netanyahu, their murder of Serbians was on a scale that for the country’s population size almost dwarfs the Jewish Holocaust and the Polish combined. And they never answered for it. Thank you very much!

The Albanian Skenderbeg Division didn’t kill Jews in Albania because of Hitler’s orders (yes, it’s bizarre as hell), but they made up for it across the rest of the Balkans!

Before the Second World War, between 1,400,000 and 1,800,000 Jews lived in the Balkan states. During the wartime period of Nazi German control, between 750,000 and 950,000 of these people were killed.” Twenty-Five Lectures on Modern Balkan History- Lecture 19: The traditional regimes and the challenge of Nazism: Collaboration vs. resistance

Is Benjamin Netanyahu aware of all this? You can bet your Yarmulke on it. The explanation is as simple as answering “why Israel never went after the rest of the CEE emigres or nations for reparations or justice because of their involvement in the Holocaust?”

Directly after WWII the US started pivoting into the Cold War and wanted dedicated political soldiers driving the debate back home and gathering intel on the new front. While the following quote specifically mentions the Baltic SS, it held true for the rest of the CEE Waffen SS soldiers. The fallout from this was almost 1 million +- Waffen SS and Axis soldiers emigrated to the US and started driving foreign policy after finding a political leader they could get behind in Senator Joseph McCarthy. Madison, Wilson, and East Central European Federalism-A Dissertation submitted to The Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati 2006 by Jonathan H. Levy

The text of the resolution of the United States Displaced Persons Commission stated that “the Baltic Waffen S.S. Units (Baltic Legions) are to be considered as separate and distinct in purpose, ideology, activities, and qualifications for membership from the German S.S. and therefore the Commission holds them not to be a movement hostile to the Government of the United States under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, as amended” (Ezergailis, 2005: 64).” footnote 31 The Secret Nazi Network -Ieva Zake

The official Jewish view held up US policy to sweep the CEE crimes against humanity under the rug. This was made clear during the John Demanjuk trial.

“Māris Mantenieks also remembers that:

The American Jewish Committee did not participate in this diatribe against the Eastern Europeans. In fact the Cleveland Chapter, under Dr. Martin Plax, called together the leaders of the Baltic and Ukrainian community during Demanjuk’s trial and tried to sooth the built-up resentment between the Jewish and Eastern European people. He explained the Committee’s position that the accusations and trials are of no benefit to either side”” –Did the U.S. Recruit Nazi War Criminals?The Commentary 85, no. 6: 50-53.-The Secret Nazi Network -Ieva Zake

The best question is what do I mean by crimes against humanity?

Albanian prime minister Mustafa Kruja, in a June, 1942 speech made in Kosovo, then called the “New Albania”, stated:The Serbian population of Kosovo should be removed as soon as possible…All indigenous Serbs should be qualified as colonists and as such, via the Albanian and Italian government, be sent to concentration camps in Albania. Serbian settlers should be killed…Ferat-bey Draga, a prominent Kosovo Albanian leader, stated that the “time has come to exterminate the Serbs” and that “there will be no Serbs under the Kosovo sun.””

What the Albanian, Bosnian, and Croatian Waffen SS did under the Ustase leadership to the Serb population in Kosovo and across the Balkans, they also did to the Jews across the Balkans except in Albania. That’s good, right? There were approximately 200 Jews in Albania before WWII. So according to Benjamin Netanyahu, we know that there were at least 201 after the war.

The problem is that the Albanian Nazi’s or nationalists remained nationalists and like many of the US emigres, brought their succeeding generations up to hold the same political thought.

The Germans surrendered in 1945, but the remnants of the Kosovo Albanian Nazi and fascist groups continued fighting the Yugoslav government for six years, with a major rebellion from 1945 to 1948 in the Drenica region. (Drenica was the hotbed for KLA recruiting in 1998-99). That rebellion was under the command of Shabhan Paluzha; it is called the Shabhan Paluzha rebellion. Sporadic violence continued until 1951. It is literally true to say that the last shots of World War II were fired in Kosovo.”-  The roots of Kosovo fascism George Thompson 

Albanian resistance began as early as April 1981, just after the death of Tito. Dissident Albanians encouraged violence against the Serbs, including the damaging of their factories” (Carnegie, 1999). The Milosevic-led crackdown against the terrorist organization known as the Kosovo Liberation Army(KLA) was not criticized initially because even the U.S. State Department recognized it as a terrorist organization because of its attacks on Serbian police, military, and civilians (Seper, 1999).Carnegie observes that NATO spokesman Jamie Shea “…regularly said that NATO would not ‘condone’ the KLA’s rebel actions in Kosovo” (Carnegie, 1999).”-Global Security Studies, Fall 2010, Volume l, Issue 3 NATO and the KLA: How the West Encouraged Terrorism John R. Fulton

Fulton goes further by pointing out that the humanitarian intervention policies in the 1990’s encouraged separatist by “instilling the belief in separatist movements that they could use terrorism to initiate a conflict inside a state and the United States would come to the rescue. The intervention in Bosnia paved the way for Kosovo, Albanian terrorism in Serbia, Macedonia, and the war in Chechnya. Lastly, he notes that the majority of recipients for said interventions were Islamic radicals.

Why The Clinton Government Has A Love Affair With Islamist Terrorists

During WWII, Adolf Hitler’s Germany started a love affair with Islam. Why, you ask? Starting just before the turn of the century Prometheanism got its start in Central and Eastern Europe. Prometheanism is the adoption of nationalism as a prophylactic against the influence of Imperial Russia and later the Soviet Union. It was felt that ultra-national populations would reject this influence.

One of the regional groups was the Oriental or Middle Eastern Prometheans. Adolf Hitler’s interest came from the idea that Islam was monolithic. If he could gain respected Islamic scholars, Hitler could win over the Islamic world to nationalism. If he could make that happen, his armies would quadruple in size overnight, based on a few fatwas(Islamic court rulings). Other than the success he had in the Balkans, for the most part, he failed. The US saw this and it simmered on the back burner of foreign policy for almost 40 years.

Weaponizing Islam has often been a temptation for the United States, just as it was for Germany. In its battle against Moscow, Washington recruited Islamic leaders after WWII, most famously Said Ramadan, a major figure [Founder] in the Muslim Brotherhood. The United States even smiled on Saudi Arabia’s funding of radical Islamist organizations, hoping that religion would serve as a bulwark against Soviet Communism.”  THE NAZI ROMANCE WITH ISLAM HAS SOME LESSONS FOR THE UNITED STATES – David Mikics

From the folds of the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda was born. Ayman al-Zawahiri is a former leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt where it was founded. In 2009, the Muslim Brotherhood was studied to see what kind of partner they could be to the western world. What they found in Africa was that the “Brotherhood” wasn’t a Muslim organization. In fact, it operated under so many auspices that they often didn’t recognize each other. This is important because the Brotherhood is primarily a Promethean nationalist political organization. –The Muslim Brotherhood in the Wider Horn of Africa Stig Jarle Hansen and Atle Mesøy 2009

In an article titled “Terror, Islam and Democracy,” Ladan and Roya Boroumand state that “Most young Islamist cadres today are the direct intellectual and spiritual heirs of the Qutbist wing of the Muslim Brotherhood.” And further, “When the authoritarian regime of President Gamel Abdel Nasser suppressed the Muslim Brothers in 1954 (it would eventually get around to hanging Qutb in 1966), many went into exile in Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Syria and Morocco. From there, they spread their revolutionary Islamist ideas – including the organizational and ideological tools borrowed from European totalitarianism.”

In a conference on Post-war fascism, John Reilly notes that today’s Islamist terrorists are fascists, not Muslims. They have an easier time quoting fascist philosophy than they have quoting tenets of their supposed religion. – After the Third Age Eschatological Elements of Postwar International Fascism , presented by Professor John Reilly at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Center for Millennial Studies, Boston University, November 2 to 4, 2002

The Muslim Brotherhood is and has always been an ultra-nationalist and fascist organization. Almost every terrorist organization that calls itself Islamic is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood from Al Qaeda to IGIL. The United States policy for supporting them has never changed. It has always been about setting up another wall and another proxy in the fight against the Soviet Union and now Russia.

All through the Arab Spring, who was the recipient of US support? From Egypt to Yemen, to Libya, and across the board it was the Muslim Brotherhood and “Al Qaeda” elements. These elements went on and formed IGIL. The purpose is to light a fire under the Russian Federation and help with its dissolution.

If this is the case, I had better be able to tie the Muslim Brotherhood, Albania, and the Ukrainian Stepan Bandera’s OUNb together neatly with the presidency of Bill Clinton.

The Ukrainian- American OUNb sent fighters to Afghanistan to fight alongside Osama Bin Laden. The Ukrainian emigres sent fighters to the Balkans to fight against the Serbs. The Ukrainian OUNb fought in Chechnya against the Russians. According to Jonathan Levy, from the late 1940’s onward the OUNb absorbed every fascist group and fascist emigre group under it’s leadership. This included the Prometheans, which included the Muslim Brotherhood. -Madison, Wilson, and East Central European Federalism-A Dissertation submitted to The Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati 2006 by Jonathan H. Levy

This ties up what you didn’t know about Islamic terrorism. It was never the Muslims. It is always the fascists.

If the US can set up an Islamist state or put an existing state under control enough to play ball, they’ll get support. The Promethean states need to live up to the dual loyalty system.

“Yet Clinton had Madeline Albright invite the KLA for training sessions to the U.S. As top Clinton administration official James Foley said:

(W)e believe that we have a lot of advice and a lot of help that we can provide to them if they become precisely the kind of political actor we would like to see them become.”

The Clinton support of Hitler nationalists went across the Balkans and included the replacement Ustase nationalists in Croatia. The American-Balkan support is something Hillary Clinton can count on.

Now the money isn’t coming just from the hyphenated-Americans, its coming by buckets from the “old countries” themselves.

“”I just have contributed small amounts of money to Hillary’s campaign, but I still feel part of a political group that has proven to be one of the most successful in global politics,” Pata said. “

Clinton’s Kosovo The World War Redux and Rise of Clinton’s Jihadists!

Clinton’s Jihadists in America and Europe

Politically, the Albanians closest cousin, ally, and friend was and is Stepan Bandera’s Ukrainian OUNb and it’s successor groups. In 1992 they stepped into the presidential elections along with the other CEE groups to help the Balkan ultra-nationalists.

The breakup of the Soviet Union had a lot to do with the Balkan war which would follow. In 1991 George HW Bush gave what became known as the “Chicken-Kiev Speech.” This was in reaction to what was happening in Yugoslavia. He didn’t want the same situation in Ukraine.

Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. They will not aid those who promote a suicidal nationalism based upon ethnic hartred.”.. “Mr. Bush reportedly sought to clear his proposed speech on“expeditious” recognition of Ukraine with Gorbachev, …the former Soviet Union leader read him the riot-act — warning that Ukrainian independence would be “a catastrophe for the Union, for the Ukraine itself and for Russia, Europe and the world.” WILL BUSH’S DAWDLING ON UKRAINIAN RECOGNITION FURTHER FUEL CHANCES FOR A SOVIET CHRISTMAS COUP?- Frank Gaffney

As I have pointed out over and over, there were no suicidal nationalists in Ukraine in 1991. The Diaspora lamented that and recorded this fact in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine. The suicidal nationalism Bush warned against had to be imported from the Ukrainian-American Diaspora (OUNb) and the Ukrainian-Canadian Diaspora (OUNb). According to Bush policy, they were to be left out of the government and could not just step in as has been done by other Diasporas. Their wrath was quick and decisive.

From Ukraine Weekly-

Additional pressure on the White House was applied by the U.S. Senate, which passed a resolution calling for swift U.S. recognition of Ukraine, and by strongly Republican Ukrainian American lobby groups whose support of the Bush administration has become increasingly important as the president’s popularity is falling victim to economic recession…

…In last month’s heavily publicized Pennsylvania Senate race. Ukrainian and Baltic groups, protesting the administration’s attempts to prevent the break-up of the USSR, supported the Democratic candidate, Harris Wofford. This position contributed to the defeat of Dick Thornburgh, a former attorney general in the Bush administration….”The Ukrainian Weekly, December 8, 1991, No. 49, Vol. LIX

In a Ukraine Weekly interview with candidate Bill Clinton-“For the last 40 years, many Ukrainians have been supporters of the Republican Party. However, Mr. Bush severely damaged his relations with Ukrainians with his “Chicken Kiev” speech, and by his unwillingness to see Ukraine’s point of view in disputes with Russia. How will your party seek to secure the goodwill of voters concerned by this issue?” …

Clinton’s answer…

The Bush administration has had a spotty record abroad…including the president’s insulting warning against “suicidal nationalism” made before proindependence forces in Kiev in the summer of 1991 — and a failed economic record at home. We hope Ukrainian Americans will join our effort to put people first.” – Interview with Candidate Bill Clinton-Ukrainian Weekly Issue 43, 1992

In 1992 Bill Clinton was obviously elected President of the US. What you didn’t know was a large portion of his landslide came from the CEE vote. This was based on two promises. The first was to increase the size of NATO. The second was what threw the US into the Balkan war. Clinton said he wouldn’t insult suicidal-nationalists or interfere with the Diaspora. Within a few months, the US view of the Albanians changed from the following to outright support of terrorism and then a second time in the late 90’s with Kosovo.

True to their word the Clinton’s did not insult the suicidal-nationalists! They enabled the recreation of WWII Bosnian Nazi Waffen SS battalions and gave them air support.


During the Bosnian civil war of 1992-1995, the Bosnian Muslim government even recreated the Waffen SS Division Handschar by incorporating a unit entitled “Handzar Divizija” into the armed forces of the regime. The reformed “Handzar Divizija” was integrated into the ranks of the Bosnian Army and participated in offensive operations in central Bosnia. This blatant and arrogant revival of Bosnia’s Nazi past was contemptuously and brazenly done right under the noses of the U.S. and global media.”

During this period the Croatians received over $20 million in support for the war from the Diaspora. A good part of this went into illegal weapons purchases.

But some emigres also have attempted robbery and extortion to obtain money for Old World freedom fighters, while others have trafficked in illegal weapons and helped disseminate incendiary propaganda.

Last August, for example, a group of Croatian-Americans from Chicago–some linked to a terrorist group that hijacked U.S. airliners and planted bombs in airports a decade ago–tried to smuggle $20 million in arms from Miami and Phoenix to nationalist forces in the republic of Croatia, which seceded from Yugoslavia in June and was fighting the Serbian-led federal army. They were caught in a sting operation organized by the U.S. Customs Service.

Others have demanded money–$3,000 to $5,000 a clip–from fellow Croatian-Americans for the cause, according to customs officials. And three brothers are under investigation in Philadelphia for allegedly stealing more than $5 million in gold and gems for the benefit of their embattled cousins in Croatia.

The efforts of emigre extremists have troubling implications beyond the criminality of some of their actions. While virtually all New World emigres advocate democracy, they sometimes support nationalists of dubious commitment to democratic principles and minority rights, including former Communist overlords and even ex-Nazis. Some seek to justify old causes and conflicts that have little to do with their new lives or those of their children in North America, and they perpetuate ethnic animosities and religious bigotry that echo from an older age.

These separatists want to prove they were right 50 years ago, and they try to pass the mythology on to their kids–like American Jews did about Israel–that things will be perfect when independence comes,” Beharka says. “It’s so sad–they have this great land here, and in Canada, but here they are still fighting old fights.” Emigres Fuel Old Hatreds : While Slovaks and Croats in North America mostly engage in legitimate fund-raising for their causes, there also have been cases of extortion and illegal weapons trade. Los Angeles Times February 1992 Robert Toth

What did the Croatian-American emigres get out of this? In the 1994 elections, the diaspora received 12-14 seats in the Croatian Parliament. That is a much larger share than any of the Croatian population. Thanks to the Clintons, Croatian-America which is post WWII Ustasha SS and their children decide Croatian politics.


The United States special envoy to the Balkans, Robert Gelbard, held talks on Friday with two men who claim they are political leaders of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). But only a few months ago Ambassador Gelbard described the KLA as a terrorist organisation.

“I know a terrorist when I see one and these men are terrorists,” he said earlier this year.-World: Europe -The KLA – terrorists or freedom fighters?”  June 28, 1998 BBC News

Within a short time, Bill Clinton would again shift US policy to support the ethnic ultra-nationalist Albanian terrorists and support the genocide they were pursuing on the Serbian people. And it didn’t stop there. Because the US Government gave a state to genocidal KLA terrorists, the precedent has been reverberating throughout the terrorist world since then.

All that changed after the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, however. March 24th, 1999 signaled the start of NATO operations against Yugoslavia and the first time NATO had defied the UN Security Council and openly supported a terrorist organization. The significance of the occasion was not lost on Chechen terrorists who renewed the war with Russia approximately one month after NATO successfully stole a part of Yugoslavia and handed it to ethnic Albanian terrorists. Grau and Kipp observe, “The NATO intervention in Kosovo, which bolstered the separatist Kosovo Liberation Army, disheartened the Russians and emboldened the Chechens. In August 1999, the Chechen military… led formations into Dagestan to ignite an Islamic insurgency” (Grau, Kipp, 2000). Arguably, the Chechen terrorists believed that the United States and its allies would step in on their behalf after witnessing how they went to war with Yugoslavia and opted to side with Muslim terrorists and separatists who had ties to international terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda.”NATO and the KLA: How the West Encouraged Terrorism Global Security Studies, Fall 2010, Volume l, Issue 3 John R. Fulton

According to Global Research “The “liberation” of Kosovo unleashed radical Islamism in Europe. Kosovo is Clinton Country: a 10-foot-high statue of Bill overlooks “Bill Cliton Boulevard” in the capital city of Pristina…As Gail Sheenhy pointed out  in her biography of Hillary, it was Mrs. Clinton who hectored her husband into bowing to a chorus of neoconservative and liberal interventionist voices and finally giving the order to bomb the former Yugoslavia. Traveling to Kosovo when Serbs in the northern part of the country were demanding some form of local autonomy to stave off violent attacks by Kosovar ultra-nationalists…The Clintonian legacy of enabling Islamist terrorists extends to present day Kosovo, where the New York Times has revealed an extensive network of ISIS-affiliated madrassas – indoctrination centers – funded by the Saudis, the Qataris, and the Kuwaitis. The Times report…”

Mr. Netanyahu must be proud. He can go to a Holocaust memorial in the morning and open ICC proceedings against the same state in the afternoon because his friends killed Serbs in Albania and only killed Jews outside their border. I’m overwhelmed by the magnitude of this cynicism. But it goes on.

Congressman Eliot Engel, a New York Democrat, who is America’s foremost politician on Albanian affairs…has long been concerned about Albanians wherever they live: be it in Kosovo, Montenegro, Macedonia, or Albania itself…He observes that if Bill Clinton can be “the first African-American president,” he, Engel, ought to be the first Albanian-American congressman.

Congressman Engel, a by-product of OUNb-American upbringing sees this Ukrainian nationalist twin in the Balkans as the kind of country the US should invest itself in. The Albanian nationalists have been under the OUNb auspice for over 40 years.

Among his more notable acts, Thaci is responsible for ethnic cleansing of over 90 Serb Villages and towns. A Council of Europe report accuses Mr Thaci of overseeing a ‘mafia-like’ organised crime ring in the late Nineties, which engaged in assassinations, beatings, human organ trafficking and other serious crimes…the report took two years to compile, names Mr. Thaci as having exerted ‘violent control’ over the heroin trade in Kosovo during the last decade. Figures from his inner circle are accused of taking scores of Serbs captives across the border after the war with Serbia ended in 1999, where a number of them were murdered for their kidneys, which were sold on the black market.-”Mr Blair has some very bizarre friends, but a monster who traded in human body parts beats the lot” Steven Glover Daily Mail December 2010

In 1999 when President Clinton launched the second war in the Balkans it was under the pretense of stopping Slobodan Milosevic’s genocide against Albanians in the Serbian province of Kosovo. The United Nations later ruled that the alleged genocide never took place.

This support came even though Thaci and the KLM had murdered thousands before the war even began.

According to the Washington Times, Thaci’s KLA financed it’s activities trafficking heroin and cocaine into Western Europe. “KLA finances fight with heroin sales – Terror group is linked to crime network”; Jerry Seper. Washington Times, Washington, D.C.: May 3, 1999. pg. A.1

The KLA was also supported by illegal weapons purchases through humanitarian groups like WAR CHILD. Grey Carter makes a case for war crime prosecution in an article entitled-‘War Child’ involved with arms lobby – that makes the Dutch princess a war criminal”which details the criminal conspiracy.

Most of the KLA funding for the genocide came from the Diaspora in the USA and the UK.

“For me, my family and my fellow Americans this is more than a foreign policy issue, it is personal,” Clinton stressed.

I’m not accusing Hillary Clinton of a lack of judgment in this situation. Her judgment is clear. Hillary Clinton supports organ selling, drug trafficking, genocidal Islamists that revive Waffen SS battalions in return for their support at the ballot box. Her judgment put the USA at odds with the United Nations which ruled that Kosovo was a part of Serbia and the KLA were, in fact, terrorists. Clinton put her personal belief that supporting genocide in the Balkans had more merit than good foreign policy.

Kerry, Kosovo, the KLA, and the 2004 Democratic Convention

“Mr. Kerry addressed a much longer and politically binding message to the Albanian-American community (July 23, 2004) in which he said he was proud to receive support from Albanians, promised to tackle the final status of Kosovo immediately, and attacked the Bush administration for “turning its back” on the region:

The people of Kosovo must be able to determine their own future, including how they want to be governed . . . Continued delay which is all the Bush administration has offered hardens the positions of extremists on all sides . . . I will need your help in building the support we will need in Congress and with the American people to carry out this historic task . . . I am proud that we will, together, help make real the dream of Albanians, of Americans, of our alli …The KLA chief Hashim Thaci was subsequently invited to the Democratic National Convention, which in itself was scandalous.”Kerry’s Balkan Policy May Defeat Him Chronicles Magazine 14 October 2004 Srdja Trifkovic

Both John Kerry and the Clintons ignored UN Security Council Resolution 1244 to make Kosovo a part of “greater Albania” instead of an integral part of Serbia that it was ruled to be.

Throughout the 1990’s the proof is indisputable that Albania committed the Balkan genocide that was pinned on Serbia. In 2009, the US hammered Albania into NATO ascension. In 2014, the US hammered Albania for trying to normalize under its very violent form of nationalismCan you trust a nazi state?

In Kosovo today IGIL is quietly setting up training camps ahead of the US presidential elections. The war in Serbia will more than likely start directly after a Clinton win.

On the territory of Kosovo and Metohija, the local police detained three militants of so-called “Islamic State” (a terrorist organization banned in Russia), is going to organize a series of terrorist attacks in Serbia.” Terrorists LIH (IGIL) break through the Balkans to Western Europe March 2016

Does anyone care to explain why? Anyone?

We Came, We Saw, He Died

Noted earlier, the US government has been trying to use the same Islamist policy that Adolf Hitler pursued. If a unified state can be developed it can be used as a proxy to attack Russia and China. If jihadis and the proper political structure and be married in an Islamic state, it can also be controlled through emigre populations and direct support. How many soldiers will this force multiplier add?

The other side to it is within an Islamic State, political education and indoctrination can be carried out the same way as in Ukraine using the universities and children groups. This can be spilled across the borders into the Russia Federation and Muslim Chinese provinces.

The Arab spring was a failed attempt to marry jihadis to the supported political end which is the Muslim Brotherhood. The disaster called Libya armed and trained what would later become IGIL in Syria. The mistake Clinton made was thinking that Al Qaeda Libya wanted anything more than weapons.

We got to watch a stable country disintegrate and it’s leader sodomized with a knife as she made that statement. Was Muammar Ghaddafi the enemy of the United States? When Clinton’s jihadis attacked the embassy outpost and then the CIA installation we got the answer.

It was Gaddafi’s men Secretary of State Clinton tried to kill who rescued our people. We couldn’t make it??!! They were the only ones that came. Gaddafi’s Intelligence Service and military were the only ones that helped.

How can hyphenated-Americans that commit genocide in other countries and put Americans at risk have a greater voice in government in the US than you do?

Will the delegates at the Democratic National Convention vote to continue this? Will they vote to help build a Jihadist Super State because emigres want to destroy Russia and China? Will you vote for this? Should these groups be defanged and kept from lobbying? Should Congressmen and Senators taking money from foreign governments acting against America’s interests be voted out of office?

I have wondered most of my life how the German people could have sat back and done nothing as their leader did horrible things. “We didn’t know about it,” I was told by Germans who lived in Germany at the time. I doubted them. However, now I’m seeing something disturbingly similar by an American leader, and we Americans are not even asking Presidential candidates questions about it.

I think I may owe those post-World War II German citizens an apology. Maybe they really didn’t know about it. Or, just maybe, they didn’t really WANT to know what was happening to their Jewish neighbors when they disappeared”.- Clinton made 1995 Ethnic Cleansing in Krajina Possible Hundreds of thousands of Serbs were driven from their homes, and up to 20,000 of them were kill– Mary Mostert Global Research


%d bloggers like this: