Reforming the EU – Like waiting for Godot!

Reforming the EU – Like waiting for Godot!

October 22, 2020

By Francis Lee for the Saker Blog

There is a human tendency to cling on to cherished beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There was a time, during the heady days of Jacques Delors and the Social Chapter, when the EU appeared to represent a social-democratic and neutral geopolitical bloc; a third force between the USSR as it then was and the US/NATO – this, however, is no longer the case. The EU has long since transmuted into part of an aggressive neo-liberal and neo-conservative imperial alliance under US command. The liberal, centre-left Remainers such as Yanis Varoufakis seem to think that it is possible to reverse this development and get the EU back to its original prototype, presumably by dint of political will. In view of historical developments this view seems increasingly difficult to sustain.

EU/NATO PUSHES EAST.

In particular since the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty of 2005 the EU Defence and Security Policy has been aligned with NATO. Indeed, EU membership has become a stalking horse for NATO membership and vice versa. NATO’s geopolitical drive to Russia’s western borders has been concurrent with the EU’s economic expansion – a strategic partnership between a military push and an economic push.

Not surprisingly perhaps the Russians see the siting of US anti-ballistic missile systems on their western borders in Romania and Poland, together with ongoing NATO military exercises involving tens of thousands of alliance troops as something of a provocation. Little wonder we now have a second cold war.

The position of the EU is, in geopolitical terms, completely subordinated to US interests. If there is a Russian-NATO conflict it will be fought on Europe’s turf not on America’s; Europe is ultimately expendable. This much can be inferred from facts on the ground, though this must be kept assiduously secret from the electorates of western Europe. Eastern Europe, however, seems only too willing to serve as the cannon-fodder for the US imperial designs; witness the incessant baying for war on the part of Russophobic states such as Poland and the Baltics, as well as NATO-EU wannabees like Ukraine and Georgia. It was precisely this expansion to the East (or new Europe as it was called by Donald Rumsfeld) which served as the essential prerequisite for the NATO takeover of the whole of Europe. The change has been noted:

EUROPE FROM LISBON TO VLADIVOSTOCK – AN IMPOSSIBLE DREAM.

‘’The destructive Russophobia of the new Europe undermined the credibility and cohesion of Europe as a whole. It had been anticipated that the new members’’ – Poland, the Baltics. etc. – would be ‘socialised’ into the ways of the EU, but, instead, the EU was in danger of reverse socialization incorporating the axiological (ethical – FL) dynamics and virulent neo-liberalism of some of the newer members, accompanied by their prioritisation of Atlantic Security over EU social solidarity.’’ (1)

In its original quasi-Gaullist form the EU might have played a constructive part in the Ukrainian crisis as a third party and disinterested broker between Russian and American interests, but by 2014 the EU had been transformed into something very different from its original configuration: it had become joined at the hip to the US imperial juggernaut. Moreover, the EU’s status in this relationship was subaltern rather than equal. It should be understood that the United States does not do ‘partnerships’ only master and flunkey slave relationships. It is further commented that:

‘’Instead of a vision embracing the whole continent it (the EU) it has become little more than the civilian wing of the Atlantic security alliance … The drift toward a merger with the Atlantic Security system left it bereft of autonomy and policy instruments when it really mattered – maintaining peace on the European continent.’’ (2)

COSTS IN EUROPE OF US FOREIGN POLICY

The terrorism and refugee crisis in Europe – the blowback – was unquestionably traceable to the US bull-in-a-china-shop foreign policy in the middle east, this much is obvious to even an impartial observer; but answering the call of duty the western media has strained every nerve and muscle in an attempt to deny what was a blatant fact. Terrorism and refugee flows were ripped out of the wider context in an attempt to obfuscate any causal connexions with these phenomena and US/EU/NATO foreign policy. The media propaganda tsunami notwithstanding the electorates of Europe were able to put 2 and 2 together, and this resulting in an ongoing political crisis in Europe which shows no signs of stabilization and, if anything, seems to be intensifying including the Brexit vote which committed the UK to leaving the EU, and, the electoral advances for the AfD in Germany as well as anti-EU sentiments which in Hungary and Poland has gained significant support from the population of those states. Propaganda and economic stagnation seems to have its limits; like Abe Lincoln said: ‘You can’t fool all of the people all of the time.’

So much for the geopolitics.

WASHINGTON CONSENSUS CROSSES THE POND

Perhaps as significant is the shift in economic policies and development which has taken place within the EU. Without doubt there has taken a sharp right turn since the 1980s.This policy consists of full-on neo-liberal economic and social imperatives involving the imbibing of a ruthless, winner-takes-all orthodoxy and its equally brutal imposition; Greece is perhaps the most egregious victim of this frugal economic diet, followed by Latvia, Estonia, Ireland, Portugal, Greece and even Italy, all of which are being forced into penury and debt-peonage courtesy of the Troika’s relentless austerity programme.

THE EURO – A NON-OPTIMAL CURRENCY WITHOUT A STATE.

Piling on the agony the creation of the Euro single currency (the key problem) since 1992 has put the Euro member states into an economic strait-jacket. The currency value cannot be changed or devalued to boost national exports during economic downturns such as that experienced since 2008. The result has been that the largest industrial power in the Eurozone, Germany, has benefited from the stable euro while weaker economies on the periphery of the EU, including most notably, France, have endured catastrophic consequences to the rigid Euro rate. The cost and productivity structures of Germany and the northern bloc in the EU, means that its goods will be cheaper than the higher costs and lower productivity levels in the southern belt. It follows therefore that the northern bloc runs permanent trade surpluses whilst the south has permanent trade deficits.

In a new report, the Dutch think-tank, Gefira Foundation, notes that French industry has been contracting since the adoption of the euro. “It was not able to recover after either of the 2001 or 2008 and present crisis because the euro, a currency stronger than the French franc would be, has become a burden to France’s economy. The floating exchange rate works like an indicator of the strength of the economy and like an automatic stabilizer. A weaker currency helps to regain competitiveness during a crisis, while a stronger currency supports consumption of foreign goods.

The only reason that the Germans were prepared to abandon their beloved deutschmark was that it would be replaced by a hard euro whose exchange rate was fixed and overvalued. The euro is an orphan, a currency without a state, and thus a foreign currency to all the European states in Europe.

EASTERN EUROPE:

TWO COLLAPSES. 1. COMMUNISM, 2. NEOLIBERAL CAPITALISM

The EU’s eastern periphery also has problems, but of a different kind. However only the Baltics, Slovenia and Slovakia actually use the euro. It is planned to include them into the euro in the fullness of time. Apart, that is, from basket cases like the Baltics whose government, unlike the people, went where angels feared to tread – into the Eurozone and the euro.

Excluding Russia, of course, these Eastern European states – termed ‘transitional economies’ – have become stalled in economic stagnation which so far has been difficult if not impossible to overcome. These obstacles have been specific to the Eastern periphery. The European Union now consists of 28 states. No fewer than 10 of these are former states of the Eastern Bloc, and this proportion is set to grow with the impending accession with some minor Balkan nations. Although Georgia and Ukraine are in line for membership of the EU, they are also expected to join NATO as has become customary for aspirant EU states.

Whether they obtain either is a matter of conjecture, however, as this would be almost certain to cross Russia’s red lines and result in a major geopolitical flareup. Europe’s centre of gravity is shifting. And while the process of joining the European Union is driving change within these countries, it is also changing the nature of Europe itself. Those Eastern European states which emerged from the break-up of the Soviet Union had been led to believe that a bright new world of West European living standards, enhanced pay levels, high rates of social mobility and consumption were on offer.

Unfortunately, they were sold an illusion: the result of the transition so far seems to have been the creation of a low-wage hinterland, a border economy on the fringes of the highly developed European core; a Euro version of NAFTA and the maquiladora, i.e., low tech, low wage, low skills production units on the Mexican side of the US’s southern borders. Moreover there are acute demographic problems confronting the ‘new Europe’.

Eastern Europe is bleeding people. With low fertility rates, higher death rates, and emigration. Case study:

‘’IN THE Lithuanian town of Panevezys, a shiny new factory built by Devold, a Norwegian clothing manufacturer, sits alone in the local free economic zone. The factory is unable to fill 40 of its jobs, an eighth of the total. That is not because workers in Panevezys are too picky, but because there are fewer and fewer of them. There are about half as many students in the municipality’s schools as there were a decade ago, says the mayor.

Such worries are increasingly common across central and eastern Europe, where birth rates are low and emigration rates high. The ex-communist countries that joined the European Union from 2004 dreamed of quickly transforming themselves into Germany or Britain. Instead, many of their workers transported themselves to Germany or Britain. Latvia’s working-age population has fallen by a quarter since 2000; a third of those who graduated from university between 2002 and 2009 had emigrated by 2014. Polls of Bulgarian medical students show that 80-90% plan to emigrate after graduating.

Lithuania’s loss of workers is costly, says Stasys Jakeliunas, an economist. Remittances and EU money for infrastructure upgrades have helped, but labour shortages discourage foreign investment and hurt economic growth. According to the IMF, in some countries in eastern Europe emigration shaved 0.6-0.9 percentage points from annual GDP growth in 1999-2014. By 2030 GDP per person in Bulgaria, Romania and some of the Baltic countries may be 3-4% lower than it would have been without emigration.

All of this imperils public finances. Pensions, which take up about half of social spending in eastern Europe, are the biggest worry. In 2013 Latvia had 3.3 working-age adults for each person older than 65, about the same as Britain and France; by 2030 that is projected to fall to just over two, a level Britain and France will not reach until 2060. Countries are raising the retirement age (apart from Poland, which is recklessly lowering it). Benefits are already meagre, leaving little room for cuts. As a share of GDP, social spending in Bulgaria, Romania and the Baltic states is roughly half of that in many richer European countries.

Unable to dissuade people from leaving, governments are trying instead to lure them back, inspired by successful efforts in Ireland and South Korea. Daumantas Simenas, project manager of the Panevezys free economic zone, credits his return from Britain to the country’s “Create for Lithuania” programme, which matches educated professionals from the diaspora with government jobs. Having a job already lined up made the decision to return easier, he says. Plus, he adds, “home is home.”

Whether such efforts can turn the tide seems doubtful. “Create for Lithuania” has brought back more than 100 people since its launch five years ago, says Milda Darguzaite, who started the programme after leaving an investment-banking career in America for a government post in Vilnius. Returnees include an MP, a deputy mayor and several advisers to the prime minister. Bringing back doctors and engineers, however, is trickier. Studies show that skilled workers from eastern Europe are attracted abroad primarily by the quality of institutions such as good schools; better social benefits matter more for unskilled migrants. Data on return migration are scanty, but a recent report by the IMF suggests it has been “modest”, in some countries as low as 5% of those who left.’’ (3)

In more general terms figures for Eastern and central Europe as a whole are as follows. With the exception of the Czech Republic and Slovakia and Russia, every eastern European country has a declining population. Population declines as follows from 2006 to 2018:

Latvia and Lithuania = 12%

Ukraine = 9%

Hungary = 8.5%

Romania = 7%

Bulgaria = 6%

Estonia = 1.5%

Poland = 0.3%

The comprador vassal elites on the wrong side of the Oder-Neisse Line have been caught in the trap of dependency and semi-development, and in some cases under-development, and this was partly of their own making due to their rush to throw themselves into the arms of the US-NATO-EU alliance and an expected pay-off/bribe. The only states to avoid this have been Czechia, Slovakia and Russia. In the Balkans the same devastating NATO coalition engineered the destruction and break-up of what was once the sovereign state of Yugoslavia.

Thus In both economic and foreign policy the European political and financial elites have acted as overseas branch managers of a multinational enterprise whose HQ is on the other side of the pond (the US) where policy is determined and exported. Quislingism might be an appropriate word in this context.

DEMOCRATIC DEFICIT – THE FINAL ACT.

Finally, we come to the democratic deficit. This is important since the only way that change is possible is through the EU institutions. In order of importance these institutions comprise 1. The Council of Ministers, 2. The European Central Bank, 3. The European Commission. The last of these institutions consists of a President, at present, Ursula Von der Leyen, and formerly, Jean-Claude Juncker, seven, Vice-Presidents, whose identities are not known to me, and twenty Commissioners, equally obscure. Juncker succinctly enunciated the process of EU’s decision making as follows: ‘’If it’s Yes, we will say on we go, and if it is a No, we will say we will continue.’’ So much for open and flexible debate on policy.

The Council of Ministers and the ECB also pull various levers, often in tandem with extra-European global institutions such as NATO, WTO and IMF. Of course there is absolutely no sign that the current policies of the EU are not continuing along their present reactionary trajectory; and since the electorates of the EU have no control of the Council of Ministers and ECB there seems no way to break into this closed system of rule by a technocratic oligarchy. Once again political unrest in Europe suggests a causal connexion between the nature of the EU’s political and economic structures and the policies and outcomes emanating thereof.

This is not the EU we (the UK) signed up to in 1976, and there comes a time in politics where it is judicious to give up flogging a dead horse. A ‘progressive’ Labour government – if such a political animal is possible – would not be allowed by EU law to implement its economic reforms, cancel Trident, leave or even modify its NATO membership. Democracy is impossible without some measure of sovereignty, and nations must get control of their own foreign and economic policies since if they don’t the globalisers and Bilderbergers will and have done. There is nothing wrong with a volte face in politics.

It was J.M. Keynes who once said: ‘’When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?’

NOTES

(1) Richard Sakwa – Frontline Ukraine.

(2) Sakwa, Ibid. pp.227/228)

(3) The Economist – 19/01/2017. It should be added that the Economist is very much the house journal of the British elite. Yet even they have their doubts about the Euro project.

Krampus is alive and well: How the myth of Soros paralyses the anti-imperialist struggle

Krampus is alive and well: How the myth of Soros paralyses the anti-imperialist struggle

June 27, 2020

By Ken Leslie for The Saker Blog

1. The making of a demon

Remember the days of your childhood—especially if you are German. If you even dream of being naughty or disobeying your elders and betters, Krampus will put you in his basket and take you to some swampy Germanic hell. Nothing will be heard from you ever again.

Krampus is a leftover from ancient pre-Christian times when he (and he is a he) consorted with witches and indulged in unspeakable acts with them. The idea of a horned demigod taking away and destroying that which is most precious survived all attempts at Christianising and remains to this day a well-known and dreaded member of the pantheon of early childhood monsters. The pedagogic value of Krampus is that he is so horrible looking and mean that the very mention of his name (frightening in itself) is enough to pacify the most recalcitrant toddler. He is a demon born at the dawn of time in a dark and cold Alpine redoubt with a single purpose—to frighten and torture naughty children. Many of us non-Germans knew of Krampus as children and although we had our own non-Germanic demons to defend against, somewhere far at the back of our minds, the Supreme Fear in the form of Krampus was just a few steps away.

How does the story of a scary childhood character relate to the present day? Am I being flippant in comparing a mythical demonic creature to a highly successful trader and philanthropist? Well, no. George Soros’s history of dirty deeds spanning decades and continents has been so destructive that he has created his own demonic myth within his lifetime. A mysterious character who refuses to shuffle his mortal coil and is kept in a semi-mummified semi-stasis by some miracle of “medical science” or another, Gyorgyi Schwartz of Budapest and a billionaire has become Krampus of our time. He is a demon of extreme power, cunning and devilry (he was called something not very dissimilar by Mahathir Mohammed). He is the eternal wanderer ever ready to profit from others’ misery who has been funding his destructive vision ever since the fall of the Soviet Union. He has become the synonym for a disruptive, meddling anti-national, neoliberal, “cosmopolitan” conspiracy. The point of these, allegedly, has been to weaken any indigenous patriotic forces in order to a) protect a particular group of people from possible persecution by diluting any nationalist urges and b) allow those same people to set the tone of the political discourse and capture the levers of power.

At the time, people marvelled at how someone can emerge from such obscurity to become a global player overnight—but like always, such success was ascribed to Soros’s genius and hard work.[1] Our modern-day Krampus has been compared to Jakob Schiff, the famous/notorious Jewish-American financier and philanthropist (word that is rapidly losing its positive connotation), whose anti-Russian animus found a fruitful outlet in financing all enemies of imperial Russia—from Japan to various ethnic nationalists and finally—and most importantly—the Bolsheviks. Another Schiff, the senator Adam, is the current torch bearer of Russophobia in US Congress. The analogy is mostly apt. While the target of Schiff’s wrath was mainly the Russian Empire, Soros has targeted both the dying Soviet Union and its capitalist successor.[2] He named his nebulous pseudo-philosophy “Open Society” (probably plagiarising another Russophobe—Karl Popper) as a counter to the still weak attempts by Russia to escape the death sentence handed down to it by the triumphant West. This was a time when prominent Soixante-huitards such as Joschka Fischer, Bernard Henry-Levy, Andre Glucksmann, Bernard Kushner, Alain Finkelkraut and other future war criminals ruled the European roost. These third-rate activists and intellectuals excelled in one thing only—hatred of Russia and Orthodox Christianity.

Soros wormed his way into the newly “liberated” countries via a network of well-funded “foundations”, “institutes”, “universities” and “human rights organisations”. In other words, Soros used a strategy known to all predators that aim to overrun a country. By pretending to care about the plight of refugees, minorities, LGBT population and generally—human rights—Soros undermined the self-governance of newly independent countries leaving them vulnerable to depredations by the US and EU intelligence-organised disruption operations. That Soros’s demonic project had nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with harming Russian interests is confirmed by the fact that he has targeted both socialist Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, and a capitalist Russia, funded anti-Russian forces all over the world (in Chechenia, Yugoslavia, Ukraine, EU, Africa, Middle East and USA) and fought a continuous ideological and cultural war against what he perceived as the menace of the rebirth of the Russian Empire.

He honed his destructive apparatus with the help of corrupt local politicians and quasi intellectuals. Offering grants, studentships and targeted subsidies to the members of national “elites” ready to betray their nations’ interests in exchange for participation in one of Soros’s fake “young leader seminars” or “human rights conferences”.

Here is a personal anecdote which demonstrates my long-term interest in Soros’s. In the mid-1990s, my wife wanted to do a PhD on the post-Soviet theatre in Eastern Europe and as part of a multi-country schedule, we visited an eastern European capital in 1996 and arranged an interview with the well-known “alternative” theatre practitioner and the then-director of the Soros-funded anti-government hub camouflaged as a cultural centre. The interview went well until my wife asked a question that I had inserted earlier—it was about Soros’s funding and support for the Centre’s anti-government activity. This is when things became interesting. The interviewee became irritated and suspicious and defended Soros’s meddling in Yugoslavia’s internal affairs by claiming unconvincingly he wasn’t involved in setting the editorial policy etc. Needless to say, the interview was terminated on the spot.

A detailed account of George Soros’s destructive crusade must await another time. What needs to be said is that Soros and his humanitarian hydra were behind a number of so-called colour revolutions—ritualised coups d’etat that resulted in bringing to power swaths of anti-Russian politicians and surrounding Russia with a ring of NATO satrapies (most of whom had been Nazi satrapies during WWII). One interesting detail is that Soros removed mainly moderate or left-leaning politicians and replaced them with anti-Russian nationalists. After many years of unconstrained criminality, rapine and harmful meddling, president Vladimir Putin decided to put a stop to Soros’s harmful activity at the moment when Russia was again existentially threatened by the West in 2015. “It was found that the activity of the Open Society Foundations and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation represents a threat to the foundations of the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and the security of the state,” a translated version of the press statement read. All Soros’s activities were banned in Russia and from that day on, Russia redoubled its efforts to become economically and politically independent of its enemies. The kicking out of Soros from Russia was seen in the West as another manifestation of Putin’s antisemitism when it was nothing of the sort.

President Putin correctly assessed the threat of Soros’s machinations and in one fell swoop rid his country of possibly the greatest threat to its security. After this epic defeat, Soros fought a rear-guard action by focussing on the emerging nationalist and populist governments such as that of Victor Orban in Hungary. Here also, Soros experienced a defeat—Orban proclaimed Soros a threat to national security and after an epic battle, closed down the so-called Central European University presided over by Michael Ignatieff, the notorious Russophobe. The two campuses in Budapest and Vienna were supposed to embody the discredited idea of Mittel Europa (Central Europe), that jewel in the Austro-Hungarian crown and motive power for any anti-Russian Drang. By closing down the Eastern lobe of the CEU, Orban has in a sense destroyed the Russophobic symbolism of Soros’s crowning achievement.[3]

As the power of the neocon/neolib forces in Europe weakened, Soros’s political projects lost more and more ground until they became largely irrelevant. Soros was so deeply compromised and so completely exposed as a predatory fraud and agent of dark powers that he ceased to be an important player in international affairs (despite his money and influence). Even the ever-vigilant “Nazi hunters” of ADL have found it difficult to defend him. His brand became toxic with the ascent of populist and alt-right politics in Europe and US. It could even be said that his own strategy (securing “cosmopolitan” interests by fighting nationalism) backfired—the alt-right rebellion was largely the reaction to the excesses of the Sorossian surge of the 1990s. So, what was the mummified billionaire to do now that the steppes of Russia were out of reach? He could have done “a Berezovsky” (I like where this is going) by writing a contrite letter to president Putin begging his forgiveness. Or he could have tried to repent for his evil deeds by pursuing real philanthropy. He chose neither but doubled down on political meddling under the guise of a (tainted) pseudo-humanist brand.

Thus, Soros’s name has (justifiably) become synonymous with evil liberal cosmopolitanism. This is definitively a positive development because it ensures that Soros (or his currently groomed descendants) can never cause as much damage as he did to Russia, Eastern Europe or Middle East. The other side of the medal is that any mention of a left-wing, progressive, social or racial justice cause, however valid, has been scarred by the mark of Sorro. And this I believe is Soros’s true legacy—providing the Empire with a permanent and unassailable excuse to discredit any genuine critique of and rebellion against the inhuman and inhumane neolib/neocon system.

2. Back in the USSA

After a brief phoney skirmish with the European alt-right, Soros shifted his attention to the United States where a new president was elected on a conservative, isolationist and anti-neocon agenda. Many people irrespective of persuasion, greeted Donald Trump’s election victory with relief if not elation. (it would be more correct to say that most right-thinking people hailed the defeat of the warmongering hag Hilary Clinton). The hope was that the United States would abandon its empire which has been destroying it and focus on recovering and rebuilding peacefully in co-operation with other great powers. Many well-meaning people from across the world sent their good wishes—after all, many of us carried a small piece of America in our heads and hearts.

Unfortunately, it transpired very soon that most of what Trump had promised his gullible voting base would never be carried out. Like ruthless Lucy van Pelt who fools Charlie Brown every time, the Deep State pulled the ball from a large basketful (or was it bucketful?) of deplorables and moved on with its plan to keep the dying Empire alive as long as possible (there is an analogy here with Soros, Rockefeller, Kissinger and Lord Rothschild who seem very reluctant to depart this world, haunting instead the corridors of power in the guise of liver-spotted spectral mummies and reminding the world that money can’t buy love but can certainly buy young bone marrow and stem cells). Instead of “draining the swamp”, Trump surrounded himself with right-wing neocons and Roman Catholic zealots and promptly set out to renege on all of his election promises.

Here, I shall only focus on Trump’s actions as they concern Russia and China. In an attempt to stem the accelerating exsanguination of the American empire, Trump declared a total war on Russia and China that has thus far involved: propaganda and psychological warfare, sanctions, threats, assassinations, mass arrests of Russian and Chinese citizens, sabotage, theft of diplomatic property, bombing Russia’s allies, commandeering of commercial assets and wealth, tariffs, support for coloured revolutions, McCarthyite witch hunts, an offensive against the Russian Orthodox Church and its allies, abrogation of all important international treaties regulating the deployment and monitoring of nuclear weapons, moving nuclear-capable missile bases close to Russian border, using India, Japan, Vietnam et al. as tools against China, weaponizing fascist fiefdoms in Eastern Europe and giving the Ukrainian zhidobandera (Judaeo-banderite) regime hundreds of millions of pounds of military aid, provoking China and Russia with large-scale military exercises and all kinds of military brinkmanship, trade war, weaponizing Hindu nationalism against China, approving extra funding for anti-Russian activities, expanding NATO, boosting Israel’s right-wing regime, strangling Venezuela, Bolivia and Cuba and almost provoking a war with Iran. Oh, fresh off the press—moving 10000 soldiers and dozens of aircraft from Germany to Poland. Did I miss anything?

To summarise, Trump has done everything in his power to bring the world shockingly close to an all-out conflict. None of his moves so far have been peace oriented except as cheap political stunts or admissions of defeat. It is not even about Trump. America has entered its terminal decay stage and any president worth their salt would do anything to slow down this process. Once it becomes clear that this cannot be achieved by peaceful means (e.g. investment in vast infrastructure projects a la New Deal), all that is left is war. And yet a large portion of the deluded blogosphere looks up to Trump as some kind of a saint whose idealism is constantly being thwarted by evil Democrats. The latter bunch of misfits are labelled “communists”, Marxists” etc. confirming beyond any reasonable doubt that the crude and uneducated American right is as stupid and as pernicious as its post-Trotskyite, warmongering “left”. Note that the so-called Democrats do not oppose any of the above crimes/transgressions and are even more strident in their Russophobia—if that were at all possible.

An often-heard argument used in the defence of Trump is that at least he hasn’t started a hot war with Russia (something they say, Hilary would have done without a doubt). But this argument falls flat straight away. Please re-read the above: Do you really think that Hilary would have been able to do more harm than Trump? If so, what—given Russia’s exceptional nuclear and non-nuclear arsenal that could turn America into a giant glass ashtray without so much as breaking a sweat? Second, one of the most destructive presidents in the US history (both for his country and the world), was a gaudy entertainer and a populist who brought the world to the brink of nuclear war without ever starting one (Grenada excepted). For the most part, the opposition to Trump is manufactured for internal political consumption and does not reflect his actions. In a way, this fake opposition strengthens Trump’s hand because in front of Lavrov he can defend his aggressive moves as forced by his enemies and use these to silence the Russophobic opposition inside the country.

The quiet despair I felt for years started to dissipate as soon as racial protests erupted inside the US not because I hate America (on the contrary) but because I have been so disgusted with its international conduct since 1945, that I couldn’t supress my Schadenfreude. Knowing the benighted history of this country quite well (a huge amount of genocide, slavery and oppression has been packed into an extraordinarily short time period), I started to hope that the doddering behemoth would focus its Sauron-like gaze inward and give the world a chance to take a breather. Great, I thought. Perhaps, after years of false accusations, the Russians or the Chinese have acted—carefully organised a nationwide rebellion by leveraging one of the most emotional issues in the USA, namely, race. Finally, a well-calculated act of revenge for the dozens of destructive “revolutions” on Russian borders. Although it did achieve some popularity among Black Americans and especially their leaders, the mighty Soviet Union failed to capitalise on this despite America’s dismal record on race. Perhaps, in a fit of creativity, the Russians turned Soros’s tactics on his bosses putting into motion a masterful plot worthy of KGB’s top hits. Alas, I soon awakened from my reverie only to realise that Russia has neither the will, nor means to engineer such a vast conspiracy and save itself from a nuclear confrontation. The Chinese perhaps? No way.

In my view, the Russians are too conciliatory and lack the vast soft power apparatus necessary for the coordination and execution of such an ambitious project. Never mind, the most important point is that anybody who cares about world peace and Russia should cheer the protests as a severe setback for the global hegemon—a clear sign of its decline and an opportunity to profit from its weakness. One immediate benefit of the protests was a body blow (blubber blow) that felled warmongering troll Mike Pompeo. The moment protests started, any American foreign policy based on enforcing human rights and democracy became unsustainable—forever. The myth of a democratic paradise in which a common man/woman benefits from hard work and pioneer spirit fell apart in a couple of hours. The Chinese were laughing at Phat Po while hundreds of hitherto timid Twitterati gleefully pointed out the rank hypocrisy of America’s position and beheld with a mixture of fascination and horror the absence of the junior emperor’s clothes.

A more disturbing consequence of my awakening has been the realisation that most of the political commentators in the West who had previously maintained a pro-Russian front started defending Trump and his version of American supremacy. Many moons ago, I remember watching the remake of the Invasion of the Body Snatchers starring Donald Sutherland. At the very end of the movie, the heroine turns to the ever-dependable Donald, hoping for a salvation, when he turns on her and emits an unforgettable blood-curdling scream—the symbol of ultimate betrayal and final triumph of an alien evil. I felt like the woman in the film who realised in a second that she was completely alone in the universe facing a fate worse than death. OK, I’m exaggerating a bit but you know what I mean. Russia has receded into the background and saving Trump is all that matters.

All of a sudden, people forgot that as late as the end of 1960s, African Americans were barred from country clubs and other “respectable establishments” and started finding reasons to exonerate the murderous cop. But never mind that. Overnight, these tribunes of anti-imperial struggle morphed into the staunchest defenders of Emperor Trump and “traditional family values” espoused by a lecherous pervert linked to Jeffrey Epstein. When asked how they can maintain such an anatomically impossible yoga position, most of the time the answer is: because… Soros. I still haven’t come to terms with this and have tried to explain it to myself ever since. Here are some tentative explanations.

3. Answers and questions

a) People have been so traumatised by Soros’s malfeasance (or is it maleficence) that they see him everywhere now—as a universal symbol of evil—a Krampus. As a consequence of a careful ploy by the Deep State, no criticism or protest is now allowed outside very clearly drawn boundaries—especially from the left. As soon as someone tries to protest various injustices, they are automatically labelled as agents of Soros intent on harming the HOMELAND. It is immaterial to the accusers that under most recent presidents America has become a cesspit of electronic surveillance and a home to a gargantuan military-intelligence-industrial-media complex which is swallowing everything in its path. America’s crumbling infrastructure, lack of common values and ghettoised cities are a testimony to its forthcoming demise. Here, Soros has become Krampus of the right, a monster evoked every time someone points out that America is mortally ill. In this, Soros has joined another Krampus of the RC and neocon right—Joseph Stalin. Although exact opposites in terms of ideology, both have been used in the West to suppress socially-conscious voices.

b) Many of the so-called “alternative” websites were never pro-Russian to start with (Saker has discussed this many times). Rather, they are US Deep State sleeper agents who were allowed, in exchange for their loyalty, to monetise their writings and expose dissidents by posing as critics of the US regime. Now that their true master is in danger, they feel obliged (or are gently reminded) to repay their debt. Although I dismissed this option initially, it has gained in credibility the more I sampled their wares. A less paranoid version of this explanation is fear—fear of the ubiquitous and Kafkaesque machine which can crush an individual without their knowledge leading to auto-censorship. Or the fear of the “barbarians”—those lower-caste humans who threaten further to disrupt our vicarious participation in the sense of exceptionality and achievement of our “race”. I am guilty of both.

c) The commentators are correct and I am deluded. Soros is so rich and powerful that he can confront and defeat the all-powerful system that created him. This is probably the worst nonsense of them all. Soros might be rich but he is a mere gnat in comparison with his supposed enemy. Second (and even more pertinent), why would the old CIA-spawned Hellboy bite the arm that feeds him? Because Soros, a billionaire several times over and notorious Russophobe hawk, is some kind of a communist and social justice warrior? If this is true, the implication is that all 17 powerful intelligence agencies that could swat Soros like a fly at a single wink of Trump’s rheumy eye are betraying “the constitution” and siding with the unruly anarchists. Balderdash.

The world is again separating into two broad and irreconcilable camps—imperialist and anti-imperialist. While the boundary is not completely clear, many conservatives will join fascists and racists in the defence of civilisation (Europäische Kultur), (Western) Christianity (Gott mit Uns), homeland (Vaterland), white race (arische Rasse), family values (Kinder, Küche, Kirche), unchallenged Western supremacy (Das tausend jährige Reich) and law and order (Ordnung muss sein). I am not interested in how these “ideals” are implemented as long as they are not used as an excuse to attack and enslave other countries—as they always are. A minority of conservatives will understand the danger of a revived fascism and side with Russia and its allies. The fascists will be joined in their struggle by right-wing Zionists and neocons who hate Russia more than they love peace and democracy. While agitating for human rights, they will be happy to see the destruction of Russia and China. As in WWII, most Central European Ruritanias will gladly join the imperialist side. Some large countries such as India might just remain neutral but the nationalist zeal of its current government (Aryanism and swastikas anyone?) is likely to push it into the imperialist camp. This would not be the first time. The great Indian politician and tribune Subhas Chandra Bose openly collaborated with Japan during WWII.[4]

I shall be joining the other side—the side that sides with the oppressed, dirty, helpless and weak. The anti-imperialist camp espouses a multi-polar world free from imperial diktat from the West (or elsewhere). It advocates peaceful coexistence and abolition of huge multinational corporations that have replaced states as agents of international politics.[5] This block is progressive in the sense in which the Trotskyite dogma isn’t. There is a lot of room for cultural differences and idiosyncrasies. The idea is that these differences enrich the world and allow individual nations to find their own way towards prosperity, without the constant sabotage by the US Empire and its pawns. Absence of interference into other nations’ affairs ensures a peaceful and sustainable growth. Crucially, there is no such thing as an exceptional or chosen nation or race. We are all equal in terms of God’s mercy and the world must be purged from the exceptionalist evil forever. If anybody is still confused about what’s going on, I’ll end with a few questions (some of which I’m trying to answer myself):

– If Trump is so good for Russia (an idiotic claim by the Democrats), why did Russia urgently rachet up its nuclear doctrine a few weeks ago?

– Do you really think that for this many decades Soros has acted independently of the US Deep state? Are you so naïve as to believe that a semi-anonymous trader with a dodgy past would be allowed to destroy British Pound and meddle in international politics, or god forbid, unseat Trump, without the blessing of the grey cardinals of Langley? Do you think that one of the ugliest swamp creatures known to man would risk upsetting his masters by launching crippling riots possibly leading to a civil war for no good reason? No, defeating Trump is definitely not a good enough reason. If Soros is indeed behind the turmoil (and this hasn’t been proved), he is either doing the humanity a favour for once—by crippling the Empire or (highly likely) is acting on behalf of the repressive apparatus set on discrediting and banning any and all protest.

– What does one need to do in order to defeat the CIA, FBI, NSA and the myriad of spying and political police agencies that underpin the Empire? Do you really think that you can get past the most monstrous, intrusive and comprehensive system of surveillance and oppression in history by being transparent and honest? If your aim is to drain the swamp, do you really believe that you can achieve this by laying all your cards on the table and asking the (metaphorically) black Jesuitical cabal to vacate its throne at the top of the world? If you understand that this is impossible, why expect the BLM movement and all the others to be transparent?

– Do you really believe that BLM and other similar movements (e.g. Occupy) have not been penetrated BEFORE THE PROTESTS and co-opted for FBIs purposes? If yes, you are completely naïve (not to use something nastier).

Wake up, Trump is not your friend and he is no friend of Russia. Soros is evil but he is just one of the many flavours of evil. Do not let your mental inertia render you blind to what is really going on.

If you prefer the global dictatorship of hyper-corporate capital protected by US weapons under the guise of “law and order” to peace and justice, why are you on this pro-Russian site?

Russia, whatever its political system, has and will always stand with the oppressed and in opposition to global bullies and criminals. YOU CANNOT SERVE GOD AND MAMMON BOTH. Choose wisely—I have.

  1. I had the displeasure of reading Soros’s scribblings a long time ago. I can assure the reader that he is no genius. 
  2. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/12/09/soros-and-his-cia-friends-targeted-ussr-russia-1987/. We cannot know what Jakob Schiff would have done to the USSR—he died in 1920. 
  3. A friend tells me that Orban used to receive large sums of money from Soros. I did not check this but it wouldn’t surprise me that the two were partners in the 1990s. 
  4. I am not criticising Bose who was a great leader in many respects but just pointing out that India has its own perspective which might not always agree with the Eurocentric or Anglocentric view of history. 
  5. It is amusing to watch fake nationalists and patriots get in a tizz when asked how they can support Amazon, Google and other corporate behemoths and how this takeover of a country by corporatist fascism can be compatible with “freem” and democracy. 

Israel to Police European Coastlines – Protecting the Continent from Refugees?

November 12, 2018

by Peter Koenig for The Saker BlogIsrael to Police European Coastlines – Protecting the Continent from Refugees?

This sounds like a bad joke. It ain’t. Its real. One fascist government helps another fascist government. Yes, I have written about fascism invading the west before – warning that the European Union (non-union) is being gradually, but ever faster turned into a fascist dictatorship under the guise of democratic protection of ‘Democracy’; and this by her unelected European Commission (EC) leaders (sic). EU citizens are being brainwashed with neoliberal lie-propaganda into believing that they are living in the heart of democracy – that they are free and protected by police and military, 24×7.

Indeed, such protection can be seen at almost every street corner in France’s major cities; France, the country that had the audacity to make the permanent state of emergency part of her Constitution. And others are dutifully following Macron’s example. No wonder, EU member country governments have all been ‘put in place’ by fake elections, with the help of Cambridge Analytica and other social media tricks, by now well-known around the globe – and even the myriad MSM (mainstream media). It would be a strange coincidence, if practically all of the heads of EU states are following either neoliberal or Nazi doctrines. In any case, the difference are a few details. Most obvious neonazis are depicted with the denigrating term of populists, disregarding the fact that a populist is someone who is liked by the people. Wouldn’t that be democracy?

The PM of Hungary, Victor Orbàn, and Poland’s far-right Andrzej Duda, fall into this category and soon Italy’s government, basically led by the far right, deputy PM, Matteo Salvini, who calls the shots in Italy, to the detriment of the Five-Star lead party, will follow suit. Everybody who refuses to bend to Brussels’ rules is a ‘populist’. It’s that simple. And it’s no coincidence.

Back to the head-story: An Israeli private military contractor, Elbit Systems Ltd, has been awarded a contract to Monitor European Coasts, as reported by the Palestine Chronicle. Israel’s private defense contractor has “won” a 68 million dollars two-year contract, renewable by another two years, to survey most of European coastlines and to report to Brussels and the countries’ authorities. Universal surveillance and fascism are on the march – and running ever faster. This ‘bidding process’ was not an open competition. This was ‘one fascist hand washing the hand of another fascist. Yes, that’s as bad as we have become in Europe. And the populace has no clue, because they are comfortably seeing their freedom, their civil rights, their human rights, being eroded, ‘floated’ away, under the pretext of national security – and of course their own, the people’s security. – That’s what a few ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks can achieve – people scream for help, for police protection. The more the better. And who is better suited than a fascist state to respond to that call of desperation – to fulfill that fake role of protector?

Israel is known having armed the fascist Ukraine government. Israel’s purpose of policing the European coastlines is to prevent Palestine Gaza prisoners from escaping their horrible, horrible fate. Two million Palestinians need to be forcefully kept locked into this open-air concentration camp, being tortured, bombed, starved and finally killed. That’s what Zionist-Israel is all about. Mind you, that is no at all an anti-Semitic statement. There are millions of Israelis who disagree with this fascist policy. But they are being shut-up, they have no right to speak out – plus they are, like Europeans, constantly drip-by-steady-drip indoctrinated by lies, falsehoods and deceptions – that Palestinians are a danger for the survival of Israel.

This is simply NOT TRUE. It is a flagrant lie – a lie sustained by the United States, whose interest is permanent conflict in the Middle East to control the Middle Easts rich resources – and Israel is an important ally – more than an ally. Thanks to Israel’s and AIPAC’s (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the strongest Washington lobby) endless flow of money to Washington’s politicians – Israel, as the paymaster of political campaigns of both parties of the US-One-Party system – calls the shots. By Israel, is meant Zionist-led Israel, not the common people who want nothing more than peace and a friendly and harmonious relationship with Palestine; Israelis who are aware that they are actually camping on Palestine land – Israelis, who have not been blinded by those who have since 70 years purposefully distorted history, altered schoolbooks and pretend that this Holy Land is theirs, rather than a piece of land of mutual ownership, to be shared equally and with equal rights.

These Israelis, the vast majority, are not targeted with this article, or with the accusation of being fascists. It’s their dictator leadership, those who are in lock-step with the neofascist Trump Administration – and, well, those who call the shots in Washington, in all the so-called thinktanks (sic) that make US foreign policy. Neoliberal, cum neonazi Israel wants to eradicate Palestine, Iran, Syria, but they are in bed with the murderous Saudis – with the killers of tens of thousands of Yemeni children, with the brutal murderers of the entire Yemeni population through famine, destruction of water supply and sanitation systems, of lack-of-hygiene induced cholera and a myriad of other diseases.

Israel’s private defense contractor announced having won a two-year contract, renewable for another two years, with the EU Maritime Safety Agency. They will patrol the Mediterranean Sea and Europe’s Coast lines with drones and inform Europe’s authorities of ‘irregularities’, of refugee ships, of last-hope vessels carrying desperate people, escaping from western created misery in their lands. And Palestinian refugees are on the rise. They can no longer stand their abject fate under Israeli’s inescapable rules and cruel dictate. They seek refuge in Europe, paradoxically, they go to their hangman seeking shelter. But where else to go?

So, these unmanned Israeli military aircraft will automatically signal the defense forces of Israel to intercept any attempt of escaping Palestinians – to bring them back to their open torture chamber – which Gaza has become. – Gaza’s terror conditions have become the utter “normality” from the western populace, especially Europeans. They will just watch like Palestinians will be slaughtered into fear of escaping from their ‘life’ prison, called Gaza.

That’s what the west has become, or as my friend, Andre Vltchek, would say, they have colonized, enslaved and raped Asia, Africa and Latin America for at least a thousand years – why would you expect them to change? They have gotten away with murder for so long – why would they change? Today, they continue with (slightly) different methods – its financial slavehood. It’s the epitome of shameless criminal neo-colonialism. Israel’s two to four- year contract of their defense contractor serves as a mere proxy for the EU’s terror, lack of compassion and inhumanity. Mind you, the United States is just the heritage of Europeans migrated across the Atlantic.

The company, Elbit Systems Ltd, will provide European Union countries with maritime unmanned aircraft patrol services and in theory with nothing more -which is, of course, a flagrant lie. They will ex-contractually confiscate refugee boats, as miserable as they may be, contributing to more refugee deaths. In September 2018, UNHCR, Mediterranean refugee transfers have been deadlier than ever this year, having reached more than 1,600 so far.

“Rocket News” reports, “in October, Israeli companies signed purchase agreements with the United Nations for the provision of water and security service to UN forces in Africa. Israel also won a $777 million contract for the supply of India’s missile defenses, as well as being revealed as a lead exporter of tools for spying on civilians being used by dictatorships or authoritarian governments around the world.”

Rocket News continues, “Such deals and multi-million-dollar contracts over a variety of regions are seen as not only a benefit to the Israeli economy but also [as proof for] the reliability of its [Israel’s] services and the subsequent potential increase of its international credibility.”

Whatever Zionist-Israel does, the Chosen People, is for the good of Mother Earth. How long will it take until the populace inhabiting Mother Earth wakes up, screaming for fear and agony, bringing an end to this farce, this criminal Anglo-Zionist farcical dictatorship?

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Dirty little secret: ‘Think tanks’ are among top culprits in media disinformation crisis

By Bryan McDonald
Source

5be58dd1dda4c8511a8b459e.jpg

Most consumers are unaware off the mainstream media’s dirty little secret. Think tanks are increasingly taking advantage of tight news budgets to influence the press agenda in favour of their sponsors.

Decades ago, these outfits generally operated as policy advisories. Although, some were comfortably enumerated ‘retirement homes’ for distinguished public servants or intellectuals. However, in modern times, they have become indistinguishable from lobbying firms. With the budgets to match.

On the Russia (and broader Eastern European) beat, think tank influence is becoming increasingly dangerous and malign. And it’s leading to a crisis in journalistic standards which nobody wants to acknowledge.

Two cases this week highlight the malaise.

Right now, Hungary and Ukraine are embroiled in a standoff regarding the rights of ethnic Hungarians in the latter country. The disagreement is entirely local, with roots in the 20th century carving-up of Budapest’s territory after it found itself on the losing side in both World Wars. As a result, lands were dispersed into other nations – former Czechoslovakia, Romania, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union.

There are tensions, to varying degrees, between Hungary and pretty much all the successor states housing its lost diaspora. Especially since nationalist Viktor Orban started handing out passports to compatriots stranded on foreign soil.

Until recently, most of the focus was on disagreements with Slovakia, but now attention has switched to Ukraine.

Let’s be clear. This is a mess of Kiev’s making. In a bid to appease “patriotic” fundamentalists, it began moves towards restrictive language laws, which has especially alienated the small band of Hungarian speakers on its western frontier.

Predictably, Budapest rushed in to defend its “people,” and now we have a nasty little imbroglio with headbangers on both sides entrenched.

One thing it’s not about is Russia. But Western media, egged on by think tank “experts,” keeps banging this drum. And here is a case in point this week.

The Los Angeles Times sent a correspondent to Uzhgorod, a Ukrainian border city. And rather than merely report from the ground, the writer spends a huge amount of the article referring to Russia and intimating that Orban is operating in lock-step with Moscow. Which is laughable to anybody who understands the Hungarian PM’s political methods. And which reeks of disinformation.

And who is used to “back up” these assertions? Only one Peter Kreko, “director of the Political Capital Institute, a Budapest think tank,” who is concerned Orban’s moves “help Russia hamper Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration.”

Now, isn’t that a weird sort of thing for a Hungarian analyst to be worrying about? Well, it wouldn’t be if the LA Times were transparent and disclosed Kreko’s funding. You see, here’s who bankrolls the “Political Capital Institute, a Budapest think tank.”

  • Institute of Modern Russia (plaything of disgraced former 90’s oligarch and Putin opponent Mikhail Khodorkovsky)
  • National Endowment For Democracy (a US neoconservative outlet dedicated to “regime change” and promoting a pro-US outlook in Eastern Europe, whose chair has dubbed Ukraine “the big prize”)
  • Open Society (George Soros, who needs no introduction)

And here are some of the “most important international and domestic professional partners” of the Political Capital Institute:

  • Atlantic Council (NATO’s propaganda wing)
  • European Values (a Soros-funded Prague lobby group which smeared hundreds of European public figures as useful idiots for appearing on RT. Including Jeremy Corbyn and Stephen Fry).
  • German Marshall Fund of the United States (proprietors of the infamous ‘Hamilton 68’ dashboard)

Thus, the agendas at play are pretty clear here. Yet, the LA Times keeps its readers ignorant of Kreko’s paymasters. Which is especially interesting when you see RT, almost always, referred to as “the Kremlin-funded Russia Today,” or some version thereof, when described in Western media. And this is fine, because it’s true, but when the same rules don’t apply across the board, the bias is obvious.

The second case comes courtesy of “the Rupert Murdoch controlled Times of London” (see what I did there?) This week, it alleged around 75,000 Russians in London alone are Kremlin informants. All based on an “investigation” by the Henry Jackson Society (HJS), a neoconservative pressure group which seems to have successfully mounted a reverse takeover of the once venerable paper. With its leader writer, for instance, being a founding signatory of the concern.

Anyway, HJS, apparently based on a mere 16 interviews, with unnamed sources, concluded that “between a quarter and a half of Russian expats were, or have been informants.” And the Times splashed it.

However, it “clarified,” with comment from an anonymous “dissident,”how, in reality, “it was about half.” So, only the 32,500 odd ‘agents’ in London then. Which, if true, would means the walls of the Russian Embassy would have to be made from elastic to house the amount of handlers required to keep tabs on their information sources.

Look, it’s hardly a secret that standards at the Times are low. After all, the main foreign affairs columnist, Edward Lucas, is literally funded by US weapons manufacturers.

No, this is not a joke. Lucas is employed as a lobbyist at CEPA, a Washington and Warsaw-based outfit, which promotes the arms manufacturer’s agenda in Central and Eastern Europe. Namely, the likes of Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, FireEye, and Bell Helicopters.

Of course, The Times doesn’t make this conflict of interests clear to its readers. Another example of how the ‘think tank’ tail is wagging the mainstream media dog these days.

NATO membership for Ukraine & Georgia would bring out the bear in Russia

Robert Bridge
Robert Bridge is an American writer and journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief of The Moscow News, he is author of the book, ‘Midnight in the American Empire,’ released in 2013.
NATO membership for Ukraine & Georgia would bring out the bear in Russia
Western leaders argue that the growth of NATO along Russia’s border together with the militarization of Eastern Europe is necessary for preserving peace with Moscow. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There has been an unmistakable trend in the realm of geopolitics since the start of the new millennium – of which Ukraine and Georgia may represent the next phase – and it bodes absolutely disastrous for the future of mankind. Indeed, it may very well lead to its ultimate destruction. I am talking about NATO’s incessant encroachment upon Russia’s borders amid a crumbling arms treaty architecture.

Despite past promises that such a scenario would never happen, and regardless of which US leader was holding power in Washington, NATO’s relentless eastward advance – under the guise of one excuse or another – has been ongoing for many years.

A history of deception

Despite the relatively upbeat, positive mood that accompanied the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, West-Russia relations were already strained by 1999 as the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were newly absorbed into the Western military bloc. This was considered outrageous by many observers at the time since the Warsaw Pact had been dissolved almost a decade earlier.

However, the wheels really began to fall off the apple cart called ‘global stability’ when then-US president George W. Bush announced in late 2001 that he would withdraw the United States from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). Predicated on the suicidal rationale of “mutually assured destruction,” the arms control treaty managed to keep the peace for 30 long years between the nuclear powers. Putin called the decision “a mistake.

The purpose of mentioning that abrogated treaty is that it has fueled Russia’s anxiety with regard to NATO’s ulterior motives ever since. With ABM out of the way, the United States was able to move forward with a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe. Despite some fits and starts by the Bush administration, and unfulfilled assurances by the Obama administration that the US would cooperate with Moscow on the system, such a partnership never transpired.

In May 2016, NATO announced that the missile defense base in Romania was fully operational.

Now, had Moscow sat back and done nothing, hoping that NATO would eventually accede to its request for cooperation, then the anti-missile defense system smack on Russia’s border would have been a real game-changer. But as we know, Russia did not sit back and do nothing. In fact, it did something rather incredible. Vladimir Putin revealed in March that Russia had developed – with mind-boggling swiftness – a number of advanced weapons systems, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile with nearly unlimited range. That weapon alone essentially makes NATO efforts to neutralize Russia’s nuclear deterrent obsolete.

Unfortunately, the US missile-defense system smoking in Russia’s geopolitical backyard is not Moscow’s only concern. Behind an advance guard comprised of Western media propaganda and think-tank fallacies, organizations responsible for disseminating unfounded accusations of ‘Russian aggression,’ NATO forces have been able to make serious inroads inside the territories of member states, primarily those that are situated close to or on the Russian border.

Poland, for example, despite already having a rotational US troop presence in its country, is now seeking a permanent US military footprint, even willing to pay $2 billion for the pleasure. In September, prior to a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda, Donald Trump said he would consider the proposal “very seriously.”

READ MORE: Trump mulls idea of permanent US military base in Poland, says Warsaw ‘likes it very much’

Meanwhile, coming shortly after a large-scale US-led military exercise called Saber Strike 18 on the territory of Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, NATO is now in the middle of Trident Juncture 18 drills (October 25-November 7), involving some 45,000 troops from 31 countries. Designed to prepare for an act of aggression from a “foreign belligerent,” Western scare tactics of late make the identity of the fictional bogeyman rather obvious.

Taking aim at Ukraine and Georgia

For anyone who believes that US-led NATO would be content with 29 members in its rapidly growing military clique has not been following the arc of political events.

Undoubtedly, one of the worst recent flash-points in NATO-Russia relations came in February 2014, when a series of violent protests, prompted by Kiev opting out of an association agreement with the European Union, led to the ouster Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych and the overthrow of the government. A number of American – not Russian – politicians and diplomats, including the late John McCain and Victoria Nuland, appeared on the streets of Kiev at the height of the unrest, not just stoking the glowing embers of opposition, but literally helping to determine who would lead the country. However, it is Russia that is blamed to this day in the Western media for its “invasion of Ukraine.”

Much of that fabrication was based on a democratic referendum in Crimea, held at the height of hostilities when extreme-right forces were threatening the entire country, in which some 97 percent voted in favor of joining the Russian Federation. One year after that historic vote, Western media were forced to admit that positive sentiments towards Russia had not changed.

Yet even today, many Westerners still believe that Russia seized Crimea through military force thanks to comments like this example from a British tabloid: “In 2014, Russian forces annexed the Ukrainian region of Crimea, rapidly incorporating it into the Russian Federation.” Funny, not a single mention of a referendum among those 17 misguided words.

READ MORE: Crimea is Russian, the matter is finished

Another event that has allowed the Western world to portray Russia as the world’s foremost beast of burden is the five-day conflict between Russia and Georgia. Once again, here is how the Western media regularly explains that event: “Russia launched a large-scale land, air and sea invasion in 2008, accusing Georgia of aggression against Russian separatists in the South Ossetia region.” It’s pretty clear who sounds like the aggressor here since the above sentence puts the cart before the horse. In fact, it really was Georgia that was responsible for attacking and killing Russian peacekeepers stationed in South Ossetia, thereby triggering a Russian response.

It is largely on the basis of these two events, of which the Western public has an extremely poor understanding due to their agenda-based media, that an argument is being made with increasing frequency for Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO.

Needless to say, such a scenario would set West-Russia relations back to the Stone Age.

And that may be more literally the case than one would first realize, since we are now dealing with the possibility of nuclear weapons loose in the region. This comes after Donald Trump announced his intention to leave the decades-old Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

READ MORE: US quitting landmark INF treaty is ‘fact’, Moscow prepares response to ‘questions’ – Lavrov

Analysts say such a move would bring the world closer to the outbreak of nuclear war.

Andrei Kelin, director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s European Cooperation Department, said the risk of Georgia joining NATO, at a time when the US is talking about withdrawing from yet another arms treaty, would force Russia to respond with a “defense belt near Sochi.”

We will have to spend colossal resources on preventing likely actions by a hypothetical enemy, this is inevitable,” Kelin told an audience at the Valdai discussion group, which meets annually in Russia. Ukraine’s accession to the alliance would also present equally serious considerations, and would force Russia “to shift the emphasis of our defense structures towards the south.”

In other words, unless some intelligent people start speaking up in the West, describing the reality of the situation in that Russia poses no threat to Western interests, then the likelihood of some future catastrophe will increase by a degree of magnitude.

While Kelin described Ukrainian and Georgian accession to NATO as “very unlikely” for the time being, we should keep in mind that most people also thought it “very unlikely” just five years ago that US-Russia relations would hit rock bottom in a matter of just months.

If one thing is certain these days, it would surely have to be the level of uncertainty in the world of geopolitics. That should be of tremendous concern to all of us.

@Robert_Bridge

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

Why israel (apartheid state) Is Embracing Fascism in Europe

Israel Is Embracing Fascism in Europe

Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, visited Israel on July 19, where he met Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and other officials. Orban’s visit would have not required much pause except that the Hungarian leader has been repeatedly branded for his often racist, anti-Semitic remarks.

So why is Orban wining and dining with the leaders of the so-called “Jewish State“?

The answer does not pertain only to Orban and Hungary, but to Israel’s attitude towards the rapidly growing far-right movements in Europe, as a whole. Netanyahu and Zionist leaders everywhere, are not just aware of this massive political shift in European politics but are, in fact, working diligently to utilize it in Israel’s favor.

On his visit to Israel, Orban asserted that Hungarian Jewish citizens should feel safe in his country, an odd statement considering that it was Orban and his party that deprived many Jews and other members of minority groups of any feeling of safety.

Still, Netanyahu has welcomed Orban as a “true friend of Israel” and Orban called on his European counterparts to show more support for Israel. Mission accomplished.

Netanyahu had visited Budapest in July 2017, but that supposedly “historic” visit did nothing to change Hungary’s official discourse, dotted with racism and anti-Semitism. In fact, in March 2018, Orban derided Jews, focusing his criticism mostly on Jewish financiers such as George Soros.

At an election rally campaign, Orban said, “We are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the whole world.”

It is well-known that Israel and Zionist leaders are quite selective in manipulating the definition of “anti-Semitism” to serve their political agendas, but Israel’s attitude towards the racist far-right movements in Europe takes this truth to a whole new level.

Indeed, the “special relationship” between Netanyahu and Orban is only the tip of the iceberg. For years, Netanyahu’s Israel has been “flirting” with radical right movements in Europe.

The unmistakable Israeli strategy, of course has its own logic. Israeli leaders feel that Europe’s move to the far-right is irrevocable and are keen to benefit from the anti-Muslim sentiment that accompanies this shift as much as possible.

Moreover, the EU’s resolve to label illegal settlement products and refusal to heed calls for moving their embassies from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is pushing Netanyahu to explore these new routes.

During his previous visit to Hungary, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, met with leaders from the so-called Visegrad-4, which includes Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

On that visit, Netanyahu hoped to find new channels of support within the EU, through exerting pressure by using his newfound allies in these countries. In an audio-recording obtained by Reuters, Netanyahu chastised Europe for daring to criticize Israel’s dismal human rights record, illegal settlement policies and military occupation.

“I think Europe has to decide whether it wants to live and thrive or it wants to shrivel and disappear,” he said.

Netanyahu’s arrogance is unbridled, especially as the censure is emanating from a leader who represents an ethno-nationalist state, which has just recently canceled any reference to “democracy” in its newly-issued Jewish Nation-state Law.

The new “basic law” defines Israel by an ethnic identity, not any democratic values. Netanyahu is now closer to Europe’s far-right racist groups than to any liberal democratic model, thus the ongoing flirting between Israel and these groups.

In fact, the term ‘flirting’ is itself an understatement considering that Israel’s ties with various far-right, neo-Nazi and fascist parties in Europe involve high-level political coordination and, in the case of the Ukraine in particular, the actual supplying of weapons.

Human rights groups recently petitioned the Israeli High Court to stop Israel’s export of weapons to neo-Nazi groups.

The Israeli-far-right embrace almost touches every single European country, including Italy and Germany, whose history of Nazism and Fascism has wrought death and misery to millions.

In Italy, the connection between Italian far-right parties and Israel goes back to the early 2000s, when post-Fascist leader, Gianfranco Fini, labored to rebrand his movement.

Initially, Fini was the leader of the Movimento Sociale Italiano (Italian Social Movement), which saw itself as the “heir to the Fascist Party”.

The rebranding of the party required a trip by Fini to Israel in 2003, after changing the name of his movement to the “National Alliance.” Interestingly, in his highly-touted visit, Fini was accompanied by Amos Luzzatto, the head of the Italian Jewish community.

Unsurprisingly, far-right leader, Matteo Salvini, Italy’s current Interior Minister, went through the same political baptism by Zionist Israel – as Orban and Fini also did – by paying a visit to Tel Aviv in March 2016 to launch his political career and declaring his undying love for the Jewish State.

The same scenario is being repeated in Germany where the far-right party – Alternative for Germany (AfD) – has risen in ranks to the point that it nearly toppled a government coalition led by Chancellor Angela Merkel.

AfD has more in common with Israel than the common anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant views. The party which is “derided for anti-Semitic, xenophobic views redolent of the Nazis is also staunchly supportive of Israel,” reported the Times of Israel.

Last April, the anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic German party, enthusiastically began a campaign pushing for the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite Merkel’s views to the contrary.

The story, however, does not end there. What began as Israeli flirting with far-right racist movements is now Israel’s official policy towards Europe. The same story, with different actors and names can be found in Austria’s Freedom Party (FPOe), Belgium’s Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) and virtually everywhere else.

It remains to be seen how Israel’s embrace of fascist Europe will bode, both for Israel and the European Union. Will the EU “shrivel and disappear”, or will Israel be finally exposed for what it truly is, an ethno-nationalist state with no interest in true democracy in the first place?

Ramzy Baroud is a journalist, author and editor of Palestine Chronicle. His latest book is The Last Earth: A Palestinian Story (Pluto Press, London). Baroud has a Ph.D. in Palestine Studies from the University of Exeter and is a Non-Resident Scholar at Orfalea Center for Global and International Studies, University of California Santa Barbara. His website is www.ramzybaroud.net.

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

ERIC ZUESSE | 30.11.2017 | WORLD / AMERICASMIDDLE EAST

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

The international financier George Soros is condemned by the Israeli regime because he opposes that apartheid state — he regards its two-tier system that privileges Jews and disadvantages non-Jews who are Muslims, “Palestinians,” as being the barbarism that it so obviously is (except to the governments of the United States and its allies, who support — and the US even outright donates $3.8 billion per year to — the apartheid Jewish regime there). Earlier, in 1979, Soros had similarly opposed the anti-Black apartheid regime of South Africa. So, his opposition to apartheid is clear, and it is consistent.

However, in regards to bigotry against Russians, Soros intensely champions and funds that particular form of racism, and he has even carried out a major campaign to get EU taxpayers to pick up $50 billion of the cost to impose that racism specifically against Russians and against supporters of Russians who live in Ukraine, and against Russians and pro-Russians who still survive in the parts of Ukraine that in 2014 broke away from Ukraine after US President Barack Obama’s bloody anti-Russian coup just months before, had overthrown the democratically elected President of Ukraine, who was seeking to have good relations with both the United States and Russia. (The Obama regime perpetrated a coup which replaced that Ukrainian President and his allies in the legislature, replaced them by a racist-fascist or ideologically nazi Ukrainian regime that quickly began an ethnic-cleansing operation to kill or drive out the residents in the part of Ukraine that had voted more than 90% for the overthrown President and that refused to be ruled by the Obama-imposed anti-Russian nazis.)

In order to understand these self-contradictions (the anti-apartheid Soros, versus the rabidly bigoted-against-Russians Soros), one needs to understand their origins in Soros’s past, going all the way back to his childhood in an anti-Semitic secular-Jewish home (see page 22) with upper-class parents who had hoped that their having had Jewish ancestors wouldn’t be an insuperable barrier to their achieving personal financial success and personal fulfillment — they had hoped that they would be treated by their fellow-Hungarians as non-Jews because they didn’t believe in Judaism (the literal truthfulness of the Torah, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Christian Bible).

Hungary was strongly anti-Semitic, and it became conquered first by Nazi Germany’s intensely anti-Semitic Adolf Hitler, who was even-more anti-Semitic, and then by the Georgian former theological student, Joseph Stalin’s, leadership of the communist Soviet Union, from which communist regime Soros fled, after his having thrived under the Nazis by having helped the Nazis to find, and strip the assets from, other Hungarians whom Hitler’s regime labelled to be “Jews.” Soros’s father had been imprisoned by the Soviet Union during and after World War I, and hated Russians. Then, Soros himself, having lived well under the Nazis, moved in 1947 to England to study at the London School of Economics, from which he received an MS in Philosophy in 1952, and then became hired in 1954, entry-level, by the Jewish merchant-banking firm of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, which was the only financial company that would hire him. In 1956, he moved to NYC, working then for a succession of investment-firms, until setting up in 1969 his Soros Fund Management, which brought in other extremely wealthy people and grew exponentially.

Soros attributes his financial success to the ideas from his former philosophy Professor, Karl Popper, who actually had nothing to do with Soros’s success, but inside information had lots to do with his success, as normally is the case in the financial field.

Then, in 1979, “When I had more money than I needed”, he established his Open Society Foundation, which seemed to be at least vaguely adhering to his former philosophy professor’s philosophy, which was anti-dictatorial and pro-democratic, but increasingly after the 1991 end of communism in Russia, Soros’s Foundation has been functioning more and more clearly as a funder of Soros’s childhood hatred (even to the extent of ethnic cleansing or even genocide) of Russians, certainly not as any funder of democracy.

Therefore, Soros, who previously was understood in a naive fashion, as being simply anti-communist, is now much more clearly understandable as being anti-Russian.

Just as his father had hoped to be viewed without bigotry because he didn’t believe in Judaism, Russians had hoped to be viewed without bigotry because they don’t any longer believe in communism. However, George Herbert Walker Bush, and the US aristocracy which he represents, and of which Soros is actually a part, refuse to accept Russians as being just another group of human beings, with equal rights to all others, and insist upon crushing them, and crushing all who support their right to equal treatment along with the rest of humanity — including their national sovereignty (the rights of the residents in a land controlling that land), in peace.

If this sounds like it can’t be true, because it sounds like a portrayal of a psychopath, and because Soros has been so favorably described in the liberal press, then consider how else the portrayal of Soros has been slanted by ideological blinders: On 17 October 2017, a news-report in the liberal New York Times headlined “George Soros Transfers Billions to Open Society Foundations”, and indicated that:

In recent years Mr. Soros has moved about $18 billion of his own money into Open Society, making it the second largest foundation in the United States by assets, according to the National Philanthropic Trust. The only larger charity is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has an endowment worth some $40 billion and focuses on global health and development issues.

The benefits of such ‘charities’ were described, but the subtraction of those billions of dollars from the tax-rolls and the consequent increase in the tax-burden that non-billionaires must pay, went unmentioned, as did the increase in the billionaires’ control of public issues by privatizing these powers to such ‘charities’ and by their thereby diminishing democracy (i.e., diminishing control by the public — by the general electorate — moving these issues increasingly to control by the wills of billionaires). Beyond a certain point, the only usefulness to the owner that an added billion dollars has, is to increase his/her power — not to consume that added billion, in any case — and these ‘charities’ are thus intrinsically scams, against all non-billionaires.

An excellent description of the hypocrisy of the liberal Soros’s (and other such) ’charities’ was provided in an entirely accurate opinion-piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, on 23 November 2017, titled “George Soros’s $18 Billion Tax Shelter”. The facts presented there would disabuse any political progressive of the deceit that Soros is, at all, one of them. There are few, if any, progressive billionaires — and none of them will be ‘donating’ anything to any ‘charity’, except to the Government, in a democracy, via taxes. The aristocracy is intrinsically this way — vastly more taking from the public than giving to the public — but aristocrats are ideologically treated as ‘heros’ by whichever commentators happen to admire a particular aristocrat’s ‘ideology’, which in reality is none at all except endless greed (differing from one-another only in their respective business-plans, because that’s all they actually are).

So: Soros’s hypocrisy regarding racism is part of a broader picture, which includes not only the rest of himself, but also includes all extremely wealthy individuals and their intrinsically destructive relationships toward the society-at-large, and especially toward democracy itself, because endless greed for power is what drives all of them, even the “loafers” amongst them (such as typically are second-and-more generation wealth, the IIs, IIIs, IVs, etc. aristocrats, who don’t have to work for anything).

EU: Another Step Down the Slippery Slope

 

EU: Another Step Down the Slippery Slope

ANDREI AKULOV | 19.06.2017 | WORLD

EU: Another Step Down the Slippery Slope

The EU Commission has launched legal action against Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland which refused to take in refugees from Italy and Greece. The three EU states have acted «in breach of their legal obligations», the Commission said in a statement, adding that it had previously warned the countries to observe «their commitments to Greece, Italy and other member states». The three member states «have not yet relocated a single person», the statement says. The EU members under fire remain defiant.

In September 2015, the EU committed to relocating up to 160,000 refugees from the two countries within two years. However, not all EU states have found the measures acceptable, saying that the migrant crisis cannot be solved through obligatory quotas. Hungary and Slovakia are currently challenging the decision in the EU Court of Justice, and an advocate-general of the court will issue an opinion on July 26. Slovakia was able to avoid legal action against it by responding to EU warnings and opening its doors to a small group of migrants.

Only 20,869 of the 160,000 refugees have so far been relocated in the EU. More than 1.6 million asylum seekers have arrived in Europe since the start of the refugee crisis in 2014.

Now the Commission has launched infringement procedures against the three nations refusing to comply, before possibly referring them to the top European court. The legal battle could last many months or, even, years. As a result, the three states could be imposed financial penalties.

The very fact of launching legal procedures heats up tensions inside the EU at the time the bloc is going through a period of instability and uncertainty, with its unity tested by Brexit, weak economies and growing support for Eurosceptic and nationalist-minded parties.

Perhaps, it’s easier to pay fines than take in refugees and face grave security problems as a result. Going to the bottom of it – it’s not fines that really matter. All the countries opposing the EU migration policy are net beneficiaries of EU funding. A mood is developing among the older EU members to withhold cohesion funds from countries that oppose the relocation of refugees, although no legal basis for this actually exists. But if it starts, the EU will become a battlefield to make the vaunted unity a pipedream. If the events turn this way, the EU will become very much different from what it is today.

The Visegrád countries (V4) – Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary – have found common ground in recent years opposing the EU’s relocation policy and rejecting the idea of a two-speed Europe, but also in advocating the preservation of the Union’s cohesion policy. Indeed, why should East Europeans share the burden of the immigration crisis, especially in view that security policy is a national, not European, competence? These countries call for strengthening of the national states in EU decision-making process.

Poland and Hungary have joined together recently to oppose Brussels stance on human rights.

The V4 also oppose the two-speed» and «multi-speed» concepts supported by EU founders. They believe that the idea would turn them into «second class» members of the bloc.

The «East European revolt» is just part of a bigger process with deepening EU divisions and alliances being formed inside the alliance.

Prospect for the future? The situation inside the EU has bleak prospects for improvement. It calls for a closer look at the recent developments inside the EU. In February, the European Parliament backed three resolutions on strengthening centralization of the bloc. One of the resolutions proposes limiting or even totally abolishing the right of individual member states not to comply with collective decisions – just exactly what the East European members oppose so vehemently. The adoption of the resolutions may be the first step towards a fundamental change in the EU Treaty.

In February, leaders of the lower chambers of parliaments of Germany, Italy, France, and Luxembourg published a letter demanding a «Federal Union» be implemented without delay. It was published by Italian La Stampa on February 27. They call for «closer political integration — the Federal Union of States with broad powers. «Those who believe in European ideals, should be able to give them a new life instead of helplessly observing its slow sunset», the paper reads.

The idea to create a «common European defense» is a dubious endeavor; it presupposes additional financial burden at the time the US increases pressure to make Europeans raise NATO expenditure. Add to this the need to pay more for the migrants against the background of stagnating economy to see how unrealistic all these plans are. Europeans have already been made pay more for US liquefied gas for political reasons, while Russia can offer supplies at much lower prices.

Guy Verhofstadt, the former Belgian Prime Minister and European Parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, believes that the European Union must reform, or face the risk of collapse as a result of internal and external challenges. Noam Chomsky, a prominent US scholar, has predicted that the EU will disintegrate. The EU will collapse in 2017, predicts Mark Blyth, a lecturer in political economy at Brown University in the US, known for forecasts to come true.

The event marks a turning point in EU history. This is the first time EU members will face legal procedures for non-compliance with the rules established by Brussels. It shows how the migration crisis has divided the bloc. The process will not die away, migrants will continue their route north to the wealthier countries and the tensions inside the EU will grow. Rival blocs and perpetuate divisions will not disappear, turning the EU into a patchwork of blocs within blocs. The project of European integration does not look viable anymore. Legal actions cannot bridge the differences dividing its members.

Hungary: Orban declares war on George Soros

Posted on

fight-corporate-fascism11-500x3751Following Russian president Vladimir Putin move, Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, a pro-Israel anti-Muslim bigot has banned Hungarian-US Jewish multibillionaire George Soros, Open Society Foundations aka Color Revolutions for Israel.

George Soros funded the so-called Green Revolution in Iran to stop Ahmadinejad’s re-election. He was also behind the colored revolutions in Ukraine, Lebanon, Malaysia, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Egypt, Sudan, Macedonia, etc.

George Soros is financially connected to US president Donald Trump via latter’s son-in-law Jared Kushner. Soros provided US$259 million line of credit to Kushner’s new real state venture Cadre. George Soro who put his ‘Jewish eggs’ in Hillary Clinton’s basket last year – had called Donald Trump, Dictator.

Many Hungarian don’t know that Soros Foundation groomed young Viktor Orban. On January 30, 2017, Daniel McLaughlin claimed at Jewish-owned The Irish Times: “Orban received a Soros Foundation scholarship to study at Oxford University in 1989, before he returned to Hungary and entered parliament after the collapse of communism.”

McLaughlin also claimed that Soros Foundation helped Orban’s Alliance of Young Democrats – known as Fidesz – with photocopiers and other essentials as it campaigned for free elections. It seems once Orban got power, he couldn’t hide his inner Jewish hatred and turned table on his benefactor.

The new state that we are building in Hungary today is not a liberal state,” Orban declared in 2014, a year before fencing off the borders to block Muslim refugees and nonwhite migrants whom he considers a threat to Europe’s security and identity. “I don’t think our European Union membership precludes us from building an illiberal new state based on national foundations.”

Anti-Muslim and anti-Black pro-Trump groups have accused Soros Foundation being the key instigator behind the Black Lives Matter movement and Women’s March on Washington, while critics in Europe – including Orban – accuse him of fuelling the refugee crisis to weaken White Christian nation states.

Viktor Orban and Donald Trump are Birds of a Feather.

Viktor Orban is viewed as a hero by Europe’s anti-Muslim White and Jewish supremacist groups for refusing to admit Syrian Muslim refugees. Orban has built a fence to keep refugees out. However, in order to attract Iranian investment, he paid a visit to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei in December 2015 in Tehran.

Strangely, Gabor Vona, leader of country’s opposition party Jobbik is not anti-Muslim. In fact he wants a Christian-Muslim alliance against the Organized Jewry. Last year, Jobbik party’s antisemite leader Csanad Szegedi found out his family’s Jewish roots. He is now planning to immigrate to the Zionist entity.

Ottoman Muslims ruled Kingdom of Hungary for over 150 years (1541-1699). But didn’t compel native Christians to convert to Islam. Muslim population of Hungary is less than 4,000 – half of which is local converts.

Hungary is home to largest Jewish population (50,000) in East Central Europe.

George Soros arrest on the table? ~ Hungarian Foreign Minister: “Soros-funded NGOs aiming to bring down our govt”

Most-Dangerous-Man-990x260-HOME

RFSP


Hungary has had enough. The nation’s government has declared a battle against organizations funded by George Soros, calling for transparency within foreign-backed NGOs operating in the country. The move has already been condemned by Brussels, but Budapest has long refused to tow the EU line – on refugees, ties with Russia, and other issues. Can Hungary continue to put its own interests above those proclaimed to be common European interests? We ask Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjártó. (A RussiaToday interview by Sophie Shevardnadze).

Soros on the Ropes

Soros on the Ropes

WAYNE MADSEN | 29.01.2017 | OPINION

Soros on the Ropes

Although multi-billionaire hedge fund tycoon and international political pot-stirrer George Soros lost big with the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States and the victory of the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, he stands to lose further ground, politically and financially, as the winds of political change sweep across the globe.

Soros, who fancies himself as the master of placing short put options on stocks, often cleaning up to the tune of billions of dollars in the process when the stock values collapse, has been dealt a few financial body blows. Recently, the Dutch securities market regulator AFM «accidentally» revealed on line all of Soros’s short trades since 2012. Soros’s trades were revealed on AFM’s website and were removed after the regulator realized the «error». However, the Soros data had already been captured by automatic data capturing software programs operated by intelligence agencies and brokerage firms that routinely scour the Internet looking for such «mistakes».

Among the bank shares targeted by Soros was the Ing Groep NV, a major institution and important element of the Dutch economy. After campaigning against Brexit, Soros bet against the stock of Deutsche Bank AG, which he believed would fall in value after Britain voted to leave the EU. Deutsche Bank stock fell 14 percent and Soros cleaned up. But Soros’s celebration was temporary. With Trump’s election, Soros lost a whopping $1 billion in stock speculation. Surrounded by his fellow financial manipulators, Soros explained his recent losses while attending the recent World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

Soros’s mega-wealthy cronies placed their own bets against smaller Dutch firms. Those firms included Ordina, an information technology firm; Advanced Metallurgical Group; and the real estate group Wereldhave N.V.

Beware the Ides of March

The Soros data release comes at a particularly sensitive time in Dutch politics. The center-right government led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte is on the political ropes as it tries to fend off, in an election scheduled for March 15, a serious challenge by the right-nationalist Party for Freedom (PVV) of anti-migrant and anti-European Union leader Geert Wilders. An ally of Donald Trump, Wilders is likely to make political hay out of the fact that Soros, the champion of European open borders and mass migration, bet against Dutch banks. The Ides of March looks favorably upon a Wilders victory, an event that will drive another nail into the coffin of the European Union and Soros’s mass migration and open borders dream.

The Netherlands has not been particularly friendly to Soros and his goals. In November 2016, Soros’s Open Society Foundations, and two groups funded by Soros – the European Network Against Racism and Gender Concerns International – advertised job openings for Dutch youth «between the ages 17-26» who are Muslim immigrants and the children or grandchildren of Muslim immigrants to campaign against parties like those of Wilders and Rutte.

Prime Minister Rutte recently issued a warning to migrants who refuse to assimilate into Dutch society. Of course, Rutte was not referring to the thousands of migrants from former Dutch colonies in the Dutch East and West Indies who had no problem adopting Dutch culture, religion, and social manners. Rutte, who faces a 9-point lead by Wilders’s PVV, had some pointed words for the Muslim migrants in the Netherlands. In an interview with «Algemeen Dagblad», Rutte, in what could have been a speech by Wilders, said:

«I tell everyone. If you don’t like it here in this country, get out, get out! That’s the choice you have. If you live in a country where the ways of dealing with others annoys you, you have a choice, go away. You do not need to be here.» Rutte had particular disdain for those who «don’t want to adapt… who attack gay people, shout at women in short skirts, or call ordinary Dutch people racist». Rutte left very little doubt about to whom he was referring, the recently-arrived Muslim migrants, «There have always been people who exhibited deviant behavior. But something has come to pass in the last year where we, as a society, should have an answer. With the arrival of large groups of refugees, the question arises: will the Netherlands still be the Netherlands?»

Coming from a one-time committed Euroatlanticist supporter of NATO, the EU, and the World Bank, Rutte’s words about migrants must have come as a complete shock to Soros and his minions.

The exposure of Soros’s financial manipulation of the Dutch economy is sure to enrage Dutch citizens already weary of migrants and diktats by the European Union. In April 2016, Dutch citizens overwhelmingly rejected the EU-Ukraine treaty that called for closer ties between the EU and the Kiev regime. The outcome enraged Soros, who is one of the Kiev regime’s principal puppet masters.

NGO «Santa Claus» now faces many closed doors

Europe once praised Soros as some sort of benevolent «Santa Claus,» who handed out millions for «good deeds» to one-world government proponents and other starry-eyed utopians. However, the veneer of Soros is wearing thin.

Russia was the first to call out Soros for his interference in Russian politics. The Soros plan to destabilize Russia, dubbed the «Russia Project» by Soros’s Open Society Institute and Foundation, foresaw the outbreak of Ukrainian-style «Maidan Square» uprisings in cities across Russia. In November 2015, the Russian Prosecutor-General’s office announced the proscription of activities of the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute Assistance Foundation for endangering Russia’s constitutional order and national security.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban now leads the anti-Soros groundswell in Europe. The optics of Orban becoming the first European Union leader to go after the Hungarian-born Soros and his destabilization operations has not been lost on other EU leaders, including those in Poland and the Czech Republic. Orban has accused Soros of masterminding the migrant invasion of Europe. In retaliation for these and other moves by Soros, Orban has warned that the various non-governmental organizations (NGOs) backed by Soros risk being expelled from Europe altogether.

Orban has been joined in venting his anger about Soros by former Macedonian prime minister Nikola Gruevski, who was forced from office and an early election after Soros-inspired demonstrations in his country took place amid a massive influx of Muslim migrants from Greece.

Referring to Soros’s global political operations, the former Macedonian prime minister said in a recent interview, «He is not doing that just in Macedonia, but in the Balkans, across Eastern Europe, and now, most recently, in the United States. Secondly, from what I’ve read about him, in some countries he does it for material and financial reasons, to earn a lot of money, while in others for ideological reasons».

In Poland, where Soros has been very influential, a Member of Parliament for the ruling right-wing Law and Justice Party (PiS), Krystyna Pawłowicz, recently demanded that Soros be stripped of Poland’s highest honor for foreigners, the Commander with Star of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland. Pawłowicz considers Soros’s operations in Poland to be illegal. She also believes that Soros’s organizations are «financing the anti-democratic and anti-Polish element with a view to fight Polish sovereignty and indigenous Christian culture».

Czech President Milos said, in a 2016 interview, «some of his [Soros’s] activities are at least suspicious and they strikingly remind of interferences in [countries’] internal affairs. The organizing of what is known as color revolutions in individual countries is an interesting hobby, but it brings more harm than benefit to the countries concerned». Zeman claimed Soros was planning a color revolution for the Czech Republic.

Aivars Lembergs, the mayor of Ventspils, Latvia and a leader of the Union of Greens and Peasants, wants Soros and his NGOs banned from Latvia. Lembergs argues that two Soros publications in Latvia – Delna and Providus – have propagandized in favor of Latvia receiving Muslim migrants. Lembergs sees the migrants and Soros’s support for them as endangering Latvian state security. The mayor believes that «George Soros must be outlawed in Latvia. He must be banned from entering the country».

In neighboring Lithuania, the Labor Party has also questioned Soros’s activities in the country. The party and its parliamentary allies have asked Lithuania’s security services to investigate the «financial schemes and networks» of Soros because of the threat they pose to national security. The Lithuanian parties claim that Soros groups specialize at «not consolidating, but dividing, society».

It is no longer easy being a meddlesome multibillionaire who overthrows governments with the snap of a finger. Soros has not only alienated the President of Russia and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom but now the President of the United States. Soros is also enemy number one among the leaders of China. With such an array of enemies, it is doubtful Soros will have any more political successes like Ukraine or Georgia. With all of his billions, Mr. Soros now only commands a «paper doll army».

US Ambassador to Hungary: Overthrow Assad, Let in Refugees, and Fight Russia…or Else! Go home yanqui

US Ambassador to Hungary: Overthrow Assad, Let in Refugees, and Fight Russia…or Else!

 

If anyone wants a short course on what’s wrong with US diplomacy look no further than US Ambassador to Hungary Coleen Bell’s speech Friday to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hungarian Parliament. In typical diplo-speak there was plenty of flowery language about shared values, fish swimming together in the same water (?), sappy poetics like “together, out of that winter, we would force the spring,” and talk of together being “part of the world’s greatest military and political alliance.”

But make no mistake: Inside Ambassador Bell’s velvet glove is an iron fist, poised to strike should Washington’s annoyingly independent-minded Fidesz-led government step out of line on the big issues. And by “big” issues it should be understood that the US means the issues it considers in the interests of its own foreign policy, not those in Hungary’s interest.

Message to Hungary: do as we say or you will be sorry.

Ambassador Bell’s previous job was as a television soap opera producer, but raising more than two million dollars for the election of Barack Obama “earned” her the position of top US diplomat in Hungary.

The former television producer does know how to deliver her lines, though. She lectured the Hungarians about Syria, explaining to them that ISIS and Assad are both equally evil and both equally to blame for the disaster that is Syria.

ISIS has flourished in Syria, she told the Hungarians, because it “exploits the chaos of civil war in Syria, a conflict that has now claimed more than 250,000 lives.” But she does not mention that it was US backing for “regime change” in Syria — beginning at least in 2006, as we learn from a critical Wikileaks-released US Embassy Damascus memo — that created that very chaos she blames for the rise of ISIS.

In fact it is propaganda to call what is happening in Syria a “civil war,” as the forces battling the Syrian government are all sponsored by foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the US. It is a proxy war against the Syrian government, not a civil war.

She then tells the Hungarians ISIS will never be defeated in Syria until Assad is overthrown:[W]e know we won’t be able to defeat Daesh in Syria unless we also deal with the civil war and particularly with Assad. Because as long as Assad is there, he remains the most powerful magnet for foreign fighters and recruits to Daesh. Does she assume Hungarians are so stupid that they believe that by attacking and beating ISIS back nearly to Raqqa (with Russian assistance), the Syrian government of Assad is actually benefitting ISIS? Attacking ISIS means Assad is on the side of ISIS?

“Since February, the cessation of hostilities reduced the violence in Syria, allowing millions of Syrian civilians to take the first steps toward reclaiming a normal life,” says the Ambassador, without even mentioning what brought the ceasefire about in the first place: Russian participation along with the Syrian army in the decimation of al-Qaeda and ISIS positions in northwest and central Syria. In fact it is absolutely bizarre that in the world of Ambassador Bell (and the State Department hacks who drafted her speech), the Russian intervention against al-Qaeda and ISIS simply never took place or was too inconsequential to mention.

Is any Hungarian so ill-informed that he would believe such nonsense?

Bell used the tragedy in Syria to pressure Hungary on the (largely American-made) refugee crisis. Hungary’s firebrand prime minister, Viktor Orban, has, along with several of his central European counterparts, stood up to Brussels’ (and Washington’s) demands that Hungary take in tens of thousands of migrants who heeded German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s call to come to Europe and enjoy lots of free stuff.

Last month Orban told Hungarian Radio that if he accepts the EU migrant resettlement plan, “it would be determined not in Hungary but in Brussels who we have to live together with, and how the ethnic composition of the country will look in future.” He has rejected such a notion.

“Every sovereign nation has the right and an obligation to protect its borders,” Bell told the Hungarian Parliament, “But every nation, as a part of the international community, also has a fundamental obligation to help refugee populations seeking safety.”

Translation: your sovereignty is not determined by you, but rather by us. It is a practice articulated by Orwell in 1984 whereby a person can think two completely contradictory thoughts at the same time seemingly without any mental conflict.

But here is where the iron fist inside Bell’s velvet glove glints in the sun. She pointedly condemned the Hungarian government position by praising those in Hungary who hold the opposite view, i.e. the Hungarian opposition:We commend the humanitarian spirit of Hungarian leaders, law enforcement and military personnel, and ordinary citizens who are responding to this crisis with generosity and compassion.Then she gives Hungary Washington’s marching orders:We continue to stress that any solution to these migration challenges should focus on saving and protecting lives, ensuring the human rights of all migrants are respected, and promoting orderly and humane migration policies. That includes the support of all Member State governments for the refugee agreement forged between the EU and Turkey.Translation: Hungary must support the EU agreement with Turkey which would see tens of thousands of migrants settled in EU member countries, including Hungary itself. The problem is that the Hungarian parliamentexplicitly rejected Brussels’ forced migrant settlement plans for Hungary and plans to hold a nationwide referendum on the subject. Bell is saying here that Hungary’s elected representatives and even the Hungarian voter must be ignored and Brussels’ dictate obeyed.

When it comes to Russia, Ambassador Bell also has some instructions for Budapest: Moscow is your enemy and don’t you forget it.

She told Hungarian parliamentarians:
As many Hungarians have reminded me, you need no introduction to the nature of Russian aggression. Your response has always been to show resolve. Our best weapons, in fact, are resolve and solidarity.Weapons? Quite a loaded word.

Orban has been seen in Washington as insufficiently enthused about sanctions on Russia, which hurt Hungarian trade and business interests. Ambassador Bell makes it clear that Hungary must adhere to US demands of Russia, even if they are completely incoherent:As the United States and Hungary have both stated many times, Russia has a simple choice: fully implement Minsk or continue to face sanctions. Russia must withdraw weapons and troops from the Donbas; Russia must ensure that all Ukrainian hostages are returned; Russia must allow full humanitarian access to occupied territories; Russia must support free, fair, and internationally-monitored elections in the Donbas under Ukrainian law; and most important, Russia must restore Ukraine’s sovereignty.That last point should be taken to mean that Russia must ignore the will of the people of Crimea who voted in overwhelming numbers to re-join Russia after just 25 years as part of independent Ukraine.

Not to worry, Ambassador Bell is confident that Budapest will do everything Washington tells it to do:More than this, Hungary is equal to the great challenges of our times, and the United States is counting on you.To stiffen their spine, US Ambassador Bell reminds the Hungarians that they are part of “our global order” and touts the great examples set by the US, including:Our system of international economic, political, and social norms and institutions have kept the peace and fostered prosperity for decades. Whether it is international law, environmental protection, trade regulations, anticorruption laws, child labor laws, human rights safeguards, the nonproliferation regime, public health systems, international financial institutions, UN peacekeeping, or a robust civil society – these norms and institutions give life and stability to our global order.In the era of NSA spying on innocent Americans, Guantanamo, CIA torture, weapons sales to the world’s worst dictators (Saudi Arabia for one),destruction of the environment by the US war machine, “regime change” operations that violate the sovereignty of other states, and outright aggression in opposition to US and international law (Libya, etc.), Bell’s suggestion that “our global order” is the pinnacle of civilization should get a laugh out of most Hungarians. In fact, from Libya to Syria to Ukriane to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the US interventionist attempt to forge a global order with blood and bullets will go down in history along with the authoritarianisms of the 20th century as one of humanity’s darkest chapters.

Here is the short version of Ambassador Bell to Budapest: “to be our partner means you do what we say whether or not it is in your interest.”

Funny, that was Moscow’s message to Budapest from 1948 to 1989.

US Ambassador to Hungary, Coleen Bell , becoming hysterical to promote the USA’s desired war in Europe

US Ambassador to Hungary: Overthrow Assad, Let in Refugees, and Fight Russia… or Else!

By Daniel McAdams | Ron Paul Institute | May 6, 2016

If anyone wants a short course on what’s wrong with US diplomacy look no further than US Ambassador to Hungary Coleen Bell’s speech Friday to the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Hungarian Parliament. In typical diplo-speak there was plenty of flowery language about shared values, fish swimming together in the same water (?), sappy poetics like “together, out of that winter, we would force the spring,” and talk of together being “part of the world’s greatest military and political alliance.”

But make no mistake: Inside Ambassador Bell’s velvet glove is an iron fist, poised to strike should Washington’s annoyingly independent-minded Fidesz-led government step out of line on the big issues. And by “big” issues it should be understood that the US means the issues it considers in the interests of its own foreign policy, not those in Hungary’s interest.

Message to Hungary: do as we say or you will be sorry.

Ambassador Bell’s previous job was as a television soap opera producer, but raising more than two million dollars for the election of Barack Obama “earned” her the position of top US diplomat in Hungary.

The former television producer does know how to deliver her lines, though. She lectured the Hungarians about Syria, explaining to them that ISIS and Assad are both equally evil and both equally to blame for the disaster that is Syria.

ISIS has flourished in Syria, she told the Hungarians, because it “exploits the chaos of civil war in Syria, a conflict that has now claimed more than 250,000 lives.” But she does not mention that it was US backing for “regime change” in Syria — beginning at least in 2006, as we learn from a critical Wikileaks-released US Embassy Damascus memo — that created that very chaos she blames for the rise of ISIS.

In fact it is propaganda to call what is happening in Syria a “civil war,” as the forces battling the Syrian government are all sponsored by foreign powers like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the US. It is a proxy war against the Syrian government, not a civil war.

She then tells the Hungarians ISIS will never be defeated in Syria until Assad is overthrown:

[W]e know we won’t be able to defeat Daesh in Syria unless we also deal with the civil war and particularly with Assad. Because as long as Assad is there, he remains the most powerful magnet for foreign fighters and recruits to Daesh.

Does she assume Hungarians are so stupid that they believe that by attacking and beating ISIS back nearly to Raqqa (with Russian assistance), the Syrian government of Assad is actually benefitting ISIS? Attacking ISIS means Assad is on the side of ISIS?

“Since February, the cessation of hostilities reduced the violence in Syria, allowing millions of Syrian civilians to take the first steps toward reclaiming a normal life,” says the Ambassador, without even mentioning what brought the ceasefire about in the first place: Russian participation along with the Syrian army in the decimation of al-Qaeda and ISIS positions in northwest and central Syria. In fact it is absolutely bizarre that in the world of Ambassador Bell (and the State Department hacks who drafted her speech), the Russian intervention against al-Qaeda and ISIS simply never took place or was too inconsequential to mention.

Is any Hungarian so ill-informed that he would believe such nonsense?

Bell used the tragedy in Syria to pressure Hungary on the (largely American-made) refugee crisis. Hungary’s firebrand prime minister, Viktor Orban, has, along with several of his central European counterparts, stood up to Brussels’ (and Washington’s) demands that Hungary take in tens of thousands of migrants who heeded German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s call to come to Europe and enjoy lots of free stuff.

Last month Orban told Hungarian Radio that if he accepts the EU migrant resettlement plan, “it would be determined not in Hungary but in Brussels who we have to live together with, and how the ethnic composition of the country will look in future.” He has rejected such a notion.

“Every sovereign nation has the right and an obligation to protect its borders,” Bell told the Hungarian Parliament, “But every nation, as a part of the international community, also has a fundamental obligation to help refugee populations seeking safety.”

Translation: your sovereignty is not determined by you, but rather by us. It is a practice articulated by Orwell in 1984 whereby a person can think two completely contradictory thoughts at the same time seemingly without any mental conflict.

But here is where the iron fist inside Bell’s velvet glove glints in the sun. She pointedly condemned the Hungarian government position by praising those in Hungary who hold the opposite view, i.e. the Hungarian opposition:

We commend the humanitarian spirit of Hungarian leaders, law enforcement and military personnel, and ordinary citizens who are responding to this crisis with generosity and compassion.

Then she gives Hungary Washington’s marching orders:

We continue to stress that any solution to these migration challenges should focus on saving and protecting lives, ensuring the human rights of all migrants are respected, and promoting orderly and humane migration policies.  That includes the support of all Member State governments for the refugee agreement forged between the EU and Turkey.

Translation: Hungary must support the EU agreement with Turkey which would see tens of thousands of migrants settled in EU member countries, including Hungary itself. The problem is that the Hungarian parliament explicitly rejected Brussels’ forced migrant settlement plans for Hungary and plans to hold a nationwide referendum on the subject. Bell is saying here that Hungary’s elected representatives and even the Hungarian voter must be ignored and Brussels’ dictate obeyed.

When it comes to Russia, Ambassador Bell also has some instructions for Budapest: Moscow is your enemy and don’t you forget it.

She told Hungarian parliamentarians:

As many Hungarians have reminded me, you need no introduction to the nature of Russian aggression. Your response has always been to show resolve. Our best weapons, in fact, are resolve and solidarity.

Weapons? Quite a loaded word.

Orban has been seen in Washington as insufficiently enthused about sanctions on Russia, which hurt Hungarian trade and business interests. Ambassador Bell makes it clear that Hungary must adhere to US demands of Russia, even if they are completely incoherent:

As the United States and Hungary have both stated many times, Russia has a simple choice: fully implement Minsk or continue to face sanctions.  Russia must withdraw weapons and troops from the Donbas; Russia must ensure that all Ukrainian hostages are returned; Russia must allow full humanitarian access to occupied territories; Russia must support free, fair, and internationally-monitored elections in the Donbas under Ukrainian law; and most important, Russia must restore Ukraine’s sovereignty.

That last point should be taken to mean that Russia must ignore the will of the people of Crimea who voted in overwhelming numbers to re-join Russia after just 25 years as part of independent Ukraine.

Not to worry, Ambassador Bell is confident that Budapest will do everything Washington tells it to do:

More than this, Hungary is equal to the great challenges of our times, and the United States is counting on you.

To stiffen their spine, US Ambassador Bell reminds the Hungarians that they are part of “our global order” and touts the great examples set by the US, including:

Our system of international economic, political, and social norms and institutions have kept the peace and fostered prosperity for decades.  Whether it is international law, environmental protection, trade regulations, anticorruption laws, child labor laws, human rights safeguards, the nonproliferation regime, public health systems, international financial institutions, UN peacekeeping, or a robust civil society – these norms and institutions give life and stability to our global order.

In the era of NSA spying on innocent Americans, Guantanamo, CIA torture, weapons sales to the world’s worst dictators (Saudi Arabia for one), destruction of the environment by the US war machine, “regime change” operations that violate the sovereignty of other states, and outright aggression in opposition to US and international law (Libya, etc.), Bell’s suggestion that “our global order” is the pinnacle of civilization should get a laugh out of most Hungarians. In fact, from Libya to Syria to Ukriane to Pakistan and Afghanistan, the US interventionist attempt to forge a global order with blood and bullets will go down in history along with the authoritarianisms of the 20th century as one of humanity’s darkest chapters.

Here is the short version of Ambassador Bell to Budapest: “to be our partner means you do what we say whether or not it is in your interest.”

Funny, that was Moscow’s message to Budapest from 1948 to 1989.

Hungary Breaks Ranks with EU on Immigrants, Russian Sanctions

Interestingly, Hungary is now being sued by “holocaust survivors” in a case filed in a US court. Perhaps not too surprisingly the plaintiffs are being represented by a lawyer from Israel.

Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Coercive Engineered Migration: Zionism’s War on Europe

Is Victor Orban the ‘Chavez of Europe? (Part 1 of an 11 part series)

If aggression against another foreign country means that it strains its social structure, that it ruins its finances, that is has to give up its territory for sheltering refugees, what is the difference between that kind of aggression and the other type, the more classical type, when someone declares war, or something of that sort.
— Sawer Sen, India’s Ambassador to the UN

In an EU press conference on September 3rd, 2015 Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban candidly referred to the current refugee crisis in Europe as “Germany’s problem”. Orban was referring to the fact that refugees amassing at the border of Hungary were heading, for the most part, to Germany. The Hungarian Prime Minister stressed that most of the refugees did not intend to stay in Hungary. Orban has come under criticism for his decision to erect a security fence on the Hungarian/Serbian border in order to stem the flow of migrants entering Hungarian territory illegally.

While most of the European media have portrayed Orban as a xenophobic, far right dictator, the decision to erect a fence was carried out in compliance with EU regulations, which require that all immigrants entering the Shengen zone be registered by the police at the border. Yet, paradoxically, Brussels is criticizing the Hungarian Prime Minister for attempting to comply with EU laws!

France’s daily Le Monde refers to the Hungarian Prime Minister as the man who is attempting to ‘criminalise‘ illegal immigrants. It is indeed a strange country that would criminalize those who break its laws!

So why is Orban coming under fire? Since coming to power in 2010 Victor Orban has implemented domestic, social and political policies that run counter to those dictated by the EU commission. In 2013 Hungary closed down the office of the International Monetary Fund, bringing the country’s finance under state control.

The International Monetary Fund is a key institution of US/Zionist global governance and there are few countries who have escaped its clutches of permanent debt. Therefore, the decision of the Hungarian government to show the IMF the door was nothing short than an act of bold insubordination to US imperialism.

Hungary has also come under criticism for media laws which ban foreign interference from US propaganda outlets such as Voice of America, which the Hungarian government deems to be contrary to the public interest. Consequently, the European Union, which is perfectly happy to ban Iranian television stations, has criticized Hungary for violations of ‘freedom of speech’.

Orban told an audience in Chatham House in 2013 that he believed there was a “leftist and green conspiracy” in Europe against “traditional values”. Orban is no doubt referring to the constant tirades made by war mongering ‘leftist’ zionists such as EU MP Daniel Cohen Bendit against Hungary. Bendit has ironically called Orban the “Chavez of Europe”. This example of ideological name-calling epitomises the meaninglessness of the left/right political paradigm in the post-Soviet era.

Orban’s ‘nationalism’ is not an imperial project. It is, rather, a national philosophy which goes against, and weakens, imperialism. It is nationalism in the sense of national liberation from neo-colonial oppression in the form of international financial institutions and the EU.

Orban’s defense of ‘traditional values’ has brought him ideologically closer to the foreign policy agenda of Russian President Vladimir Putin, who visited the country in 2014. During Putin’s visit to Hungary, Orban praised the Russian leader’s role in attempting to find a peaceful solution to the Syrian war. In 2014 Orban told Hungarian media that the Ukrainian war was caused by the desire of the United States to gain control of Eastern Europe. He also pointed out that the United States wanted to draw Hungary into the crisis.

The Hungarian Prime Minister has made no secret of his desire to pursue an independent domestic and foreign policy. Hungary also has close ties to China and Iran. Therefore, to attempt, as some analysts have done, to portray Victor Orban as part of the reactionary, imperialist, xenophobic right is to oversimplify the complex interplay of ideological and geopolitical forces in the current global political arena and, in particular, the deep forces determining the generation and management of the refugee/migrant crisis. Therefore, to compare Orban’s opposition to immigration to that of British Prime Minister David Cameron is to oversimplify the matter.

British Prime Minister David Cameron plays up his opposition to immigration. But this has nothing to do with the real agenda of the British government. Cameron’s anti-immigration policies are simply the appeal to xenophobia which the Tories require to maintain their electoral votes. Cameron’s regime serves international finance capitalism in its most brutal form and finance capitalism needs constant immigration. Orban’s objections are based more on his conflict with finance capitalism and his criticisms of the liberal ideology driving globalisation.

Victor Orban has proposed that the refugees/migrants be sent back to Turkey until the end of the war in Syria. This is a sensible proposal. The ‘Refugees are Welcome’ slogan and the subsequent marches in favour of immigration served US/Israeli geostrategic objectives. Currently, few people seem to realise that and, as in the Arab Spring of 2011, the bandwagon of US imperialism has no shortage of passengers.

In this sense, Victor Orban of Hungary is, in a very limited way, worthy of the epithet ‘Hugo Chavez of Europe’. While many of Victor Orban’s political policies are far from left-wing, (for example, the banning of communist symbols) his embrace of a traditionalist, dirigiste form of capitalism with strong pro-family social policies and a multi-vectored foreign policy brings his country closer to countries such as Venezuela, Belarus, Eritrea and other nation-states attempting to maintain their sovereignty in the face of imperialism.

A deeply biased and hostile article on Le Monde nevertheless accurately describes Orban’s politics as ‘economically left wing while culturally right wing’. However, qualification is needed here. His policies are ‘left-wing’ from the point of view of global corporate finance but Orban’s economic policies favour the national, patriotic bourgeoisie and are therefore right-wing from the perspective of the working class.

Hungary’s multi-vectored foreign policy has had benefits for the country and especially for other Southern Hemisphere partner countries such as Venezuela. For example, a photo-voltaic energy technology product developed in Hungary and financed by China, was exported to Venezuela in 2013. It is believed that the new Hungarian technology could not only enable Venezuela to become self-sufficient in electricity, it could turn the country into a major exporter of electricity. Venezuela’s cooperation with Hungary is vital to the country’s industrialisation.

What all the countries mentioned above have in common is an attempt to construct a national voluntarism in order to stem the tide of ‘globalisation’ and all its concomitant social and economic ills. This involves a national, patriotic bourgeoisie in alliance with the working class against the ‘internationalist’ compradore bourgeoisie and the ‘New World Order’. It is, in many respects, a reversal of the class dynamics of the Second World War when the Soviet Union led an organised international working class in alliance with the remnants of the democratic bourgeoisie against international fascism.

Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban came to power in a country that had been ravaged by the IMF and a deeply corrupt ‘socialist’ party that had emerged from decades of welfare state capitalism under Janos Kadar. Kadar, a liberal, replaced the communist Rakossi during the counter-revolution in Eastern Europe in the 1950s, when capitalism with ‘socialist ‘ characteristics replaced Cominform socialism. The process was euphemistically referred to as ‘de-Stalinisation’ but was, in fact, an attempt to restore capitalist modes of production.

Hungary’s ideological crisis culminated in the attempted coup of 1956, when the CIA, operating out of Vienna, attempted to overthrow the embattled regime with the help of former Nazi collaborators. The 1956 ‘Hungarian Revolution’ was, in many respects, an intelligence prototype for many US orchestrated regime change operations to follow decades later.

Although, Orban is said to have ‘fought against communism’ as a student, he was, like many others of his generation, a fighter against a particular type of capitalism which he perceived as a “leftist conspiracy” against the people. Marxist Leninists have always considered the triumph of Khrushchevite revisionism in the USSR in 1956 and the subsequent ‘de-stalinisation’ of the USSR and of the Popular Democracies of Eastern Europe to have constituted a counter-revolution against the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Khrushchev’s reforms involved abandoning state-centralised planning, the re-introduction of profit as the regulator of production, combined with a cynical and anti-Marxist foreign policy of ‘peaceful co-existence’ between capitalism and socialism. In order to justify these policies Khrushchev wrote a long mendacious speech slandering Stalin. Every claim against Stalin in Khrushchev’s speech has since been proven to have been a lie. Soviet revisionism killed not only socialism in the USSR but, with the notable exception of Albania, the hope of socialism throughout the world. This destruction of Marxism Leninism by the Soviet and later Chinese revisionists led to a revival of Trotskyism in Western imperial countries. And it is this ‘New Left’ that constitutes the vanguard of contemporary Western imperialism.

In this sense, Orban is correct in his analysis of a “leftist” conspiracy against civilization, for what we see today is the triumph of Trotskyist ideology in the form of Zionism and neo-conservativism, where proletarian internationalism has been subsumed by the ‘human rights’ international on the one hand and ‘islamist jihad’ on the other, a new ‘revolutionary’ alliance waging war against the working class.

One only has to observe the clenched fist of the US colour revolutions and the constant appeal to youthful rebellion to understand how capitalism is now deepening its grip on humanity through the appropriation of leftist, revolutionary symbology. Indeed, contemporary US capitalism is, to employ a phrase of Trotsky’s, ‘permanent revolution’. Or, in the words of US Grand Strategist General Thomas Barnett, “US-style globalisation is pure socio-economic revolution.”

But it is a revolution which wages war on the working class. One of the results of the ‘Arab Spring’ in Egypt was the abrogation of labour laws requiring companies to pay workers during periods of factory closure due to lack of product demand. Many of the strikes that resulted in the overthrow of Mubarak’s regime were led by US funded ‘independent’ labour organisations.

Given Orban’s intransigence on the refugee issue, he is likely to face a US/Israeli backed ‘popular protest movement’ in an attempt to effect regime change. Colour revolutions often involve the transportation of thousands of foreigners to the place of protest by US intelligence agencies operating through NGOS. This happened in Belarus in 2010. Many of the youths attempting to get into Hungary could be used as a battering ram to destablize the Hungarian nation-state.

Since the fomentation of the ‘Arab Spring’ by the CIA and its numerous NGOS in 2011, NATO’s total destruction of Libya and its proxy war against Syria, millions of people have been turned into refugees. That is why they are fleeing to Europe. But it is not the principal reason for the ‘current crisis’, or rather the current phase of an ongoing and deepening crisis.

NATO’s invasion and destruction of Libya in 2011 has led to millions of desperate people attempting to cross the Mediterranean sea. This ongoing crisis has received varying levels of coverage from the mass media. For example, the sinking of a boat in the Mediterranean in July 2015 only received a four line report in the French Le Figaro newspaper, in spite of the fact that a hundred people were drowned!

However, since the publication of a drowned boy washed up on the shores of Turkey in 2015,the refugee crisis has entered a new phase, with the photo of the boy in question being used as an excuse to drum up public support for NATO air-strikes against Syria in order to “stop the massacres”

While no one seems to know just how many Syrians are among the migrants fleeing to Europe, there has been a media fixation on these particular migrants, in spite of the fact that they only represent a minority of the current migrants amassing at the Hungarian border.

The debate about what should be done to manage the refugee/migrant crisis turns on whether or not they should be welcomed into European countries. However, this pro or anti migrant debate masks a new and highly destructive phase in US/NATO geopolitical strategy. Many of the migrants at the Hungarian border are coming from refugee camps in Turkey. Austrian intelligence has reportedly revealed that US government agencies are funding the transfer of these refugees to Europe in an attempt to destabilize the continent. This new geostrategic initiative involves using desperate refugees as weapons for the purposes of US/Zionist divide and rule of the European continent.

France’s Radio Internationale has revealed that over 95 percent of migrants in the current flow into Europe are young males between 20 and 35 years old. Many are said to be fleeing conscription in the Syrian army, which has lost thousands of brave men and women since the start of the Zionist war on their country. The preponderance of young, fit males among the so-called ‘refugees’ has also been confirmed to this author personally by researchers of Russian state television RT. When asked about the refugee issue on France’s BMTV, Russian Ambassador to France Alexandre Orlov said “All I can see are young men fleeing the war instead of defending their country”. So, why are there so few vulnerable women and children among the refugees escaping the war in Syria?

The journey across the Mediterranean to Europe can normally cost up to 11,000 dollars, more money than most European workers manage to save from years of hard labour, yet we are told that millions of war-ravaged Iraqis and Syrians are suddenly able to pay this colossal sum to make the journey to Europe. How is this possible?

The glorification of the young men fleeing conscription in Syria, coupled with the demonisation of the heroic men and women in Syria fighting for their country’s freedom, is deeply indicative of the moral turpitude of our own ruling class for whom disloyalty and cowardice are the principal characteristics.

In September a Hungarian camera woman was filmed tripping a refugee carrying a child at the Hungarian border. The video soon went viral. The camera woman is now taking legal action against the man she tripped as he has changed his story to the police. Petra Laszlo has claimed that she panicked as refugees began to charge towards her. There was much indignation in the politically correct corporate media. But Syrian patriots did some research on the Laszlo’s ‘victim’. The man’s name is apparently Osama Abdel-Muhsen Alghadab and he is a member of Japhat Al-Nosra, the Al-Qaida affiliated terrorist group that has massacred thousands of innocents in Syria.

This is not to suggest by any means that all of the refugees attempting to enter Hungary are terrorists. But in the context of a global war involving complex international networks of terrorists operating under the aegis of American, Israeli and European intelligence agencies, this incident is another argument in favour of Orban’s policy of implementing normal immigration regulatory procedures.

In February 2011 Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi warned Europe about the danger of an invasion by migrants and, in particular, Al- Qaeda terrorists if he were to be overthrown. Syria’s President Assad has also warned Europe of the danger of thousands of Al-Qaeda and Islamic State terrorists coming to Europe, disguised as refugees. It is quite possible that a similar scenario is now coming to pass.

Walkers in the mud الماشون في الوحل


River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Hungary’s link to israel explains their barbaric treatment of refugees

Israeli leaders delight in Europe’s cruelty toward refugees

A scene from Budapest earlier this month; Hungary has responded in a brutal manner to refugees fleeing war.

 

As most of the world looks on in horror at Europe’s atrocious response to refugees escaping war and persecution in the Middle East and Africa, some Israeli officials are quietly reveling in the chaos.

Dore Gold, director general of the Israeli foreign ministry, expressed optimism that the refugee influx will shift Europe to the right, making it more sympathetic to Israel’s “security” justification for its ongoing colonization of Palestine.

“Israel always faced the problem in the past that its national security perspective was completely out of sync with how Europeans were viewing the emergence of the European community and the borderless world that was emerging,” the American-born hardliner told The Jerusalem Post.

“In the European models that existed 25 or 30 years ago, it is kind of difficult to hear an Israeli argument. But now things may be beginning to change a little,” posited Gold.

“The European perspective is beginning to sound a little bit more like Israel’s perspective on security issues, compared to what it was in the past.”

Echoes of the Holocaust

Images of refugees being corralled in trains, tracked with numbers on their forearms, locked away and fed like zoo animals in overcrowded camps and blocked with razor wire fences from entering Hungary have recalled memories of Europe’s darkest chapter.

All the while, refugees continue to die en masse on perilous journeys to Europe, sometimes drowning on rickety boats by sea and other times suffocating in trucks on the side of the highway.

Frequently overlooked is the fact that these deaths are a direct consequence of European border policies designed to make migration as unsafe as possible.

The only thing less acknowledged is the root catalyst.

Rapacious policies advanced by wealthy nations in the increasingly gated Global North have destabilized and fueled the very unrest that has produced the worst refugee crisis since the Second World War.

It’s no coincidence that many of the refugees at Europe’s doorstep are fleeing unrest in Syria, Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan — all countries the US and its allies have directly and indirectly pillaged and destabilized. 

Keeping Europe Christian

While there is plenty of blame to go around for the current crisis, Hungary’s actions — coupled with the jingoistic rhetoric of its right-wing Prime Minister Viktor Orban — have provoked the most widespread revulsion.

Muslim refugees must be kept out of Europe “to keep Europe Christian,” said Orban in an opinion piece urging Germans not to welcome Muslim refugees.

“We shouldn’t forget that the people who are coming here grew up in a different religion and represent a completely different culture,” he insisted. “Most are not Christian, but Muslim…. That is an important question, because Europe and European culture have Christian roots.”

A statement from Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, the UN’s high commissioner for human rights, attributed Hungary’s “callous” and “illegal” treatment of refugees to “the xenophobic and anti-Muslim views that appear to lie at the heart of current Hungarian government policy.”

As it turns out, Orban’s ruling party, Fidesz, is smitten with Israel, particularly Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party. During a visit to Israel in 2005, Orban reportedly declared, “Likud is our natural ideological partner.”

He has since adopted several Israeli practices.

Inspired by Birthright, a program that sends young American Jews on free trips to Israel in hopes they will immigrate, Orban launched a Hungarian Birthright program for North Americans of Hungarian descent.

Orban also tapped Netanyahu’s former political advisor, Arthur Finkelstein, to help him consolidate power. 

Finkelstein is a mud-slinging Republican strategist from the United States who has advised countless rightwing candidates both domestically and abroad. They include the failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney and more recently Avigdor Lieberman, leader of Israel’s proto-fascist party Yisreal Beiteinu (Israel Our Home).

In recent years Fidesz has deepened ties with the far right and openly anti-Semitic Jobbik party.

Hungary is joined by Slovakia, Poland and the Czech Republic in refusing to take non-Christian refugees.

Leaders in Poland are said to be appealing to widespread anti-Muslim sentiment among the populace as election season approaches. 

More than half of those polled earlier this month agreed that allowing Arabs and Turks into Poland would be “detrimental” to the country. Some people have even suggested reopening Auschwitz and sending the refugees there, prompting an investigation by Poland’s prosecutor general.

In Warsaw last weekend, thousands of right-wing protesters took to the streets, chanting, “Today refugees, tomorrow terrorists!“ and ”Poland, free of Islam!”

To make their point, the rightwing demonstrators used a cartoon originally crafted by pro-Israel propogandists to portray Israeli soldiers as morally superior to Palestinians, who are shown using civilians as human shields. In reality it is Israel that uses Palestinians, including children, as human shields.

Back in Israel, fans of the Maccabi Tel Aviv football team unfurled a giant banner that read, “Refugees not welcome!” 

Keeping Israel Jewish

As Hungary was making headlines for its racist pledge to build an anti-refugee fence, Netanyahu announced the construction of a wall along the Jordanian border to block a potential influx of Syrian refugees. Once the barrier is completed by the end of 2015, Israel will be entirely walled off.

Israeli officials claim they are helping Syrians by providing them with medical treatment instead of asylum. But this has only involved around 1,500 people, most of them fighters linked to al-Qaida’s affiliate in Syria. In any case, patching up the wounded, fighter or not, and then sending them back into a war zone (as Israel has done) does not qualify as asylum.

Of the five states that border Syria, Israel is the only one that has not taken in any Syrian refugees for reasons identical to Hungary’s.

“Israel is a very small country. It has no demographic depth and has no geographic breadth,” Netanyahu has told his cabinet. “We must protect our borders against illegal immigrants and against the perpetrators of terrorism. We cannot allow Israel to be flooded with infiltrators.”

“Demographic depth” refers to Israel’s ideological imperative to maintain its Jewish majority, which was engineered by the premeditated mass expulsion of more than 750,000 indigenous Palestinians by Zionist militias in 1948. In turn, Israel barred Palestinian refugees from returning and labeled those who tried to come back as “infiltrators.”

That is why millions of Palestinians continue to languish in squalid refugee camps scattered across the Middle East nearly seventy years later, making it the longest running refugee crisis in modern history.

As “proud Zionist” Noah Arbit argued in The Jerusalem Post that “absorbing any amount of Syrian refugees will only increase this demographic threat.”

Israel’s refusal to grant asylum to non-Jewish African refugees is rooted in the same exclusivist logic.

Openly referred to as “infiltrators” by Israeli government officials, African refugees have, like Palestinians, been labeled a threat because they are not Jewish.

Israel not only denies them asylum, it actively imprisons and deports them back to the horrors they escaped, where some have since been tortured and even killed.

In 2013, Israel completed construction of a wall along its border with Egypt to block African refugees from entering the country. Hungary and Bulgaria have reportedly expressed interest in buying Israeli equipment for their own borders.

Slamming Netanyahu’s embarrassingly open indifference, Isaac Herzog, leader of the opposition Zionist Union, wrote on his Facebook page, “You’ve forgotten what it means to be Jews. Refugees. Persecuted. The prime minister of the Jewish people does not close his heart and the gate when people are fleeing for their lives from persecution, with their babies in their hands.”

It is difficult to take Herzog seriously given his party’s indifference towards Israel’s cruel treatment of African refugees, not to mention its refusal to allow Palestinian refugees to return, a policy Herzog’s Labor (part of the Zionist Union) instituted.

Zeev Elkin, Israel’s immigration minister, slammed Herzog’s appeal as an “attempt to bring the [Palestinian] ‘right of return’ through the back door. That is not responsible, and it is forbidden that it should happen.”

In the case of Palestinian refugees, the Israeli response is arguably more absurd. Israel is not denying Palestinian refugees asylum but rather their right to return to land they were violently expelled from.

It’s hard to imagine anyone arguing against the right of Syrians to return to Syria should they choose to do so when the country is no longer engulfed in war. Yet the idea that Palestinians should have the right to return to their homeland is considered by many to be preposterous, even anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, under Israel’s discriminatory Law of Return, the purpose of which is to boost the Jewish majority, a Jew from anywhere in the world with no connection to land can immigrate to Israel.

In June, Elkin beseeched French Jews to “come home”, insisting “Anti-Semitism is growing, terrorism is running rampant, and according to reports, ISIS is committing murder in broad daylight.”

“We are prepared to open our arms to the Jews of France,” he said, adding, “This is a national mission of the highest priority.”

A month later, Elkin greeted 221 new Jewish immigrants who left comfortable lives in the United States and Canada to settle in historic Palestine. A total of 4,000 North American Jews are expected in Israel by the end of 2015.

The similarities between European far right and Israeli government policies were best distilled by Arnon Soffer, an Israeli demographer nicknamed the Arab counter due to his compulsive fixation on the “demographic threat” posed by Palestinian babies.

Bizarre paradox

Rejecting calls to accept Syrian refugees, Soffer explained, “We are a very small country … please leave me some space for additional Jews to come.” He went on to relate Israel’s anti-refugee imperative with Europe’s.

“Europe potentially can open its doors and accept more and more refugees, but if Europe says no, I can understand because they are afraid [of] the Muslims,” said Soffer. “This is a clash of civilizations and it will not happen in Africa or Asia. It will happen in France, Hungary and will eventually reach England and Germany.”

Orban and Netanyahu share a clear affinity for jingoistic saber rattling against Muslims, but the same cannot be said for the response their behavior elicits.

While Orban has been likened to a Nazi, Israeli leaders have been granted special immunity from abiding by the most basic standards of equality, not in spite of the Holocaust but rather because of it. The US State Department has gone so far as to classify as a form of anti-Semitism “comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”

This has created a bizarre paradox where the Holocaust is invoked to demand inclusiveness and sympathy for refugees in Europe, while being simultaneously deployed to excuse racist Israeli practices. Indeed, Israel’s existence as an exclusionary settler state is deceptively justified as a necessary response to the world’s indifference to the Nazi genocide of European Jews.

Consequently, language that is being condemned when spoken by European leaders is routinely excused when uttered in reference to Israel and Palestine. When the subject matter is Palestinian refugees, liberal rhetoric on both sides of the Atlantic becomes indistinguishable from sentiments typically relegated to the far right. 

Warning about the threat posed by “higher Palestinian population growth and fertility rates,” as Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank did in February, is perfectly acceptable mainstream discourse.

The same goes for describing Palestinian refugees as a “demographic death warrant’, as New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren did this past summer.

Hungary’s Orban would certainly approve.

Islamic State Coming to Balkans

 Elena GUS’KOVA | 09.07.2015 | 00:00

The waves of refugees from the Middle East hit Europe. It’s not something new for the continent and the Balkans. In the recent 25 years migration, including people evicted from homes and war refugees, has become routine. Serbs left Croatia, Kosovo, the Muslim part of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croats left Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jews left Croatia and Bosnia. Last year Albanians unexpectedly went away from Kosovo. According to some reports 100 thousand of them crossed the Serbian border going to Hungary and other European countries.

So many people suddenly left! It took Belgrade a long time to find explanation. The Kosovo authorities said the people left because of rumors that many vacant working places appeared in Germany. The Serbian government was prone to believe the people left homes due to aggravation of social problems. We believe that the unexpected flow of refugees was provoked to put more pressure on Europe and international organizations to make them recognize Kosovo. Kosovo Albanians get impatient waiting for recognition, so they start to act. They have intensified their activities in Macedonia, Montenegro and Greece. Even the statements coming from Tirana have become more radical. In these instances people moved from one place in Europe to another.

In recent years refugees from the Middle East (mainly from Syria, Iraq) and Afghanistan have come to settle down in the Balkans. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), or the UN Refugee Agency, the refugees from these countries first arrived in 2008 with 77 asking for asylum in Serbia. In 2013 the number of people asking for asylum grew to 5 thousand to increase to 16 900 in 2014. 22 182 people crossed the Serbian border during the first 5 months of 2015. This is official data about refugees coming to Serbia across Macedonia from the war-torn regions of Middle East and Afghanistan. 95% of the refugees come from Syria and Afghanistan. There is a ground to believe that the real figures are much higher than the official ones.

The refuges from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Tunisia cross the territory of Turkey and then go by sea to Greece. The further route lies through Macedonia and then Serbia. They move toPresevo, a small town located near the border. Albanians account for 90% of its population. The International Federation of Red Cross and local authorities have established a headquarters to manage emergency situations and take care of incoming refugees. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and Médecins sans Frontières set up tents and offer the first aid.

Some are legal immigrants while others use trails to enter the country illegally. They use trucks, freight cars and find ways to get around check points. 300-500 people in Presevo ask for asylum daily. In June 15 thousand immigrants got asylum in Serbia. Just think how many have already been settled in the country…

How many Middle East and Afghan Muslims have entered Serbia? Some sources say 10 thousand from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries came to the country during the first four months this year. Totally 30 thousand are expected to have come till the end of the year. Serbian Interior Minister Nebojsa Stefanovic says 30 thousand have already entered Serbia with 1, 5 million moreconcentrated at the border between Syria and Turkey. As to our estimates, at least 60 thousand people had crossed the border till July.

According to Office of the United Nations High Commissioner, there are around 60 million refugees in the world with Syria (3, 9 million), Afghanistan (2, 6 million) and Somalia (1, 1 million) topping the list. Hans Friedrich Schodder, the head of the UNHCRRepresentation in Serbia, says the refugees from these countries are more frequently met on the streets, at bus stops and in the parks. It’s worth to pay attention on the UNHCR’s reaction to the refugees problem in Serbia. The organization had turned a blind eye on the issue. Now it has all changed with Schodder calling Serbia a democratic country in the heart of Europe praising it for keeping the border open. He promises to set up the infrastructure to receive refugees. The United Nations calls for doing away with all obstacleson the way of 15 million refugees from Syria and Iraq.

Planned or spontaneous refugee flows go through Hungary keeping away from the borders with Romania or Croatia. According to Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban, 40.500 people have asked for asylum in Hungary this year, 28.800 of them came from Kosovo. Others arrived from the Middle East. Europe was indifferent but Hungarians were not very happy about it. Budapest has made a decision to close the border and even erect a high wall along it. Croatia wants to follow suit. Europe is critical of Hungary but it has nothing to offer as an alternative solution. As a result, more people will stay in Serbia and Macedonia. Belgrade is engaged in hard talks on European Union membership. It wants to put its best foot forward and promises to host all the refugees from the East.

Some refugees stay in Macedonia,, some move to the south of Serbia where there are many Muslims-populated areas, while some of them get settled down in Serbia towns and villages on the way. The refugees come without any documents, they get IDs and other papers in Serbia where whatever they say is taken on trust. According to international and Serbian laws, war refugees are not illegal immigrants. That’s why Serbia takes care of them. Refugee camps or reception centers are set up in Banja Koviljaca, a popular tourist town and spa situated in the Loznica municipality, Bogovadia, a town located 70 km from Belgrade, Krnjaca, an urban neighborhood half an hour’s drive from central Belgrade, Senica, a town located in the south of the country, and Tutin, a town and municipality in the Raska region of Serbia – all under the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration.

Europe is slow in tackling the problem of refugees. The text of agreement on the issue is still being worked out. In two years European countries have given refuge to 60 thousand people coming from the Middle East with first stops in Italy and Greece. Nobody is willing to accept binding quotas. The Greek Orthodox countries of the Balkans will have to solve the problem on their own. Serbia faces the fallout from many years of wars. It is also hit by economic crisis. For 20 years it has been unable to solve the problem of Serbian refugees coming from Croatia, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The flows of immigrants create a heavy burden for the country to shoulder. But there is one more problem which is almost invisible.

Islamic State Coming to Balkans (II) (Not All Immigrants are Asylum Seekers

Nowadays one can meet young people on the streets of Serbian cities who don’t speak the language and don’t look like refugees. Physically fit, respectful and polite, they normally walk in groups of three trying not to attract attention. According to local media, the majority of immigrants settling down in Serbia are men younger than 27. Muslims account for 94% of the immigrants. 56% of refugees remaining in Serbia are single. They don’t likebeing photographed. Many of them are men of means, in some cases the money is sent by relatives.

It gives rise to concern. Well-trained Islamists with combat experience have an opportunity to enter the country posing as refugees. They go to all the corners of Serbia but mainly concentrate in the south. This is the force that could support the Muslim brothers in the Balkans. The feeling of anxiety is spreading around. Telegraph newspaper writes that terrorists do come along with refugees, especially in view that the majority of immigrants come from war-torn Syria. The newspaper believes that many of them come in organized groups. Some sources report that there are around 1000 Jihadists in the country. Around 200 of them are in Belgrade with others living inLedinci, Zemun, Palilula, Medakovic where they have their own mosques without minarets. Many of them come from Kosovo. Funds come from Vienna.

Zlatko Nikolic, a criminalist, believes that a sleeper agent can easily hide among real refugees. The terrorists vanish in the crowd and wait for the orders to come. Local Wahhabis from Prizren, Bujanovac and Gračanica are responsible for recruitment and coordination. Nikolic believes that many thousands of Muslim immigrants are militants. There are hundreds of thousands followers of Wahhabism in Serbia now.

A video clip is disseminated showing an Islamic State militant asking the Muslims residing in Bosnia and Herzegovina to fill the group’s ranks in the ancient land of Islam or start a fight in Bosnia and Herzegovina. “Plant sticky bombs under cars, explode houses, poison them, kill them everywhere – let it be Bosnia, Serbia or Sanjak. You can do it and Allah will help you!”, said Ridwan Khachifi, a Kosovo Albanian known for atrocities he committed in Syria. Retired General Momir Stoyaniovic, a former high standing security service official, said in June 25-28 that Kosovo terrorists planned to commit three terrorist acts in central and southern areas of the country.

Do the Balkan states realize how dangerous it is? To some extent they do. A collegium of Ministry of Internal Affairs took place on June 28 to consider the security situation, especially the problems related to immigration. In Macedonia they reacted more effectively by adopting a law in late June that forbids refugees staying in the country for more than 72 hours. That’s why around 600 people gathered by the end of last month at the border with Greece.

The Bosnia and Herzegovina security services are implementing an $800 billion project collecting biometrics data on foreigners staying in the country. The money camefrom the United States (?).

Husein “Bilal” Bosnic, the leader of the Salafi movement in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) suspected of activities aimed at supporting the Islamic State (IS), is on trial in Sarajevo for allegedly recruiting BiH citizens to join IS fighters in Syria. Milorad Dodik, President of Republika Srpska, openly said that radical Islam poses danger and needs to be countered. According to him, 34 thousand apartments are being built in Sarajevo and Ilic to accommodate Arabs, 380 citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina are fighting in the ranks of Islamic State. There are 3400 people on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina who can perpetrate terrorist acts (none of them is Arab).

There are five ammunition producing facilities on the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. These are potential targets for terrorists. Voislav Seselj, the leader of Serbian Radical Party, openly warns that Washington is preparing the operation Eagleto perpetrate terrorist acts in Serbia and intensify the activities of terror groups in Niš, Čačak, Kragujevac and Belgrade 29. According to him,the groups (1700 men strong formation in Belgrade and 20-30 strong groups in other cities)are waiting for a signal to take up arms. Terrorist acts in the crowded places of big cities will attract policemen. There will be much noise. At this moment Albanians in the south of Serbia will take up arms to accomplish their goal of unification. The Kosovo Albanians will move north to Kosovska Mitrovica. Tirana has always traditionally abstained from interference into the events taking place outside its territory. Now it admits that it is unable to control disgruntled Albanians in the Balkans, especially in Kosovo. Albanians may rise to unite the territories where they make up the majority of population.

The events in Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia provide enough grounds for making conclusions. On the one hand, the scenario of outside management is implemented in all these countries: regime change, the partition of territories, encouragement of extremist activities and suppression of strive for independence. The subservience of political elites is a factor to be used to advantage. Washington has failed to fully accomplish all the goals set. The process has been dragging on for dozens of years. The Republika Srpska still exists and even grows stronger, Macedonia is trying to defend its independence preventing the country from partition, Serbia does not recognize Kosovo and all these countries continue to pin their hopes on Russia and maintain close relationship with Moscow.

On the other hand, radical Islamism has been gaining ground in the Balkans recently. Terrorist groups conduct theirs activities, for instance: Wahabia and Red Rose in the south of Serbia and Montenegro, Tarikat in Montenegro, Al Qaeda cells in the north of Albania. In Bosnia and Herzegovina radical Islamists recruit Islamic State militants and perpetrate terrorist acts. They advocate a united Muslim country to be part of the so called green transversal or “Green Corridor” – a Muslim state in Europe. Looks like we’re witnessing the final phase of the process.

The refugees flow to the Balkans increased in 2014 – the very same year the Islamic State was created. Today the Balkans is flooded with Muslim refugees many of whom get settled down in Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina. 25 thousand young men, including soldiers with special operations training, are to take up arms at any moment. As we see it, the scenario could be as follows. Albanian radicals supported by Kosovars launch insurgencies simultaneously in Macedonia and in the south of Serbia – the Presevo Valley and Sanjak.

The Kosovo police tries to occupy the Serbs-populated areas. A number of terrorist acts are committed in central Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to distract attention. Police in Macedonia and Serbia launch operations against armed formations of terrorists. Probably, Albanian civilians lose their lives as a result of provocations. Upon command the Islamists, who were peacefully waiting for the moment, rise up in arms to form combat units and rush to help the “perishing” Muslim brothers. Clashes increase in scope with unpredictable outcome. Combats of different intensity take place in Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Weakened, reformed armies and police find it hard to defend the territories of their states, especially Republika Srpska which is part of Bosnia and Herzegovina. NATO or new formations of Islamists come to manage the conflict. At all events the problem will never be solved in favor of Serbia, Macedonia and even Montenegro, which is on the way to NATO membership. We believe that the conflict will spark in late August – early September…

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Hungary: Next Stop on the Putsch Express

Via The Saker

Submitted by Andrew Kahn for Voice of América
(Twitter @akahnnyc)

Once is a conspiracy theory. Twice is a coincidence. Thrice gets people wondering. Four times and the polished denials begin as conspiracy theory has become neoliberal reality.

So it is in the Balkans, Central and Eastern Europe and former Soviet regions. Yugoslavia, Croatia, Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine. And where next? The number has gone way beyond four – the time of polished denials. To deny the conspiracy is meaningless at this point for it is not merely a conspiracy shrouded in the minds of tin-hat quacks but it is in the open for all to see; that is, whoever wishes to open their eyes to what is happening.

Were the choice words of Victoria Nuland not enough? Was the feting of John McCain by Ukrainian fascists not enough? Or the continuous duplicity in the words of any official tasked with parroting the lines of democracy devised by the most undemocratic geopolitical Machiavellis? When duplicity and hypocrisy mix in the cauldron of Washington’s witches’ brew being stirred in Brussels’ kitchen and served at tables in Tbilisi, Kiev, Grozny, and now Budapest.

And why Budapest? Why now? Why Hungary? Perhaps George Soros sees his days being numbered and he has saved his country for last. A collusion with the elites to rule his own country. Rather ironic that the NATO operations for liberty are now knocking on the door of Mr. Soros’ country. Or, perhaps, less conspiratorial – for who wants to peddle in conspiracies? – it is simply the latest salvo in the war to prolong the life of a dying United States-NATO hegemon.

One wonders whether the denizens of think tanks in Europe and the United States lay their heads down at night and count Russians and Chinese and any member of the Global South jumping over rapidly shrinking stacks of US dollars and Euros. One Russian Nationalist, Two Chinese Communists, Three Iranian Scientists. Like a drumbeat they see the alliance of Russia and China, Russia and its former allies, China and Africa, Iran and South America – the world with itself, devoid of a cowering pandering to the dictates of the post-WW2 leaders of freedom. Perhaps they see this as their eyes close on feather down pillows. They see this and they know the nightmare is nigh. A pill they need. A pill called Putsch that is branded and copyrighted with its own bold imprint on the pill – “Civil Society Democracy”. 

But I digress…why Hungary? Just a few years ago, Prime Minister Viktor Orban was going to become the darling of Washington. He was a right-leaning centrist of sorts whose views on immigrants would make Republican xenophobes proud but was sufficiently in agreement with the European Union and global capitalism when it came to economics and foreign policy. He was our buddy who could be counted on to serve as a bulwark against a possibly rising Russia under Vladimir Putin. But time passed and we find ourselves in the mid-20teens with the European Union in free-fall, wracked by a collapsed economy and Western European nations caught between liberal nebbishes and xenophobic rightists. And as time passed, Prime Minister Orban cleverly decided to see which way the winds were blowing and they were blowing towards the Kremlin. Center-right governments in Europe are being outflanked on their Right yet still slavishly remain within the EU paradigm – a suicide wish when farther-right populism is rightfully (if from the wrong ideological rationale) calling them out as puppets of Brussels. Public support for austerity is not that fashionable among blue-collar workers in Europe it should be noted and Orban was attuned to this.

So whether from a desire to stay in power or an actual interest in helping his right-leaning Christian-minded constituency that had been left to rot by Europe in the new post-Soviet world of liberalism, Orban decided to shift from ally of the West alone to hedging his bets between the West and Russia. Yet 2012 may have been the turning point when he left puppet status and he spurned IMF demands (more on this later) and began growing closer to President Putin who by this time had become the ultimate thorn in the side of NATO. A resurgent Russia was always being countered by the West – whether in Chechnya or Georgia – but the game had suddenly intensified with President Putin deciding that Syria would not be lost, Crimea would be re-unified with Russia and Russia would stand up once again to the West. 

This move by Orban to become part of the Russian orbit – defined as any country that does not swallow any fact-free attacks on Russia – marked him for targeting. Not only was Orban talking to Russia and attempting to navigate a non-aligned course but he was supportive of the boogeyman South Stream pipeline that Russia was planning – a pipeline that would navigate territory not controlled outright by the West. For a former Communist country to put this red flag in front of the West was, of course, verboten. Nevermind that Hungary had every economic reason to be non-aligned and find economic benefit from wherever it could in the face of EU collapse. In realpolitik, non-aligned means sleeping with the enemy – the Russian Bear.

Some may see Hungary’s moves – both its warming relations with Russia and support for the South Stream pipeline – as meaningless but for the United States every little country, every little leader, every little rebel group that opposes hegemony is a threat to be dealt with whether they are true rebels or are former allies like Orban who are now merely asking for some economic wiggle-room outside of IMF and Brussels dictates. And if there is really an honest questioning as to whether one country looking to have Russia as an economic partner is considered a threat one needs only to see the fate of the other Viktor – Viktor Yanukovych of Ukraine. 

Indeed, even before Orban’s moves towards Russia, it was his steps in regards to the banking industry that first set the international world – or at least the “world” as defined by the borders of Europe and the United States – on its head.

At the end of 2011, the Hungarian Parliament voted in favor of banking changes which would place the national bank under closer control of the elected government with the vice presidents of the bank to be selected by the prime minister as opposed to appointment by the Bank’s president. It should be noted clearly that this was a 293-4 vote and not merely a party-line vote dominated by Orban’s Fidesz Party. When complaints are made by Hungarian opposition that Orban was taking dictatorial control remember this 293-4 number. Additionally approved at that time was a merger between the national bank and its financial regulator – essentially, Hungary had decided that the Bank would be under civilian control as opposed to an “impartial” leader which, as we recognize, is often determined not by impartiality but rather by subservience to international Capital’s wishes.

It was at this time the European Central Bank (ECB) began voicing concerns about the “independence” of the Hungarian National Bank and in the previous year of 2010, Orban did not renew a previous standby loan from the IMF, “opting instead for market financing and to keep the IMF out of government economic policies”i.

For Western Capital, this was clearly a slap in the face and a troubling sign that Hungary under Viktor Orban would use the IMF as it suited them as opposed to other way around. Orban had decided that taxes on the banking sector as well the nationalization of private pension funds was more important than renewing IMF standby loans.

The usual key words are being bandied about by the guardians of democracy. Orban is destroying civil society, cracking down on NGOs, opposing liberal democracy and he is becoming a dictator. Of course, no small reason for this Western claptrap is Orban’s decision to spurn IMF suggestions to cut pensions and remove a tax on banks. Again, one must recall that Orban is not anti-IMF by nature – having been negotiating with the IMF – but realizes that at a certain point, manure is simply manure. As he noted in 2012 in regards to IMF loan conditions he spurned: the deal “contains everything that is not in Hungary’s interests.”ii This was followed in 2013 by the head of Hungary’s Central Bank, Gyorgy Matolcsy, writing a letter to IMF head Christine Lagarde and telling her to shutter the IMF’s Budapest office as its services were no longer needed.iii Hungary would fully repay its IMF loan with a bold “Adios” on the final check.

In a 2013 article in the New York Times, it notes, regarding the then-newly appointed National Bank Director Gyorgy Matolcsy:

There is also concern among economists that Mr. Matolcsy will seek to emulate the economic stimulus

known as quantitative easing used by the U.S. Federal Reserve or Bank of England – essentially, a way

of pumping money in the economy. That, economists warn, could prove perilous in a small country

like Hungary that cannot finance itself without foreign capital.iv

In essence, in the name of banking freedom and independence, the European Union, IMF and ECB were looking to keep their own monopolistic control over Hungary and perpetuate a master-servant dynamic that they promulgate and enforce with an iron fist in most of the developing and post-Soviet world. Hungary’s decision to break from this was seen by the West (a grouping that should not be seen as including its stepchildren in Eastern and Central Europe) as tantamount to revolt. As the New York Times article hinted at, Hungary was looking for self-reliance and had begun to chart a course that would not lead to IMF loans or independent loans from Western European countries that it was in the process of politely spurning.

Not only was Hungary moving to economic independence – despite protestations that it was losing independence – but Hungary had made a conscious decision, as noted before, to be non-aligned in the rapidly deteriorating relations between the West and Russia. Strategically placed near Russia and within the region of an expanding NATO, this too was not to be accepted. The NATO encirclement of Russia could not be allowed to hit a roadblock with a pesky right-populist government in Hungary.

So it is that Viktor Orban has gone from reportedly praising U.S. Senator John McCain in 2008 as a “national hero in the most original sense of this expression” to John McCain now speaking of Hungary under Orban as “a nation that’s on the verge of ceding its sovereignty to a neo-Fascist dictator”.v

Warming relations with Russia, taxes on banks, nationalizing pension funds, spurning the IMF, traditionalist morality…all left for Orban to do to antagonize his former allies would be to send troops to support Hezbollah or some such effrontery.

Now there is never a country or leader who tries to break free of neoliberal policies and align with the enemies of Western freedom that is not marked for regime change for lack of a more diplomatic term. So it is that the question arises as to who in Hungary would take up the mantle as the reformer who will save Hungary from running headfirst – and intentionally – down the path to an illiberal democracy. In the words of Orban himself:

“…the new state that we are building is an illiberal state, a non-liberal state. It does not deny foundational values of liberalism, as freedom, etc.. But it does not make this ideology a central element of state organization, but applies a specific, national, particular approach in its stead.”vi

This is the point where it gets difficult for the United States and Brussels. Finding a neoliberal apparatchik in Hungary will be a wee bit harder than it was in Ukraine. While Ukraine had neoliberals who had no qualms about using fascist muscle and US State Department funds to gain power, Hungary is not so simple. Hungary has fascists in the form of the surging Jobbik Party that is pushing Orban from the right, a Fidesz Party of which Orban is a member that is charting a self-proclaimed illiberal path, a Socialist Party that barely registers 10% support and several minor parties with minimal support.

The likely attempt at this point will be a cobbled-together coalition of Fidesz officials who will bought back to support right-leaning liberal policies that Orban once supported, “reformed for the camera” Jobbik blue collar voters, apolitical but corruption-opposing college students, random members of the nebulously-defined civil society and most valuably capitalist technocrats to round out the bit. Blue collar workers as the goon squads fighting for a dystopic utopia where civil society’s technocrats will rule with a punch to the buttocks of the workers in the name of fiscal responsibility. Welcome back IMF.

Enter the Two Vs – Zsolt Varady and Gabor Vago – one the entrepreneur and the other the technocrat-politician.

To begin with, we have Mr. Varady, the capitalist tech entrepreneur and founder of the now-defunct Hungarian social media website iwiw.hu. If his name means nothing to you, etch it in your mind as his name was quietly making the rounds in reports on Hungarian protests in early 2015.

Politically, Mr. Varady came to (im)maturity this past October in his novel lawsuit against every Hungarian political party for the crime of “creating and maintaining a tax system that compels enterprises to commit tax fraud and tax evasion”. No real complaints with the dismantling of social welfare programs following the collapse of the socialist bloc. No. Simply a lawsuit blaming political parties for forcing corporations into tax fraud and evasion. Of all the complaints that could be laid before the feet of successive Hungarian governments, Mr. Varady decided on this.

Mr. Varady noted that his purpose in filing the legal proceedings – which he notes are merely “of secondary importance {to}…the related PR” was to improve “tax-paying morale”vii “To achieve an optimum tax system the state should be radically reformed. I cannot do that alone,” he says. “We need the support of considerable sections of society. The activities of civil society can serve the much needed umbrella for these messages.viii To paraphrase: Business doesn’t like Orban’s taxes so the working class which we will call “civil society” will serve our interests by being the democratic face for our plans to change the tax code in support of a minority.

Strike one in favor of Mr. Varady in the eyes of the West and IMF. Reform the tax code. Yet what of his political plans? Is he an idealist who wants to push a political agenda that may eventually conflict with foreign support for an Orban putsch? Well not at all. Indeed, he promotes as his next step in politicking the creation of “a website that helps people in civil society organization” which will be funded by “crowd-funding” and, here’s the kicker: “Perhaps we can also receive assistance from foreign foundations and probably émigré Hungarians will also chip in.”ix

One can see the wheels turning in Mr. Varady’s eyes. He of the recent “civil society” protests in Hungary. He of the white knight status who can step into the void as the bridge between all the necessary groups to bring democracy to Hungary and freedom from fascism to civil society. The strategy of street protest led by “civil society” is classic for who can oppose the desires of civil people? But keep his above comment in mind. “We” – meaning his class of neoliberal entrepreneurs seeking help from “foreign foundations” – “need the support of considerable sections of society” who will be the “umbrella for these messages”. Yes my friends, the pictures of civil society will be broadcast while the true agenda will be hidden. The goal, as Mr. Varady notes will be “new foundations” led by “teams of experts that are competent in their respective fields and are committed”x otherwise known as malleable technocrats.

Mr. Varady will be the counterpoint to Orban. An unelected Western-friendly gentleman simply looking to aid civil society against an elected modern-day “Mussolini” as Newsweek so appellated him.xi Mr. Varady will reverse the so-called “Putinisation of Hungary” and return ill-defined liberal democracy to the nation.

Lest anyone question Mr. Varady’s bona fides in being ready for the struggle, he has set the stage for force to be used by noting, despite lack of concrete examples, that “the Establishment” (read: the Orban government) “only understands the language of force”.

Not to be outdone by Mr. Varady is Gabor Vago, the fresh-faced but apparently politics-weary technocrat who bolted from the Politics Can Be Different (LMP) Party in early 2014 after alleged intra-party power struggles. Similar to Mr. Varady, his is a belief that politics is apparently déclassé and that a non-partisan movement is required. Anti-politics is the modus operandi of such civil society figures and one that plays perfectly into the hands of outside influences which will use the feint of anti-politics to push what ultimately becomes a purely economic-political putsch.

Many of the same talking points used by Mr. Varady were echoed by Gabor Vago in an interview with the business weekly Figyelo. Speaking of a December protest that he organized, Mr. Vago noted that the protest which included a punk concert – which he referred to as a “meta message” – was held for the purpose of promoting “a shift in the attitude of the tax authority”xii while using the protestors free-floating discontent as the muscle/street voice of the protest.

Mr. Vago, when asked about the next step replied: “Emphasis should gradually shift onto building communities…With time those micro communities can form a network.”xiii Perhaps based on his former political background, Mr. Vago was less circumspect than Mr. Varady in terms of speaking of the need for “power”. When queried regarding this issue he answered: “True, a change would require power. But that will only become a relevant question later.” When asked “When” he replied: “Perhaps within a year, perhaps in three or seven years’ time. One has to wait until the opportune moment.”xiv

As noted before, the amalgam protest movement requires technocrats and as Mr. Vago noted, without using the word “technocrat”:

Any change of elites would require the participation of experts. We need the support of people who took part in the transition [from Communism to the multi-party system] but not necessarily as politicians. People who have proved their talent in whatever field and think that the present regime is not viable. People who think their integrity puts them at a disadvantage and wish to turn Hungary into a country where you can be honest and competitive at the same time. Building from grass roots does not mean that we only organize ourselves in student clubs and romkocsma (alternative art pubs). We wish to approach people in all walks of life, ranging from top managers to unskilled rural workers.xv

In the same interview he was questioned as to how these groups will be coordinated:

Q: During the demonstrations against the Internet tax you were pleased to have involved young people who had been unaffected by politics until then. But only a few weeks on, only a fraction of those young people took to the streets. How can you involve people in long-term processes that hardly have any affinity to politics?

A: We need to identify the opinion leaders in existing groups and train them how to run such communities. Once we have won those opinion leaders, they will bring along their friends and the friends of friends. Demonstrations as such are not our ultimate goal, instead, to shape a democratic political community throughout Hungary.xvi

In essence, there will be a politico-technocrat elite overseeing the organization and release into society of nebulously-defined “opinion leaders” who will train people to run civil society “communities”. In theory it sounds wonderful – civil society having its rights. Yet rhetoric aside, the track record of Western-backed democratic upheavals needs to be viewed. The picture, as we know, is not too pretty of a sight whether in Georgia, Ukraine or elsewhere in the region.

Hungary is next in line for “democratic change” brought by the winds of the United States’ National Endowment for Democracy mixed with a touch of destabilization tactics from the CANVAS playbook of Srda Popovic.xvii

The question as to whether Hungary will meet the wrath of Washington and Brussels is not so much “if”, but “when”.

Once is conspiracy theory. Twice is coincidence. And now it has become reality.


i http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2011/12/201112316843684157.html
ii http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19514325
iii http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/hungary-calls-on-imf-to-close-its-budapest-office-a-911250.html
iv http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/business/global/selection-of-hungarian-bank-chief-raises-fears.html
v http://budapestbeacon.com/politics/senator-john-mccain-calls-viktor-orban-neo-fascist-dictator/
vi http://budapestbeacon.com/public-policy/full-text-of-viktor-orbans-speech-at-baile-tusnad-tusnadfurdo-of-26-july-2014/
vii http://www.budapesttelegraph.com/news/814/zsolt_varady_on_demonstrations_and_plans_for_a_civil_website
viii Ibid.
ix Ibid.
x Ibid.
xi http://www.newsweek.com/hungarys-mussolini-vows-make-eu-member-illiberal-state-262127
xii http://www.budapesttelegraph.com/news/830/“our_goal_is_a_democratic_political_community_”_an_organizer_of_demos_says
xiii Ibid.
xiv Ibid.
xv Ibid.
xvi Ibid.
xvii http://www.occupy.com/article/exposed-globally-renowned-activist-collaborated-intelligence-firm-stratfor

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Hungary Seeks Regional Alliance to Defend against USA & NATO

Hungary Seeks Regional Alliance to Defend from US

Hungary Parliament Speaker says US undermines European governments. East-Central European states affected by this should stand together

  • “…there is not a square centimeter of area that falls outside of their interests.”
  • “…apart from them no other country can have sovereignty.”
  • “…we are moving like a pawn that does not what to play by the Americans’ rules.”
  • “We need to find allies elsewhere.”
  • “Petty, selfish people not suitable for the political arena are twisting the fate of countries and peoples from North Africa to the Middle East and Europe”

For more on the Hungarian situation see here and here.

The article below is a very recent interview with Hungary Parliament Speaker – the third highest dignitary in the country – Laszlo Köver.

We’ve said before Hungary government statements are still tame. They aren’t any longer.

Köver goes all out here. There are Iranian politicians who aren’t this anti-American.

Being candid he does much to reveal the position Hungary government believes itself to be in:

  • Hungary government has defended Hungarian sovereignty.
  • This has caused it to become target of US regime change ambitions.
  • It would be pointless to try to get back in US good graces.
  • Instead Hungary should ally Slovakia, Romania, Czech Republic and other countries in the region in similar position.
  • It should continue to pursue good relations with Germany – perhaps in hope Germany will mediate between Washington and Budapest.

This is an abridged version of an article that originally appeared in Magyar Hirlap. It was translated by Richard Field at The Budapest Beacon


Pressure from the United States is increasing, while the European Union appears to be restrained and is not attacking us. How do you interpret these events?

The recent pronouncements of American deputy foreign secretary Sarah Sewall are very revealing.

She has spoken openly and stridently about how the United States, interpreted quite broadly and specifically, is devoting millions of dollars in the interest of national security to executing various action plans in two dozen Eastern-European countries.

Part of these are certainly EU member states, and the rest may be aspiring member states, although Sewall only mentioned the Czech Republic and us by name.

So far it appears that we are not the only ones to “put bad wood on the fire” but presumably Slovakia as well, but we cannot rule out the results of the Romanian presidential election playing a role in this.

From this we can deduce a self definition of power that from the national security point of view there is not a square centimeter of area that falls outside of their interests.

From this it also follows that apart from them no other country can have sovereignty.

The recent events cannot be distinguished from when they monitored the conversations of the leading politician of the Western European alliance, Angela Merkel.

It is a logical assumption that among the United States’ allies, the field of activities that can be qualified as unconventional affect not only Hungary but all of Europe.

They boasted that they “invested” millions of dollars in changes in Ukraine.

We have to look at the problems of the free trade and investment agreement between the Union and America as well.

In this way it is apparent that a world political power struggle is under way, whose stake is not only the fate of Hungary but all of Europe, but the chance of European nation-state sovereignty and true democracy.

What can we do in this situation? Can we do anything at all?

We can shake off the moral burden of believing the solution is in our hands.

It is completely unnecessary, because it is hopeless, to make diplomatic efforts in the interest of proving to the Americans – to transpose the old communist phraseology to suit our situation today—we are not revisionist deviationists, and it is not necessary to send troops in the spirit of the Brezhnev doctrine to regulate us

We are not what is at stake. On the chess table we have only been assigned the role of pawn. But we are moving like a pawn that does not what to play by the Americans’ rules.

We were never too good at diplomacy. We needn’t work on making the Americans love us now either. We need to find allies elsewhere.

Those with whom “we row in the same boat”, even on the lower decks. They are the Eastern and Central European countries. Resolving the Hungarian question in Slovakia and Romania should not be the policy of the first order.

We may consider whether they share with us the most important challenges—economic and social problems. Having won membership (in the EU) is it not our mutual goal to emancipate ourselves within the framework of the European Union?

Hungarian diplomacy must concentrate on this and a strategic cooperation with Germany.

Do the Americans represent the logic of war?

It seems totally irrational logic is starting to run the world.

Petty, selfish people not suitable for the political arena are twisting the fate of countries and peoples from North Africa to the Central-East back to Europe, according to what appears to be a long-term strategy, but is really only according to momentary interests.

We had some peaceful years when it was possible to believe that a unipolar world system had emerged.

But now we see that this is not the case, and that the United States must still fight the emerging, formerly third world powers, and new rivals and Russia. They do not want to be subordinate, and neither does Europe. So the Pax Americana has not come to pass. The current conflicts arise from this.

In the same way the Americans pushed aside at the time of the Iraq war their allies, NATO, and placed in brackets both international law and human rights, which they used by the way as a political club.

But what is their goal?

It seems that they will not be satisfied with another government taking the place of the current one, but are thinking in terms of changing the entire elite of the governing party and the opposition.

Until its disappearance SZDSZ was the party that served the policies of the United States and was their advocate in Hungary. When they fell, the Americans tried to bring (upstart liberal party “Politics Can Be Different”) LMP to life.

Have you seen such potential politicians from which it is possible to create the next elite?

Perhaps they want to draw them from the wage strikes of doubtful means of support in their USSR pullovers, Lenin hats and promoting the liberalization of drugs. […]

What do you expect of 2015?

[…] Meanwhile we must not loose sight of our long-term goals either, since every government step is such a means for regaining the sovereignty of the Hungarian state.

All of our energy should be devoted to preserving the life of the nation, so that in the decades to come the Hungarian community can protect belief, hope and self-identity.

%d bloggers like this: