Lebanon’s State Prosecutor Charges Beirut Blast Investigator with Rebelling against Judiciary, Releases All Detainees

January 25, 2023

The Lebanese State Prosecutor Ghassan Oweidat issued on Wednesday a decision according to which all detainees in the Beirut Port case are released with a travel ban.

Lebanese State Prosecutor Ghassan Oweidat

Oweidat also charged the investigator into the case Tarek Al-Bitar with rebelling against the judiciary, summoning him for questioning on Thursday morning and preventing him from travel.

The State Prosecutor stressed that his decisions are aimed at frustrating sedition, which caused rifts in the judicial system.

Al-Bitar had issued arrest warrants against officials as well as military figures on an illogical basis, pushing the defendants and observers to cast doubts on his probe.

On August 4, 2020, a massive blast rocked Beirut Port blast, killing around 196 citizens and injuring over 6000 of others. The explosion also caused much destruction in the capital and its suburbs.

Photo shows damage at Beirut Port following the huge blasts which took place there (Tuesday, August 4, 2020).

Bitar this week resumed work on the investigation after a 13-month hiatus, charging several high-level officials, including Oweidat over the blast.

The measures of releasing the port blast detainees have started at the prison of the Justice Palace in Beirut, according to Al-Manar TV.

Media reports mentioned that the former Customs General Director Badri Daher was released.

For his partAl-Bitar was reported as saying that he would not step down from the probe, rejecting Oweidat charges.

“I am still the investigative judge, and I will not step down from this case,” Bitar said, adding that Oweidat “has no authority to charge me”.

Judge Tarek Bitar

Member of Loyalty to Resistance bloc, MP Ibrahim Al Moussawi, comments on the latest judicial developments by stressing that Judge Oweidat’s decisions are a step in the right path to restore confidence in judges and judiciary after it was destroyed by some of the judicial family members.

Member of Hezbollah’s Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc Ibrahim Al-Mousawi

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Related Videos

Special Coverage | The latest developments in Lebanon
 تفجير مرفأ بيروت إلى الواجهة.. أي دلالات؟

Related News

باربرا ليف والساعة صفر… قضائياً ومالياً: «يجب أن تسوء الأوضاع أكثر ليتحرّك الشارع»

 الأربعاء 25 كانون الثاني 2023

ناصر قنديل

قبل شهرين تماماً تحدّثت معاونة وزير الخارجية الأميركية باربرا ليف أمام مركز ويلسون للأبحاث عن لبنان، ولعله من المفيد جداً استذكار أبرز ما قالته في هذا الحديث المخصص لاحتمال الفراغ الرئاسي، حيث معادلتان تحكمان قراءة ليف، الأولى تقول «إن انهيار لبنان سيمكّن بطريقة ما إعادة بنائه من تحت الرماد، متحرّراً من اللعنة التي يمثّلها حزب الله»، والثانية تقول «يجب أن تسوء الأمور أكثر، قبل أن يصبح هناك ضغط شعبي يشعر به النواب». وتشرح ليف نظريتها بدون تحفظ فتقول، «أرى سيناريوهات عدة، التفكك هو الأسوأ بينها… قد تفقد قوى الأمن والجيش السيطرة وتكون هناك هجرة جماعية. هناك العديد من السيناريوهات الكارثية. وفي الوقت نفسه أتخيل أن البرلمانيين أنفسهم سوف يحزمون حقائبهم ويسافرون إلى أوروبا، حيث ممتلكاتهم»، متوقعة «فراغاً طويلاً في رئاسة الجمهورية» قبل أن يؤدي التحرّك الذي تنتظره في الشارع عندما تسوء الأمور أكثر الى النتائج المرجوة بدولة تتخلص من حزب الله، الذي يقلق «جيران لبنان».

نستعيد كلام ليف اليوم لأننا ندخل الساعة صفر لبدء تنفيذ الخطة التي رسمتها ليف وأسمتها بالسيناريو، فثمة محرّكان كبيران يدفعان لبنان نحو الأسوأ الذي بشرت به ليف: محرك مالي يقوده مصرف لبنان وتواكبه العقوبات الأميركية الهادفة لتسريع الانهيار، وعنوانه تحرير سعر صرف الدولار من أي ضوابط حتى تخرج الناس الى الشارع، ومحرك قضائي يقوده المحقق العدلي طارق بيطار وتواكبه التصريحات الأميركية الداعمة على أكثر من صعيد، ويشجعه تدخل فرنسي واضح، وصولاً لتفجير مواجهات في الشارع مع القوى الأمنية دعماً للقاضي بيطار، وتفكك الدولة الذي تحدثت عنه ليف واضح أمام أعيننا، تضارب المواقف القضائية وانحلال المؤسسة القضائية، ودفع باتجاه «فقدان الجيش والأجهزة الأمنية للسيطرة»، وشارع يبدأ بالتحرّك، سواء بخلفيات عفوية أو مبرمجة، فالقضايا المطروحة كافية لمنحه المشروعيّة.

السياق الذي يفتحه مسار باربرا ليف هو ما وصفته بأن يسوء الوضع أكثر وأن تتفكك الدولة، يقوم على نظرية التصفير، أي الذهاب الى القعر، حيث قالت إن الارتطام سيكون قاسياً، لكنها متفائلة وفق نظرية ان انهيار لبنان سيكون أفضل لإعادة بنائه من تحت الرماد، محددة معياراً واحداً لإعادة البناء هو التخلص من حزب الله. وهذا ما تعرف ليف ومن ورائها كل إدارتها أنه فوق طاقتهم وأنه لن يتحقق. فالمطلوب إذن هو حرق لبنان كي يتم التفاوض على ما يتمّ بناؤه من تحت الرماد مع حزب الله ولو بصورة غير مباشرة، أو التلويح بحافة الهاوية في الانهيار وصولاً للاحتراق الكامل، طلباً للتفاوض، فهل يقبل اللبنانيون الذين يخاصمون حزب الله ذلك؟ وهل يرتضون أن يكونوا مجرد وقود تستخدمه واشنطن لتحسين وضعها التفاوضي بوجه حزب الله، وهم يعلمون الاعترافات الأميركية بأن حزب الله يمتلك قدرة التحمّل التي ربما لا تمتلكها البيئات السياسية والشعبية لخصومه، لا مادياً ولا معنوياً؟

ثمّة خريطة طريق واحدة لمنع سيناريو الجنون الأميركي الذي ينفذه نيرون أو شمشون لبناني برأسين، رأس في المصرف المركزي ورأس في العدلية، وهي موقف قضائي وأمني وحكومي ونيابي بنصاب كافٍ لكفّ يد هذين الرأسين، فقد آن الأوان للاقتناع بأن أحداً من القوى المحلية لا مصلحة له ببقائهما، وأن التوجّس بين الأطراف اللبنانية من تداخل وتشابك بين كل منهما وأطراف أخرى هي شكوك يزرعها الأميركي لتوفير الحماية لهما، وأن قرار كفّ اليد ممكن وواجب، ولو احتاج الى تشريع الضرورة واجتماع الحكومة تحت عنوان الضرورة، وهل هناك ضرورة أكثر من منع الانهيار ومنع تحوّل لبنان الى رماد؟

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

NATO Ministers Gather for War Summits… Russia Should Call Their Bluff

January 20, 2023

Source

The United States and its imperial surrogates think they are putting a gun to Russia’s head. But non other than the NATO powers are the ones who are playing Russian Roulette.

NATO is at war against Russia. There can be no more pretense or illusions about NATO “not being a party to the conflict” in Ukraine, as Western leaders have been absurdly asserting for the past year. NATO missiles, drones and logistics have already been used to strike Russia. And by Russia, we don’t just mean the disputed territories of Crimea and Donbass, but the pre-war territory of the Russian Federation.

This week saw the NATO mania for war against Russia reach a fever pitch. NATO military leaders met in a series of well-publicized meetings in Europe that can only be described as war summits to plan the further escalation of conflict with Russia. The culmination was the gathering at the US Air Force Base in Ramstein, Germany, on Friday, at which pressure is mounting on Berlin to give the go-ahead for the supply of Leopard 2 tanks to Ukraine. The meeting was opened by Ukrainian leaders alongside American military commanders demanding tanks and more heavy weaponry.

Laughably, the Americans are prevaricating about sending their M1 Abrams tanks, preferring instead for Germany, Britain, France, Poland, Finland and others to send theirs. The farcical wrangling encapsulates the U.S. colonialist attitude towards European allies who are too supine or stupid to complain. “Go ahead punks, make my day,” as Clint Eastwood’s character Dirty Harry might say.

The U.S. is quite content for Europe to be turned into ashes and rebuild the continental wreck for the purpose of reviving redundant American capitalism, as in the aftermath of previous world wars.

Earlier in the week, the U.S. top military commander General Mark Milley met with Ukrainian counterpart Valery Zaluzhny to oversee the setting up of new training grounds for troops in Poland and Germany. Zaluzhny is an acolyte of the Ukrainian World War Two Nazi collaborator and mass murderer Stepan Bandera. The pairing between Milley and Zaluzhny can hardly be a better illustration of the nefarious nature of the U.S.-led axis pushing war against Russia. Western media don’t report this because its function is to hoodwink the Western public into cheerleading for war.

The relentless mobilization of the NATO bloc under U.S. leadership has finally reached a historic war footing against Russia. We can trace this ideology all the way back to the beginning of the Cold War following the defeat of Nazi Germany, but it certainly has accelerated since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, followed by 9/11 and the U.S. imperial notion of full-spectrum dominance, and especially after the ignominious withdrawal of the NATO war machine from Afghanistan in August 2021.

All members of the 30-nation bloc are rushing weapons to the conflict in Ukraine. It is even reported that the United States is drawing down military stockpiles held in Israel and South Korea to augment firepower against Russia. Furthermore, Washington is now considering supporting strikes on Crimea which Moscow warned would be an extremely dangerous escalation towards all-out general war. Virtually all taboos have been shelved it seems, as the New York Times remarked this week.

The Western states appear to be driven by madmen who are willfully pushing the world to the brink of catastrophe. There are now open calls for the defeat of Russia and illogical demands for more weapons to Ukraine as a way of achieving peace. “Weapons are the way to peace,” declared Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s titular leader during the World Economic Forum for assorted global elites in Davos this week. “We have to prevent a stalemate,” intoned Washington’s top diplomat Antony Blinken and his British counterpart James Cleverly (how misnamed is the latter!).

Meanwhile, American, European and NATO leaders are calling for war crimes prosecutions against Russia.

There seems to be no room for any diplomacy or rationality. The NATO powers are doubling down on reckless demands that Russia is expelled from Crimea and the Donbass. What the NATO powers are really seeking is the defeat and conquest of Russia.

Russia was forced to intervene in Ukraine last February after all diplomatic efforts by Moscow were rejected. The NATO-backed covert war on the Russian people within the artificially created areas of Ukraine – a war that had been raging for eight years following the NATO-orchestrated coup in Kiev in 2014 – had to be put to an end by force. Hence Russia’s military intervention on February 24, 2022.

There is no way that Russia is going to cede the territories that have now become part of the Russian Federation following legally constituted referenda. But the war has been dragged out by NATO’s demonic weaponization and callous exploitation of Ukraine as a bridgehead against Russia. NATO leaders talk about “preventing a stalemate” by sending more weapons to prop up the NeoNazi Kiev regime. It is the United States and European states along with other allies who have striven to create a bloody quagmire in Ukraine in which lives are callously being destroyed.

The stakes are being made incredibly high by the United States and its imperialist minions. Make no mistake. Washington and its NATO stooges have embarked on a war of choice. Russia has every right to take military action against NATO members. Train tracks in Poland delivering Leopard tanks to Ukraine to kill Russian soldiers are legitimate targets. As are British servicemen maintaining Challenger tanks or British ships transporting them. Up to now, NATO has aggressed Russia with impunity. It is time to end the impunity and give Western warmongers pause for thought about their criminal conduct as one of our commentators noted this week.

Russian President Vladimir Putin this week said that Russia will eventually win the war in Ukraine to vanquish the NATO-backed NeoNazi regime. He was speaking, appropriately, on the 80th anniversary of the breaking of the Nazi siege on Leningrad (St Petersburg).

Other independent international military analysts, including Colonel Douglas Macgregor and Scott Ritter, agree that Russia will prevail in its objectives to render Ukraine demilitarized and remove the NATO-NeoNazi surrogate posing as a national security threat to Russia. The Western media in lockstep with imperialist ideologues have created a propaganda illusion that the Kiev regime can win if only it is supplied with more tanks and missiles. This is fomenting a disaster for Ukraine and potentially for world peace. Russia will not be defeated but the madcap warmongers are raising the stakes to the level of an existential crisis by demanding that Ukraine be made into a “defense line for freedom”.

Moscow again this week warned that if the Western powers insist on pursuing a general war with Russia, then the world is being pushed to the brink of nuclear destruction. This is not a threat. It is simply a statement of fact. Western leaders have become so deranged in their imperial arrogance, self-righteousness and Russophobia, they are beyond heeding sensible warnings. When they declare that war is being waged for the sake of peace and freedom and when diplomacy is vilified as a weakness then there is little hope for an imminent political solution.

The United States and its imperial surrogates have made war all but inevitable from their intransigence. They think they are putting a gun to Russia’s head.

Moscow needs to end this war in Ukraine decisively by eliminating the NATO-Kiev regime. The NATO powers are the ones who are playing Russian Roulette.

U.S. Jackals Smelling Blood i.e. a Prohibitively Huge Potential for Profit in the Russian Arctic

January 13, 2023

Source

Natasha Wright

The Russian military industry in 2022 switched to the unprecedented work pace to be able to deliver the needed weaponry for the special military operation. At the same time, the hard work on prospective patterns of armament, which is mercifully not used at present yet.

On 1 December 2022, the President of Russian Federation Vladimir Putin signed the new law pertinent to the internal seas of the Russian Federation, which in practice limits the freedom of navigation and even forbids foreign military and civil ships from entering and seafaring in the Northern Sea route. We shall illustrate the reasons as to why action was put in place and what its consequences may be in the near future. In line with the new amendments to this law in the Northern Sea route, which is 5500 km in length, no foreign military or civil ship nor any other foreign country vessel will be allowed to be present without the prior special permission issued by the Russian Federation. In order that Russia issues an official permit, one needs to submit an official request but there is no guarantee that the permission will be issued within the 90 days. Even the permissions already issued can be revoked at any point. All the foreign ships must navigate in the Russian Arctic region under their own national flag and foreign submarines must navigate on the sea surface only. This literally means the embargo on foreign military presence in the Northern Sea route due to a huge number of military and civil facilities being built there. In introducing special seafaring and navigation supervision and controls, Russia will lessen the environmental risks as well. Yet, from the looks of things, the Americans do not seem to recognize these newly introduced bans. Kenneth Braithwaite, U.S. Secretary of the Navy stated that in accordance with the adopted doctrine, the Pentagon will shortly commence with the routine patrolling of the Arctic in close proximity to the Russian coastline in polar geographical widths so as to impede the Russian advance to the furthermost North or even make them impossible. Does that mean that the Russian American conflict is inevitable in the short run? And what can we expect in that case?

History repeats itself

Before passing these amendments to the law recently, the Russian Ministry of Defence and FSB had made a detailed plan to prevent the provocations in the Northern Sea Route. It is believed that the Americans will try to cause or provoke environmental catastrophes. Routine scouting and regular investigations will be increased so as to prevent these incidents or possible disasters. Weapons of destruction will be deployed and increased patrolling frequency will be in place if needs be and in case the territorial waters are endangered, practical actions will be put to good use for its utmost protection and defense. The incident in the Black Sea, normally referred to as the Black Sea Bumping Incident, which happened in 1988 can help us try to imagine what future incidents these might be like. The Americans at the time during the Cold War did not respect the sea borders of the then USSR even in 1986 near the Crimea when Gorbachev appears to have been there but back then the Soviets only warned that the next incursion would not go unpunished. Sadly, the USA would persistently carry out incursions and dangerously manuouver in the Soviet territorial waters in order to investigate the USSR military facilities but under the pretext of their right of innocent passage.

On 12 February 1988, U.S. cruise ship Yorktown and the destroyer Caron performed a gross violation of the then Soviet territorial waters by merely believing they had the right of exercising innocent passage. The Soviet Patrol ships Bezzavetnyy SKR 6 did not have the permission to open fire but they performed a so-called ‘deliberate crash’ with the uninvited guests regardless of them being of much smaller dimensions by displacement. After being shouldered by the Soviet Mirka frigate class frigate, Yorktown suffered huge damage and complete with the U.S. destroyer Caron left the troubled territorial waters in question. Both U.S. warships stayed on even course afterwards and left Soviet territorial waters for the international ones without further incidents. But anybody with longstanding military experience and expertise could confirm that it must have involved an elaborate chain of command and the decision to engage in this provocative mission was most probably taken at the highest levels of the U.S. government.

For those who tend to think that the Russian seamen are not willing nor ready to repeat this superb bravado, let us remind you that on 12th February 2022, exactly 34 years after the bumping incident in the Black Sea, U.S. nuclear submarine entered the Russian territorial waters in the region of the Kuril islands, in the Russian Sakhalin region, and after ignoring the Russian request to leave the area, Marshal Shaposhnikov Frigate resorted to a number of extreme means and measures, which got the Americans to run for the ‘hills’ in despair. Why were the U.S. ships engaged in a risky penetration of Soviet territorial waters at a particularly sensitive time in the Soviet U.S. relations and why again on the very same date after 34 years? Regrettably, this will most probably not be the last incident of this sort.

Fancy reading about these newest Russian beasts of warfare? 

The Russian military industry in 2022 switched to the unprecedented work pace to be able to deliver the needed weaponry for the special military operation. At the same time, the hard work on prospective patterns of armament, which is mercifully not used at present yet. The most impressive novelties in 2022 are as follows:

In April last year the trial on the newest intercontinental ballistic missile was carried out for the first time RS 28 Sarmat is the Russian strategic rocket system of the 5th generation based in the land silo. It is supposed to replace the obsolete Soviet missiles 36 M 2 Duke. While designing the new rocket, the Russian engineers did not place an emphasis on the maximum weight of its warheads but on the protection against the anti rocket defense devices

Sarmat 200 tonnes in weight equipped with hypersonic warheads, avangarde blocks, which cannot be intercepted by no existent anti air defense system and 18 000 km which makes the attacks on enemies possible from any direction, which complicates the odbijanje napada. It is a known fact that the Russians produce Sarmats in a serial production, which are already in place in the rocket divisions in the Siberian and the Ural regions. In 2022 the additional armament of two rocket divisions was completed with the mobile rocket systems YARS.

The Russian military Navy on 8th July 2022 got a nuclear submarine for special purposes by the name Belgorod. Its main assignment is to transfer nuclear unmanned torpedo Poseydon, which can have both conventional, non-conventional and nuclear charge. Poseydon is the continuation of the work of the academic Saharov from the Soviet hydrogen bomb who used to suggest that these torpedos should be permanently positioned on the bottom of the U.S. East Coast. In case of a war the explosion by way of new bombs a gigantic radioactive tsunami would rise who would literally wipe out the most heavily populated region of the USA off the face of the Earth. Poseydon has one great advantage. It is completely invisible and undetectable because it has an unlimited range of activity because of its nuclear fuel and high velocity of movement. This unmanned device is capable of lying down on the sea bottom and in being so invisible, waiting for the command for any further actions.

At the beginning of October 2022, Belgorod set off on a journey towards the Kara Sea when it vanished from NATO radars and thus caused great disturbance in the main stream media in the West. After two weeks, Belgorod returned to the base. It remains a mystery still where it was and what it did during that time.

Su – 57M

Modernized, multirole fighter Su – 57M performed its first flight on 21 October.

During that successful flight the new cabin equipment was checked and tested and its modernized version has a new engine with the stronger propulsion so as to achieve the desired height and velocity due to which it gained in its end flight range. Its engine has a low thermic perceptibilty, which significantly lowers the possibility of interception. The modernized Su – 57M testing will last for a few more years. In general, Russia is rapidly working on the newest types of weapons and in the given context of this new conflict with NATO the armament process will be at an accelerated speed.

The 2023 War – ‘Setting the Theatre’

January 13, 2023

Source

Alastair Crooke

The China-Russia axis are lighting the fires of a structural insurrection against the West across much of the Rest of World. Its fires are aimed at ‘boiling the frog slowly’

A top US Marine General, James Bierman, in a recent interview with the Financial Times, explained in a moment of candour how the US is “setting the theatre” for possible war with China, whilst casually admitting as an aside, how US defence planners had been busy inside Ukraine years ago, “earnestly preparing” for war with Russia — even down to the “pre-positioning of supplies”, identifying sites from which the US might operate support, and sustain operations. Simply put, they were there,readying the battle space for years.

No surprise really, as such military responses flow directly from the core US strategic decision to actuate the 1992 ‘WolfowitzDoctrine’ that the US must plan and preemptively act, to disable any potential Great Power — well before it reaches the point at which it can rival or impair US hegemony.

NATO today has progressed to war with Russia in a battlespace, which in 2023, may or may not stay limited to Ukraine. Simply put the point is that the shift to ‘War’ (whether incremental or not) marks a fundamental transition from which there is no going back to ab initio — ‘war economies’ in essence, are structurally different to the ‘normal’ from which the West began, and to which it has grown accustomed over recent decades. A war society — even if only partly mobilised — thinks and acts structurally differently from peacetime society.

War is not about gentlemanly conduct… either. Empathy for others is its first casualty — the latter being a requirement for sustaining a fighting spirit.

Yet, the carefully curated fiction in Europe and the US continues that nothing really has, or will ‘change’: we are in a temporary ‘blip’. That’s all.

Zoltan Pozsar, the influential finance ‘oracle’ at Credit Suisse, has already made the point in his latest War and Peace essay (subscription only) that War is well underway – by simply listing the events of 2022:

  • The G7’s financial blockade of Russia (The West setting the battle space)
  • Russia’s energy blockade of the EU (Russia begins setting its theatre)
  • The U.S.’s technology blockade of China (America pre-positioning of sites to sustain operations)
  • China’s naval blockade of Taiwan, (China demonstrating preparedness)
  • The U.S.’s “blockade” of the EU’s EV sector with the Inflation Reduction Act. (The US defence planners preparing for future ‘supply-lines)
  • China’s “pincer movement” around all of OPEC+ with the growing trend of invoicing oil and gas sales in renminbi. (The Russia-China ‘Commodity Battlespace’).

This list amounts to one major geo-political ‘upset’ occurring, on average, every two months — moving the world decisively away from the so-called ‘normal’ (for which so many in the Consuming Class ardently yearn) to an intermediate state of War.

Pozsar’s list shows that the tectonic plates of geo-politics are seriously ‘on the move’ — shifts, which are accelerating and becoming ever more intertwined, yet that still remain far from arriving at any settled place. ‘War’ will likely be a major disruptor (at the very least), until some equilibrium is established. And that may take some years.

Ultimately, ‘War’ does make its impact on the conventional public mindset — albeit slowly. It seems to be fear of the impact on an unprepared mindset that is behind the decision to prolong Ukraine’s suffering, and thus trigger the War of 2023: An admission of failure in Ukraine is seen to risk spooking volatile western markets (i.e. higher interest rates for longer). And frank-talking represents a hard option for a western world — used to ‘easy decisions’, and ‘can kicking’ — to take.

Pozsar, being a finance guru, understandably is focussed in his essay on finance. But conceivably, the reference to Kindleberger’s Manias, Panics and Crashes is therefore not whimsical, but included as a hint to the possible ‘hit’ to the conventional psyche.

In any event, Pozsar leaves us four key economic takeaways (with brief comments added):

  1. War is history’s principle driver of inflation, and the bankruptcy for states. (Comment: war-driven inflation and Quantitative Tightening (QT) enacted to fight inflation, are policies working in radical opposition to each other. Central Banks’ role attenuates to supporting war needs — at the expense of other variables – in wartime.
  2. War implies an effective and expandable industrial capacity for producing weapons (rapidly), which, in itself, requires secure supply-lines to feed that capacity. (A quality which the West no longer possesses, and which is costly to recreate);
  3. Commodities which often serve as collateral to loans become scarce – and with that scarcity, show up as commodity ‘inflation’;
  4. And finally, War cuts new financial channels i.e. “the m-CBDC Bridge project” (see here).

The point needs underlining again: War creates different financial dynamics and shapes a different psyche. More importantly, ‘War’ is not a stable phenomenon. It can start with petty tit-for-tat strikes on a rival’s infrastructure and then — with every incremental ‘mission creep’ — slip along the curve towards full war. NATO is not just mission creeping in its war on Russia, it is mission jogging — fearing a Ukraine humiliation in the wake of the earlier Afghanistan débacle.

The EU hopes to halt that slide well short of full war. It is nonetheless a very slippery slope. The point of War is to inflict pain and attrit your enemy. To this extent it is open to mutation. Formal sanctions and caps on energy quickly metamorphose into the sabotage of pipelines or the seizure of tankers.

Russia and China however, are certainly not naïve, and have been busy setting their own theatre, ahead of a potential wider clash with NATO.

China and Russia can now claim to have built a strategic relationship, not only with OPEC+, but with Iran and key gas producers.

Russia, Iran, and Venezuela account for about 40% of the world’s proven oil reserves, and each of them are currently selling oil to China for renminbi at a steep discount. GCC countries account for another 40% of proven oil reserves — and are being courted by China to accept renminbi for their oil — in exchange for transformative investments.

This is a significant new battlespace being readied — ending Dollar hegemony through boiling the frog slowly.

The contesting party made the initial strike, sanctioning half of OPEC with those 40% of the world’s oil reserves. That thrust failed: the Russian economy survived — and unsurprisingly — the sanctions ‘lost’ those states to Europe, ‘handing them’ over instead to China.

China meanwhile is courting the other half of OPEC with an offer that is hard to refuse: “Over the next “three to five years”, China will not only pay for more oil in renminbi – but more significantly, ‘will pay’ with new investments in downstream petrochemical industries in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the GCC more broadly. It will, in other words, build out the successor generation economy” for these fossil fuel exporters whose energy sell-by date approaches.

The key point here is that in the future, much more ‘value-added’ (in the course of production) will be captured locally — at the expense of industries in the West. Pozsar cheekily calls this: “Our commodity, your problem… Our commodity, our emancipation”. Or, in other words, the China-Russia axis are lighting the fires of a structural insurrection against the West across much of the Rest of World.

Its fires are aimed at ‘boiling the frog slowly’ — not just that of the dollar hegemony, but also that of a now uncompetitive western economy.

Emancipation? Yes! Here is the crux: China is receiving Russian, Iranian and Venezuelan energy at a big 30% discount.Meanwhile, Europe still gets energy for its industry — but only at a big mark-up. In short, more, and occasionally all, product added-value will be captured by cheap-energy ‘friendly’ states, at the expense of the uncompetitive ‘unfriendlies’.

“China – the nemesis – paradoxically has been a big exporter of high mark-up Russian LNG to Europe, and India a big exporter of high mark-up Russian oil and refined products such as diesel – to Europe. We should expect more [of this in the future] across more products – and invoiced not just in euros and dollars, but also renminbi, dirhams, and rupees’ ‘, Poszar suggests.

It may not look so obvious, but it is a financial war. If the EU is content to take the ‘easy way’ out of its fall into uncompetitiveness (via subsidies to allow for high-mark-up imports), then as Napoleon once remarked when observing an enemy making a mistake: Observe silence!

For Europe, this means much less domestic production – and more inflation — as price inflating alternatives are imported from the East. The West taking the ‘easy decision’ (since its renewable strategy has not been well thought through), likely will find the arrangement to be at the expense of growth in the West — a course prefiguring a weaker West, in the near future.

The EU will be particularly hard-hit. It has elected to become dependent on US LNG, just at the moment that production from US shale fields has peaked, with what output there is likely ear-marked to the US domestic market.

Thus, as general Bierman outlined how the US prepared the battlespace in Ukraine, Russia and China and the BRICS planners have been busy setting their own ‘theater’.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be like it ‘is’: Europe’s stumble towards calamity reflects an embedded psychology of the Western ruling élite. There is no strategic reasoning, nor ‘hard-decisions’ being taken in the West at all. It is all narcissistic Merkelism (hard decisions postponed, and then ‘fudged’ through subsidy handouts). Merkelism is so called after Angela Merkel’s reign at the EU, where fundamental reform was invariably postponed.

There is no need for thinking-things-through, or for hard decisions, when leaders are held by the unshakable conviction that the West IS the centre of the Universe. It is sufficient to postpone, awaiting the inexorable to unfold itself.

The recent history of US-led forever-wars is further evidence of this western lacuna: These zombie wars drag on for years with no plausible justification, only to be unceremoniously dropped. The strategic dynamics were easier suppressed and forgotten however, when fighting insurgency wars — as opposed to fighting two well-armed, peer competitor-states.

The same dysfunctionality has been apparent in many slow-rolling western crises: Nevertheless, we persist… because protecting the fragile psychology of our leaders — and an influential sector of the public — takes precedence. The inability to countenance losing drives our élites to prefer sacrifice by their own people, rather than see their delusions exposed.

Hence, reality has to be abjured. So, we live a nebulous between-times — so much happening, but so little movement. Only when the outbreak of crisis can no longer be ignored — by even the MSM and Tech censors — might some real effort be made to address root causes.

This conundrum however, places a huge burden on the shoulders of Moscow and Beijing to manage the War escalation in a careful fashion — in face of a West for whom losing is intolerable.

The Plan to Carve Up Russia

 JANUARY 5, 2023

Source

By Mike Whitney

For decades, the idea of dismantling the Soviet Union and Russia has been constantly cultivated in Western countries. Unfortunately, at some point, the idea of using Ukraine to achieve this goal was conceived. In fact, to prevent such a development, we launched the special military operation (SMO). This is precisely what some western countries –led by the United States– strive for; to create an anti-Russian enclave and then threaten us from this direction. Preventing this from happening is our primary goal. Vladimir Putin

Here’s your geopolitical quiz for the day: What did Angela Merkel mean when she said “that the Cold War never really ended, because ultimately Russia was never pacified”?

If you chose (5), then pat yourself on the back. That is the right answer.

  1. Merkel was referring to the fact that Russia has never accepted its subordinate role in the “Rules-based Order.”
  2. Merkel was referring to the fact that Russia’s economic collapse did not produce the ‘compliant state’ western elites had hoped for.
  3. Merkel is suggesting that the Cold War was never really a struggle between democracy and communism, but a 45 year-long effort to “pacify” Russia.
  4. What Merkel meant was that the western states –particularly the United States– do not want a strong, prosperous and independent Russia but a servile lackey that does as it is told.
  5. All of the above.

Last week, Angela Merkel confirmed what many analysts have been saying for years, that Washington’s hostile relations with Russia –which date back more than a century– have nothing to do with ideology, ‘bad behavior’ or alleged “unprovoked aggression”. Russia’s primary offense is that it occupies a strategic area of the world that contains vast natural resources and which is critical to Washington’s “pivot to Asia” plan. Russia’s real crime is that its mere existence poses a threat to the globalist project to spread US military bases across Central Asia, encircle China, and become the regional hegemon in the world’s most prosperous and populous region.

So much attention has been focused on what Merkel said regarding the Minsk Treaty, that her more alarming remarks have been entirely ignored. Here is a short excerpt from a recent interview Merkel gave to an Italian magazine:

The 2014 Minsk Accords were an attempt to give Ukraine time. Ukraine used this period to become stronger, as seen today. The country of 2014/15 is not the country of today….

We all knew that it was a frozen conflict, that the problem was not solved, but this was precisely what gave Ukraine precious time.” (“Angela Merkel: Kohl took advantage of his voice and build”, Corrier Della Sera)

Merkel candidly admits that she participated in a 7 year-long fraud that was aimed at deceiving the Russian leadership into thinking that she genuinely wanted peace, but that proved not to be the case. In truth, the western powers deliberately sabotaged the treaty in order to buy-time to arm and train a Ukrainian army that would be used in a war against Russia.

But this is old news. What we find more interesting is what Merkel said following her comments on Minsk. Here’s the money-quote:

I want to talk to you about an aspect that makes me think. It’s the fact that the Cold War never really ended, because ultimately Russia was never pacified. When Putin invaded Crimea in 2014, he was excluded from the G8. In addition, NATO has deployed troops in the Baltic region, to demonstrate its readiness to intervene. And we too have decided to allocate 2% of GDP to military expenditure for defence. CDU and CSU were the only ones to have kept it in the government programme. But we too should have reacted more quickly to Russia’s aggressiveness. (“Angela Merkel: Kohl took advantage of his voice and build”, Corrier Della Sera)

Global Affairs.org

This is an astonishing admission. What Merkel is saying is that ” the Cold War never ended” because the primary goal of weakening (“pacifying”) Russia –to the point that it could not defend its own vital interests or project power beyond its borders– was not achieved. Merkel is implying that the main objective of the Cold War was not to defeat communism (as we were told) but to create a compliant Russian colony that would allow the globalist project to go forward unimpeded. As we can see in Ukraine, that objective has not been achieved; and the reason it hasn’t been achieved is because Russia is powerful enough to block NATO’s eastward expansion. In short, Russia has become the greatest-single obstacle to the globalist strategy for world domination.

It’s worth noting, that Merkel never mentions Russia’s alleged “unprovoked aggression” in Ukraine as the main problem. In fact, she makes no attempt to defend that spurious claim. The real problem according to Merkel is that Russia has not been ‘pacified’. Think about that. This suggests that the justification for the war is different than the one that is promoted by the media. What it implies is that the conflict is driven by geopolitical objectives that have been concealed behind the “invasion” smokescreen. Merkel’s comments clear the air in that regard, by identifying the real goal; pacification.

In a minute we will show that the war was triggered by “geopolitical objectives” and not Russia’s alleged “aggression”, but first we need to review the ideas that are fueling the drive to war. The main body of principles upon which America’s foreign policy rests, is the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the first draft of which was presented in the Defense Planning Guidance in 1992. Here’s a short excerpt:

Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.

There it is in black and white: The top priority of US foreign policy “is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.” This shows the importance that Washington and its allies place on the territory occupied by the Russian Federation. It also shows the determination of western leaders to prevent any sovereign state from controlling the area the US needs to implement its grand strategy.

It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that Russia’s transformation into a strong and independent state has not only put it squarely in Washington’s crosshairs, but also greatly increased the chances of a direct confrontation. Simply put, Russia’s return to the ranks of the great powers has placed it on Washington’s ‘enemies list’ and a logical target for US aggression.

So, what does this have to do with Merkel?

Implicit in Merkel’s comments is the fact that the dissolution of the communist state and the collapse of the Russian economy was not sufficient to leave Russia “pacified”. She is, in fact, voicing her support for more extreme measures. And she knows what those measures will be; regime change followed by a violent splintering of the country.

The United States spends more on defense than the next 11 countries combined

Putin is well-aware of this malignant plan and has discussed it openly on many occasions. Take a look at this 2-minute video of a meeting Putin headed just weeks ago:

“The goal of our enemies is to weaken and break up our country. This has been the case for centuries.. They believe our country is too big and poses a threat (to them), which is why it must be weakened and divided. For our part, we always pursued a different approach; we always wanted to be a part of the so-called ‘civilized (western) world.’ And after the collapse of the Soviet Union, we thought we would finally become a part of that ‘world’. But, as it turned out, we weren’t welcome despite all our efforts. Our attempts to become a part of that world were rejected. Instead, they did everything they could– including assisting terrorists in the Caucasus– to finish off Russia and break-up the Russian Federation.” Vladimir Putin

The point we’re making is that Merkel’s views align seamlessly with those of the neocons. They also align with the those of the entire western political establishment that has unanimously thrown its support behind a confrontation with Russia. Additionally, the National Security Strategy, the National Defense Strategy and the Congressional Research Service’s latest report, have all shifted their focus from the war against international terrorism to a “great power competition” with Russia and China. Not surprisingly, the documents have little to do with ‘competition’, rather, they provide an ideological justification for hostilities with Russia. In other words, the United States has laid the groundwork for a direct confrontation with the world’s biggest nuclear superpower.

Check out this brief clip from the Congressional Research Service Report titled Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress:

The U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia... is a policy choice reflecting two judgments: (1) that given the amount of people, resources, and economic activity in Eurasia, a regional hegemon in Eurasia would represent a concentration of power large enough to be able to threaten vital U.S. interests; and (2) that Eurasia is not dependably self-regulating in terms of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons, meaning that the countries of Eurasia cannot be counted on to be able to prevent, though their own actions, the emergence of regional hegemons, and may need assistance from one or more countries outside Eurasia to be able to do this dependably.”….

From a U.S. perspective on grand strategy and geopolitics, it can be noted that most of the world’s people, resources, and
economic activity are located not in the Western Hemisphere, but in the other hemisphere, particularly Eurasia. In response to this basic feature of world geography, U.S. policymakers for the last several decades have chosen to pursue, as a key element of U.S. national strategy, a goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia. Although U.S. policymakers do not often state explicitly in public the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia, U.S. military operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—appear to have been carried out in no small part in support of this goal.” (“Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense—Issues for Congress”, US Congress)

It sounds a lot like the Wolfowitz Doctrine, doesn’t it? (Which suggests that Congress has moved into the neocon camp.

There are a few things worth considering in this short excerpt:

  1. That “the U.S. goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia” has nothing to do with national defense. It is a straightforward declaration of war on any nation that successfully uses the free market to grow its economy. It is particularly unsettling that China on Washington’s target-list when US corporate outsourcing and offshoring have factored so large in China’s success. US industries moved their businesses to China to avoid paying anything above a slave wage. Is China to be blamed for that?
  2. The fact that Eurasia has more “people, resources, and economic activity” than America, does not constitute a “threat” to US national security. It only represents a threat to the ambitions of western elites who want to use the US Military to pursue their own geopolitical agenda.
  3. Finally: Notice how the author acknowledges that the government deliberately misleads the public about its real objectives in Central Asia. He says: “U.S. policymakers do not often state explicitly in public the goal of preventing the emergence of regional hegemons in Eurasia, U.S. military operations in recent decades—both wartime operations and day-to-day operations—appear to have been carried out in no small part in support of this goal.” In other words, all the claptrap about “freedom and democracy” is just pablum for the masses. The real goals are “resources, economic activity” and power.

The National Security Strategy and the National Defense Strategy are equally explicit in identifying Russia as a de facto enemy of the United States. This is from the NSS:

Russia poses an immediate and ongoing threat to the regional security order in Europe and it is a source of disruption and instability globally…

Russia now poses an immediate and persistent threat to international peace and stability….

Russia poses an immediate threat to the free and open international system, recklessly flouting the basic laws of the international order … This decade will be decisive, in setting the terms of …managing the acute threat posed by Russia.. (“The 2022 National Security Strategy”, White House)

And lastly, The 2022 National Defense Strategy reiterates the same themes as the others; Russia and China pose an unprecedented threat to the “rules-based order”. Here’s short summary from an article at the World Socialist Web Site:

The 2022 National Defense Strategy… makes clear that the United States …. sees the subjugation of Russia as a critical stepping stone toward the conflict with China.… The eruption of American imperialism… is more and more directly targeting Russia and China, which the United States sees as the principal obstacles to the untrammeled domination of the world. US strategists have long regarded the domination of the Eurasian landmass, with its vast natural resources, as the key to global domination.” (“Pentagon national strategy document targets China”, Andres Damon, World Socialist Web Site)

What these three strategic documents show is that the Washington BrainTrust had been preparing the ideological foundation for a war with Russia long before the first shot was ever fired in Ukraine. That war is now underway although the outcome is far from certain.

The strategy going forward appears to be a version of the Cheney Plan which recommended a break up of Russia itself, “so it could never again be a threat to the rest of the world.” Here’s more from an article by Ben Norton:

“Former US Vice President Dick Cheney, a lead architect of the Iraq War, not only wanted to dismantle the Soviet Union; he also wanted to break up Russia itself, to prevent it from rising again as a significant political power…The fact that a figure at the helm of the US government not-so-secretly sought the permanent dissolution of Russia as a country, and straightforwardly communicated this to colleagues like Robert Gates, partially explains the aggressive posturing Washington has taken toward the Russian Federation since the overthrow of the USSR.

The reality is that the US empire will simply never allow Russia to challenge its unilateral domination of Eurasia, despite the fact that the government in Moscow restored capitalism. This is why it is not surprising that Washington has utterly ignored Russia’s security concerns, breaking its promise not to expand NATO “once inch eastward” after German reunification, surrounding Moscow with militarized adversaries hell bent on destabilizing it.” (“Ex VP Dick Cheney confirmed US goal is to break up Russia, not just USSR”, Ben Norton, Multipolarista)

The carving up of Russia into several smaller statelets, has long been the dream of the neoconservatives. The difference now, is that that same dream is shared by political leaders across the West. Recent comments by Angela Merkel underscore the fact that western leaders are now committed to achieving the unrealized goals of the Cold War. They intend to use military confrontation to affect the political outcome they seek which is a significantly weakened Russia incapable of blocking Washington’s projection of power across Central Asia. A more dangerous strategy would be hard to imagine.

The US Captagon Act: Tightening Syria’s siege under new pretext

December 21 2022

Source

Photo Credit: The Cradle

By Firas Al-Shoufi

Potential new US legislation aimed at curbing Syria’s illicit drug trade is being weaponized to strike at the state and starve its people.

On 15 December, a bill introduced by US lawmakers into the 2023 Department of Defense budget to “Combat the Syrian Regime’s Drug Trade,” passed the Senate, with the support of 83 senators and the opposition of 11.

The Countering Assad’s Proliferation Trafficking And Garnering Of Narcotics Act or the CAPTAGON Act, which passed in the joint congressional committees between the House of Representatives and the Senate, is supposed to become law after US President Joe Biden soon signs the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2023.

The bipartisan bill inaugurates a new phase of US pressure on Syria, and is another pretext to increase the siege on the Syrian people, who suffer from extremely difficult economic conditions similar to those they suffered during the famine that the region witnessed during the First World War.

Severe US-imposed sanctions under the “Caesar Act” have contributed to the tragedy of the Syrians, at a time when the country is in the midst of an economic crisis, with the US occupation and the Kurdish Autonomous Administration controlling vast areas of lands rich in oil, gas, and agricultural crops in the east of the country, in addition to the Turkish occupation of other regions.

Further sanctions

Nevertheless, Washington is preparing to impose more sanctions, this time under the pretext of combating narcotics networks manufacturing and smuggling Captagon from Syria across West Asia and perhaps to the US.

Republican Representative French Hill, who first introduced the bill last year, considers the matter a threat to international security and has branded Syria as a “narco-state.” However an anonymous Syrian government source, who spoke to The Cradle believes otherwise:

“The CAPTAGON Act is an American way to impose additional sanctions on the Syrian government and to penetrate more into neighboring countries. The Americans make up many excuses, but the goal is one: to starve Syrian people and bring down the state. This looks like a revenge operation and a way to dominate Syria.”

“They know that when the state weakens, terrorist and criminal groups advance, but instead of helping the Syrian state, they increase its siege,” he added.

The CAPTAGON Act considers “the Captagon trade linked to the (Syrian President) Bashar al-Assad regime a transnational security threat, requiring a strategy by the United States Government to disrupt and dismantle the Captagon trade and narcotics networks of Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

Disrupting the drugs trade network

The bill demands presenting the required strategy to Congress for review within a period not exceeding 180 days of its approval, provided that the method includes providing support to partner countries of the region that receive large quantities of smuggled Captagon, such as Saudi Arabia.

The lawmakers urge the Biden administration to employ the sanctions effectively, including the Caesar Act, to target drug networks said to be affiliated with the state.

The strategy includes a public communication campaign to increase awareness of the extent of the connection of Damascus to the illicit narcotics trade, a description of the countries receiving or transiting large shipments of Captagon, and an assessment of the counter-narcotics capacity of such countries to interdict or disrupt the smuggling of the highly-addictive amphetamine.

Lawmakers have also called for the strategy to include a plan for leveraging multilateral institutions and cooperation with international partners to disrupt the narcotics infrastructure in the country.

War by other means

Practically, “this strategy constitutes an integrated plan, security, political and economic, to penetrate more into the vicinity of Syria and encircle it and prevent access to raw materials,” according to Syrian researcher Bassam Abdullah:

“The terminologies contained in the law are broad, and lead to American-style solutions: providing security and diplomatic support and cooperation to countries to spy on Syria, targeting individuals and entities with sanctions, exerting economic pressure on Damascus in cooperation with international partners, and launching media campaigns against the Syrian government.”

Abdullah believes that “the aim of this law is to demonize Syria, not to solve the Captagon crisis in which the Americans claim Syria’s involvement, and it is a continuation of the war in other forms.”

The aforementioned Syrian government source pointed out that Washington, “Under the pretext of suspected drug transportation, may use such a strategy to stop shipments of food, oil and raw materials, and to cause more damage to the import and export chains, which are suffering from a significant decline.”

Indeed, other Arab security sources, who have asked to remain anonymous, have revealed to The Cradle that the information circulating between agencies cooperating with the US Drug Enforcement Administration indicates that “the raw materials used in the Captagon industry come from China and India, and it is involved in many other industries.”

The issue isn’t Syria’s alone

One Syrian security source informed The Cradle that: “Syria has historically been a transit country. But terrorist and criminal gangs took advantage of the conditions of war for industrialization, promotion, and smuggling. Some of these gangs receive western support and are active in areas under American control.”

He confirms that the government, which is regaining its strength, “is working to strike these gangs, and the Syrian apparatus is making every effort to combat drugs. What we need is help, not more blockades.”

For Abdullah, “Damascus has reactivated its membership in Interpol. If the Americans or others have information, Syria is ready to cooperate. Americans always want to play the role of the world’s policeman who decides and punishes. This is how the unilateral mind thinks.”

He asks: “Does anyone really believe that America wants to combat drugs and not tighten the blockade?”

“Afghanistan is the best model. During the twenty years of the American occupation, what witnessed an increase: wheat cultivation or the cultivation and manufacture of narcotic plants?”

Cooperation, not conflict with Damascus

In March 2021, the Syrian delegate to the UN and other international organizations in Vienna, Hassan Khaddour, declared before the UN Drugs Committee that the illicit narcotics problem in Syria had worsened due to the control of terrorist organizations supported by several countries over some border areas.

He pointed out that this created a suitable environment for the smuggling and trade of drugs, and provided huge financial revenues for financing terrorist groups. The Syrian ambassador asked for international cooperation with Syria, a permanent exchange of information, and providing the Syrian government with technical capabilities, laboratory equipment, and detection devices at the border crossings.

Although the implementation strategy of the latest hostile US legislation against Syria is not yet clear – and whether they include military strikes or security sabotage under the pretext of combating drugs – sources close to the Americans in Beirut say that there are intentions to launch unidentified attacks against drug production sites in Syria.

However, the Syrian security source comments by saying, “This is pure fabrication, because the hostile strikes target the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its sites. The Americans always fabricate lies to justify their aggression, as the Israelis do.”

Is the Pope a Catholic, or Just Another NATO Stooge?

December 17, 2022

Source

Declan Heyes

Just as Ghana cannot afford an economic Maguire, so also can the Catholic Church not afford a spiritual Maguire at its center, Declan Hayes writes.

Although Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova now claims that Russia accepts the Pope’s apology over his Chechen and Buryat smears and therefore considers the matter closed, it is anything but. Nor, contrary to her conciliatory statement, can there be constructive, useful or meaningful dialogue between Russia and the Vatican, until the Holy See stops being NATO’s moronic cat’s paw.

Zakharova’s outrage and that of her colleagues arose, recall, because of the truly idiotic, uninformed and downright racist comments Pope Francis made about Chechen, Buryat and other Russian soldiers fighting in Ukraine. Although I covered this outrage here at the time, some questions I raised remain unanswered, the chief one being who supplied Pope Francis with his mis-information on the Buryats and Chechens and how does their mis-information disavow my simpler explanation?

That, of course, is like the famous question of asking if the Pope is a Catholic. It is a rhetorical question as I already supplied the answer. As the Vatican has no direct inroads into the Russian High Command, it has no way of knowing what the Chechens and Buryats do or do not do. The Vatican relying on NATO outlets like Gillian Tett for their news is akin to putting the Pope’s neck in a noose; it is idiotic beyond measure.

It is worse than suicidal as it has the Pope, Christ’s Vicar on Earth, failing all three of the sieves of Socrates (the Greek philosopher, not the late and great Brazilian footballer). That is, NATO’s mis-information was palpably untrue, it was malicious and it served no other purpose than to stoke further fuel on the inferno that is Ukraine and, collaterally, to damage the good name of the Pope and of the Catholic Church not only in Russia, but also in Serbia, China and much further afield as well. Not only has it further unnecessarily damaged relations between Russia, Serbia and allied countries, on the one hand, and the Roman Catholic and allied churches on the other but it will create further formidable obstacles to building peace with justice going forward.

This, unfortunately, is not the Pope’s first rodeo. I wrote here on how the Pope held aloft a Ukrainian Nazi flag, as if it was the Host, the body and blood of Jesus, the Pope holds aloft when saying Mass. I wrote here of how NATO have been using the Catholic Church and its Ukrainian sister church in particular as a Trojan horse to destroy Russia since at least the time of Pope John Paul 11. And I wrote here on how Pope Francis, together with the Anglican cult, MI5 at prayer, is helping to undermine not only the Russian Orthodox Church but Christianity itself, most particularly in the Levant whose Christians, God’s own people, are suffering the most terrible hardships along with their Muslim neighbors, hardships I know as a fact the Pope has been repeatedly briefed on, but which he ignores in favor of Zelensky’s rotten, rump Reich.

Pope Francis, fresh from his Buryat blunder, is now urging us to have a lean Christmas and to send the money we save to Ukraine, by which he probably primarily means the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church that is in full communion with the Vatican, that Pope John Paul 11 made a special point of highlighting when he assumed the Papacy, and that is at the center of much of the Nazi allegations levelled at Zelensky’s rump Reich. Although there are undoubtedly many Ukrainians who could do with help, and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is to be commended for any good it does, Pope Francis should not have fallen into this further NATO trap.

Yes, there are people of all denominations and none on both sides of the lines in Ukraine who desperately need our help. But equally so, there are untold numbers of innocents in Yemen, in the Levant and further afield who also desperately need our help and Pope Francis is squeezing all of them out of the picture. I have friends, who support minor and largely unsung efforts in the Philippines, in Zambia, in Mexico and in Peru. Supporters of Glasgow Celtic Football Club send money to the poor of Eastern Thailand, thanks to a lovely scheme one of their supporters got going there. Check out Africa’s wonderful Masaka dancers who dance divinely for dimes; is the Pope seriously arguing that these are children of a lesser God? Should all those Peter’s Pence go to funding Olga Zelenska’s wardrobe instead? What utter madness is he talking?

For my own part, I work money to Syrian based Salesian nun Sr Bridget Doody, whom I interview here. Because of sanctions on Syria, I have to go through circuitous routes not only through this site and my own site as well (which I also use to avoid NATO’s censorship of this site).

Sr Doody works at the Italian Hospital in Damascus, which is under the direct auspices of His Holiness,.Pope Francis. Isn’t it odd that I get money from Lutherans, Communists and Muslims for a hospital under the auspices of the Holy Father, while he asks us to scrimp and save for Clown Prince Zelensky and his over dressed wife? What utter madness is this?

Although I enjoy my occasional cups of tea in the Salesian convent in Damascus, whose nuns cannot be praised highly enough, those nuns have criticized me for paying, out of my own pocket, for heart operations to keep little Syrian girls alive as that money, had it been spent on very basic provisions for other children, would have kept many more children alive.

These are the Sophie’s Choices these good nuns, these godly nuns, make day after day, which children to save and which to allow die. I have seen other nuns make the same choices in their orphanage in Smokey Mountain, Manila, as they wrapped their charges not in swaddling clothes like baby Jesus, but, with their nickels and dimes, in discarded newspapers to try to keep their little bodies warm and, therefore, alive. If Our God Lives, He lives in the hearts and souls of those nuns and those they save. And that is a cold and uncomfortable fact.

And, if God is to live in you, you should give whatever spare money you have to the nuns of Syria, to the nuns of the Philippines, to Africa’s Masaka dancers or to the Thai Tims of eastern Thailand, where it will be put to much better use than whatever the Ukrainian Church would get after Ali Baba and Zelensky’s forty thieves take their considerable cuts.

Witness Trócaire, one of Ireland’s biggest Catholic charities. The money they collected from innocent Irish school children they use

d to fund women’s propaganda groups in the ISIS Caliphate of East Ghouta, from where Sr Doody’s convent and all of Damascus was systematically shelled for years on end, until Russia’s General Armageddon helped put an end to all that.

Trócaire is not the only Irish group funding NATO’s Syrian terrorists. GOAL, which became Ireland’s biggest and most corrupt NGO thanks to CIA funding under the directorship of Dublin MEP (and NATO shill) Barry Andrews, poured tens of millions of dollars into Syria’s Caliphates. Is Pope Francis saying we should preference GOAL’s Ukrainian scam over the work of the good nuns of Syria, the Philippines and Palestine, where I met the saintly French nuns of the Bethlehem orphanage (where baby Jesus was born) who, in a beautiful meeting of minds, collect euros from French school children they get to team up as pen pals with their orphaned charges?

White Pope, Black Pope

These godly nuns have, at least, the satisfaction that they do not have to contend with the ungodly morons Maria Zakharova has to swat away like the gnats the Buryats have to contend with in their Siberian summers. If the Catholic Church, with the Pope and the Jesuit order at its helm, is to be something more than a Siberian gnat, it has to radically lift its game so that these great nuns, who do God’s great work in all corners of the earth, can continue to be lights in NATO’s darkness. The Black Pope’s Jesuits, among whose members is the White Pope, Pope Francis, is like so much more of the Catholic Church, a male gerontocracy, who not only won’t move quickly enough with the times but who are being infiltrated and outflanked at all levels by the more nimble footed and infinitely more well funded proxies of MI5 and the CIA. To counter this and to get back on the right track, the Catholic Church must radically reform itself and put sure footed people like Maria Zhakarova in positions so that China’s President Xi might take it seriously. It must, in other words, be as diplomatically and organizationally professional and sure footed as are the Russian and Chinese governments. That is the first step.

White Flag, Black Flag

As a Jesuit, Pope Francis must be familiar with the spiritual exercises of Ignatius Loyola, the great Basque nationalist, who founded his order and who, with Francis Xavier, their great apostle, made the Jesuits the hallmark of pragmatic professionalism, which were consistent with Loyola’s military training.

In his exercises, Loyola refers to the two standards soldiers rally around in war, our flag, the flag of Christ and that other flag of our enemy, the anti-Christ. Although it is a simple analogy, it is a profound one. One either plays with Team Jesus, Team Good, or one does not.

As a football supporter, who has met Messi and the great Argentinian and Italian teams, Pope Francis has probably seen this video of the Parliament of Ghana laughing at England’s Harry Maguire. Just as Ghana cannot afford an economic Maguire, so also can the Catholic Church not afford a spiritual Maguire at its centrer. When, as is likely, Messi, Mbappe and their teammates once again visit the Vatican to present him with signed shirts and footballs, Pope Francis should raffle those items and give the proceeds to the nuns of Syria, Palestine or the Philippines, the Buryats, the Chechens, the Thai Tims or Africa’s Masaka dancers. Once he gets his selfies with Messi and Mbappe, the Pope should ask the French and Argentine managers for organizational pointers on how to clear out the rot from his own team so that Maria Zakharova and President Xi will regard him and his as solid players for Term Jesus and not as Spiritual Maguires for Team NATO.

Carthage Must Be Destroyed!

December 16, 2022

Source

By David Sant

During its rise to world domination, the City of Rome had one major competitor, which was its equal in every way. That city was Carthage, located 370 miles away, on the South side of the Mediterranean Sea.

Carthage had been planting colonies around the Mediterranean and Atlantic for over a century before Rome was even founded. As Rome rose to power, these two Mediterranean cities fought two wars for control over the Island of Sicily, called the Punic Wars. Despite an admirable performance by Hannibal who managed to invade Italy twice and inflicted a terrible defeat on the Romans at Cannae, Carthage still ended up losing both wars.

At the close of the second Punic War in 201 BC, Carthage was conquered by Rome and placed under a special administrative status that disallowed it from fielding a navy or overseas military without permission from the Roman Senate.

Carthage was one of only three powers that ever managed to directly threaten Rome during the days of the Republic, the others being the Gauls who sacked Rome in 390 BC, and the Macedonian Greeks, who were defeated in 197 BC.

The Roman attitude and behavior toward Carthage then was very similar to the Anglo-American attitude toward Russia, today. The main “sin” of Carthage in the eyes of the Romans was that it was equal in power and influence to Rome. And for that sin, it had to be destroyed.

Cato the Elder was a Roman soldier, who later became a Senator and famous orator who gave many speeches in the Senate even after his retirement. Over a period of forty years, he routinely ended his speeches on any subject with the statement, “And furthermore, I consider that Carthage must be destroyed!”

Cato repeatedly made this demand, despite the fact that Carthage was now a Roman client state bound by a peace treaty.

For fifty years after losing the Second Punic War, Carthage submitted to the terms of the treaty. However, after the death of Cato the Elder in 149 BC, a certain faction in Rome deliberately allowed the King of Numidia to pillage and conquer Carthagenian territories, in violation of the treaty.

This placed Carthage in a position where they had to defend themselves from predations by a neighboring Roman client state. Their appeals to the Roman Senate were ignored. So, they took action to defend their interests against Numidia without permission.

When they did so, the Roman Senate immediately interpreted this as a violation of the 201 BC peace treaty, and authorized the invasion and destruction of Carthage. This was not unlike the “rules based international order” of Washington, DC, where we make the rules (for you) but we don’t have to follow them ourselves.

Despite having surrendered their weapons at the outset of the Roman campaign, the walls of Carthage were so well made that it took the Romans nearly three years of siege to break through.

Finally in 146 BC, Carthage fell for the last time to the Roman Army, and was deliberately razed to the ground and burned. The Romans slew all of its population, men, women, and children, except for 50,000 who were taken back to Italy as slaves. According to Polybius, the wife of the last general of Carthage threw herself and her own children into the burning temple of the city rather than surrender to Rome.

Moscow as the New Carthage

The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 was not the result of losing a war. It was caused by the failed policies of a centralized economy, exacerbated by American manipulation of the oil markets, and a costly American-backed guerilla war in Afghanistan. The United States moved in with “shock therapy” economic advisors and took the opportunity to restructure a confused and gullible Russia, including writing a new constitution.

For Russia the collapse of the Soviet Union had many similarities to the loss of Carthage in the Second Punic War.

Despite making peace with their former adversary, and honoring their treaties, Russia found that she could never be accepted as a friend on equal terms by the Western world order. And this was for the very same reason that Carthage could never be tolerated by Rome. Russia was and is in every way an equal to the Anglo-American Empire.

Ever since Vladimir Putin became President of Russia, the chorus of the West has become louder and louder that Putin must go. While they cannot say it aloud yet, what they really mean is “Russia must be destroyed!”

If Russia had continued the policy of submission to Western control that was begun by Boris Yeltsin, we can be assured that Moscow would have eventually met the same fate as Carthage from the Anglo-American Empire.

However, the appointment of Vladimir Putin as President of Russia derailed their plans. Under his rule Russia has steadily reasserted her former leadership and strength against the machinations of the Anglo-American Empire.

False Flag Attacks as a Means to an End

While at first Mr. Putin made a genuine effort to be a “partner” with the West, by the year 2011 it was clear that the West would never accept Russia as a friend or an equal. The West had enjoyed two decades of bossing everyone else around and had learned to enjoy giving orders rather than negotiating. One might say that the West forgot the art of diplomacy.

After watching in horror the NATO-led destructions of Serbia, Libya, and Syria, the Kremlin began asserting itself with foreign policy problems that directly affected Russian security interests starting in 2013.

The Obama Administration was very busy from 2011 to 2013 planning the overthrow of the Assad Regime in Syria. Two major hacks of intelligence related companies shed some unexpected light on what was going on behind the scenes. These were the Stratfor hack in 2011, and the hack of a British private security company (ie. mercenaries), that shall not be named, in January of 2013.

I must note that the private security company (PSC for short) admitted that they were hacked, but claimed that two of the most damning emails released within the gigabytes of leaked files were “fabricated.”

The “fabricated” email as reported by the Oriental Review, purportedly from the business development officer to the company founder reads as follows:

Phil

We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

Kind regards

David

The original story and its context can be found at The Oriental Review: https://orientalreview.org/2013/01/31/britamgate-staging-false-flag-attacks-in-syria/

Despite the file dump including personnel files containing copies of 58 real Ukrainian passports of employees of said PSC, the “fact checkers” at the time examined the email headers and noted that the email in question had a very similar time stamp, of three minutes before midnight, to another email in the release that was sent on a different date, also at three minutes before midnight. While this could be explained by a mail server or laptop setting which sent mail every day at the same time, it was accepted as proof of skullduggery and the entire affair was quickly dismissed and mostly forgotten.

Said PSC then sued The Daily Mail for libel for reporting the “obviously fake” email above as authentic, and was awarded damages and a partial retraction in January of 2022.

The supposedly fabricated email above happened to fall between several other breaches which revealed US and British intelligence were planning to release a video showing Russian-speaking soldiers as the operators of Syria’s chemical weapons depots.

I consider the aforementioned “hoax” to be one of the most amazing coincidences of the past two decades.

The PSC hack was shortly followed by claims of the Khan al-Assal chemical attack near Aleppo only three months later, and another at Ghouta five months after that, both of which were blamed by the West on the Assad Regime in the ramp up for an American invasion of Syria.

It is simply amazing that some unknown hacker managed to fabricate an email discussing the details of an event that hadn’t even happened yet. But the truth is often stranger than fiction.

Of course I know that the PSC referred to above couldn’t have had anything to do with either of the real chemical attacks which followed, because after their demonstrated incompetence of allowing all of their operations in the Middle East to be breached and published on the Internet, I seriously doubt they would be trusted to handle such an offer, had it been real.

The “fabricated” email shows us a picture of what was certainly going on in Syria as US and British intelligence farmed out projects to mercenary groups like Blackwater and other “private security companies.”

However, the invasion party was halted in its tracks in September of 2013, when Mr. Putin completely neutralized the Anglo-American casus belli against Syria by offering to help Syria destroy their chemical weapons stockpiles.

This was successfully completed and verified by the OPCW as being completed in late June of 2014. Thus Syria’s chemical stockpiles were completely removed before the American false flag plan could be convincingly executed. In poker this is known as calling the bluff.

Anyone who actually believed the Western propaganda about chemical weapons might have expected that President Vladimir Putin would be given some kind of international award for bringing Syria into the Chemical Weapons Convention and averting yet another major war in the Middle East.

However, rather than being pleased at the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons, the Atlanticists were furious. This was the first major chess move by Mr. Putin that completely derailed the plans of the Atlanticists on the world stage. They shifted gears to the Euromaidan Revolution in Ukraine, beginning in November 2013.

However, the chemical weapons saga in Syria was only getting started. The Assad Regime continued to be accused of chemical weapons attacks in 2015, 2016, 2017, and even up until 2022. Syria has suffered from multiple attempted chemical weapons attacks since 2012, culminating in a major one in Idlib on April 4, 2017. The Idlib attack was used by President Trump to justify a cruise missile strike on Syria, two days later, before any facts could be ascertained about the event. Since 2017, Russia has warned repeatedly that the White Helmets group were planning false flag chemical attacks to be blamed on the Assad Regime. This activity has continued all the way up to the present year.

The most important lesson to be learned from the chemical weapons saga in Syria is that the Atlanticist intelligence agencies have such complete control over global mainstream media outlets that they do not fear exposure of their false flag attack plans. And furthermore, if you want to anticipate their plans, all you have to do is listen to what they say.

On August 20, 2012, a few months before any of the false flag chemical attacks in Syria, President Obama made the following comments:

We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.

Obama started warning Syria that using or even moving chemical weapons was a red line, shortly before the American false flag attempts began.

Thus, we can see that the US regime will telegraph their plans by first naming a casus belli, and then secretly working to create the false appearance of violation of the casus belli by the intended victim.

Even when the plans are exposed in advance, they will still be carried out. The MSM will pretend that there was no prior warning, and fact checkers will claim the prior warning was part of the deception by the country that was in reality falsely accused.

Russia Must Be Destroyed!

This brings us to the likely culmination of the Western war against Russia. In Septemer of 2022, Biden officials suddenly started clucking about how Russia must not use tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine. This refrain was repeated to the media multiple times by officials including the PresidentSecretary of State, and National Security Advisor, as well as several retired military officers.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see that using nuclear weapons in Ukraine would go against every interest Russia has there, as well as breaking all the rules of Russian nuclear doctrine. The majority of Russian citizens have relatives in Ukraine, which would make such an action political suicide. Russia has never threatened to use such weapons in Ukraine. So, why would the USA give such warnings?

The ridiculous American warnings against nuclear weapons in Ukraine show the wise observer exactly what the US State Department is planning to do. They obviously intend to deploy a nuclear weapon or dirty bomb through their proxies in order to blame Russia for it.

We have already seen this beginning to play out. The Kremlin warned several major countries in October of 2022 that Ukraine was planning to detonate a dirty bomb to be blamed on Russia. US Defense Secretary Austin immediately spun the story to say Russia is fabricating that accusation to justify their own intent to use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Then the topic seemed to die down for a spell.

It is unfortunately naive to think Mr. Shoigu’s warnings averted anything. In the past, exposing the planned chemical false flag did not prevent its eventual execution. We know from the Russian MOD that a radiological or nuclear false flag event has definitely been planned for Ukraine.

Since Russia announced this, it is possible that the Atlanticists may have upgraded the plot to use an actual tactical nuclear weapon, because Ukraine supposedly doesn’t have those, and it would be harder for Russia to deny. It will probably be saved for a moment where it looks like Russia is about to win a major victory in Ukraine.

In the larger context, Britain’s MI6 has run a series of false flag poisonings blamed on Russia, starting with Litvinenko in 2006, followed by the Skripal poisoning, and most recently the Nalvany poisoning. The purpose of these theatrical false flag campaigns has always been to reduce Russia’s influence in the international community, and attempt to isolate Russia as a “rogue regime.”

And going back to the “fabricated” email of the PSC quoted above, we see that the requirement to get video of Russian-speakers deploying a chemical weapon against innocent Syrian civilians fit right in with the British narrative that, “Russia poisons people, because Russia is a venomous serpent!”

The downing of MH-17 would also count as the same class of false flag incident, but with a somewhat more tactical purpose of trying to create enough international hysteria to turn the victory of the Donbass militia into a major defeat for Russia internationally through sanctions.

The downing of MH-17 succeeded in energizing Europe to apply the first round of sanctions against Russia. And even more so, it generated enough hysteria that Russia no longer is given the chance to defend her actions, to cross examine witnesses, or bring her own witnesses with regard to accusations against her. Russia and her citizens are now routinely accused of atrocities by the West and summarily punished by confiscation of property with no recourse in the international bodies that were created to adjudicate such disputes.

As the Ukraine War has stopped trending on Twitter, freezing Europeans are ready to take up pitchforks against their masters, and Russia’s presumed Winter offensive seems very likely to inflict some major losses on Ukraine and the NATO backers, the Atlanticist spin masters badly need a bigger shock to jolt the UN and EU into doing their bidding.

As in the case of MH-17, the Satanists running the Empire of Lies need a large sacrifice of human lives to generate enough shock and outrage to achieve their next big foreign policy coup.

The reader should recognize the same playbook as the warnings for Syria not to use chemical weapons in 2012, followed by years of false flag attempts.

After hearing the US warnings against Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, we should not have been surprised to learn from the Russian MOD that the Zelensky regime was planning to deploy a dirty bomb to be blamed on Russia as a tactical nuclear weapon. The American forewarnings, followed by exposure of such a plot, express the same pattern seen in Syria playing out again.

I expect that some version of this nuclear plot will eventually be carried out with the backing of Atlanticist intelligence agencies.

To What End?

Russia’s position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power has been a thorn in the paw of the Atlanticist beast since the Cold War.

Russia’s willingness to use her military to defend allies in Syria, Ukraine, and Armenia presents an uncontrollable risk factor for Anglo-American hegemony. They cannot tolerate it.

Russia has used her veto on the Security Council multiple times to block American warmongering. If Russia cannot be destroyed literally, then at minimum, they must destroy Russia’s reputation to the point of revoking their seat on the Security Council.

If the Atlanticists cannot risk directly attacking Moscow itself, then they can achieve the next best thing by creating a provocation to justify kicking Russia off the United Nations Security Council.

The Atlanticist Axis is desperate to remove Russian leadership and influence on the rest of the world, because Russia keeps blocking their imperial plans, whether in Syria, Ukraine, Asia, Latin America, or Africa.

The purpose of such an overt false flag attack as a nuclear detonation, real or fake, would be to generate sufficient international horror and emotion to remove Russia from the UN Security Council, or expel her from the UN entirely. They will require a 9-11 level event to achieve that.

Rest assured that when the bomb is finally detonated, the paperwork to expel Russia will be presented to the UN General Assembly before the ashes have hit the ground.

It doesn’t make sense to view such an event as an attempt to stave off Russian advances in the Ukraine. A nuclear bomb might be tactical but its purpose is strategic – to excommunicate Russia from the UN and all other international bodies of which it is a member.

The long term campaign by the USA and UK intelligence services to frame Russia for provocations using weapons of mass destruction follows the dark parallel of Rome’s treatment of Carthage.

Cato and his faction demanded the destruction of Carthage, not because Carthage was involved in any current plots against Rome, but because Carthage was a near equal to Rome in wealth, in culture, and in potential military power. Carthage was a potential adversary that could block Rome’s path to Empire.

Cato made these speeches for decades prior to his death, and ended every one of them with the demand that Carthage must be destroyed. At first it was probably considered a joke. But eventually through repetition he succeeded in priming the minds of the Roman Senate to carry out his desire.

Rome could brook no competition, and therefore did not recognize Carthage as an equal. The existence of Carthage, to the Roman mind, required its destruction. And this is exactly how the think tanks in DC and London view Russia today. “Russia must be destroyed!”

Just as Rome used the peace treaty with Carthage to prevent Carthage from defending herself, while encouraging Numidia to go to war against Carthage, both Angela Merkel and Petro Poroshenko have now admitted that the Minsk Agreements were only used to buy time for Kiev to prepare for war against Russia.

Cato the Elder died at the old age of 85 years in 149 BC. Within a year of his death, the Roman Senate used their client kingdom, Numidia, to create the false pretext to go to war against Carthage. After an extended siege they burned the city to the ground and ensured that it was not rebuilt for generations.

The deliberate destruction of Carthage by Rome was completely irrational. They destroyed what would have been billions of 2020 Dollars worth of property. They destroyed a civilization that wasn’t even at war with them. The Roman Empire became poorer by the destruction of Carthage, not richer. The irrational destruction of Carthage was entirely driven by hatred and jealousy, both of which are irrational.

If Russia ever capitulates to the Atlanticist Axis she will meet the same fate. “Russia must be destroyed,” is the mantra that has been woven through all of the actions, plots, and strategies of the Atlanticists ever since Putin became President of Russia. We should have no doubt that Washington is willing to use nuclear weapons to achieve that objective, whether outright or by farce.

In the nearterm, we should expect the farce – a false flag nuclear attack on Ukraine. If Russia achieves a major breakthrough in Ukraine in the coming year, the nuclear false flag will probably be triggered, followed by hysterical condemnation and demands that Russia be immediately expelled from the United Nations.

The question to which I have no answer is, how can Russia defeat such a strategy?

The End of Mutually Assured Destruction

The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction is based on the assumption that two rational actors who understand that a certain action will destroy them both will avoid that action at all costs. This was the lynchpin of foreign policy during the Cold War.

The problem is that most humans are only rational some of the time. And some small percentage of us may reach a state of complete irrationality most of the time.

Furthermore, humans have a strange tendency on rare occasions to go mad together in crowds, not unlike lemmings who follow each other over the cliff into the sea. Nazi Germany in the 1930s comes to mind.

While Russia has recently been trying to protect herself from the acidic influence of Western imposed sodomy, the West has fully embraced it. And that, not merely as one of many valid options, but as a totalitarian state religion that children must be indoctrinated into. This is what Mr. Putin meant when he said that the West has become Satanic.

Sodomy is not merely an individual choice. It is a suicidal choice both for the individual and for human society. Consistent sodomites have no offspring, so they must recruit the offspring of normal people in order to grow in numbers. But in the end, a civilization that embraces sodomy as the preferred lifestyle will completely collapse morally, economically, and numerically.

The West has come under the spell of a death cult, currently led by the World Economic Forum. Their irrational desire to deindustrialize and depopulate the world in the name of environmentalism and technocracy can only be described as insanity. Ultimately both sodomy and Malthusian environmentalism are rejections of our Creator, and the mandate to be fruitful, multiply, and exercise dominion over the Earth and its living creatures. It is a rejection of the mission of transforming the Earth from wilderness and wasteland into a garden.

But he who sins against me wrongs his own soul; All those who hate me love death. (Proverbs 8:36)

Such leaders cannot be counted on to act rationally under the MAD regime, because they may view a nuclear war as a shortcut to achieve their goals of deindustrialization and depopulation. Of course, they have their bunkers in Switzerland and irrationally believe they will survive the conflagration to become the new elite of a greener world controlled by technocrats.

The Heaven’s Gate cult members also believed that by committing mass suicide they would ascend into a higher and better state. As far as anyone knows, they were completely wrong. But that did not stop them from carrying out mass suicide.

Jesus said that you don’t pour new wine into an old wineskin. The reason is that the leather of a wineskin stretches under the pressure of fermentation. An old wineskin has lost its elasticity, and cannot contain the power of a second batch of fermenting wine. It will burst.

It appears to me that Mutual Assured Destruction is an old wineskin of the twentieth century that may not be able to contain the fermenting minds of the annihilationist “young leaders” whose hearts were trained by the World Economic Forum.

In the past year we have already seen the West demonstrate it has reached a state of chronic criminal insanity.

First, they blew up the Nord Stream Pipeline which will cause the deindustrialisation of Western Europe.

That is criminally insane!

Then, Ukraine, under western supervision and using western weapons, has spent the past six months shelling the Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Station in an effort to cause a nuclear accident.

That is criminally insane!

Now, the Russian MOD already has said they have evidence that the NATO-backed Ukrainians are planning a false flag radiological or nuclear weapon detonation on their own soil!!!

That is criminally suicidally insane!

We have reached a point in world history where the West appears to be planning a nuclear false flag attack in Ukraine to be blamed on Russia in order to justify the next big change, whatever that is. And Russia stands in their way. The leaders of the West have gone certifiably mad. And this means that MAD is no longer a shield against nuclear war.

Any remaining sane powers in this world need to immediately take that into account, and start preparing and planning to survive and win a nuclear war against a diabolically insane and suicidal adversary who may not see a total nuclear war as a bad thing.

If Carthage waits for Rome to make their next move, trusting in the good faith of the parties to make rational decisions under international law, then it is quite likely that once more, Carthage shall be destroyed.

Kyrie eleison on us all!

Minsk agreement under the microscope; intentions exposed: Global Times

13 Dec 2022 17:24 

Source: Global Times

By Al Mayadeen English 

The Global Times reports on former German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s statement regarding the “real intentions” behind the Minsk agreements and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “close to zero” trust in talks.

Russian President Vladimir Putin and former German chancellor Angela Merkel (Getty Images)

In a report on Tuesday, the Global Times expressed that from pushing for the Minsk agreements to inciting the war between Russia and NATO in Ukraine, the West is attempting to exhaust and control a country it deemed as a rival through protraction efforts.

Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel revealed last week, during an interview for the German newspaper Die Zeit, the West’s true intentions behind its negotiation with Russia and Ukraine to promote a ceasefire in 2014. The report states that Merkel admitted that the Minsk agreements were an “attempt to give Ukraine time” and that Kiev had used it “to become stronger.” In other words, the Minsk agreements were an illusion. 

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Merkel’s remarks were “completely unexpected and disappointing.” According to the New York Post, Putin felt betrayed by the West following the Minsk agreements. “It has turned out that no one was going to implement the agreements,” the Russian leader pointed out.

The Minsk agreements are allegedly intended to manage the Ukraine crisis and avoid escalating the conflict that was raging at the time. Merkel confessed that they were just a stopgap to buy time for Ukraine and the West, and Western countries have never put real effort into resolving the differences with Russia over the Ukraine crisis.

According to the Global Times, what the former German leader stated “tears down the last remaining bit of the ‘friendly’ mask some Western countries put on with Russia.” In the eyes of some Western countries, Russia is just a diplomatic and political “alien”.  Moreover, under the influence of Washington, the report adds that “some view Moscow as a so-called threat due to its huge military power and political system that does not meet the so-called Western standard.”

Russia’s trust in the West has already fallen to a new low, according to the Global Times, and the West’s hypocrisy has worn out Moscow’s will to engage in an effective dialogue with the West, some experts noted. “Now there is a question of trust on the agenda, and it is already close to zero,” said Putin on Friday.

Merkel’s confession about the Minsk agreements also showed that some Western countries, particularly the US, do not honor contractual obligations at all. They can go back on their words so easily.

The report wrote that the agreement the US wants is never about credibility; it is all about interests. An agreement is seen as useful by the US when it can advance the country’s interests; according to the Global Times, otherwise, Washington is always ready to deny it.

It continues that this is exemplified by the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. “Washington also adopts a double standard to advance its allies’ interests when carrying out the agreement.”

Washington has a history of hijacking many other Western countries to join such a hegemony, according to the Global Times, creating and maintaining a distorted international order. The report adds that some US-led Western countries will keep using “so-called values as an excuse to defend their collective hegemony and bully others under international rule and order in their favor.”

A few days earlier, the Russian Foreign Ministry said a confession made by German ex-Chancellor Angela Merkel concerning the Minsk agreements might be used as evidence in a tribunal against Western leaders for provoking the war in Ukraine between Moscow and Kiev.

Last week, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken considered that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine will end with diplomacy and negotiation, stressing that it must be a durable and just peace.

“At some point, this will end, and it will end almost certainly with diplomacy, with negotiation. But what I think we have to see is a just and durable peace, not a phony peace,” Blinken told The Wall Street Journal.

Last month, according to those familiar with the negotiations, US President Joe Biden’s administration is secretly pressing Kiev to demonstrate a willingness to negotiate with Moscow.

Washington does not want Ukraine to start negotiations with Russia but rather to reassure Kiev it has the support of other countries, according to the newspaper. “Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” one US official told The Washington Post.

The discussions highlight how complicated the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as US officials publicly pledge to support Kiev with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that has taken a toll on the world economy and sparked fears of nuclear war over the past eight months.

The Coming Purge of the China-Hands

December 08, 2022

Source

IMAGE 1 Those who deal with the Chinese will lose their laughter

by  Thorsten J. Pattberg

Thousands of China collaborators are under surveillance. Some are on the brink of ruin, others don’t even know what’s in store for them

There comes a time during or shortly after the academic training of every “Student of China” when he frequently runs into one of the many agents of Western anti-China state security.

They are adverse hostile forces, they run a complete background-check on you, and then they‘ll make you a simple offer: You either produce anti-Chinese content for the West, or they‘ll mark you as anti-democratic and enemy of freedom, a traitor. In that case, you’ll never find work in the West again.

And if you make a big fuss about it and cry coercion or blackmail, they are gonna start decomposing you.

Like most young students back then, I, too, was completely ignorant about the inner workings of Western world hegemony. And, like the idiot I always was, I threw myself heedlessly into “China Studies” at a respective University in the United Kingdom, Edinburgh to be exact.

Immediately, the conceited profs and lecturers, they taught us the horrors of Han chauvinism, the horrors of Qing China and the horrors of the Maoists and the horrors against the poor people of Tibet, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

When I looked it up, those were all former British colonies and/or places of interest to the British Crown. We were told LIES by the very British people whose soldiers raped, looted and colonized China, and were now angry that China somehow stood its ground and survived.

I do not expect you to believe at first what I am about to tell you. I would not have believed it myself, back then I mean, before I joined some of the many “Studies” invented by the Western Empire of LIES.

“China Studies” is not about China. It could be, but it is not. It is warfare against China. To keep China down. To sabotage her. To control her people and her history.

In this war, it is the West or you perish. Joining the enemy, China, is a capital crime. Have you ever wondered why there are no pro-China talking heads in the books, in the papers or on telly? It is because pro-China people in “China Studies” were the enemy. They didn’t make it through graduation, they weren’t hired, etc..

Our common sense is often betrayed by what sociologists call ‘the survivor bias’: We believe that since all we hear or read about China is negative, this must be sure proof that China is a very nasty place. What we fail to see, however, is that all the negative stuff we heard and read about China was the product of just 1 “China Studies” graduate for every 1,000,000 people or so of the general Western population. Nobody who was pro-China survived the selection process or came anywhere near central power.

Everyone the UK authorities detect who doesn’t match the profile of “a future China-basher” is not selected for graduation or a top post. It is as simple as that.

When I decided to expand from “Sanskrit Studies” and  do my own research on Buddhism in mainland China, I must have triggered UK anti-China state security. I spare you the whole process; safe to say it was unpleasant. To their credit, they tried to talk me out of it. I declined an exchange year in US-Taiwan, even for money. Then they gave me a scholarship to British Hong Kong, but I declined that as well. I wanted to go to mainland China, on my own.

This was the end of my career in the humanities before it started. I see it now clearly, in hindsight. I didn’t stand a chance. But back then, I did not believe human beings, intelligent scholars, could be so violent and cruel. I had no idea.

Unbeknownst to me back then, I landed on anti-China state security lists of the British MI6, the German BND, and the American CIA. It basically amounts to flying with SSSS ‘Secondary Screening Security Selection’, the complete banishment from Western clubs, organizations, the media and so on. They spread rumors, call your employers. It is no fun. Edinburgh put me on the watch list, sent me huge bills, and put my degree on hold for two years.

My supervisors and lecturers turned from sweet and caring people into monsters. And my classmates began to disassociate from me, of course, to save their skin. That is normal survival mode, I guess. That said, none of them turned out to be a particularly happy fellow either. They wanted to study China for their Love of China. Now they were made to hate it, hate it, hate all about it. [Some made peace with China, but the dreadful indoctrination at ‘anti-China University’ can never be fully erased.]

See, in Britain the students often think they are some kind of free spirits. They spent 20 to 24 years locked away in compulsory education, because a university degree is, after all, very much compulsory! So they graduate with an MA or PhD in “China Studies” and they think like Uh, ah… China bad! But that isn’t so brilliant, is it, free spirit? British compulsory higher education feels exactly like the compulsory BBC, exactly like the compulsory Monarchy, exactly like compulsory taxes.

“China Studies” is one of the many Western-invented “Studies” that were tools during the Imperialist era and today probably shouldn’t continue. However, this ingrained, state-sponsored, all-consuming British hatred for China and the China-hands truly stands out, I think, and the pressure on Western students to conform to the British version of Chinese history is damaging and painful.

To cement London’s claim to British world empire over the Chinese, the government is shipping and flying in hundreds of thousands of Hong Kong Chinese and Taiwan Chinese and Token Chinese. In the government’s twisted calculations, this will also lend “China Studies” its fake legitimacy.

It would be better if the English send hundreds of thousands of Englishmen to Mongolia and Shanghai and Sichuan and what not, you know, just like when the English back in the days took Jamestown or Sydney. But this one with the Chinese in England now is different, you see.

You don‘t believe it? Well, the servile nature of the Chinese is well documented and universally acknowledged in Britain and the West. We have 500 years of experimenting with Chinese in our colonies. The Chinese diasporas in America and Europe are so well-behaved and… well, demoralized, they do not pose any serious threat to Western hegemony. [As long as we eliminate any emerging leaders.]

What does pose a real threat, however, are Western intellectuals. One single complainant British, one single bold German, one single cunning Jew are far more dangerous than tens of millions of Chinese ingrates. In short, the Western overlords fear internal revolt, never an external one.

That’s why Western anti-China state security is directing most of its violence internally. The City of London and the Government in Westminster, for example, give billions of their war budget for the creation of extremely few Western “China Experts” who torture their peers, assassinate their critics, and cannot be removed.

In the entire world, there are perhaps 50 to 100 such Western “China Experts.” They form the real Government of China, and they live outside of China. You have read that correctly: That government in China over there in China, the “Communist Party of China” or CPC, is considered illegitimate in the West. The West’s ideal “Government of China” is a Western government, and it is run by Western “China Experts,” administered by Western agents and bureaucrats, and it is plentifully staffed with pro-Western Chinese serviles.

I know, it shouldn’t be like this. But it is, it is.

IMAGE 2 Those who help China will be terrorists by association

That is why China’s influence on “China Studies” is not tolerated. China isn’t even consulted. China’s own degrees [for Western students] are not even accredited in Britain or elsewhere in America and Europe. What, you didn’t know that?

We basically learn from the cradle of “China Studies” that the Chinese are oppressed, that the Chinese commit genocide, that the Chinese are evil communists, or evil tyrants, or backward people who eat dogs and kill little girls.

Our “China Studies” professors are state officials [in Germany: Staatsbeamte, in Britain: Public Servants]. They are part of the anti-China state security apparatus. They wished they would also be selected and globally exaggerated as one of the “China Experts,” but few are ever given that much power. Most of them live in constant fear of internal investigation, intelligence surveillance or meeting with Chinese people. So they must prohibit their students of “China Studies” to study in China [unless supervised by the powers in Washington, Berlin, Brussels, London]. Oh and, yes, they also ban Chinese newspapers in their institutes.

Chinese leaders cannot be discussed, at all. Everything has to be reduced to one evil autocrat. Chinese influence is a no-no [except the plight of Chinese dissidents]. British crimes in Asia are anathema. Instead, they basically tell us that all that Chinese leaders are doing is reading Lenin and Karl Marx. Then, they prohibit the mentioning of Lenin and Marx being Jews, an even bigger no-no. Then they tell us that the Chinese are putting other Chinese, who are called Uyghurs, in penal camps for no reason other than manufacturing fake foreign brands. As a general rule, Western students are trained to hate China, hand over fist.

And then there is the paranoia about the Chinese language, oh boy! None of the Professors of “China Studies” speak fluent Chinese. So they discredit fluent Chinese speakers. “Knowing Chinese does not qualify for a British degree in China Studies,” they kept telling us.

This “anti-China language diplomacy” worked well for the British for 99 years in their colony Hong Kong. No Englishman of rank had ever lowered himself to the study of Cantonese. The Americans, too, do not learn the languages of their conquered people. It is just one of those mental illnesses.

Chinese names are considered incorrect and must be put to Western order. Chinese terms are considered eye-sore and must be shunned. Gigantic government-sponsored propaganda campaigns are under way in America and Europe that warn their population that Chinese language is polluting the brains of our young children.

This was a University of the British Crown, mind you. There are intelligent lecturers and researchers around. Lots of Chinese house slaves. Yet I found, to my horror, that none of them can be a friend or hand of China. Not in the West. It is too dangerous. And nobody trusts anybody. It is the same with our China-journalists and China-businessmen. Western anti-China state security and its informants are everywhere. Colleagues inform on colleagues.

China is now the professed enemy of the West. It doesn’t matter whether you live in the UK, in Canada, in the USA, in Australia, Germany or France. Those Western governments cling to world hegemony and are going to intensify the purges of pro-China persons in our universities, in the professions and on the Internet. How much time do you think YOU have left until they put your name and whereabouts on a China-hands watch list?

Now, let us assume that back then in Britain, I had impeccable foresight, and that I was able to set into motion country-changing events. I knew I would not survive this. Yet, I could have planted all this that is about to come forth and unfold.

And this is you now, too.

You must have that foresight. Prepare for the worst. Because if I contact you, that means they have a file on you too…

END.

Dr. Pattberg is a German writer and the author of The Xin-Civilization and Shove Your Democracy Up Your… [redacted].

Beyond Manufacturing Consent: A world of color revolutions

18 Nov, 2022

Source: Al Mayadeen English

By Myriam Charabaty 

Color revolutions emerged alongside the booming of alternative media platforms as influencing tools, and B2C’s manufactured consent products became the influencers.

On soft power strategies and color revolution frameworks

Western liberalism has failed, in fact, liberalism altogether has failed. It has failed its core values, it has lost the balance of its so-called democracy, and it has failed to maintain its illusion of upholding individual freedom. This failed liberalism, however, continued to play a significant role in exporting a “manufacturing consent product” that feeds on instantaneous misinformation. 

In this context, we discuss the attempts, some successful and some failed, of liberal democracies across the world to export their “anticulture” illusions under the pretexts of liberty, development, and meritocracy. These attempts have become historically known by a variety of names, from the crusades to settler colonialism, then colonization, humanitarian intervention, Responsibility to Protect (R2P), and most recently, colored revolutions.

Manufacturing consent as a self-made product

While tons of literature describe the evolution of hegemony processes under various names and pretexts, such as humanitarian intervention and the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty’s (ICISS) Responsibility to Protect, the literature outlines how these committees and principles have served the collective West in enforcing their unwanted conceptions of Eurocentric superiority. 

The regime changes sought by the collective-West liberal democracies have historically aimed to increase their financial needs by means of looting, through legal and illegal means, while also diminishing expenses. 

In previously-common frameworks aimed at establishing and extending hegemony, the use of hard power, such as military intervention, was coupled with the preparation of public opinion for the hard power actions, which has become known as manufacturing consent. Prior to these types of “liberal” wars against “authoritarianism”, public opinion, according to Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, was fed information that had been carefully manipulated by mainstream media (MSM) to bring people to adopt specific conclusions.

Joseph Nye, the advocate for the shift from hard power to soft power through the shift in norms and values, argued in a piece in The Guardian that:

“The countries that are likely to gain from soft power are those closest to global norms of liberalism, pluralism, and autonomy; those with the most access to multiple channels of communication; and those whose credibility is enhanced by their domestic and international performance. These dimensions of power give a strong advantage to the United States and Europe.”

However, as alternative media platforms began taking the lead in terms of manufacturing opinions across the world through the use of identity politics and circumstantial evidence, liberal governments developed a need to export the manufacturing of consent to become a product of the community, region, or nation, which they are targeting. This product then becomes the business that feeds the consumer of socio-political mobilization.

The emergence of alternative media as a tool for individual self-worth

This need primarily emerged alongside alternative media platforms that made way for independent journalists and “activists” to deconstruct the propaganda that is being fed to the masses through MSM. As a result, a generation was born into the concept of identity politics alongside a notion of individualism that made individuals feel important or superior to others based on market demand, also known as “reach and like” engagement rate, regardless of the truth of the information being shared.

This sense of heightened individual value, which is a liberal value, also put forward the notion of circumstantial evidence. This circumstantial evidence allows for a series of logical fallacies, as it would be grounded in the information that is primarily detached from the larger context of its happening, and thus, there is an act of information omission. 

Media bias and information omission could change perception frames (Source Unknown)

This media bias results in the accumulation of indirect evidence, in which one or more facts can be derived from the initial incomplete information mistaken for a direct fact, merely because an individual is related to it on a personal level.

When that happens, a person that feels unheard by their parents, for example, will want to rebel against any father figure who can be represented by a strong and determined government official for example, without any regard to the actual standards of development assessment on specific topics, such as social wellbeing, education levels, or technological advancements. 

In doing so, one’s understanding of “freedom” becomes absolute; the ultimate freedom, such as Frederich Neitzches’s Übermensch, leads to the disregarding of the social contract without any assessment of the consequences of what it actually means to break that contract, let alone offending or invalidating an entire culture and replacing it with personal pleasure. 

This is what this article will reference as the “B2C manufacturing consent product” (Business to Consumer) and the evolution from hard power to soft power, from R2P to colored revolution.

B2C manufactured consent products across the world

The first manufactured consent product was Serbia’s Srdja Popovic, who was one of the founders of the US-funded organization “Otpor” in 1998. Since the late 1990s, Popovic has gained widespread recognition as a key architect of regime changes in Eastern Europe and globally. 

According to an investigation by Occupy.com, Popovic and the Otpor! spinoff CANVAS (Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies) maintained tight relations with a Goldman Sachs executive, the private intelligence business Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.), as well as the US government. Furthermore, for a year, Popovic’s wife also worked for Stratfor, the investigation noted.

These disclosures follow the publication of hundreds of additional emails by Wikileaks‘ “Global Intelligence Files.” According to the emails, Popovic collaborated frequently with Stratfor, a private firm located in Austin, Texas, which collects information on geopolitical events and activists for clients like the American Petroleum Institute, Archer Daniels Midland, Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Northrop Grumman, Intel, and Coca-Cola.

The investigation carried out by Occupy.com, as well as the emails released by Wikileaks, uncovered that Popovic helped Stratfor connect with activists all across the world. It is worth noting that Stratfor branded itself as a “Shadow CIA” and sought to use Popovic’s relationships to gather material that would then be used by its corporate clients as “actionable intelligence”.

Information provided by Popovic was related to activist mobilizations and activities taking place in the Philippines, Libya, Tunisia, Vietnam, Iran, Azerbaijan, Egypt, Tibet, Zimbabwe, Poland, and Belarus, as well as Georgia, Bahrain, Venezuela, Malaysia, and other countries.

Former Stratfor Eurasia Analyst Marko Papic at one point referred to Popovic as a “great friend” of his and described him as a “Serb activist who travels the world fomenting revolution.”

When asked about CANVAS, Papic said, “They…basically go around the world trying to topple dictators and autocratic governments (ones that U.S. does not like ;),” and then replied to a follow up to that email stating that “they just go and set up shop in a country and try to bring the government down. When used properly, more powerful than an aircraft carrier battle group.”

A functional framework

For the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), some of the campaign’s key strategic initiatives included the following in Serbia, for example (copied as-is, without change from the author of this article):

Protest and Persuasion

• Street theatre and humorous skits mocking Milosevic performed throughout the country to transform the political culture and empower widespread opposition;
• Ubiquitous postering and displays of public symbols (such as Otpor’s iconic clenched fist) and slogans on posters, leaflets, and T-shirts, and in television spots;
• Large public rallies, marches, and demonstrations;
• Electoral politics – coalition-building and campaigning;
• Holding music concerts and cultural celebrations;
• The widespread distribution of anti-Milosevic materials;
• Use of the Internet, cell phones, fax machines, and alternative media to disseminate resistance messages and organize opposition;
• Public and private communication with security and church officials, media, union leaders, municipal politicians, and others to cultivate potential allies and defections;
• Petitions, press releases, public statements, and speeches;
• Workshops and training sessions for activists, distribution of training manuals.

Noncooperation

• Strikes and boycotts by workers and students, artists, actors, and business owners;
• General strike;
• Defections by security, military, and police forces cultivated by careful communication with them and public calls for their noncooperation;
• Defections by members of the media;
• Organizing by Otpor outside of the electoral system;
• Parallel election monitors and an election results reporting system to detect and report election fraud.

Nonviolent Intervention

• Blockades of highways and railroads with cars, trucks, buses, and large crowds of people to shut down economic and political activity and demonstrate parallel sources of powers and debilitate the political regime;
• Physical occupation of space surrounding key public buildings (e.g., parliament and media), then in some cases, storming and nonviolent invasions of the buildings;
• Bulldozers moving aside police barricades (a later symbol of the resistance).

Political advertisement in the face of adversity

Color revolutions started in Serbia, however, these regime change tactics have taken place all over the world. From the attempted coups in Latin America, some of which succeeded, the “Arab Spring”, the velvet revolution in Armenia, the Orange revolution in 2014 Ukraine, as well as more complex color revolution attempts in Iran, all these examples fall onto the platform of soft power. However, this does not come to say that hard power has gone out of style, rather, it says that soft power allows more long-term and sustainable resource looting at a lower expense and with a greater influence that maintains them as superior in values, norms, and lifestyle, regardless of all the systematic inequalities and structural problematics that their societies face as part of the struggle between individualism and statism. 

Related Stories

What would a Russian defeat mean for the people of the West?

November 15, 2022

Regular readers of the blog know that I separate our poor and long-suffering planet into two basic parts: Zone A, aka the AngloZionist Empire, aka the World Hegemony aka the “Axis of Kindness” and what I call Zone B, or the Free World.  Very approximately, we need to separate the ruling elites and the people they rule over separately.  Here is, very roughly, what we get:

Zone AZone B
Ruling elitesHate Russia/PutinSome fear the Hegemony, but others don’t
Peoplemostly indifferent or hostilemostly support Russia/Putin

Next, I propose to make a simple though experiment.  Let’s assume that Russia loses the war against NATO.  We do *not* need to spell out how exactly such a defeat could/would happen, we simply assume that Russia is unable to achieve her goals of denazification and demilitarization of the Ukraine (and, really, all of NATO), that NATO forces are successful in defeating the Russian military machine (again, it does not matter how, with or without amazing Wunderwaffen) and that Russia very clearly loses.

We don’t even need to define what “defeat” would mean?  Maybe we can imagine that Russia gets keeps Crimea, but loses all her recently liberated regions from the former Ukraine, or maybe NATO manages to even occupy Crimea. I don’t see NATO tanks in downtown Moscow, but we can even imagine a purely psychological defeat in which both sides believe that Russia has lost and NATO won.

Again, details, no matter how improbable and far removed from reality, do not matter.  What matters is only this: once all the four groups above realize that NATO has defeated Russia, how would they react?

For the leaders of the Hegemony, this would be a dream come true.  In fact, the Neocons running the Hegemony will most likely decide that they need to “finish the job” which they did not finish in the 90s, and that Russia needs to be broken up into several parts.  This would be the West’s latest “final solution” for the “Russian problem”.

For the leaders of the Free World, a Russian defeat would signal that there are no alternatives to the Hegemony and that like it or not, the AngloZionists will rule the planet.  Like the Borg in Star Trek like to proclaim: “We are the Hegemony.  Resistance is futile.  You will be assimilated“.

For most people in the Free world, a Russian defeat would be a crushing disappointment for the simple reason that most people would see the AngloZionist plan for what it is: get Russia first, then take on and bring down China and then, eventually, Iran and any other nation daring to disobey the rulers of the Hegemony.

Clearly, this is not about the Ukraine, this is about the future of mankind as a whole.

But what about the people in Zone A who currently already live under the AngloZionist yoke?

[Quick reminder: I have decided, for various reasons, not to discuss internal US politics on the Saker blog and I will try hard to stick to this rule.  Still, I will state the obvious: we all now know the outcome of the latest elections in the USA and the adults in the room understand what happened, no need to list various truisms here.  If there is anybody reading this who would sincerely believe that some variation of the Neocon Uniparty in power will change things for the better or even slow down the inevitable collapse I would recommend that this person stop reading here.  Now for the rest of us:]

I think that the initial reaction of most people in Zone A will be a mix of relief (“Of course I knew that the West would win!“) and indifference (transgender issues are SO much more important!): their valiant “finest fighting force in the history of the world” kicked some rooskie commie ass which most definitely deserved some ass-kicking.  Some of the most sanguine defenders of the “western civilization” will even drop by our comments section and gloat “ha! ha! told you! your Putin and his clueless generals got their asses kicked by the most bestest US and NATO generals!“.  And for a while, they will feel really good.  Vindicated:  finally the dumbshit stupid Russians will pay the price for electing and supporting such a weak, indecisive, naive, corrupt, incompetent (and possibly even dying of cancer) leader!

And if only the Kremlin had had the wisdom to listen to its “western friends”!

But no, the Kremlin did not, and now there is going to be hell to pay.  Of course, if Russia’s “western friends” had been in charge, they would have executed a lightening fast blitzkrieg a long time ago, smashed Banderastan into smithereens (à la Fallujah if you wish) and quickly an decisively defeated NATO.  But those clueless idiots in the Kremlin did not listen, and so they deserve what is coming next.

Okay, fair enough.

But what about the regular people in Zone A?  The ones whose “side” supposedly “won”?

Once the initial bliss and celebrations are over, what will happen to them next?

Anybody want to take a guess?  If so, please post your thoughts in the comments section below.

My personal take is that after the defeat of Russia, the defeat of China (by whatever means) would be next.  Once that happens, all of the following will become decapitated and irrelevant: BRICS, SCO, CSTO.  The next country on the Hegemony’s kill list is Iran which, having lost the backing of both Russia and China will not be able to successfully challenge the Hegemony.  That, in turn will have major consequences for the entire Middle-East.  Wannabe Pasha Erdogan would be very quickly brought to heel.  Ditto for MBS.

The Israelis will feel like they “fixed the universe” well enough and that their Moshiach must be next 🙂

With Russia and China out of the way, Central Asia would be frankly easy picking for the Hegemony. In fact, all the Russian limitrophes would quickly be absorbed into the Hegemony.

The same goes for Pakistan and India, who would quickly lose most (or even all) of their sovereignty.  Afghanistan will be handed over to the (US-baked and run) ISIS.  Eventually, both Latin America and African will be fully recolonized (to the immense relief and joy of the local comprador class).

Now I submit that anybody with a modicum of information and intelligence will agree that the gang of woke freaks currently running the USA and almost every EU country out there doesn’t give a damn about the people they rule over: they see them only as means of production, in other words, as slaves who need to be given sufficient amounts of (bad) food and immense amounts of (truly demonic) “entertainment” to keep them nice, and happy and, above all, obedient and ignorant.  So here comes my question:

With Zone B gone, what hope for a better future, if any, could the slaves of the AngloZionist Hegemony keep in their hearts if our entire planet turns into Zone A?

The current repressive apparatus available to the US ruling class which includes 17 “intelligence” agencies,  the biggest military aggression budget on the planet, the highest number of prisoners kept in jails, the total informational control provided by Google, Amazon, Netflix, Facebook, Twitter, etc. etc. etc. militarized police forces and other agencies ready to deal with “internal terrorists” (sometimes defined as any MAGA person), and a school and college system designed to create obedient office plankton (white collar) and fast food employees (blue collar) with almost no awareness, nevermind any understanding, of the outside world.  EU states are not quite there (yet) but they are catching up fast.

This is not a system which will simply collapse by itself or, even less so, be overthrown by its “deplorables”.

I have mentioned this many times in the past: the US political system is neither viable nor reformable.

The EU political system is basically an extension of the US political system, just with a more strongly pronounced colonial mindset (“fuck the EU” right?).

So will the Hegemony turn our entire planet into a giant and “woke” Disney World run by Neocons?

Not as long as Russia, China, Iran and others are standing firm.  But if these “resisting nations” are crushed, then its show over for the people of Zone A whose slavery will not only last even much longer, but whose living conditions will further rapidly deteriorate

And once the “bread and games” thingie fails, you can bet that violent repression is next.

ANY regime which seriously aims at colonizing the entire planet (which the Hegemony undoubtedly does!) will ALWAYS keep its own population in slave-like conditions, materially, culturally and spiritually.

So, to paraphrase Malcolm Xthe only hope for the House Negros still remains the Field Negro.  Whether the House Negros themselves understand that or not is immaterial.

Let me rephrase this in an even more shocking way: the last and only hope for the people of the USA and the EU would be a total Russian victory against NATO.  A NATO defeat will bring down not only NATO itself, but also the EU and that, in turn, would force the US to (finally!) become a normal, civilized, country.

As for the EU, a NATO defeat would mean the end of one thousand years of imperialism.

I get it.  For a civilization built upon the assumption of racial superiority (whether officially proclaimed or not) the notion that the only possible salvation could come from “inferior Asiatic barbarians” is shocking and can only be considered as an extreme form of doubleplusbadcrimethink.  Such a thought is, quite literally, unthinkable for most.

Yet, as I mentioned above, what the House Negros understand or not is entirely irrelevant.  Not only do they have no agency, they want none (Poland anybody?).

Conclusion:

Russia won’t lose this war, most of us understand that.  But to those who don’t, I will offer one simple conclusion: a Russian defeat would be a disaster for Russia.  And China.  And the rest of the planet.  But it will also be a true calamity for the oppressed people of the West.  They, of all people, should be very careful what they wish for. And the next time they want to hallucinate and gloat about a “strategic Russian retreat/defeat” they should ask themselves a simple question: what might this mean for *me* and *my own* future?  Do I really have a reason to rejoice?

Maybe they simply got used to being slaves and the idea of *real* freedom and diversity simply terrifies them?

Andrei

Hezbollah: New Lebanese President Must Acknowledge Resistance Role, May Never Be Match US-Saudi “Specifications”

 November 10, 2022

Head of Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc, Hajj Mohammad Raad

Source: Al-Manar English Website

Head of Loyalty to Resistance parliamentary bloc, Hajj Mohammad Raad, called for electing a president that does not confront any local party.

During a mourning service in South Lebanon, MP Raad stressed that the new president must acknowledge the Resistance role and abstains from backstabbing it in case some foreign sides grant him lavish amounts of money.

MP Raad added that electing a new president will facilitate the other issues, underscoring the importance of exploiting the maritime gas resources in order to improve the economic situation in Lebanon.

Meanwhile, Member of Hezbollah Central Council Sheikh Nabil Qawook underscored, during a ceremony on Hezbollah Martyr’s Day in Southern Lebanon, that the new president may never match the US-Saudi specifications and requirements.

Sheikh Qawook added that victorious Lebanon may never tolerate a new High Commissioner and will always reject a foreign guardianship.

Related Videos

The US State Department and the overt interference in the Lebanese affairs
What is the US-Saudi approach to the Lebanon crisis? .. Files and developments with journalist Samir Al-Hassan and MP Ali Fayyad

Related Articles

HOW EUROPE IS DESTROYING ITS OWN ‘GARDEN’

NOVEMBER 9TH, 2022

Source

By Ramzy Baroud

The European Union’s Foreign Policy Chief Josep Borrell is not particularly perceived by the EU’s political elite or mainstream media as a rightwing ideologue or warmonger. But seen through a different, non-western prism, it is hard not to mistake him for one.

Borrell’s recent comments that “Europe is a garden” and that “the rest of the world is a jungle” were duly condemned as ‘racist’ by many politicians around the world, but mostly in the Global South. Borrell’s remarks, however, must also be viewed as an expression of superiority, not only of Borell personally, but of Europe’s ruling classes as a whole.

Particularly interesting about the EU top diplomat’s words are these inaccurate depictions of Europe and its relationship with the rest of the world: “We have built a garden”, “everything works” and “the jungle could invade the garden”.

Without delving too deep into what is obviously an entrenched superiority complex, Borell speaks as if an advocate of the so-called ‘Replacement Theory’, a racist notion advocated by the West’s – Europe especially – rightwing intellectuals, which sees refugees, migrants and non-Europeans as parasites aiming to destroy the continent’s supposedly perfect demographic, religious and social harmony.

If stretched further into a historical dimension, one also feels compelled to remind the EU leadership of the central role that European colonialism, economical exploitation, political meddling and outright military intervention have played in turning much of the world into a supposed ‘jungle’. Would Libya, for example, have been reduced to the status of a failed state if the West did not wage a major war starting in March 2011?

The imagined ‘jungle’ aside, Europe’s past and present reality strongly negates Borell’s ethnocentric view. Sadly, Europe is the birthplace of the most horrible pages of history, from colonialism and slavery to the nationalistic, fascist and nihilistic movements that defined most of the last three centuries.

Despite the desperate attempt to rewrite or ignore history in favor of a more amiable narrative focused on great splendors, technological advancement and civilizational triumph, Europe’s true nature continues to smolder underneath the ashes, ready to resurface whenever the geopolitical and socioeconomic factors take a wrong turn. The Syrian and Libyan refugee crisis, the Covid pandemic and, more recently, the Russia-Ukraine war are all examples of the proverbial wrong turn.

In fact, Borrell’s words, aimed to reassure Europe of its moral superiority are but a foolhardy effort meant to conceal one of the most dramatic crises that Europe has experienced in nearly a century. The impact of this crisis on every aspect of European life cannot be overstated.

In an editorial published last September on the European Environment Agency (EEA) website, Hans Bruyninckx described the “state of multiple crises” that characterizes the European continent at the moment. “It seems as if we have been living through one crisis after another — a pandemic, extreme heatwaves and drought due to climate change, inflation, war and an energy crisis,” he wrote.

Instead of taking responsibility for this impending catastrophe, Europe’s ruling elites choose a different, though predictable route: blame others, especially the inhabitants of the non-European ‘jungle’.

Naturally, ordinary people throughout Europe who are already experiencing this harrowing reality hardly feel reassured by Borrell’s proclamation that “everything works”.

The risk of the resurgence of the far-right movements in Europe is now a real possibility. This danger was relatively mitigated by the setback of the extremist ‘Alternative for Germany’ and the victory of the Social Democrats in last year’s elections. Germany, however, is not the exception, as the European far-right is now back, virtually everywhere, and with a vengeance.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s far-right party gained a record 41% of the total vote (over 13 million) in April. True, Emmanuel Macron managed to hold off the advance of Le Pen’s National Rally, but his coalition has lost its parliamentary majority, and his leadership has been significantly weakened. Currently, the country is rocked by massive rallies and strikes, all protesting the soaring prices and deepening inflation.

Sweden is another example of the determined rise of the far-right. A right-wing coalition, which won the general elections last September now dominates the country’s parliament. On October 17, it elected a new prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, whose government was made possible because of the support of the Sweden Democrats, a party with neo-Nazi roots and a harsh anti-immigration agenda. SD was crucial in determining the victory of the coalition and it is now suited to play the role of the kingmaker in critical decisions.

In Italy, too, the situation is dire. A future government is expected to bring together Giorgia Meloni – the leader of Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) – former right-wing Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s party, Forza Italia, and the extremist Matteo Salvini’s La Lega. Meloni’s party is rooted in the post-fascist tradition of the Italian Social Movement, which was formed in the aftermath of World War II by fascist politicians after their party was officially outlawed by the country’s progressive 1948 Constitution.

The shifting political grounds in Germany, France, Italy and Sweden have little to do with the ‘jungle’, and everything with the illusory European ‘garden.’ Europe’s extremism is a by-product of exclusively European historical experiences, ideologies and class struggles. Blaming Asians, Arabs or Africans for Europe’s “state of multiple crises” is not only self-deluding, indeed spiritless, but also obstructive to any healthy process of change.

Europe cannot fix its problems by blaming others, and the European ‘garden’, if it ever existed, is actually being ravaged by Europe’s own ruling elites – rich, detached and utterly dishonest.

Vladimir Putin Address at the Valdai International Discussion Club 2022 – English Subtitles

October 28, 2022

Why Western regimes are complicit in Daesh carnage at popular Iran shrine

Friday, 28 October 2022 6:16 AM  [ Last Update: Friday, 28 October 2022 7:51 AM ]

Shah Cheragh shrine in southern Shiraz city belongs to Ahmed ibn Musa Kazim.

By Syed Zafar Mehdi

It didn’t come as a surprise that the Daesh Takfiri group claimed responsibility for the dastardly terrorist attack at the revered Shah Cheragh shrine in Shiraz on Wednesday.

The modus operandi employed by the Kalashnikov-yielding terrorist who went on a rampage at the 12th-century shrine belonging to a descendant of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was straight out of the Daesh playbook.

So, quite expectedly, the group in a statement posted on their website Amaq News bragged about the carnage, which left at least 15 people dead and dozens of others injured.

Among the victims were 4-year-old Artin’s parents and brother, who had gone to the shrine for evening prayers. Artin was lucky to survive and is recuperating from injuries at a local hospital in Shiraz.

The terrorist, whose identity hasn’t been disclosed yet, reportedly aimed to target the congregational prayers inside the main hall of the shrine, but the shrine staff shut the door on him, preventing a bigger massacre.

Let’s get this straight. Contrary to popular perception, Daesh hasn’t been decimated or consigned to the dustbin of history yet. The group, driven by the toxic Takfiri ideology, is very much active and thriving.

It reminds me of what Lebanese Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said some time ago. The self-anointed Daesh regime in Iraq and Syria was annihilated by the resistance axis led by Iran’s famed anti-terror commander Lt. Gen. Qassem Soleimani.

But, as a group and ideology, Daesh is still very much there – in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan – overtly and covertly backed by Western powers.

It’s no secret how Daesh fighters were shipped from Iraq and Syria in military helicopters to Afghanistan, to fill the vacuum left by the US-led NATO military alliance. Those who deny this fact need a reality check.

This is the group that wreaked havoc in Iraq and Syria for years and continues to carry out diabolic attacks on religious and ethnic minorities in Afghanistan in line with the roguish agenda of Western hegemonic powers.

The far-right Takfiri ideology that drives these brainwashed terrorists, according to which anything not in sync with their rigid interpretation of religion must be exterminated, is essentially designed to sow seeds of discord among Muslims and malign the image of Islam. That is precisely where the interests of Daesh and Western powers converge.

The criminal collusion between them has been on full display in regional countries in recent years. And now they have shown the audacity to target the Islamic Republic of Iran, attacking the country’s sacred religious places and spilling innocent blood to incite sectarian tensions and civil war.

The last time Daesh footprints were spotted in Iran was in 2017 when the group targeted the mausoleum of the late founder of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini, and the parliament building, leaving at least 17 dead and hundreds of others injured.

This is a moment of reckoning for people in Iran, cutting across sectarian, regional, and ideological lines, to thwart evil plots designed to cause social disintegration in the country. It’s also important that regional countries join hands with the Islamic Republic to confront and defeat this hydra-headed monster before it swallows them.

The fact that Wednesday’s attack came amid foreign-backed unrest and riots in Iran makes it even more sinister and dastardly.

 It won’t be an exaggeration to state that the anarchy and mobocracy seen across Iran in recent weeks essentially paved the ground for this cold-blooded massacre, which makes the Western powers that instigated rioters directly complicit in this diabolic crime.

As Iran’s foreign minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian quite rightly remarked on Thursday, it’s a “multi-layered project” by enemies to fuel insecurity in the country.

What is also worth noting is the target chosen by the terrorist group – a holy shrine in a city known as Iran’s cultural capital. Shiraz, the capital of southern Fars province, is among the major tourist attractions in Iran, known for its picturesque gardens, ruins from Achaemenid era, mausoleums of legendary Persian poets Hafiz and Saadi, as well as the city’s rich heritage.

The objective appears to be fuelling insecurity, instilling fear, and turning Iran into another Afghanistan or Syria, so that tourists stop coming and locals live in constant fear.

There are very few hashtags for victims of Daesh terrorism in Shiraz, which is not surprising though. It goes to show not all lives matter. Had it been Paris or London or New York, it would be a different story altogether. But this is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the country that has singlehandedly challenged the hegemony of arrogant global powers and laid bare their evilness.

Hence, it’s only understandable why the corporate Western media, an extended arm of the Western military-industrial complex, has willfully shut its eyes to the bloodletting in Shiraz, treating it as a normal incident.

The same media brazenly distorted facts in the case of Mahsa Amini’s death and instigated deadly riots in Iran that cost many precious lives.

The self-righteous human rights advocates in the West, who miss no opportunity to decry Iranian authorities for using force to maintain law and order, especially amid foreign-backed riots, have also been silent. Their silence amounts to both complicity and cowardice.

As Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei and President Ebrahim Raeisi have categorically stated, this terrorist act will not go unanswered. The perpetrators and their backers will have to pay the price. It’s important to nip this evil in the bud.

Syed Zafar Mehdi is a Tehran-based journalist, political commentator and author. He has reported for over 12 years from India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kashmir and Middle East for leading publications worldwide.

(The views expressed in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of Press TV.)


Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.ir

www.presstv.co.uk

Related Stories

The Difference

Posted by INTERNATIONALIST 360°

Bouthaina Shaaban

The inclusive world and the prosperous world the US talks about in its strategy is the world of its coalitions and partners and not the entire human world as we know it.

Whether it is planned or a mere coincidence, it was interesting to read the American National Security Strategy issued by the White House in October 2022 and to follow at the same time the speeches and steps taken by the Chinese Communist Party at the 20th Congress convened in Beijing on 16-22 October. Starting from the title, we only read “National Security Strategy” on the American document, while what we read in Beijing’s case stipulates the vision of global partnership in a new era of Global Development.

The US is, or appears to be, concerned about its own security and the security of its allies who share its vision: mainly western countries or satellite states. The way they perceive maintaining this security is to keep the rest of the world either under their hegemony or contained within their borders and never daring to get close to international resources tapped only by the West through its hegemony or occupation of other countries. When it comes to American global priorities, things are defined by outcompeting China and constraining Russia. This explains that the inclusive world and the prosperous world they talked about earlier in the strategy is the world of their coalitions and partners and not the entire human world as we know it.

Here lies the crucial difference between the Western vision presented by the United States and the vision desired by the rest of the world, presented by China and its leader Xi Jinping on more than one occasion. The difference is that the West sees in its partners and subjugates the entire world. They see themselves as the whole world as if other countries, peoples, and visions that do not agree with theirs are non-existent. This is certainly the core of the countries with a colonial mentality that occupied so many countries on earth under the pretext that they are there to civilize them while in fact, they were eroding some of the most ancient and richest civilizations and depriving humanity of a very rich cultural, spiritual, and human heritage.

The core of the American strategy is competition not cooperation, and it is based on dividing the world into democracies and autocracies. Any system that is considered a partner or a friend to Western systems is considered “democratic” and any system that rejects Western hegemony or the western example and decides to build a system based on its own cultural and historical values and civilization is considered “autocratic”. The democratic systems even include well-known autocratic regimes and even racist powers of occupation such as the Zionist entity occupying Palestine.

For those who are happy that this new American strategy stated that “they will not use their army to change regimes or reformulate societies,” I say this was announced in the American strategy in 1997 in a concept paper produced by a number of think tanks titled “A Clean Break; a New Strategy for Conducting the Realm,” but what was the alternative to using American armies in changing political systems? The alternative was “colorful revolutions” led by their allies and partners in the targeted countries. Here is what they state on page 16 of the National Security Strategy October 2022:

“The United States’ unrivaled network of allies and partners protects and advances our interests around the world. Building on this network, we will assemble the strongest possible coalitions to advance and defend a world that is free, open, prosperous, and secure. These coalitions will include all nations that share these objectives.”

What they mean here are either partners (though even those like Europe today are paying a heavy price to American hegemony) or satellite states run by their agents who believe in the superiority of the Western Hemisphere.

If we take for the sake of comparison quotes from speeches given by Xi Jinping or strategic plans and visions put for the 20th Congress of the Chinese Communist Party or for the “conference on a New Era of Global Development,” we find that Beijing speaks about a vision that addressed the global community, taking the Chinese experience in eradicating poverty and achieving prosperity for the Chinese people as an example to transcend to other countries across the world that Beijing always refers to as partners and equals in rights and integrity without ever dividing the world into West and East and insinuating the idea of superior and inferior.

Beijing speaks about a truly free world in which there is no place for Apartheid walls and fences built on the confiscated land of the indigenous people; a world imbued with true cooperation among all nations, not a world where a certain number of countries impose random sanctions on other people against all human and international laws; a world based not on division, confrontation, and competition, but a world based on an ancient faith in humanity, all humanity and a real urge to “promote global development and foster a development paradigm featuring benefits for all, balance, coordination, inclusiveness, win-win cooperation and common prosperity; a world that is not based on the vague and strange invention of the phrase “Rules-based Order” that no one knows what it means, but a world in which “the North and the South need to work in the same direction to forge a united, equal, balanced and inclusive global development partnership in which no country or individual should be left behind.”

In comparison with Western countries who hastened to send billions of dollars to feed the war in Ukraine, which is destroying the Ukrainian people and posing a real threat to world peace, China has allocated 4 billion dollars to upgrade the South-South cooperation fund and deepen global cooperation on poverty reduction and eradication. The narrative Beijing uses is all-inclusive of every country and of every person in the world, while Western narratives always divide the world into Western, meaning superior, and others, meaning inferior. Xi Jinping is inspired by the Chinese ancient, peaceful, and truly inclusive Chinese civilization where the Chinese adage goes by, “with one heart and one mind, we can accomplish everything we aspire for.” This is exactly what the entire humanity aspires for and badly needs at this dangerous juncture of human history.

Russian Defense Ministry: Effective Fight Against Terrorists Requires Blocking Supply Channels

A few updates about the NATO Crusade against Russia

October 18, 2022

Source

Intro: setting the current context

Before we take a look at some of the most interesting recent developments, I think that it is important to clearly state something which needs to be repeated almost constantly: what we are witnessing today is not a war between Russia and the Ukraine, but between Russia and the united, consolidated, West.  In practical terms this means that Russia is at war with the United States and NATO, the latter being no more than a docile, if ineffective, instrument for the latter.  Furthermore, since some NATO countries are now playing a crucial role in the war against Russia (UK, Sweden, Poland and the Ukraine, the latter being a de facto NATO member), I submit that the best and simplest way to describe this was is to say that it is a NATO Crusade against Russia.

As for Banderastan, it is already a full NATO member state with about the same rights as all the other NATO members states besides the US: none.  Right now, the so-called “Ukrainian forces” are already composed of anywhere between 40% to 80% composed of foreign fighters (depending on the importance of the location) and include plenty of actual NATO personnel.  By the way, most of the ex-Soviet kit held by former WTO members has been destroyed by Russia, which poses a very thorny problem to NATO: they cannot ship more Soviet kit to Banderastan, and if they ship their own, they will not only lose it forever but the general public (or, at least, those who need to know) will know that western weapons systems are anything but a Wunderwaffe: some is very good, some okay, most of it is useless against a modern adversary.  Remember the “awesome” Bayraktars?  Where are they now?  The same goes for all the other Wunderwaffen of course…

Why a Crusade?  Many reasons, ranging from the fact that western imperialism was born with the original Crusades to the fact that, as always, the West is hating and trying to destroy Russia with a truly religious fervor, albeit a clearly satanic one (all western Crusades were satanic in inspiration, but that is a topic for another time).

By the way, understanding this has major force planning implications for Russia.  First, the SMO in the Ukraine is only one special case in a much wider war which, in reality, already involves most of our planet (at least in economic and political terms).  Second, while Russia has to conduct her SMO, she also has to prepare for a overt, full-scale, war with the West, possibly a nuclear one.  Simply put: Russia has to keep the vast majority of her resources and capabilities ready for much larger conflict than the one we are currently witnessing.   Put differently, Russia does not want to commit the same mistake as the one made by NATO when it flooded the Ukraine with so much weapon systems that it now lacks them for its own use.  With this in mind, I suggest that we look at a few interesting developments:

One: is Russia using Iranian drones or not and, if yes, why?

First, let’s state the obvious: both Russia and Iran have denied that Iran had exported drones to Russia.  Next, let’s state something equally obvious: while this might be true, most observers don’t seem to believe that Tehran and Moscow are being truthful here.

One major problem is that most observers make very questionable assumptions including the following.  If Russia is indeed using Iranian drones, it is because:

  • Iranian drones are superior to Russian ones
  • Russia is running out of drones

So let’s address those two points.

Are Iranian drones superior to Russian ones?  This question cannot be answered as such because two terms are not properly defined: the term “drone” and the term “superior”.

First, “drones” (aka UAV) range from tiny quads you can place in the palm of your hand to large, aircraft sized, and very sophisticated drones.  So let’s arbitrarily decide that all drones can be placed into one of five categories: A, B, C, D and F.  Next, when we compare Russian and Iranian drone capabilities, we need to avoid the “apples and oranges” logical trap and compare category by category.  It might be that in categories A, B, D and F Russia has much more capable drones than Iran, but that Iran is in the lead for C type of drones.

Is that possible, even in theory?

Oh yes, absolutely!  Iran has been developing very sophisticated UAV and missiles and it has used them in Iraq or the KSA with devastating effectiveness.  More importantly, for the Iranian authorities, developing a very strong UAV/missile capability is a national priority and, possibly, the key to deter the AngloZionists.  And while in Russia the military industrial complex has developed plenty of sophisticated drones, I would argue that before the initiation of the SMO drones were a lesser priority for Russia than for Iran.  Thus is is quite possible that while Russia might lead in some types of drones, Iran might have superior capabilities in another type(s) of drones.

Then there is the issue of costs.  Iranian drones are very *very* cheap, especially when compared to some much more expensive Russian equivalents.

Finally, there is the issue of availability.  Even if Russia’s drone X is superior to the Iranian drone Y, that does not mean that Russia can produce enough X drones for her needs, so why not purchase much cheaper but very effective Iranian Y drones for a fraction of the cost AND with immediate delivery?

So what are we to make from the uncanny resemblance of the Russian between the Russian Geranium-2 drone vs the Iranian Shahed-136?

My advice: absolutely nothing.

Yes, they do look alike but, frankly, convergent evolution is very common in technology, especially in aerospace.  In this case, both the Geranium-2 and the Sahed-136 look alike, sound alike, and generally are hard to distinguish.  Can you tell a 152mm shell apart from a 155mm one?  What about two shells of the same caliber, but built by different manufacturers?

So what do we know for sure?  We know that Russia has dramatically increased her use of drones and that some really look Iranian.  But even Iranian-looking drones might be built in Russia (with or without a license).  Should an Iranian designed drone built in Russia (or a Russian designed drone built in Iran) be considered Iranian or Russian?

Last but not least – what difference does it make anyway?

We know that Iran is a very solid and trustworthy ally of Russia (I would argue by far the best Russia has right now).  I know for a fact that the behind the scenes ties between Russia and Iran are numerous and deep.  Of course, in the West Iran is almost as demonized as Russia, so for the Neocons to lump the two together makes for a good talking point.  But we should not declare that these are all “Neocon lies” just because the Neocons are using Russia to demonize Iran and Iran to demonize Russia.  If anything, I think that Iran very much deserves a public expression of gratitude and admiration by Russia.  Because even if the Iranians have not sold a single drone to Russia, they are clearly and openly supporting Russia in her desire to overcome the Great Satan and create a multipolar world.

Whatever may be the case, I think that this entire Iranian drone topic is a non-issue other than I very much welcome an increase in the effective use of UAV by Russia against NATO absolutely irrespective of where these UAVs have been built or who designed them.

Did I mention that the crazies in Kiev has declared that they have a “anti-UAV dome” over Kiev (the name must be an attempt to copy/brown-nose Israel)?  Here is how this all looks like:

1: the mystery UAV. 2: the Ukie anti-UAV “dome” in action. 3: the inevitable outcome

Finally, this begs the question “are the Russian lying about the Iranian drones”?

Frankly, I don’t know.  But here is what I do know:

In his recent press conference Putin declared: ” There is no need for massive strikes now. Other tasks are on the agenda because I think out of the 29 targets the Defence Ministry had planned to hit, only seven were not. But now they are dealing with them gradually. There is no need for massive strikes, at least for now. As for the future, we’ll see.

Which was immediately interpreted by the usual war-mongering 6th columnist and assorted (pseudo-) “friends of Russia” as a sign of weakness, irresolution and, of course, imminent defeat.

Now, Putin, besides being a former intelligence officer is also a jurist and he is very careful with words.  So let’s take the sentence “There is no need for massive strikes now“.  There are at least three very ambiguous words here: “need”, “massive” and “now”.  Let’s look at them one by one:

  • Need: means just what it says, that there is no *need* for X.  That does not mean that there is no “desire” or “rationale” or “advantage” in doing X.  Putin bashers “missed” that.
  • Massive: well, if 200 missiles is massive, would 180 be less than massive?  How about 150? 100?  Of course, the Putin bashers also “missed” that.
  • Now: did he mean “today” or “this picosecond” or maybe “this month”?  Nobody knows. And, yes, of course, the Putin bashers also “missed” that.

But the main thing which Putin bashers missed, or did not want to see, is that the missile strikes DID continue.  In fact, accordintg to “Ze” they have already destroyed at least 30% (which means that in reality the damage is much bigger!) of Ukrainian power generation capabilities and there are no signs that these strikes will stop anytime soon.

Besides, Putin also said “As for the future, we’ll see“.  When does “the future” begin?  Technically, as soon as these words were spoken!

So did Putin *lie*?  No, not technically, but he was definitely “cute with words” and that was good enough for the idiots in NATO to believe that the missile strikes were over.  They found out the next day that they were very mistaken, but by then it was too late.

Another example – here is what Peskov said about the Iranian drones: ““No, we have no such information. Russian hardware is being used. You know it well. It has Russian designations. All further questions can be addressed to the Defense Ministry“.  Wait, what?!  What “further questions”?  Also, you can apply a Russian “designation” to anything, even something procured abroad.  Peskov is also being “cute with words” here.

The bottom line is this: deception is a key instrument of war, but constant lies destroy your credibility.  Are the Russian capable of lying?  Absolutely, let’s not be naive.  But, when given the option, Russian politicians prefer to be ambiguous, “cute with words” or any other expression you like.  They try to lie less than NATO (which is solely and only about optics, PYSOPS, PR, propaganda, etc. etc. etc.) and they try to not be to crude about it.

So can we take Russian or Iranian denials to the bank?

I would highly advise against it.

Two: the NS1/NS2 sabotage rigmarole (aka MH17 revisited)

You got to give it to EU politicians: they are funny.  Unless you live under their yoke that it.  In this case, the Eurolemmings first declared that Russia would have zero access to investigation of the sabotage of NS1/NS2 (MH-17 anyone?) only to then declare that they will all investigate separately but not share results.  Especially Sweden which was clearly given the “cleanup job” by Uncle Shmuel.  As for the Germans, they really don’t fear ridicule: they announced that it was definitely sabotage, but nobody knows by whom.  Apparently, being Uncle Shmuel’s bitch is what is expected of the comprador leaders of occupied Germany…

Check out this footage of the damage for yourself:

https://www.bitchute.com/embed/wSu7GMdvibp8

You can also access the Rumble version by clicking here: https://rumble.com/v1okzp2-ns12-footage-of-damage.html.

Even with Biden’s direct admission on record, the Eurolemmings have absolutely NO IDEA who could possibly have sabotaged NS1/NS2.  At best, they will mention Russia as a possible culprit 🙂

We can expect these ridiculous and spineless losers to go “full MH17” and use all the same bag of dirty tricks (beginning, of course, with the exclusion of Russia from the investigation because… … uh… … well, Russia is evil, you know?!)

Sure, the “winter is coming”, metaphorically and literally, but for the time being the folks in the West keep themselves entertained with the usual russophobic hatred:

In reality this image shows a Serbian bridge destroyed by NATO!

Then there is this masterpiece:

Which brings us right back to this during the NATO aggression against Libya:

I guess some things never change, including the Western political discourse…  That, and a very pathological obsession with sexual topics (the West is clearly the most sexually dysfunctional part of the planet right now).

Three: so where do we go from here?

First, there is going to be more of the same, that is that the West will continue to rely on terrorism as one of its main weapons against Russia.  Most of you must have heard about the massacre of Russian soldiers in training by Takfiri terrorists (and we all know who runs the Takfiri terrorists wordwide!) but you probably did not hear that the Belarussian security services have prevented a number of terrorist actions in Belarus (see machine translated article about this here).

And since there are always more potential targets than resources to guard them, we can, alas, safely assume that terrorist attacks in Russia will continue.  And no, Putin will not resurrect the Smersh (sorry nostalgic emo-Marxists!) and Russia will not turn into the USSR or WWII.  Not because Putin does not want that (and he does definitely NOT want that), but because the people of Russia don’t want that: Russia will remain a free and open society even if the price to pay for that are regular terror attacks.  Now, eventually and inevitably, the Russian society will change as the war against NATO will take many months, possibly years, and the entire Russian society will have to gradually switch over to a full “war mode” including not only the economy, but also counter-terrorism operations.

[Sidebar: this war has already profoundly changed Russia and, I would argue, for the better.  The 5th column is basically dead.  The Atlantic Integrationists either gone or in deep concealment.  The 6th column made the max of the so-called Russian “defeats” and “imminent collapse” but right now only a really terminally dumb person can still fail to “smell the coffee” and wake up to reality.  Scores of “Russian” liberals (who were very much represented in the media, entertainment, music, arts, etc.) have either emigrated (usually to Israel, Poland, the UK or one of the three Baltic statelets) or gone into a deep depression.  The Russian legislature is passing law after law to make it harder to deliberately spread NATO PSYOPs and now rather than facing the support and admiration of “liberals” in Russia and abroad, doing so exposes you to fines and even incarceration.  What used to be a fun lifestyle for the “Russian” liberals is gradually turning into a nightmare.  The bottom line is this: wars polarize and that polarization makes it much easier to get a grasp of “who is really who”.  Even a hardcore 6thy columnist like Strelkov/Girkin eventually had to stop flipping is lips and volunteered to join the Russian forces in combat.  Whatever his real motives, I will say that is an honorable and courageous action which not 5th columnist or liberal has had the courage to imitate – at least so far and to my knowledge.  I am pretty sure that the Russia which will emerge (victorious, of course) from this war will be a very different Russia from the Russia which fought it until now.  In a terrible way this war might well be salvific for the peoples of Russia: it is, after all, a war for the very survival of the Russian civilizational realm!]

There are also a lot of rumors and “things brewing” which we should prepare for.  I will just bullet point a few of them here:

  • Right now large NATO forces are assembling in several locations to continue the current “lives for optics” operation in which the Ukrainians exchange lives en masse for the pleasure of twitting about “strategic advances” while gaining a few square kilometers here and there.
  • Russian sources are claiming that some kind of unconventional attack is being prepared against Kherson and the ZNPP.
  • Russian sources are also claiming that NATO is concentrating artillery/missile forces for massive (?) strikes against the city of Kherson.
  • For these reasons, the authorities in Kherson have made it possible for the civilians who want to leave to do so and temporarily relocate to a safer location.  That does, of course, NOT mean that the Russians plan to withdraw from Kherson, if only because under Russian law it is now Russian territory.
  • Russian missile strikes are continuing, mostly against power plants and command posts.  Since “Ze” has made the posting of videos of Russian attacks illegal, only the attacks on big cities/towns are featured in the social media.  The Russian attacks on military command centers are almost never recorded or shown.
  • The Russians are also doing “something” to Starlink and Musk (whose “proud resistance” to the Pentagon lasted less than 24 hours!) even claimed that the Russians might take the entire system down.  Right now Russian interference seems to be centered around the areas near the line of contact, but that could change anytime the Russian GS decides that the time has come.  If things get even worse, western UAV and AWACS will experience “technical problems” next.
  • In what I call “Zone B” (i.e. the free world) the US is losing one ally after another, the latest one to defect to the Russian side is, of all countries, Saudi Arabia which first told Biden to get lost over OPEC+ and which now wants to join the BRICS!  Can’t say I am a big fan of the KSA, but I am all for it joining the BRICS if that is what they want.

Last but not least, is the “something’s up” feeling,

As of today, the Russians and Belorussians have created a joint force which is of great concern the the folks in Kiev and Lvov.  This does not mean that Belarusian units (or individual soldiers) are about to cross the border and attack but, just as with the initial feint around Kiev, this creates a major headache for NATO planners who cannot allocate all their resources towards the lines of contact in the eastern Ukraine.  And, if and when needed, this force (whose size is unclear, but appears to be significant) could, of course, be used, especially if the Hyena of Europe decides to bite off a piece of Banderastan (or Belarus!).  There is overwhelming evidence that Russia is also preparing a large force for some kind of operation, but I cannot even guess where this force(s) might be used or how.

Conclusion: a planet divided for the foreseeable future

What we are seeing is the creation of two parts of our planet: the AngloZionist Hegemony (in which only the USA and Israel have agency, the rest are colonies, occupied countries, volunteer slaves, etc.) and the Multipolar Free World.  While the two blocks are not technically at war with each other, in reality they already very much are.  Russia and Iran are bearing most of the military burden while other free countries quietly try to either stay out and keep a low profile or, even more quietly, assist China and rest of the Multipolar Free World to prevail economically.  Of course, the AngloZionist Hegemony is using every means it has to subvert not only Russia, but also China, Iran and any other country daring to declare even a modicum of sovereignty.

The eventual and inevitable outcome of this confrontation is not in doubt, at least not to those who are aware of reality.  It is not the outcome which I fear (in fact I await it with great anticipation!) but the potentially enormous costs of defeating the West’s last Crusade (last time Russia lost 27 million people, most of them innocent civilians, and that did not even do the full job – hence today’s war).  I will never stop repeating that while most of the US and NATO forces are a sad joke, the US nuclear triad and the USN’s submarine force are both still world class and extremely dangerous and capable (and US SSNs come with not only anti-submarine and anti-surface capabilities, but also with land-attack missiles).

This is why it is absolutely crucial for Russia to turn up the pain dial steadily but SLOWLY.

Those dimwits who constantly advocate for “firm Russian actions” and simply “hit them hard!” are clueless civilians from countries who never won a real war adn who have no idea whatsoever about modern warfare or about the immense risks their warmongering hysterics create for our entire planet.  I can sincerely say that I thank God that Putin is a very careful type who fully understands that there are no “quickfix solutions” to denazifying and demilitarizing the AngloZionist Hegemony.

And yes, Russia will continue to unilaterally and gradually rotating up the pain dial, and Russia will do so without feeling the need to seek approval from those who have never won a war but who believe that wars are won by “showing toughness”.

Andrei

On Trussification: From Decolonisation to Desperation to Hopelessness to Farce

October 16, 2022

By Batiushka

Source

Decolonisation: The Western Withdrawal from Asia, Africa and Europe

The Western European Empires have gone. The bankrupt Spanish Empire went first, in the century before last, the Germans lost their colonies in 1919 (at the same time as the Austro-Hungarians lost their European colonies), then the Italians lost their fantasies in Africa during the Second World War, the Germans got kicked out of their colonies in Eastern Europe in 1945, but the Portuguese much later, only getting kicked out of Africa in the 1970s. By that time the Dutch, the British, the Belgians and the French had also been kicked out of their colonies. Only the NATO Danes still hold on to Greenland, which is a lot of ice and snow and all of 56,000 people, though both Eisenhower and Trump wanted to buy it. However, since the US has its base at Thule, it effectively controls the country anyhow.

Since 1947 the UK has been kicked out of almost everywhere, infamously from the Indian Subcontinent in 1947, from Palestine in 1948 and humiliatingly, by their Americans ‘allies’, from Suez in 1956. All that remains is, for the moment, a small group of tiny enclaves and islands like Bermuda, the Caymans, Gibraltar, St Helena, the Falklands etc, about 18,000 square kilometres and fewer than 300,000 people in all, plus a lot of ice in the ‘British Antarctic Territory’.

As for France, after its humiliation in South-East Asia in 1954, it has gradually been kicked out of Africa (1946-2022) (Suez in 1956, Algeria in 1962 etc) and soon, even after its decades of assassinating independentist African politicians and military interventions, it will have nothing left there, though it still has a few islands in various oceans here and there.

As for the short-lived US Empire, over the last fifty years it has largely been kicked out of several Asian countries (Vietnam (1975), Iran (1979), Iraq (2011-2021) Afghanistan (2021), now out of Russia (2022), and soon out of China, India and Saudi Arabia. True, it still hangs on in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel, but not for much longer. Eurasia is to be US-free.

As regards the Western withdrawal from Europe, the UK left Europe in 2020. It still hangs on to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and above all to England, but it will not last. Now it is the turn of the US to be kicked out of Europe. It is happening in the Ukraine at this very moment, but this rejection will later spread to Western Europe. Then it will be the turn of the EU to be kicked out of Europe and ultimately the US will be kicked out of the Americas, especially out of the US.

Do not be surprised by the words ‘the Western withdrawal from Europe’ or ‘the UK being kicked out of the UK, the EU out of the EU and the US out of the US’. This is not gibberish. I am talking about the removal of the three parasitic Establishment elites in all those three manmade unions. Once those elites have gone, those purely manmade unions will fall and the newly sovereign peoples of England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the peoples of Continental Western Europe and all those in Northern America can be liberated from their zombification and so will be able to retrieve their roots, their identity, their sovereignty and their selves again.

Desperation

When the USA gets desperate, it always turns to terrorism, much as gunboat Britain did and still, very weakly, attempts to do. Without mentioning the CIA-created quagmires in Latin America or in Asia or mentioning the details of the Gulf of Tonkin (1), we recall its quagmires just in Europe: the installation of the Greek junta in 1967, the CIA overthrow of De Gaulle in France in 1968, the assassination of Aldo Moro in Italy in 1978, the assassination of Olof Palme in 1986, and much more recently MH17, its terrorist attacks on the Nordstream pipelines and the Crimea Bridge, and now its attempt to force Russia to use nuclear weapons, so that the Zionist neocons in Washington can at last find an excuse to use their nuclear toys.

Those who want modern Russia to behave like Stalin’s Soviet Union and blast their brother-people of the Ukraine off the map, as the USSR did in Berlin in 1945 (though in truth most of the damage had already been done by Anglo-American terrorist bombing) need a gentle reminder. Despite US fantasies and intimidation, I have news – the Soviet Union is dead and President Putin definitely does not want it back. He, after all, lived through its end when he was in East Germany and remembers just how awful it was. Russia’s aim has never been either the occupation of the Ukraine (unlike the Soviet aim in Eastern Europe in 1945, which was to create a buffer zone for self-protection from the aggressive West), or the destruction of the Ukraine, or the massacre of its Ukrainian brothers. Let us remind ourselves yet again of Russia’s three aims in this conflict against the US puppet regime in Kiev, that is, of the aims of the Russian campaign for the liberation of Russia’s brothers and sisters in the Ukraine from the Fascist junta. These three aims were, and are, and will be:

1. The Liberation of the Donbass

This has been 75% achieved, indeed, since the liberation has turned out to be not just that of Lugansk (99% achieved) and Donetsk (75% achieved), but also of 99% of Kherson and 75% of Zaporozhie, we could say that it has been 85% achieved. Why has the liberation turned into Donbass x 2, of four provinces instead of two? Simply because the Kiev junta continually threatened the Crimea and the Donbass and they had to be protected. And if Kiev continues to shell Donbass x 2 and occupy its empty fields, the Russian campaign will have to be the liberation of Donbass x 3 or even Donbass x 4.

2. The Demilitarisation of the Ukraine

This is well on its way, at least 50% completed already. In fact, it was completed as regards the NATO-fortified Kiev military by 25 March. However, since, as Russia expected, NATO decided to resupply Kiev with their own military stocks, now already much depleted, demilitarisation is still under way. But it is only a question of time.

3. Denazification

There is some confusion here. What does this term mean? Does it mean Russia sending out teachers to instruct Ukrainians in the difference between Nazi racism and the normal human acceptance of people from other countries and their cultures? No, it does not. Denazification in today’s Western context is different from that. It is the process by which the infantile Westernised child learns to stop putting its fingers into the flame. In other words, the West has to teach itself and learn from bitter experience. This is how Denazification (and from there regime-change) will be implemented throughout today’s Western world.

For example, over the last three months the yen, the euro and the pound sterling have all been reaching historic lows against the US dollar. This is because US interest rates are higher than elsewhere and so its financial markets are attracting international investment capital. After all, why invest in European countries, which are energy-dependent but forced to boycott their main source of energy? You do not want to invest in self-bankrupting countries, which are set on a suicidal course. The USA is not as yet perceived to be self-bankrupting (though its turn will come). What is the denazifying result of all this? Let us look at the ‘case’ – and it is a ‘case’, in the medical and pathological sense – of the UK.

Hopelessness

Having ditched its drunken loser Johnson, over the summer the UK Establishment wasted two months in the middle of a huge political and economic crisis allowing 80,000 mainly elderly and wealthy people to select an incompetent Prime Minister for 68.7 million people – such is UK democracy, which apparently the rest of the world, especially ‘autocrats’ in Russia and China, urgently need to learn from. Thus, as soon as Truss, the worst possible candidate for Prime Minister, had been carefully selected over the two summer months, many commentators, including myself, doubted that she could last until Christmas. It now seems that that pessimism may have been very optimistic. Some latest estimates reckon that at best she may not last until 1 November.

Truss’ decision to increase government spending – not least to double the UK ‘Defence’ (who is attacking the UK anyway?) budget to £50 billion by 2030 – to send over £3 billion of military supplies to Kiev so far this year, to subsidise 100,000 Ukrainian ‘refugees’, and at the same time to make tax cuts for the rich (what else would you expect the Conservative Party to do?) has not been accepted by Biden, the IMF and, above all, by the markets.

Therefore, on 14 October Truss ditched her own Minister of Finance of 38 days for his decision to carry out her own illiterate economic policy – illiterate, as precisely and prophetically described last July by Truss’ rival as Conservative Prime Minister, the former Finance Minister, Sunak. So, on 14 October, Truss appointed a new British Finance Minister, the fourth in four months, a man notorious for contributing to the destruction the UK’s abysmal Health ‘Service’ (2). He will now do exactly the opposite of everything she had promised just three weeks before and on which impossible promises the intellectually challenged elected her.

Naturally, the hopeless Truss blames all her problems on ‘global factors’ and especially on ‘Putin’s appalling invasion of the Ukraine’. No mention of voluntary and suicidal Western sanctions at all. After all, would she want to admit to her own colossal stupidity? Here we see how Denazification and, as a result regime change, are already happening in the UK, all by themselves, just as they will in the EU and in the USA. All Russia has to do is to sit back and watch Western leaders destroying themselves and dragging down their countries with them, until their peoples rise up in revolt, as is beginning to happen all over Western Europe, and as will happen in the US (we had a presage of this at the Capitol last year) and in its other colonies. This is Denazification, though perhaps more precisely it should be called ‘Auto-Denazification’. Or perhaps it could just be called ‘Hopelessness’? Or maybe just ‘Trussification’?

16 October 2022

Note:

1. A quick read of William Blum’s Killing Hope, US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II or Stephen Kinzler’s Overthrow, America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq should be enlightening here.

2. A young friend in the UK phoned me on 14 October. He told me how after weeks and weeks of chronic pain, he was eventually diagnosed by a UK hospital doctor as having cancer. He was then told that he had six months to live, but that surgeons would not have enough time to operate, as ‘the waiting list is too long’, and was then given ‘pain-killers’ that did not work as consolation for his death-sentence. The next day, through a friend, he booked a flight to Romania. There, arriving from the airport, he was seen in a clinic at once and given an MRI scan. He was immediately informed that he had a hernia. The surgeon apologised to him that he could not operate on him the next day, but that he would have to wait until the day after. Just another example of the UK’s ‘world class’ health system….Trussification indeed.

%d bloggers like this: