A Throne of Chinese Skulls! Oh Yeah?

December 20, 2021

By Chris Faure for the Saker Blog

The hot question among a number of hot questions is: What will China do?

Is there clarity? I would argue yes there is .. some. The paradox is that West pushes for terms of a new partitioning of the world (democracy summit, unending belligerence, cynical, and hypocritical paranoia), while Russia and China expect terms of surrender. According to China, there has to be payback for past empire atrocities.

In such an environment a kinetic hot war makes little sense because there is no overt military threat against western leadership. I would argue that Russia’s ultimatum is military containment by agreement, as a first step. I would also argue that because we do not have insight into step 2 (military/technical counter-threats), we cannot reason that step 2 is not highly coordinated with China, to the nth degree. It is so that the USA is no longer the world’s only ‘indispensable nation’. They are now dispensable and replaceable in their current form and the hope is that they reform themselves.

As there is much that we do not know in terms of further steps, there is also much that we do not know about how China is going to interrelate. What we do know is that they will be a part of the final dethroning of Western powers’ force for empire. We know this, because they said so and China is dead serious.

Russia made their proposals known. China did too, just today.

Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi called on the United States to work with China to find out the way of peaceful coexistence between the two major countries. He noted some people in the United States are unwilling to admit that other countries also have the right to development, unwilling to accept the fact that China is growing stronger and making progress, unwilling to agree that China and the United States can achieve mutual benefit and win-win results, and are trying to form a camp to contain and suppress China.

“The wrong words and deeds of the U.S. side not only seriously damage the interests of the two peoples, but also seriously impact world peace and stability” Wang said.

Here are the Chinese statements over the past few days:

Shortly after the Putin/Xi Jingping virtual meeting, this question was posed to Foreign Minister Spokesperson Wang Wenbin. Mr Wenbin is a highly competent diplomat.

Question from TASS: In his virtual meeting with Russian President Putin, President Xi Jinping said China will continue to carry out flexible and diverse cooperation with Russia and other member states of the Collective Security Treaty Organization to safeguard security and stability in the region. What challenges are China and Russia facing in this aspect? What can China and Russia do to safeguard regional security?

Wang Wenbin: On December 15, President Xi Jinping had a virtual meeting with Russian President Putin. The two heads of state had an in-depth exchange of views on core and major issues of common concerns including safeguarding regional security, and achieved new, important consensus.

The world is witnessing the combined forces of changes and a pandemic both unseen in a century against the backdrop of complex and profound changes in international and regional landscape. We believe that China and Russia, two permanent members of the UN Security Council, take on an important mission in defending regional peace and stability and promoting development and revitalization of all countries. For some time, certain countries have been drawing ideological lines, building new military blocs and stoking regional tensions, which have all brought grave threats and challenges to regional peace and stability and global strategic stability. China and Russia firmly reject this. We will continue to follow the two leaders’ consensus, take up responsibility, unite all forces that love peace and support peace, and make active contribution to realizing sustained, universal and common security in the region and the wider world.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/202112/t20211215_10470184.html

Certain sentences and words need to be lifted out of ‘diplo-speak’.

Note, the question from the TASS reporter is about regional security. Mr Wenbin, in his response, brought it back to the strategic stability of the wider world.

This sentence: Russia/China take on important mission in defending regional peace and stability and promoting development and revitalization of all countries.

Again, he then speaks about Global Strategic Stability and not only regional.

For some time, certain countries have been drawing ideological lines, building new military blocs and stoking regional tensions, which have all brought grave threats and challenges to regional peace and stability and global strategic stability.

And here is the shocker:

We will continue to follow the two leaders’ consensustake up responsibility, unite all forces that love peace and support peace, and make active contribution to realizing sustained, universal and common security in the region and the wider world.

The phrase the two leader’s consensus indicates that all plans have been made, everyone stands at the ready, and Putin and Xi Jinping will take the next step probably on a phone call. The fate of the world is now in the hands of Putin and Xi Jinping. It is astonishing that China is subjecting itself to The Consensus of the Two Leaders and shows without a shadow of a doubt that they are acting in full concert, strategically, politically, economically coordinated, and we know militarily as well, we just don’t know to what extent.

Another statement from Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin: This statement is interesting in that it shows the emotion (which I’ve never seen him display) of the Chinese people. They are at the end of their strategic patience as well and this is how they feel.

“The era in which the USA acted arbitrarily in the world under the pretext of democracy and human rights is now over.”

Currently, the destruction that the Western powers waged on the world, is transparent. Take a look:  Pentagon documents reveal ‘deeply flawed’ US air war: report

https://peoplesdaily.pdnews.cn/world/pentagon-documents-reveal-deeply-flawed-us-air-war-report-241188.html

Russia and China are stepping into alternative world relations still based on the UN Charter and Law, and based on respect between countries, and more than that, they are proving that it is possible since the first discussions of multi-polarity in the world in 2015 and the first public discussions of Belt and Road in 2013. For years now Russia and China tried to help the Western powers out of their sorry state; but the time has come.  ‘Gung-ho’ and ‘wolf warrior diplomacy’ seem to be over and at least from China side, this is a tipping point.  The Western powers need to face their downright self-inflicted humiliation. This will happen economically by moving the world to a new economic system with new economic tools and will go right through to military intervention should the Western powers continue their arbitrary actions. But nobody will be fighting the ‘West’s War’ and I submit we may see something quite unanticipated by our usual analysis and calculus. It is already unprecedented that Mr. Lavrov published his diplomatic correspondence with France and Germany regarding the Ukraine. It is also unprecedented for draft proposals from Russia to be open to the public at this stage. We are in an unprecedented time.

The fact that both Russia, China, and Iran do not start the shooting, is incontrovertible proof that they are genuine in their statements that they want to bring peace.

China is in, boots ‘n all. If a regional conflagration should break out and it is in Russia’s ballpark (the Ukraine), and Russia can deal with it on her own, China will make sure that the Russian soldiers are the best outfitted and supported of any modern military force that we have ever seen. You will see a voentorg to beat all voentorgs. Russian forces will drink champagne and eat oysters (OK, this is shameless hyperbole, but it makes the point).

Taiwan has simmered down. The latest words there from China in the person of Foreign Minister Wang Yi, is Taiwan’s reunification with China is a question of time. “China must and will be reunified,” he stressed. He noted that there has been growing support for the ‘One-China’ principle around the world, referring to the recent decision by the government of Nicaragua to break ties with Taipei. “Ten days ago, we resumed diplomatic relations with Nicaragua. The total number of countries with [whom China has] diplomatic ties has increased to 181, and the one-China consensus has been consolidated internationally,” he said.

If there is a fight, no matter the size, or the manner of the fight, the Chinese are in and I would argue that they are in right now! Nobody can beat them at producing what is necessary for a fight. Their own aircraft carrier battle groups are out in the ocean through the near Pacific, South China Seas and other seas.  One has to get used to how China presents things. Even the media reporting these maneuvers, puts scare quotes around the words “routine drills”.  Battle groups are out for scare quoted “routine drills”. They do not say that China is readying herself for a defense of her own basin, in which case Russia will support in the same way that China will support Russia. Will anyone be able to penetrate beyond and inside the first island chain?

So, it is clear that the Russia/China double helix is operating fine currently. Mr Wang is not playing a good cop to Russia’s bad cop. He is making it clear that what is happening is not only a Russian problem, but a problem of the strategic stability in the world, It affects not only Russia, but China as well, and no longer can one entity be allowed to attack others like fish in a barrel.

We cannot think of a multi-front war: the West cannot possibly be that deranged.

Yet, the ludicrous rhetoric in the Western spheres continues apace and distracts from reality. It is hardly worthwhile rebutting every accusation. China is not using much rhetoric currently but we can be sure that they note this rhetoric. Knowing the strategic situation in the world, they are not rebutting. There is no need.

We need men ” … who want to sit on a throne of Chinese skulls …

Andrei Martyanov is causing high hilarity about USA representatives that want to ‘kill themselves some Ruskis’ and even offers up a few:

This boy, obviously, despite his tour in Iraq never saw a real war and a real enemy who can actually kill you back even when one is in the bunker inside your own army base.

We can conclude then that the slew of accusations made to Russia, are similar in tone and also in substance, as those made to China. The minds of these accusers cannot contemplate a peaceful world. It seems to be impossible for them. Although Russia is not threatening the Ukraine, and China is not threatening her own Taiwanese province, they believe their belligerent rhetoric can make it so.

Western states are slowly approaching the state of being disconcerted and soon now they will enter a stage of being stunned, as they are now being dictated to on the red lines of the other forces in the world. We can never forget Iran, which showed everyone how to say NO! There will be no conformity to Western red lines. I venture to say that the USA and cronies will not even be allowed to keep operating their Monroe Doctrine. They will not be allowed a sphere of influence. They will only be allowed their space as a pole in multi-polarity. The leftist candidate won the elections in Chile yesterday (although there are questions as to how ‘empire-proof’ he is). The one slogan that was visible is: “If neocolonialism started in Chile, we will end it in Chile”.

Within China, China is looking after China. They are developing their space program, their Belt and Road which is ‘a force for good’ in the world, and building their economy and continuing to create an increasingly varied and better life for their people. The Olympic Games will continue, and in time Taiwan will reunify.

They are also, with Russia and others, building out a new financial system for the world.

What can stop a war at this stage?

  • The West has a very strong and simple reason to avoid a new war: They will lose. Their actions are now futile.
  • The USA is dying. Xi and Putin can still decide to let it die and continue to stay out of the fray. But they have made the decision to enter a confrontational era. We could speculate as to why as the situation reveals itself.
  • China, Asia or the AsiaPacific is ready to end the empirical era. Both Russia and China are ready to end the empirical era in such a way that retaliatory strikes are almost impossible. It is a most complex ballet of threat and counterthreat, coherently managed by the two countries. Russia is not arriving, China is not arriving and Iran is not arriving for the war that the hegemon is inviting them to. How frustrating for them.

What can stop a war? China and Russia, the consensus of the two leaders probably can. I repeat: “The era in which the USA acted arbitrarily in the world under the pretext of democracy and human rights is now over.”

Yankee Go Home!

Related Posts

American Idolatry

December 13, 2021

By Walt Garlington for the Saker Blog

Though the idea has been ridiculed relentlessly, and for good reason, there really is something exceptional about the United States, and it lies in the terrible hubris of their view of their place in world history.

Every normal, traditional people, tribe, nation, etc., has had as its ultimate goal the friendship or union with some divine Absolute principle or being; everything for them was subordinated to that end. The ‘American experiment’ turned that ideal on its head. The idea of an Absolute remains, called by them ‘sacred liberty’ and other such names, but the attainment of it is gained not by subordination but by insubordination, by the dissolution of traditional restraints upon individuals. Furthermore, the practice of a traditional religion has been relegated from an essential communal act to an optional private act, to be done however one’s conscience directs him. Religion has become a means to an end, not the end itself.

If liberty is the American god, then the sacred writings are things like the Declaration of Independence and the 1787 Philadelphia constitution (ranked in eminence with the Bible by such prominent Americans as Ralph Waldo Emerson); the prophets and apostles of this new religion are her philosopher-statesmen like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and others; and the central, sacramental, uniting, Grace-conferring rite is the election of public officials by the voters.

We can trace the lineaments of this religion through the political literature and rhetoric produced throughout American history. One of the clearest statements about it comes from President Thomas Jefferson (1801-9) in his Farewell Address. There, he wrote about the special place of the American Union in history:

‘The station we occupy among the nations of the earth is honorable, but awful. Trusted with the destinies of this solitary republic of the world, the only monument of human rights, and the sole repository of the sacred fire of freedom and self-government, from hence, it is to be lighted up in other regions of the earth, if other regions of the earth ever become susceptible of its genial influence. All mankind ought, then, with us, to rejoice in its prosperous, and sympathize in its adverse fortunes, as involving everything dear to man.’

No fixed doctrines must be permitted that would restrain the freedom/self-government that he extols; relativism must reign:

‘And to what sacrifices of interest or convenience, ought not these considerations to animate us! To what compromises of opinion and inclination, to maintain harmony and union among ourselves, and to preserve from all danger this hallowed ark of human hope and happiness! That differences of opinion should arise among men, on politics, on religion, and on every topic of human inquiry, and that these should be freely expressed in a country where all our facilities are free, is to be expected. But these valuable privileges are much perverted when permitted to disturb the harmony of social intercourse, and to lessen the tolerance of opinion. To the honor of society here, it has been characterized by a just and generous liberality, and an indulgence of those affections which, without regard to political creeds, constitute the happiness of life.’

President George Washington (1789-97) displays in his own Farewell Address the typical utilitarian American attitude toward religion – it makes freedom and ‘happiness’ possible, but that is about the extent of its goodness:

‘Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

‘It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who that is a sincere friend to it can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

‘Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.’

‘Promote then,’ what? Churches? No. Institutions that diffuse knowledge (schools, libraries, etc., it would seem).

And he hallows the new American order with these words: ‘the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained . . .’

President John Adams (1797-1801), in his Inaugural Address, proclaims that the most pleasant vision the world has ever seen is the election of public officials by voters:

‘There may be little solidity in an ancient idea that congregations of men into cities and nations are the most pleasing objects in the sight of superior intelligences, but this is very certain, that to a benevolent human mind there can be no spectacle presented by any nation more pleasing, more noble, majestic, or august, than an assembly like that which has so often been seen in this and the other Chamber of Congress, of a Government in which the Executive authority, as well as that of all the branches of the Legislature, are exercised by citizens selected at regular periods by their neighbors to make and execute laws for the general good. Can anything essential, anything more than mere ornament and decoration, be added to this by robes and diamonds? Can authority be more amiable and respectable when it descends from accidents or institutions established in remote antiquity than when it springs fresh from the hearts and judgments of an honest and enlightened people? For it is the people only that are represented. It is their power and majesty that is reflected, and only for their good, in every legitimate government, under whatever form it may appear. The existence of such a government as ours for any length of time is a full proof of a general dissemination of knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the people. And what object or consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to the human mind? If national pride is ever justifiable or excusable it is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence.’

And if a rightly conducted election is the highest good, if it is the standard of right belief in the American religious system, then heresy is the corruption of the voting process (we will note in passing how hypocritical the United States have been over the years in interfering in the elections of other countries when, here, as elsewhere, they bemoan any outside influence in their own election processes):

‘In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the Government may not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves; and candid men will acknowledge that in such cases choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance.’

A later president, Andrew Jackson (1829-37), confirms the views of his predecessors in his Farewell Address, saying,

‘You have the highest of human trusts committed to your care. Providence has showered on this favored land blessings without number, and has chosen you as the guardians of freedom, to preserve it for the benefit of the human race. May He who holds in His hands the destinies of nations make you worthy of the favors He has bestowed and enable you, with pure hearts and pure hands and sleepless vigilance, to guard and defend to the end of time the great charge He has committed to your keeping.’

The rather low view of the traditional role of religion in American society is seen also in the various political documents written to give life to their political beliefs. The silence of the Philadelphia constitution’s Preamble regarding the need to worship the God of the Christians or any other divine being is telling:

‘We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.’

The 1819 constitution of the State of Alabama is explicit in its support for religious relativism (always a great seedbed of social discord):

‘SEC. 3. No person within this state shall, upon, any pretence, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping God in the manner most agreeable to his own conscience; nor be compelled to attend any place of worship, nor shall any one ever be obliged to pay any tythes, taxes, or other rate, for the building or repairing any place of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry.

‘SEC. 4. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

‘SEC. 5. No person shall be hurt, molested, or restrained in his religious profession, sentiments, or persuasion, provided he does not disturb others in their religious worship.

‘SEC. 6. The civil rights, privileges, or capacities of any citizen, shall in no way be diminished, or enlarged, on account of his religious principles.

‘SEC. 7. There shall be no establishment of religion by law; no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society, denomination, or mode of worship; and no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this state.’

New Jersey’s 1776 charter is a little better in that it upholds Protestantism as a norm of sorts, but it nevertheless empowers the individual conscience to worship as it pleases (again an invitation to moral anarchy):

XVIII. That no person shall ever, within this Colony, be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner, agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; nor, under any presence whatever, be compelled to attend any place of worship, contrary to his own faith and judgment; nor shall any person, within this Colony, ever be obliged to pay tithes, taxes, or any other rates, for the purpose of building or repairing any other church or churches, place or places of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes to be right, or has deliberately or voluntarily engaged himself to perform.

XIX. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious sect in this Province, in preference to another; and that no Protestant inhabitant of this Colony shall be denied the enjoyment of any civil right, merely on account of his religious principles; but that all persons, professing a belief in the faith of any Protestant sect. who shall demean themselves peaceably under the government, as hereby established, shall be capable of being elected into any office of profit or trust, or being a member of either branch of the Legislature, and shall fully and freely enjoy every privilege and immunity, enjoyed by others their fellow subjects.’

Once the South realized the tremendous dangers inherent in the American political ideology that was set up in 1776, a realization that dawned on her as she watched it moving toward its logical end in New England with her burgeoning free-love/open-marriage communities, communists, feminists, Unitarians, Mormons, and so on, she began to distance herself from it. But such is the power of the new American religion that President Lincoln (1861-5) led New England and the rest of the Northern States on a crusade against Dixie and gave her such a comeuppance that her identity as a people has been nearly erased, and the standard American ideology has been imposed upon her instead.

We are glad, however, that even in our day, there is resistance in the South to this ongoing cultural genocide within organizations like the Abbeville Institute and the Ludwell Orthodox Fellowship.

This notwithstanding, Pres Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address (1863) would give the American religion its deepest stamp of messianic fervor by dedicating all future generations of Americans to the ‘unfinished work’ of ensuring ‘that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth’ (a rather bald renunciation of God’s sovereignty over the nations and an equally over-bold affirmation of the American’s own self-sufficient, Gnostic divinity – per M. E. Bradford, whose analysis of this speech in some of his essays is invaluable).

The final amalgamation of the American religion under Pres Lincoln continues to reverberate in recent American history. Pres George W. Bush (2001-9) repeated its main tenets in his 2005 Inaugural Address:

‘We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.

‘America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation’s security, and the calling of our time.

‘So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.’

The current president, Joe Biden, at his recent democracy summit, spoke words with the familiar divine ring to them both in his opening remarks:

‘To ensure that our democracies are strengthening by the voice — are strengthened by the voice of all citizens, this Presidential Initiative includes programs to advance women and girls and civic engagement and political leadership, empowering the LGBTQL [sic] community — plus community — individuals to participate in democratic institutions, promote labor law reform, working or — and worker organizations.

‘ . . .

‘My fellow leaders, members of civil society, activists, advocates, citizens: We stand at an inflection point in our history, in my view.  The choices we make, in my view, in the next — in this moment are going to fundamentally determine the direction our world is going to take in the coming decades.

‘Will we allow the backward slide of rights and democracy to continue unchecked?  Or will we together — together — have a vision and the vision — not just “a” vision, “the” vision — and courage to once more lead the march of human progress and human freedom forward?

‘I believe we can do that and we will if we have faith in ourselves, in our — and in our democracies, and in each other.’

And in his closing remarks:

‘And as we close out the first gathering, let’s — let us together reaffirm our determination that the future will belong to those who embrace human dignity, not those who trample it; who unleash the potential of their people, not those who stifle it; and who give their people the ability to breathe free, not those who seek to suffocate their people with an iron hand.

‘You know, as the great Irish poet Seamus Heaney once wrote:

‘“…once in a lifetime,

The longed-for tidal wave

Of justice can rise up,

And hope and history rhyme.”

‘That tidal wave doesn’t come out of nowhere.  It doesn’t happen by accident.

‘It happens because people unleash the irresistible power of their dreams and their determination.

‘Democracy is what makes it possible for hope and history to rhyme.

‘And today, hope and history lie in our hands.

‘So let’s raise up our ambitions and rise up to meet the challenges together.’

In all of this, the opposition to the Orthodox Church’s view of man’s goal, given him by God, is very pronounced. To the Declaration of Independence’s (1776) ideal of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ is Christ’s injunction that man ‘deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me’ (St Mark’s Gospel 8:34, KJV).

The Holy Apostle Paul says further, ‘“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor’ (I Cor. 10:23-4).

The other Holy Apostles and the Fathers of the Orthodox Church who have come after them are quite clear that obedience to spiritual fathers, fasting, and other acts of self-denial are necessary for attaining the holiness and union with Christ that are mankind’s true goal; such commands, however, chafe the typical rebellious American greatly.

His creed of the autonomous individual subject only to the cries of his own conscience is an abhorrent anomaly in the world. It shares the same seductive satanic spirit as Aleister Crowley’s dictum, ‘Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law’.

Because of this, the American definition of national greatness, material prosperity and hegemonic power over the world, is also lacking. The little Orthodox country of Georgia, so much persecuted by the great powers of the world over the centuries, is a wonderful foil to the American idea of greatness:

‘Having examined the history of Georgia and the hagiographical treasures attesting to the faith of the Georgian nation, we become convinced that Heavenly Georgia— the legion of Georgian saints, extolling the Lord in the Heavenly Kingdom with a single voice—is infinitely glorious. It is unknown how many cleansed themselves of their earthly sins in merciless warfare with the enemy of Christ, or how many purified their souls in unheated cells through prayer, fasting, and ascetic labors.

‘To God alone are known the names of those ascetics, forgotten by history, who by their humble labors tirelessly forged the future of the Georgian Church and people.

‘St. George of the Holy Mountain wrote: “From the time we recognized the one true God, we have never renounced Him, nor have our people ever yielded to heresy.”

‘A decree of the Church Council of Ruisi-Urbnisi states: “We will not depart from thee, the Catholic Church which bore us in holiness, nor will we betray thee, our pride—Orthodoxy—to which we have always been faithful, for we have been granted the honor to know thee, the witness of the Truth Itself!” This relationship to Orthodoxy is the cornerstone of the life of every Georgian believer.’

The American experiment is, quite simply, yet another gigantic, mesmerizing, diabolical idol, not unlike the one King Nebuchadnezzar set up in Babylon (Daniel ch. 3) – pleasing to the carnal eye with its golden exterior, it nevertheless devours with fire both those who voluntarily approach it and those who refuse to worship it, only the American idol-monster is far more destructive in its effects than King Nebuchadnezzar’s ever was. The sooner the earth is rid of it, the better.

China, Russia and India: Foreign Ministers Joint Communique

November 27, 2021

Joint Communique of the 18th Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China

November 26, 2021

1. The 18th Meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation, the Republic of India and the People’s Republic of China was held in the digital video-conference format on 26 November 2021. The meeting took place in the backdrop of negative impacts of the global Covid-19 pandemic, on-going economic recovery as well as continuing threats of terrorism, extremism, drug trafficking, trans-national organized crime, natural and man-made disasters, food security and climate change.

2. The Ministers exchanged views on further strengthening the Russia-India-China (RIC) trilateral cooperation and also discussed various regional and international issues of importance. The Ministers recalled their last meeting in Moscow in September 2020 as well as the RIC Leaders’ Informal Summit in Osaka (Japan) in June 2019 and noted the need for regular high level meetings to foster closer cooperation among the RIC countries.

3. Expressing their solidarity with those who were negatively affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, the Ministers underlined the importance of a timely, transparent, effective and non-discriminatory international response to global health challenges including pandemics, with equitable and affordable access to medicines, vaccines and critical health supplies. They reiterated the need for continued cooperation in this fight inter-alia through sharing of vaccine doses, transfer of technology, development of local production capacities, promotion of supply chains for medical products. In this context, they noted the ongoing discussions in the WTO on COVID-19 vaccine Intellectual Property Rights waiver and the use of flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration on TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.

4. Emphasizing the need for collective cooperation in the fight against Covid-19 pandemic, the Ministers noted the measures being taken by the World Health Organization (WHO), governments, non-profit organisations, academia, business and industry in combating the pandemic. In this context, the Ministers called for strengthening the policy responses of WHO in the fight against Covid-19 and other global health challenges. They also called for making Covid-19 vaccination a global public good.

5. The Ministers agreed that cooperation among the RIC countries will contribute not only to their own growth but also to global peace, security, stability and development. The Ministers underlined the importance of strengthening of an open, transparent, just, inclusive, equitable and representative multi-polar international system based on respect for international law and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and central coordinating role of the United Nations in the international system.

6. The Ministers reiterated that a multi-polar and rebalanced world based on sovereign equality of nations and respect for international law and reflecting contemporary realities requires strengthening and reforming of the multilateral system. The Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to upholding international law, including the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations. The Ministers acknowledged that the current interconnected international challenges should be addressed through reinvigorated and reformed multilateral system, especially of the UN and its principal organs, and other multilateral institutions such as International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO), with a view to enhancing its capacity to effectively address the diverse challenges of our time and to adapt them to 21st century realities. The Ministers recalled the 2005 World Summit Outcome document and reaffirmed the need for comprehensive reform of the UN, including its Security Council, with a view to making it more representative, effective and efficient, and to increase the representation of the developing countries so that it can adequately respond to global challenges. Foreign Ministers of China and Russia reiterated the importance they attached to the status of India in international affairs and supported its aspiration to play a greater role in the United Nations.Foreign Ministers of Russia and China congratulated India for its successful Presidency of the UNSC in August 2021.

7. Underlining the significance they attach to the intra-BRICS cooperation, the Ministers welcomed the outcomes of the 13th BRICS Summit held under India’s chairmanship on 9 September 2021. They agreed to work actively to implement the decisions of the successive BRICS Summits, deepen BRICS strategic partnership, strengthen cooperation in its three pillars namely political and security cooperation; economic and finance; and people-to-people and cultural exchanges. Russia and India extend full support to China for its BRICS Chairship in 2022 and hosting the XIV BRICS Summit.

8. In the year of the 20th Anniversary of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) the Ministers underlined that the SCO as an influential and responsible member of the modern system of international relations plays a constructive role in securing peace and sustainable development, advancing regional cooperation and consolidating ties of good-neighbourliness and mutual trust. In this context, they emphasized the importance of further strengthening the Organization’s multifaceted potential with a view to promote multilateral political, security, economic and people-to-people exchanges cooperation. The Ministers intend to pay special attention to ensuring stability in the SCO space, including to step up efforts in jointly countering terrorism, illicit drug trafficking and trans-border organized crime under the framework of SCO-Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure. They appreciated the Ministerial meeting in the SCO Contact Group on Afghanistan format held on 14th July 2021 in Dushanbe.

9. The Ministers supported the G-20’s leading role in global economic governance and international economic cooperation. They expressed their readiness to enhance communication and cooperation including through G-20 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting and other means, through consultations and mutual support in areas of respective interest.

10. The Ministers stand for maintaining and strengthening of ASEAN Centrality and the role of ASEAN-led mechanisms in the evolving regional architecture, including through fostering ties between ASEAN and other regional organizations such as the SCO, IORA, BIMSTEC. The Ministers reiterated the importance of the need for closer cooperation and consultations in various regional fora and organizations, East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), ASEAN Defence Ministers Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus), Asia-Europe Meeting (ASEM), Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) and the Asia Cooperation Dialogue (ACD), to jointly contribute to regional peace, security and stability.

11. The Ministers consider it important to utilize the potential of the countries of the region, international organizations and multilateral associations in order to create a space in Eurasia for broad, open, mutually beneficial and equal interaction in accordance with international law and taking into account national interests. In that regard, they noted the idea of establishing a Greater Eurasian Partnership involving the SCO countries, the Eurasian Economic Union, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and other interested States and multilateral associations.

12. The Ministers condemned terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. The Ministers reaffirmed that terrorism must be comprehensively countered to achieve a world free of terrorism. They called on the international community to strengthen UN-led global counter-terrorism cooperation by fully implementing the relevant UN Security Council (UNSC) resolutions and the Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. In this context, they called for early adoption of the UN Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. The Ministers stressed that those committing, orchestrating, inciting or supporting, financing terrorist acts must be held accountable and brought to justice in accordance with existing international commitments on countering terrorism, including the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the FATF standards, international treaties, including on the basis of the principle “extradite or prosecute” and relevant international and bilateral obligations and in compliance with applicable domestic legislation.

13. The Ministers emphasized the importance of the three international drug control conventions and other relevant legal instruments which form the edifice of the drug control system. They reiterated their firm resolve to address the world drug problem, on a basis of common and shared responsibility. The Ministers expressed their determination to counter the spread of illicit drug trafficking in opiates and methamphetamine from Afghanistan and beyond, which poses a serious threat to regional security and stability and provides funding for terrorist organizations.

14. The Ministers reiterated the need for a holistic approach to development and security of ICTs, including technical progress, business development, safeguarding the security of States and public interests, and respecting the right to privacy of individuals. The Ministers noted that technology should be used responsibly in a human-centric manner. They underscored the leading role of the United Nations in promoting a dialogue to forge common understandings on the security of and in the use of ICTs and development of universally agreed norms, rules and principles for responsible behaviour of States in the area of ICTs and recognized the importance of strengthening its international cooperation. The Ministers recalled that the development of ICT capabilities for military purposes and the malicious use of ICTs by State and non-State actors including terrorists and criminal groups is a disturbing trend. The Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to principles of preventing conflicts stemming from the use of ICTs, as well as ensuring use of these technologies for peaceful purposes. In this context, they welcomed the work of recently concluded UN-mandated groups namely Open Ended Working Group on the developments in the fields of Information and Telecommunications in the context of international security (OEWG) and the Sixth United Nations Group of Governmental Experts (UNGGE) on Advancing responsible State behaviour in cyberspace in the context of international security and their consensual final reports. The Ministers supported the OEWG on the security of and in the use of ICTs 2021-2025.

15. The Ministers, while emphasizing the important role of the ICTs for growth and development, acknowledged the potential misuse of ICTs for criminal activities and threats. The Ministers expressed concern over the increasing level and complexity of criminal misuse of ICTs as well as the absence of a UN-led framework to counter the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. Noting that new challenges and threats in this respect require international cooperation, the Ministers appreciated the launch of the UN Open-Ended Ad-Hoc Intergovernmental Committee of Experts to elaborate a comprehensive international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes under the auspices of the United Nations, pursuant to the United Nations General Assembly resolution 74/247.

16. The Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to broadening and strengthening the participation of emerging markets and developing countries (EMDCs) in the international economic decision-making and norm-setting processes, especially in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic. In this regard, they emphasized the importance of constant efforts to reform the international financial architecture. They expressed concern that enhancing the voice and participation of EMDCs in the Bretton Woods institutions remains far from realization.

17. The Ministers reaffirmed their support for a transparent, open, inclusive and non-discriminatory multilateral trading system, with the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its core. In this context, they reiterated their support for the necessary reform which would preserve the centrality, core values and fundamental principles of the WTO while taking into account the interests of all members, especially developing countries and Least Developing Countries (LDCs). They emphasized the primary importance of ensuring the restoration and preservation of the normal functioning of a two-stage WTO Dispute Settlement system, including the expeditious appointment of all Appellate Body members. The post-pandemic world requires diversified global value chains that are based on resilience and reliability.

18. The Ministers agreed that the imposition of unilateral sanctions beyond those adopted by the UNSC as well as “long-arm jurisdiction” were inconsistent with the principles of international law, have reduced the effectiveness and legitimacy of the UNSC sanction regime, and had a negative impact on third States and international economic and trade relations. They called for a further consolidation and strengthening of the working methods of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee to ensure their effectiveness, responsiveness and transparency.

19. The Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in its three dimensions- economic, social and environmental in a balanced and integrated manner – and reiterated that the Sustainable Development Goals are integrated and indivisible and must be achieved ‘leaving no one behind’. The Ministers called upon the international community to foster a more equitable and balanced global development partnership to address the negative impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and to accelerate the implementation of 2030 Agenda while giving special attention to the difficulties and needs of the developing countries. The Ministers urged developed countries to honour their Official Development Assistance (ODA) commitments, including the commitment to achieve the target of 0.7 percent of gross national income for official development assistance (ODA/GNI) to developing countries and to facilitate capacity building and the transfer of technology to developing countries together with additional development resources, in line with national policy objectives of the recipients.

20. The Ministers also reaffirmed their commitment to Climate action by implementation of Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement adopted under the principles of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including the principle of Equity, Common But Differentiated Responsibilities, the criticality of adequate finance and technology flows, judicious use of resources and the need for sustainable lifestyles. They recognized that peaking of Greenhouse Gas Emissions will take longer for developing countries, in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty. They stressed the importance of a Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework that addresses the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in a balanced way. They welcomed the outcomes of the 26th Conference of Parties of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-26) and the 15th Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP-15).

21. The Ministers underlined the imperative of dialogue to strengthen international peace and security through political and diplomatic means. The Ministers confirmed their commitment to ensure prevention of an arms race in outer space and its weaponization, through the adoption of a relevant multilateral legally binding instrument. In this regard, they noted the relevance of the draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space and of the threat or use of force against outer space objects. They emphasized that the Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral negotiating forum on this subject, has the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement, or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in all its aspects. They expressed concern over the possibility of outer space turning into an arena of military confrontation. They stressed that practical transparency and confidence building measures, such as the No First Placement initiative may also contribute towards the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Ministers reaffirmed their support for enhancing international cooperation in outer space in accordance with international law, based on the Outer Space Treaty. They recognized, in that regard, the leading role of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS). They agreed to stand together for enhancing the long-term sustainability of outer space activities and safety of space operations through deliberations under UNCOPUOS.

22. The Ministers reiterated the importance of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BTWC) as a key pillar of the global disarmament and security architecture. They highlighted the need for BTWC States Parties to comply with BTWC, and actively consult one another on addressing issues through cooperation in relation to the implementation of the Convention and strengthening it, including by negotiating a legally binding Protocol for the Convention that provides for, inter alia, an efficient verification mechanism. The BTWC functions should not be duplicated by other mechanisms. They also reaffirmed support for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) and called upon the State Parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to uphold the Convention and the integrity of the CWC and engage in a constructive dialogue with a view to restoring the spirit of consensus in the OPCW.

23. The Ministers showed deep concern about the threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) falling into the hands of terrorist groups, including the use of chemicals and biological agents for terrorist purposes. To address the threat of chemical and biological terrorism, they emphasized the need to launch multilateral negotiations on an international convention for the suppression of acts of chemical and biological terrorism at the Conference on Disarmament. They urged all States to take and strengthen national measures, as appropriate, to prevent terrorists from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, their means of delivery and materials and technologies related to their manufacture.

24. The Ministers noted rising concerns regarding dramatic change of the situation in Afghanistan. They reaffirmed their support for basic principle of an Afghan-led and Afghan-owned peace and called for formation of a truly inclusive government that represents all the major ethnic and political groups of the country. The Ministers advocated a peaceful, secure, united, sovereign, stable and prosperous inclusive Afghanistan that exists in harmony with its neighbors. They called on the Taliban to take actions in accordance with the results of all the recently held international and regional formats of interaction on Afghanistan, including the UN Resolutions on Afghanistan. Expressing concern over deteriorating humanitarian situation in Afghanistan, the Ministers called for immediate and unhindered humanitarian assistance to be provided to Afghanistan. The Ministers also emphasized on the central role of UN in Afghanistan.

25. They stressed the necessity of urgent elimination of UNSC proscribed terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda, ISIL and others for lasting peace in Afghanistan and the region. The Ministers acknowledged the widespread and sincere demand of the Afghan people for lasting peace. They reaffirmed the importance of ensuring that the territory of Afghanistan should not be used to threaten or attack any other country, and that no Afghan group or individual should support terrorists operating on the territory of any other country.

26. The Ministers reiterated the importance of full implementation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and UNSC Resolution 2231 and expressed their support to the relevant efforts to ensure the earliest reinvigoration of the JCPOA which is a landmark achievement for multilateral diplomacy and the nuclear non-proliferation.

27. The Ministers reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, political independence, territorial integrity and unity of Myanmar. They expressed support to the efforts of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations’ (ASEAN) aimed at implementation of its Five-Point Consensus in cooperation with Myanmar. They called on all sides to refrain from violence.

28. The Ministers underlined the importance of lasting peace and security on the Korean Peninsula. They expressed their support for a peaceful, diplomatic and political solution to resolve all issues pertaining to the Korean Peninsula.

29. The Ministers welcomed the announcement of the Gaza ceasefire beginning 21 May 2021 and stressed the importance of the restoration of general stabilization. They recognized the efforts made by the UN and regional countries to prevent the hostilities from escalating. They mourned the loss of civilian lives resulting from the violence, called for the full respect of international humanitarian law and urged the international community’s immediate attention to providing humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian civilian population, particularly in Gaza. They supported in this regard the Secretary General’s call for the international community to work with the United Nations, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), on developing an integrated, robust package of support for a swift and sustainable reconstruction and recovery as well as for appropriate use of such aid. The Ministers reiterated their support for a two-State solution guided by the international legal framework previously in place, resulting in creating an independent and viable Palestinian State and based on the vision of a region where Israel and Palestine live side by side in peace within secure and recognised borders.

30. The Ministers reaffirmed their strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. They expressed their conviction that there can be no military solution to the Syrian conflict. They also reaffirmed their support to a Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, UN-facilitated political process in full compliance with UNSC Resolution 2254. They welcomed in this context the importance of the Constitutional Committee in Geneva, launched with the decisive participation of the countries-guarantors of the Astana Process and other states engaged in efforts to address the conflict through political means, and expressed their support to the efforts of Mr. Geir Pedersen, Special Envoy of the UN Secretary General for Syria, to ensure the sustainable and effective work of the Committee. They reiterated their conviction that in order to reach general agreement, members of the Constitutional Committee should be governed by a sense of compromise and constructive engagement without foreign interference and externally imposed timelines. They emphasized the fundamental importance of allowing unhindered humanitarian aid to all Syrians in accordance with the UN humanitarian principles and the post-conflict reconstruction of Syria that would contribute to the safe, voluntary and dignified return of Syrian refugees and internally displaced persons to their places of origin thus paving the way to achieving long-term stability and security in Syria and the region in general.

31. The Ministers expressed grave concern over the ongoing conflict in Yemen which affects the security and stability not only of Yemen, but also of the entire region, and has caused what is being called by the United Nations as the worst humanitarian crisis currently in the world. They called for a complete cessation of hostilities and the establishment of an inclusive, Yemeni-led negotiation process mediated by the UN. They also stressed the importance of providing urgent humanitarian access and assistance to all Yemenis.

32. The Ministers welcomed the formation of the new transitional Presidency Council and Government of National Unity in Libya as a positive development and hoped that it would promote reconciliation among all political parties and Libyan society, work towards restoration of peace and stability and conduct elections on 24 December 2021 to hand over power to the new government as per the wishes of the Libyan people. They also noted the important role of UN in this regard.

33. The Ministers noted that some of the planned activities under the RIC format could not take place in the physical format due to the global Covid-19 pandemic situation. They welcomed the outcomes of the 18th RIC Trilateral Academic Conference organized by the Indian Council of World Affairs, New Delhi (ICWA) in the video-conference format on 22-23 April 2021. In this context, they also commended the contribution of the Institute of Chinese Studies (New Delhi), Institute of Far Eastern Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences (Moscow) and China Institute of International Studies (Beijing) in establishing the RIC Academic Conference as the premier annual analytical forum for deepening RIC cooperation in diverse fields.

34. The Ministers expressed their support to China to host Beijing 2022 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

35. Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China and the Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation thanked the External Affairs Minister of India for successful organization of the RIC Foreign Ministers Meeting. External Affairs Minister of India passed on the chairmanship in the RIC format to the Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China. The date and venue of the next RIC Foreign Ministers Meeting will be agreed upon through the diplomatic channels.

Two Suns in the Sunset

I had an idea to make an album of all the songs we did as encores on the US and Them tour.

We did “Mother” first. Had to do it remotely because of Covid 19.

“Two Suns in The Sunset” is #2.

Hope you like it.

I love it.

What a beautiful band they are. Love R.

PS. That we allow Nuclear Weapons to exist in a world controlled by deranged sociopaths is, in itself, a deranged arrangement.

We are many they are few.

We could just say no, to the whole MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) insanity. It makes zero sense and is potentially omnicidal.

Roger Waters: Guitar and Vocal Dave Kilminster: Guitar Joey Waronker: Drums Lucius- Jess Wolfe and Holly Laessig: Vocals Gus Seyffert: Bass Jonathan Wilson: Guitar Jon Carin: Piano and Keys Bo Koster: Hammond Ian Ritchie: Saxophone Wrangled together by Sean Evans & Roger Waters Mixed by Gus Seyffert Assisted by Sean Cook Edited by Andy Jennison

Hate vs. Peace and Harmony

hate & peace.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

We learned today that Israel’s UN ambassador Danny Dannon told AIPAC that Bernie Sanders is an ‘ignorant fool, a liar or both. “We don’t want Sanders at AIPAC. We don’t want him in Israel…Whoever calls the prime minister of Israel a  ‘racist’ is either a liar, an ignorant fool, or both,”  Ambassador Dannon announced.

The evidence of Israel’s racism and Netanyahu’s government’s racialist policies is, unfortunately, conclusive. One can look at Netanyahu’s government’s approach to Black migrants. Or examine the racist Israeli national bill. This leads one to wonder what motivated Ambassador Dannon to act so ‘undiplomatically,’ by attacking the Democratic Party frontrunner for expressing a reasoned criticism of Israel and its PM?

But even before we can get to that question, we have to consider what the same Israeli media outlets have informed us. In a leaked recording, Netanyahu senior adviser Natan Eshel, revealed that “hate is what unites” the Israeli right-wing and it “works well on non-Ashkenazi voters.”

Eshel, a former Netanyahu chief of staff who resigned amid allegations of sexual misconduct, continues to work with the Israeli PM, and last year led the two coalition negotiations. 

In the recording, Eshel explains that Likud minister (and former IDF Spokeswoman) Miri Regev  is “excellent” at “stirring up” Likud supporters. Eshel refers to Regev as “an animal,” but notes her tactics work very well in  “drumming up the crowd.”

It is reasonable to think  that Ambassador Dannon’s description of Sen. Sanders served a similar purpose: to drum up the AIPAC crowd. And, of course, the British Jewish media together with Jewish pressure groups and the Israeli Lobby  have, since 2017,  also used this technique to ignite  their crowd’s hatred of the Labour party and its leader Jeremy Corbyn. Some people, so it seems, are united by hate.

Netanyahu’s senior adviser’s leaked recording shines a light on the ever- growing Jewish fear of antisemitism. Those who are so easily ‘united by hate’ tend to believe that others are also similarly hateful. The Jewish fear of antisemitism can be seen as projection. Those who are ‘united by hate,’ may well attribute their own hatefulness to their neighbours whether they are Palestinians, Labour voters, or even the Democratic frontrunner.

What we see is a lethal snowball of loathing and fear: the more hateful one happens to be, the more one is tormented by imagining that the Other is afflicted by the same hatefulness.

Jesus Christ diagnosed this very dangerous trait amongst his brethren. His solution was shocking, if simple. Instead of stockpiling weapons, he preached that his followers turn the other cheek: take a step forward, love your neighbour, break away from the vicious circle, seek peace and harmony.

The fate of Jesus is known to us all. The fate of those who try to preach peace to Israelis and Zionists isn’t exactly a secret either.

Happy New Year and Long Live Palestine from River to See

 

 

Only time in history where ally bombs its ally’: Imran Khan on US & Pakistan relations (EXCLUSIVE)

Related Videos

Related Articles

Silencing Diversity in the Name of Diversity

July 16, 2018  /  Gilad Atzmon

islamophbia_edited-1.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

In my latest book, Being in Time – a Post Political Manifesto, I explored different tactics used by the New Left – a loose collective of Frankfurt School graduates — to destroy political diversity and intellectual exchange.  I concluded that the ‘new order’ is maintained by ensuring that so-called ‘correctness’ dominates our vocabulary.  We are drowning in jargon, slogans and sound bites designed to suppress authentic thinking and more important, to suppress humane intellectual exchange. As I finished writing the book, I understood that this new language is a well-orchestrated attempt to obliterate our Western Athenian ethos in favor of a new Jerusalemite regime of ‘correctness.’

Yesterday I was interviewed  by Pakistani Journalist Tazeen Hasan. She was interested in my take on Islamophobia.  Hasan, I guess, expected me to denounce Islamophobia.  Since I am opposed to any form of bigotry*, hatred of Muslims is no exception. Though I am obviously troubled and strongly disagree with the views that are voiced with the so-called ‘Islamophbes,’  I am also troubled by the notion of ‘Islamophobia’. As opposed to the Identitarian Left, I contend that we humans should seek what unites us as humans. We should refuse to be shoved into biologically oriented (like gender, skin colour, sexual orientation etc.) boxes. I was probably expected to criticise Islamophobia by recycling a few tired slogans, but that was not my approach to the question. Instead of dealing with ‘Islamophobia,’ I decided that we should first dissect the notion of ‘phobia.’ I asked why some activists attribute ‘phobic’ inclinations (Islamophobia, homophobia, Judeophobia, etc.) to those with whom they disagree.

‘Phobia’ is defined as an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something. Accordingly, the notion of ‘Islamophobia,’ attributes irrationality or even madness to those who oppose Muslims and Islam. It suggests that ‘fear of Islam’ is an irrational hatred. This turns Islamophobia into a crazy fear of Islam that doesn’t deserve intellectual scrutiny, let alone an intellectual debate.

But fear of Musilms might be rational. As things stand, we in the West have been actively engaged in the destruction of Muslims and their countries for at least a century. We plunder their resources, we invade their lands, and we even gave some of their land to the so called ‘people of the book,’ and when those people committed a brutal ethnic cleansing, consistent with their ‘book,’ the West turned a blind eye. For the last three decades this genocidal war against Muslims and Arabs has intensified and become an official Western policy. This transition is the achievement of the Neocon school, who have attempted to redefine Zionism as the struggle for a promised planet instead of just a promised land. 

 Within the context of the global war we have declared on Muslims and Arabs on behalf of Zion, in the name of Coca Cola and Gay Rights, it is rational to expect that at some point Muslims may retaliate. So those who fear Muslims are not necessarily crazy or mad, they may even be more ethically aware or even guilt ridden than the progressives who castigate them for having ‘phobias’.’ If we are looking to dismantle ‘Islamic danger’  then we should find a rational and peaceful solution to the war we declared on Muslims. It will be probably more effective not to drop bombs on Arabs than to label fear of Muslims as irrational. Obliterating Israel’s nuclear facilities could also be a reasonable path to peace. A total embargo on Israel would probably be  the most effective way to calm the Middle East. That would certainly induce some deep thinking in the Jewish State that has been the catalyst in this developing global war.

It seems the term ‘phobia’ is routinely attached to anyone who disagrees with the new order. Are all those who oppose gay rights driven by ‘phobia’? Is it really ‘irrational’ for pious people (Christians, Muslims and Jews, etc.) to detect that gay culture may interfere with their churches or family values? Instead of addressing these conservative concerns, the New Left prefers to employ tyrannical abusive language designed to delegitimise the opposition. Similarly, those who look into organised Jewry and its political lobbying are reduced to ‘Judeophobes.’  But given the growing number of studies of the domineering effect of the Jewish Lobby in the USA, Britain and France, is it really ‘irrational’ or an act of ‘madness’ to scrutinise this lobby’s activity and the culture that fuels it?

However, in spite of these Orwellian ‘phobic’ tactics, awareness of its effects has grown. Increasingly, people see that the New Left corrosive agenda is driving these divisive Identitarian tactics. The tyrannical regime of correctness is a Machiavellian operation that in the name of ‘diversity,’ attempts to eliminate diversity all together. It dismisses the concerns of the so called ‘enemy’ by labelling them as irrational fears.

My message here is simple. The war against us is facilitated by cultural means. We are constantly subjected to terminological manipulations. To win this war we must first spot the terminological shifts as they appear. Then we have to identify those who put such manipulative tactics into play.

To support Gilad’s legal costs

Muhammad & Friends with Gilad Atzmon

israel: The Real Middle East Nuclear Threat

Source

There is in fact a Middle Eastern nation that is in fact in control of a vast, undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons. This nation does have the capability of deploying those weapons anywhere in the region. It is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and its arsenal has never been inspected by any international agency. But this nation is not Iran. It’s Israel.

Source: www.corbettreport.com

 

The United Nations and the moral degeneration: from Yemen to Syria  الأمم المتحدة والانحطاط الأخلاقي: من اليمن إلى سورية

 The United Nations and the moral degeneration: from Yemen to Syria 

مارس 8, 2018

Written by Nasser Kandil,

Those who are in charge of the United Nations had no longer any reaction for the actions of the UN Organization towards everything related to Israel after they found ready answer that it is the politics and the superpowers. Everyone remembers how the United Nations abolished a resolution for forming a commission of inquiry into the massacres of Jenin camp in 2002, simply because Israel announced its refusal of that commission. Therefore it is enough to see the UN’s actions in other issues that are not related to Israel. Even if the UN resolutions that condemn it remained mere useless actions.

If we read the two wars that are taking place in one time and in one region, in Syria and Yemen in the eyes of the walleyed United Nations, the scene will be like that: an opposition and a legitimate rule that are fighting, external forces that support both sides, massacres against the civilians, open humanitarian  tragedy, and external supportive forces of legitimacy that are accused of using the excessive force, which are in Yemen (Saudi Arabia), while in Syria (Russia and Iran). This is according to the UN reports issued by the same bodies, especially the International Council for Human Rights and the international organizations that work under the humanitarian name. While the difference according to the UN is that in Yemen the ceiling of the demands of the armed opposition is the partnership in a unified government that takes over the responsibility of implementing a political solution, that includes restricting the weapons with the state, putting a new constitution, and on its basis it holds the presidential and the parliamentary elections. While in Syria the solution posed by the legitimacy is based on a draft that is similar to the demands of the opposition in Yemen. The United Nations at the spokesman of its two deputies said publicly that the Yemeni opposition is exaggerated in its demand, because it must deliver the weapons first. But at the same time it is an unrealistic demand by the legitimacy in Syria, because it does not lead to a political solution, on the contrary it calls for the transition of power which means the stepping down of the Syrian President or at least his pledge not to run for the elections. Any UN official does not feel ashamed in front of this moral degeneration which causes the continuation of war in Syria and Yemen; the injustice towards the opposition in Yemen and the bias towards the opposition in Syria. We did not mention the clear realistic and the objective differences between the opposition of Yemen which fights the terrorism and the false opposition that has a role as the cover of terrorism, or between the two legitimacies; which one is false in Yemen that fell in one day, where the Saudi integration came to give it a mask, and the other in Syria that has loyalty at least of more than half of the Syrian people, so democratically, it is the necessary quorum of any rule.

Every time when the war rages in Yemen, and when the alliance which is so-called the legitimacy alliance got affected the UN alerted, as happened after the fall of the missile on Riyadh, while in Syria, the UN gets alerted when what so-called the armed opposition is in trouble, although these formations are known  for their interaction with the terrorism as recognized by the UN, and where the International Security Council remains in semi-permanent session for their sake; one draft in circulation and another under preparation. There was no UN official or deputy or even respectful journalist who came to inquire about this disgusting doubleness and about a deviation in the task of preserving the international security and peace, this is not explained but only by the political positioning along with the tools of the hegemony, in other words, when the opposition is a tool to affect the state of independence it becomes good and the state of independence becomes criminal, whereas when the opposition becomes a tool to get its independence it is criminalized and the sanctions are issued against its leaders.

Unfortunately the UN is not an organization for the nations, it was and still a tool to deprive the rights and the wills of the nations, it does not feel ashamed of its moral degeneration or its disrespect among the nations.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,

الأمم المتحدة والانحطاط الأخلاقي: من اليمن إلى سورية

مارس 7, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– لم يعد تذكير القيّمين على الأمم المتحدة بما تثيره في الذاكرة تصرفات المنظمة الأممية تجاه كلّ ما يتعلق بـ«إسرائيل» من قرف، يثير في هؤلاء أيّ ردّ فعل بعدما وجدوا جواباً جاهزاً، بفرك اليدين والقول، إنها السياسة والقوى العظمى وليس بيدينا حيلة. والكلّ يذكر كيف ألغت الأمم المتحدة قراراً بتشكيل لجنة تحقيق في مجازر مخيم جنين عام 2002، لمجرد أنّ «إسرائيل» أعلنت رفض اللجنة، لذلك يكفي تناول التصرّفات الأممية في ملفات أخرى لا تطال قدس الأقداس المحرّم، الذي تمثله «إسرائيل»، ولو بقيت القرارات الأممية التي تطالبها وتدينها وتلزمها، مجرد أرشيف بلا لون ولا طعم ولا رائحة.

– في توقيت واحد ومنطقة واحدة تدور حربان، واحدة في سورية والأخرى في اليمن، وإذا قرأناهما بعين الأمم المتحدة الحولاء وارتضينا، فسيكون المشهد كما يلي، معارضة وحكم شرعي وبينهما حرب، وقوى خارجية تدعم كلاً من الفريقين، ومجازر بحق المدنيين ومأساة إنسانية مفتوحة، والجهة التي تتجه نحوها الأنظار الأممية في المسؤولية عن استخدام القوة المفرطة هي القوى الخارجية الداعمة للشرعية، في اليمن هي السعودية وفي سورية هي إيران وروسيا. وهذا وفق ما تقوله التقارير الأممية الصادرة عن الجهات ذاتها، خصوصاً المجلس العالمي لحقوق الإنسان والمنظمات الدولية العاملة تحت المسمّى الإنساني، أما الفوارق أيضاً بعيون أممية، فهي أنّ سقف مطالب المعارضة المسلحة في اليمن هو الشراكة بحكومة موحّدة تتولى تطبيق حلّ سياسي يتضمّن حصر السلاح بيد الدولة وتضع دستوراً جديداً وتجري على أساسه الانتخابات الرئاسية والبرلمانية، بينما في سورية فالحلّ الذي تطرحه الشرعية يقوم على مشروع يشبه ما تطلبه المعارضة في اليمن، وتقف الأمم المتحدة لتقول علناً بلسان مبعوثيها إنّ هذا الحلّ طلب مبالغ به من جانب المعارضة اليمنية التي يجب عليها إلقاء السلاح أولاً، وهو نفسه عرض غير واقعي ومتواضع من جانب الشرعية في سورية لا يصلح لتحقيق حلّ سياسي وتدعو لما تسمّيه انتقالاً للسلطة لا يُخفي المبعوثون الأمميون أنه يجب تضمينه تنحي الرئيس السوري أو على الأقلّ تعهّده بعدم الترشح للانتخابات. ولا يرفّ جفن لمسؤول أممي أمام هذا الانحطاط الأخلاقي الذي بسببه تستمرّ الحرب في سورية وفي اليمن، وهو الإجحاف بحق المعارضة في اليمن والدلع للمعارضة في سورية، ولم نذكر أبداً الفوارق الواقعية والموضوعية التي تسهل رؤيتها بين حال معارضة اليمن، التي تقاتل الإرهاب، ومعارضة وهمية في سورية تشكل الغطاء للإرهاب، ولا بين الشرعيتين، واحدة وهمية في اليمن، انتهت وسقطت في يوم واحد، وجاء التدخل السعودي يحملها قناعاً، وشرعية في سورية تملك على الأقلّ تأييداً من أكثر من نصف الشعب السوري، وهو النصاب اللازم ديمقراطياً لأيّ حكم.

– في كلّ مرة تحتدم الحرب في جولة من جولاتها في سورية أو في اليمن، إذا كان المتضرّر في اليمن من التصعيد الحلف المسمّى حلف الشرعية، تقوم قيامة الأمم المتحدة ولا تقعد، كما حدث يوم سقوط صاروخ واحد على الرياض، أما في سورية فتقوم القيامة ولا تقعد عندما تكون ما تسمّى بالمعارضة المسلحة في مأزق. وهي تشكيلات تقرّ الأمم المتحدة بتداخلها مع الإرهاب، ويبقى لأجلها مجلس الأمن الدولي في شبه انعقاد دائم، ومشروع قرار في التداول وآخر قيد الإعداد، ولا يخجل لا مسؤول أممي ولا مبعوث أممي ولا يخرج صحافي محترم ليتساءل عن هذا الازدواج الفاقع وما يثيره من غثيان، وما يكشفه من انحراف في مهمة الحفاظ على الأمن والسلم الدوليين، لا يفسّره إلا تموضع سياسي إلى جانب أدوات الهيمنة فحيث المعارضة أداة لضرب دولة الاستقلال تصير ولداً مدلّلاً وتجري شيطنة وتجريم دولة الاستقلال، وحيث المعارضة أداة لنيل هذا الاستقلال تشيطن وتجرَّم، وتُصدَر العقوبات بحق قادتها.

– الأمم المتحدة بكلّ أسف ليست منظمة للشعوب، بل كانت ولا تزال أداة لسلب الشعوب حقوقها وإرادتها، ولا مكان للخجل فيها من انحطاط أخلاقي ينخر فيها ولا يبقي لها أيّ احترام عند الشعوب.

Related Videos

Related Articles

سنة على ترامب: المهزلة تناسب الإخفاق

ناصر قنديل

تشكّل السنة الأولى فرصة للتعرّف على ماهية الجديد لكلّ رئيس في أيّ بلد في العالم، خصوصاً في البلدان الصانعة للسياسة والحروب، وبصورة أخصّ في بلد كأميركا تتبدّل فيه مع الرئاسات بعض السياسات، للتعرّف على حدود التغيير والجديد الذي سيقدّمه الرئيس الجديد، قياساً بالمقارنة بين وعود الانتخابات وتطبيق السياسات. ولا تكون السنة الأولى موضوع كشف حساب مؤسّس على جدول مقارن بين ما كان قبل وما صار بعد، ولا بين الوعود والصدقية، بقدر ما تتشكل مع نهايتها انطباعات لدى الرأي العام في الداخل والخارج، لدى النخب والقادة تصنع صورة إجمالية عن رئيس خارق أو عادي أو أقلّ من عادي، وبحالات نادرة عن رئيس سيّئ وفاشل وغير جدير بالاحترام.

قلة هم الرؤساء الأميركيون الذين تركوا الانطباع بأنهم رؤساء خارقون بعد سنتهم الأولى، بل إنّ أغلبهم اكتسب هذه الصفة بعد خروجه من البيت الأبيض، خصوصاً بالمقارنة مع خلفه وما يقدّم. ولعلّ هذه هي حال الرئيس السابق باراك أوباما بعد السنة الأولى من عهد الرئيس الحالي دونالد ترامب، حيث ظهر الرئيس المثقف والمهذّب واللائق والديمقراطي والعقلاني والحضاري والإنساني والمتمدّن، لأنّ المقارنة تمّت وتتمّ مع رئيس وقح وقليل التهذيب وطويل اللسان وبذيء التعابير وعنصري التفكير ومعادٍ لغير البيض والمرأة، وتافه ثقافياً، عديم القراءة والمتابعة والاطلاع، وحادّ الطباع وعدواني لا يعترف بحق الإعلام ولا بحق الاختلاف، وعلى المستوى البشري قليل الذوق في اللباس والطعام.

في السياسة مرّت السنة الأولى وانتهت بإحباطات لكلّ الذين توقعوا منها المتناقضات. فهي محبطة للذين توقعوا حروباً تحسم الصراعات لصالح مفهوم العظمة الاستعمارية الأميركية المعادية للشعوب وقوى المقاومة والحرية، بقدر ما هي محبطة للذين تأمّلوا انفتاحاً على لغة التسويات والحلول السياسية تأخذ بالاعتبار التوازنات التي فرضتها المواجهات وتجنّب العالم المزيد من التوترات بلا جدوى، فجاء جباناً بنظر طالبي الحرب، وجباناً بنظر طالبي التسويات، كاذباً بنظر هؤلاء وكاذباً بنظر أولئك. كثير الأقوال قليل الأفعال بحساب مَن وعدهم بالحروب، وكذلك لمن وعدهم بالحلول. وفي الشق الداخلي تبخّرت أميركا أولاً، فلا خرج من حروب وعد بالخروج منها، ولا خفض الإنفاق العسكري بل زاده، ولا أعاد بناء وترتيب المنشآت العمرانية، ولا أصلح النظام التعليمي ولا صحّح النظام الصحي.

لا يبدو دونالد ترامب كغلطة أميركية بقدر ما يبدو التعبير الأقرب عن حال أميركا، فهي تحتاجه لاعب كلام يعوّض ضعفها وعجزها، وتحتاج عنترياته على تويتر تُرضي به شيخوختها، بادّعاء الفتوة الكاذبة، لكن المهزلة التي تضجّ بالحديث عنها صالونات السياسة والصحافة والمقالات والتعليقات، تبدو متناسبة مع حجم الإخفاق الذي تحتاج أميركا أن ترى من خلاله نفسها في المرآة، ويكفي مثالاً قرار اعتماد القدس عاصمة لـ«إسرائيل وزيارة نائب الرئيس الأميركي إلى المنطقة لتسويقها كمثال على الهزال الأميركي الذي كان دوماً يقف مع إسرائيل ، لكنه لم يكن يوماً يقف وحده كما هو اليوم، وفقاً لوقائع اجتماعات مجلس الأمن الدولي وتصويت الجمعية العامة للأمم المتحدة، وصولاً لوقائع زيارة مايك بينس إلى المنطقة، والتي لا تعادل قيمتها ما تعبّر عنه قيمة اسم صاحبها.

TIME MONK RADIO NETWORK’S THE PLAIN TRUTH INTERVIEWS THE SAKER

North Korea Does Not Threaten World Peace, the US Does

Source

By William Boardman,

Petulant leadership risks war to what end?

President Donald Trump is 71 and Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un is 33 [35 according to DPRK sources], but if they ever met, would there be a grown-up in the room?

One of them knows full well that North Korea is not a threat to world peace and is not even a serious threat to South Korea. The one who knows that is not Donald Trump. Or if he does know it, he’s choosing to inflate the North Korean “threat” even more than some of his predecessors.

But wait, didn’t North Korea just fire a missile in the general direction of the United States? Yes indeed, and like every other North Korean missile (except the ones that blew up on launch), it hit smack dab in the Sea of Japan, unpleasantly for aquatic life but a danger to no one else. This is, after all, exactly what the US does periodically to the Pacific Ocean from California’s Vandenberg Air Force Base, generally causing yawns around the world.

Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work witnessed just such a US test (the 15th or so in five years) in February 2016, after telling reporters the purpose was to demonstrate an effective US nuclear arsenal to Russia, China, and North Korea:

That’s exactly why we do this. We and the Russians and the Chinese routinely do test shots to prove that the operational missiles that we have are reliable. And that is a signal … that we are prepared to use nuclear weapons in defense of our country if necessary.

Not only is that perspective less than comforting, it includes a major tell. For reasons that may be obvious but unspoken, North Korea is not allowed to do what the US, Russia, and China do. That’s the price of being a member of the US-determined Axis of Evil. That may be a stupid foreign policy position (Exhibit A: Iraq), but it’s American stupidity, not Korean stupidity. The North Koreans are well aware that they do not have “operational missiles that … are reliable.”

Do as US says, not as US does

US-imposed rules forbid other countries like North Korea or Iran from following rational patterns of self-defense, even in the face of overt US threats. And when North Korea ignores US rules and hits the ocean with another rocket, the US ratchets up the hysteria as if the North Korean launch were a hostile act while the Vandenberg launches are only benign peace-keeping splashes. The US framing of the world is clearly nuts, but we’re so used to it we hardly notice anymore.

Not only does North Korea pose no serious threat now, its hypothetical future threat is largely imaginary. Whatever military might North Korea has is unlikely to be used outside its own country unless the US or someone else attacks it first. That might well lead to all hell breaking loose, but it’s the only thing that will as far as North Korea is concerned. Washington is baffled: What doesn’t North Korea understand about its duty to do what the US tells it to do?

Fear-mongering over North Korea hasn’t worked — ever

Assessed objectively, North Korea’s missile tests demonstrate a missile program proceeding haltingly, with frequent failures as well as “terrifying” successes. What terrified Washington about the July 3 North Korean missile launch is the presently imaginary threat that the Independence Day ICBM prototype could deliver a nuclear warhead to the United States. It can’t. That’s a pure future threat, if it’s a threat at all.

Capturing the widely proclaimed fear with merely modest hype, Business Insider led its report on the new North Korean missile with this: “North Korea claims that it has launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM, which experts say could have the ability to reach Alaska.” (Reuters upped the ante, reporting that “some experts believe [the missile] has the range to reach Alaska and Hawaii and perhaps the U.S. Pacific Northwest.” As with other reports, these experts go unnamed and unchallenged.)

Unpack all that and what do you have?

A North Korean claim, inflated by anonymous experts, selling a worst-case scenario. The North Koreans also claimed that the missile could hit any location on the planet. So nobody’s even trying to tell the truth here. The missile actually went about 580 miles, which isn’t even close to qualifying as an ICBM. The nearest point in Alaska (not target, just rocks) is about 3,000 miles away. Any point on the planet is 12,000 miles away, give or take a few thousand.

But the North Koreans have nuclear weapons. Yes they do, maybe even 20 of them, all smaller than the one the US dropped on Hiroshima. At this point there’s no evidence North Korea can deliver its nuclear weapons anywhere by any technology much more advanced than donkey cart. By comparison, the US nuclear arsenal, which was once over 31,000 warheads, is now down to 4,000, with about 1,900 methods of delivery to anywhere on the planet, and almost all those warheads are many times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. For all that some worry about aging nuclear weapons, the US is not even close to being an inviting target to attack with impunity.

Not to minimize nuclear weapons of any sort, but seriously, some sense of proportion is expected of mature leadership. Chicken Little cluckings of impending doom is not mature leadership.

Isn’t 64 years long enough to get a peace treaty?

The Korean War began June 27, 1950, when North Korea invaded the south. The armistice was signed July 27, 1953, ending hostilities, but not the war. There is a cease-fire but no peace treaty. The US entered the war under UN auspices. Congress never declared war, but supported the war with appropriations. Currently, some in Congress are seeking legislation to prevent the president from taking any military action against North Korea without explicit permission from Congress. That hardly seems to matter.

The new president of South Korea wants to negotiate with North Korea, but that hardly seems to matter either. South Korea engaged in perennial massive war games with the US that North Korea deems threatening, as would any neighboring country facing the same reality. Worse, the US has introduced anti-missile weapons into South Korea without telling the South Korean president.

And President Trump publicly blames China for not bringing North Korea to heel, as if China had either that responsibility or ability. China has increased trade with North Korea by a reported 40 percent, which should be a stabilizing factor, especially over the long term. But the US is demanding short-term results.

What could the world community do to reverse this growing threat, real or imagined, from North Korea? It would help to allow North Korea to feel safe and unthreatened, maybe even as safe and unthreatened as Vermont. That, as Korea expert Christine Ahn argued on Democracy NOW, would require President Trump to do what he claims to be good at: negotiating, making a deal. Something very like this view was formally articulated to President Trump in a June 28 letter from such policy experts as former secretary of state George Schultz, former defense secretary William Perry, and former senator Richard Lugar:

As experts with decades of military, political, and technical involvement with North Korean issues, we strongly urge your administration to begin discussions with North Korea…. Talking is not a reward or a concession to Pyongyang and should not be construed as signaling acceptance of a nuclear-armed North Korea. It is a necessary step to establishing communication to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. The key danger today is not that North Korea would launch a surprise nuclear attack. Kim Jong Un is not irrational and highly values preserving his regime. Instead the primary danger is a miscalculation or mistake that could lead to war. [emphasis added]

A more colloquial way of saying much the same thing might be that you don’t control a bratty child by burning down the house, unless you’re another bratty child yourself, and you don’t really care all that much about the house.

William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

Featured image from Medium

A rare opportunity: World Peace Trio in the UK

June 23, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

Tue 4th July,   World Peace Trio at the Vortex Jazz Club, London

Wed 5th July, World Peace Trio   Ropetackle Centre, Shoreham-by-Sea

With the drums of war beating and peace feeling more and more like an exotic dream, the World Peace Trio bridges the divide. Indonesian piano maestro Dwiki Dharmawan, Oud star Kamal Musallam (Palestine-Jordan)  and woodwind virtuoso Gilad Atzmon have united to give beauty a new transforming meaning. Three world class musicians have united to make peace and harmony into a new poetic reality and totally new sound. Gamelan, Andalusian, the Orient blend into inspirational waves of fresh improvisational spirit.

Don’t miss…

Truth Has Become Un-American

By Paul Craig Roberts

May 25, 2017 “Information Clearing House” – Those of us who have exited The Matrix are concerned that there are no checks on Washington’s use of nuclear weapons in the interest of US hegemony over the world.

Washington and Israel are the threats to peace. Washington demands world hegemony, and Israel demands hegemony in the Middle East.

There are two countries that stand in the way of Washington’s world hegemony—Russia and China. Consequently, Washington has plans for preemptive nuclear strikes against both countries. It is difficult to imagine a more serious threat to mankind, and there is no awareness or acknowledgment of this threat among the Congress, the presstitute media, and the general public in the United States and Washington’s European vassal populations.

Two countries and a part of a third stand in the way of Greater Israel. Israel wants the water resources of southern Lebanon, but cannot get them, despite twice sending in the Israeli Army, because of the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which is supplied by Syria and Iran. This is why Syria and Iran are on Washington’s hit list. Washington serves the military/security complex, Wall Street and the over-sized US banks, and Israel.

It is unclear if the Russians and Chinese understand that Washington’s hostility toward them is not just some sort of misunderstanding that diplomacy can work out.

Clearly, Russia hasn’t interfered in the US presidential election or invaded Ukraine, and does not intend to invade Poland or the Baltics. Russia let go the Soviet empire and is glad to see it gone, as the empire was expensive and of little benefit. The Soviet Eastern European empire comprised Stalin’s buffer against another Western invasion. The Warsaw Pact had no offensive meaning. It was not the beginning, as misrepresented in Washington, of Soviet world domination.

I see a lack of clarity about the threat that Russia faces in Russian media reports and articles posted on Russian English language websites. I see a lack of clarity in Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s continued efforts to work out an accommodation with Washington. How can Lavrov work out an accommodation with Washington when Washington intends to dominate or isolate Russia?

Lavrov and Russian media organizations do not always show awareness that it is not Washington’s intention to accommodate other national interests.

It cannot be otherwise for these three reasons:

  1. The budget for the US military/security complex is the largest in the world. It is larger than the Gross Domestic Product of many countries. It includes not only the Pentagon’s budget but also the budgets of 16 US intelligence agencies and the Department of Energy, which is the location of the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant and 16 other national laboratories. When all the elements are added together, the military/security complex has annually the power and profit from $1,000 billion. An empire of this sort just doesn’t give up and go away because some president or some part of the electorate want peace. The “Russian Threat” is essential to the power and profit of the military/security complex, about which President Eisenhower warned Americans 56 years ago. Just imagine how entrenched this power is now.
  2. The neoconservatives, who control both US foreign policy and the Western media’s explanation of it, are mainly Jews of Zionist persuasion. Some are dual Israeli-US citizens. The neoconservatives believe that the collapse of Soviet communism means that History has chosen the United States as the socio-politico-economic system, and that the US government has the responsibility to assert the hegemony of America over the earth. Just read the neocon documents. They assert this over and over. This is what it means that America is the exceptional and indispensable nation. If you are the indispensable nation, every other nation is dispensable. If you are exceptional, everyone else is unexceptional. The claim that the neoconservatives make for the US is similar to the claim that Hitler made for Germany.
  3. As Israel controls US Middle East policy, Israel uses its control to have Washington eliminate obstacles to Israel’s expansion. So far Israel has achieved the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government and chaos in Iraq, Washington’s war on Syria, and Washington’s demonization of Iran in the hope that sufficient demonization will justify war.

For the Russian Foreign Minister to believe that it is possible to reach an accommodation with Washington, other than a Russian surrender, is nonsense. Perhaps this is Lavrov’s use of diplomacy to delay the US attack while Russia prepares. Or perhaps Lavrov is just a diplomat who sticks to his last, despite the facts.

Much of the Russian media, both in Russian and foreign language broadcasts and websites, thinks that the Western misrepresentation of Russia is just a mistake and that that facts, once they are established, can rectify the mistake. These Russian journalists don’t understand that Washington could not care less about facts. Washington desperately needs an enemy, and Russia is the enemy of choice.

The Chinese government seems to think that Wall Street and US corporations are too dependent on the cheap Chinese manufacturing labor, which keeps the US system fueled with profits, to jeopardize these profits by going to war.

By underplaying the risk of war, Russia and China fail to mobilize world opposition to Washington’s recklessness and, thereby, enable Washington’s move toward war.

The presstitutes serving the National Security State continue to drive toward conflict. Consider Newsweek’s May 26, 2017, cover story with Putin on the cover and the caption: “The Plot Against America: Inside Putin’s Campaign to Destroy Democracy in the U.S.”

It is difficult to imagine such ignorant nonsense from a mainstream news magazine. Democracy in America has been destroyed by special interest groups, by a US Supreme Court decision that gave the reins of power to special interest groups, and by a hoax war on terror that has destroyed the US Constitution. And here we have the presstitutes saying that Putin is destroying American democracy. Clearly, there is no extant intelligence anywhere in the Western media. The Western presstitutes are either corrupt beyond belief or ignorant beyond belief. Nothing else can be said for them.

Consider Time magazine’s cover. It depicts Trump turning the White House into the foundation for the Kremlin and St. Basil’s Cathedral, which rise above the White House, symbolizing America’s subservience to Russia under President Trump. This extraordinary propaganda seems to be readily accepted by the bulk of the Western populations, peoples who will die as a result of their insouciance.

Even writers critical of Washington, such as Paul Street’s recent article on CounterPunch and the English language Russian website, Strategic Culture Foundation, cannot bring themselves to state the truth that the US military/security complex needs a major enemy, has elected Russia for that role, and intends to defend this orchestration to the end of humanity on earth.

Street writes about “How Russia Became ‘Our Adversary’ Again.” According to Street, Russia became the enemy of choice because Russia protected part of the world’s population and resources from being exploited by global capital. Russia became the number one enemy of the US also because Putin stopped the American exploitation of Russia economically. Putin is in the way of Washington’s exploitation of the world.

Much of what Street says is correct, but he is hesitant to state it in a straightforward manner. He has to dilute his message by repeating the obligatory propaganda. Street calls Trump, who originally wanted normal relations with Russia, an “orange-haired brute . . . [who admires] Putin’s authoritarian manliness.”

Trump’s problems originated in his goal of normalizing relations with Russia. Hillary is the brute who intended to worsen the relations.

Putin is a democrat, not an authoritarian. The authoritarians are in Washington. Surely Paul Street and CounterPunch know this. But Street has to protect himself from speaking some politically incorrect truths about the US and Russia by throwing in some anti-Putin propaganda and denigrating President Trump.

That peace with Russia and China would undermine the justification of the $1,000 billion military/security budget, and that the military/security complex is the American government, is too much truth for most writers to state.

Truth is the most rare element in the Western world, and we will not be permitted to have much of it much longer. Increasingly, truth is difficult to find. Soak it up while it is still available.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Trump is a Danger to the World, says Jeremy Corbyn

Source

‘The US is the strongest military power on the planet by a very long way. It has a special responsibility to use its power with care and to support international efforts to resolve conflicts collectively and peacefully,’ Mr Corbyn said

Donald Trump risks making the world a more dangerous place, Jeremy Corbyn has said, as he cited the US President’s increasingly hard-line rhetoric in relation to North Korea.

Posted May 15, 2017

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation

“This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. ”

Full Transcript

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information Clearing House.

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

Ave Maria

The music is by Franz Schubert, sung by Dolores O’Riordan, while the images are from the film The Passion of the Christ.

Ave Maria, gratia plena,
Maria, gratia plena
Maria, gratia plena
Ave Ave Dominus
Dominus tecum,
Benedicta tu in mulieribus,
et benedictus
et benedictus fructus ventris
ventris tui, Iesus.
Ave Maria.
Ave Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Maria, full of thanksgiving
Ave Ave God
Your God
Be blessed among the women
And blessed
And blessed be the product of your womb
Your womb, Jesus.
Ave Maria.

The Passion of the Christ came out in 2004 and was immediately labeled as “anti-Semitic” by its detractors. Though it never won an Academy Award, it holds the all time box office record for an R-rated film, having grossed $370,782,930 in the US and a whopping $611,899,420 worldwide. To the surprise of many, it became a major hit among audiences in the Arab world:

Mel Gibson’s controversial movie “The Passion of the Christ,” is breaking box office records across the Middle East. With the approach of Easter, Arab Christians identify primarily with the religious message. But it’s the film’s popularity among Muslims – even though it flouts Islamic taboos – that’s turning it into a phenomenon.

Islam forbids the depiction of a prophet, and Koranic verses deny the crucifixion ever occurred. For those reasons, the film is banned in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain. It’s also banned in Israel – but for other reasons.

“Banned in Israel–but for other reasons.” The above is from an article about The Passion that was published in the Christian Science Monitor on April 9, 2004. You’ll notice that the countries which banned the film–Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain–are today all allied with each other in the support of terrorists in Syria…where the film was not banned.

But to get back to the Christian Science Monitor piece. The article includes a quote from an Israeli Jew, who damns the film as anti-Semitic “both in intent and effect.”

“I have no doubt that the film is anti-Semitic both in intent and effect, but I’m very wary of some Jewish organizations’ reactions to it,” said Yossi Klein Halevi, who is identified as being affiliated with the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

“It needs to be more nuanced,” Halevi complained. “When an evangelical in Colorado Springs sees it, he doesn’t see anti-Semitism. But when Yasser Arafat sees it and calls it an important historic event, he’s responding to that anti-Semitism. And the fact that it’s becoming a major hit in the Arab world, that has consequences… ‘The Passion’ is where Mel Gibson and Yasser Arafat meet, and it isn’t bound by a love of Jesus.”

As alluded to in Halevi’s quote, The Passion was commented upon by former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, who is said to have attended a screening of the film along with Christian leaders. After the screening, an aide to Arafat remarked, “The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.”

Here again, the passage of history is deeply significant. In October of 2004, Arafat came down with a severe illness, and on November 11 he died at a hospital in Paris. There was suspicion the death was not due to natural causes, but it wasn’t until 2013 that a team of Swiss scientists released the results of a months-long investigation showing Arafat most likely had died of polonium poisoning. Many today speculate that Israel was behind the assassination.

Ariel Sharon, who himself came to a bad end, was the leader of Israel at the time Arafat was poisoned. The former Israeli prime minister suffered from obesity and weighed 254 pounds, and on January 4, 2006, he was overcome by a hemorrhagic stroke. The last eight years of his life were spent in a coma.

“The Palestinians are still daily being exposed to the kind of pain Jesus was exposed to during his crucifixion.” When we recall what the people of Gaza in particularly have endured over the years, the analogy has validity. While I am not comparing Yasser Arafat to Jesus, the latter’s words from the Gospel of John, chapter 15, are worth recalling:

“This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you. No one has greater love than this, to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. You are my friends if you do what I command you. I do not call you servants any longer, because the servant does not know what the master is doing; but I have called you friends, because I have made known to you everything that I have heard from my Father.  You did not choose me but I chose you. And I appointed you to go and bear fruit, fruit that will last, so that the Father will give you whatever you ask him in my name. I am giving you these commands so that you may love one another.

Jesus was sent by God to teach humanity how to live in peace. He was born among the Jews not because Jews are “chosen” by God, but because Jews especially were in need of hearing this message. Jesus was the long-awaited Jewish messiah, but because he preached a message of peace rather than war and conquest, the Jews rejected him. Here are the words of Mary in the first chapter of Luke–a passage that is often referred to as the “song of Mary.”

My soul magnifies the Lord,
and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior,
for he has looked with favor on the lowliness of his servant.
Surely, from now on all generations will call me blessed;
for the Mighty One has done great things for me,
and holy is his name.
His mercy is for those who fear him
from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with his arm;
he has scattered the proud in the thoughts of their hearts.
He has brought down the powerful from their thrones,
and lifted up the lowly;
he has filled the hungry with good things,
and sent the rich away empty.
He has helped his servant Israel,
in remembrance of his mercy,
according to the promise he made to our ancestors,
to Abraham and to his descendants forever.

Ave Maria, gratia. And if you think about it, you’ll notice another deeply significant sequence of events. Mary’s words that God “helped his servant Israel,” is of course an allusion to the Old Testament narrative. But then came the birth of Jesus; his rejection and the calls for his crucifixion in 30 A.D.; followed by a stupendously stunning Jewish downfall just 40 years later–in 70 A.D.–when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the temple. One wonders if a somewhat similar type downfall may await the modern Jewish state.

My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. Here is another rendition of Ave Maria sung by Dolores O’Riordan, this time accompanied by Luciano Pavarotti:

Ave Maria, gratia. Gratia.

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

[ Ed. note – The video above is of a townhall meeting conducted last week by Rep. Tulsi Gabbard in her home state of Hawaii. If you want to hear the congresswoman discuss the situation in Syria, fast forward the video to about 10 minutes in. Gabbard, who introduced the Stop Arming Terrorists act in Congress and who has drawn fire for challenging the media lies about Syria (most recently for questioning the narrative that the Assad government was behind the April 4 chemical weapons attack), is one of a number of a small number of prominent Americans who have been a voice of sanity in a world seemingly gone mad and moving closer and closer to war.

The article below,

“Blessed Are the Peacemakers,” holds up Gabbard, along with Professor Stephen Cohen, as models of modern-day peacemakers, and encourages Christians to follow their example. The irony of course: Gabbard is Hindu and Cohen is Jewish. The writer of the article, Yvonne Lorenzo, makes the point that there are “too few Americans who value the teachings of Christ on the primacy of peace—or at least value them enough to fight for them.” She is right. Something like 70 percent of Americans identify in some manner as “Christian.”

Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God.

So said Christ in the Sermon on the Mount. If we truly want to be children of God, it is our duty to be peacemakers. And this means challenging the war mongers and speaking out as Cohen and Gabbard have done. We owe it to ourselves, our families, and to the planet we live on. ]

Blessed Are the Peacemakers

By Yvonne Lorenzo

Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God. Matthew 5:9 

I am writing these words before Good Friday (including Orthodox Christian) 2017. Tensions between nations have never been greater. Although there are tens of millions of people in America who profess the Christian faith, there appears to be very little in the way of public protests against military actions and incipient war.

Recently, conservative talk show host Michael Savage publicly criticized President Trump’s decision to attack Syria. His conversation with author and columnist Pat Buchannan is on this YouTube of his broadcast on April 11th. In his book, Trump’s War, Mr. Savage wrote in the chapter “Trump’s War against the War Machine” these wise observations:

Just after the election, I saw Mel Gibson’s movie Hacksaw Ridge. It’s about the U.S. Army medic Desmond T. Doss, who served at the vicious Battle of Okinawa in World War II but refused to kill anyone. He became the first man in American history to win the Medal of Honor without firing a single shot.

This was the perfect movie to see in the context of Donald Trump as an anti-war President. While I was watching this moving film, Trump was speaking to Russian president Vladimir Putin, even though Trump hadn’t been sworn in yet. The two men vowed to work together…

One of the reasons I worked so hard to get Trump elected is I believe he will be a man of peace. Put everything else aside. The most important thing in this world is not the economy. It’s peace.

I’ve written about Desmond T. Doss and there are several excellent articles on Lew Rockwell’s site; I’ve also written about the work and writing of Professor Stephen Cohen. In his appearance on Tucker Carlson’s show on April 12th, 2017, he discussed the bombing of Syria:

[Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev] said American-Russian relations are absolutely ruined—ruined. He’s considered the most pro-Western member of the Russian leadership…and the politics in Russia today as we talk is if not the conviction the concern that America is preparing for war against Russia…my concern is that Russia will overreact…

(In forty years as a Russia expert) I’ve never been as worried as I am today about war with Russia.”

Yet far from most of the political leadership agreeing with Professor Cohen, they react with outrage against those who challenge their agenda; witness the attacks against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard:

Sporting a sweet new “Resist” picture on Twitter, Neera Tanden, President of the Center for American Progress and author of numerous embarrassing email exchanges with John Podesta, called on Hawaiians to oust their Representative, Tulsi Gabbard, for having the audacity to question whether Assad was responsible for the recent chemical weapons attacks in Syria…

Gabbard told CNN on Friday that she wants to achieve peace in Syria, “Why should we just blindly follow this escalation of a counterproductive regime-change war?”

“There’s responsibility that goes around,” Gabbard said. “Standing here pointing fingers does not accomplish peace for the Syrian people. It will not bring about an end to this war.”

Meanwhile, former DNC chair Howard Dean also decided to join in on ganging up on Gabbard, but he immediately got shut down by a follower who asked the obvious question of why engaging in dialogue was disqualifying for Gabbard but violating federal record retention laws and a Congressional subpoena was perfectly fine for Hillary.

Here is Gabbard’s official statement that enraged so many of our elected representatives:

It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government. This escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.

This Administration has acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning.  If President Assad is indeed guilty of this horrible chemical attack on innocent civilians, I will be the first to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court. However, because of our attack on Syria, this investigation may now not even be possible. And without such evidence, a successful prosecution will be much harder.

I am not a Russia expert like Professor Cohen yet I believe we ignore his warning at our peril. Right now, there is the potential for military conflict with North Korea, Syria, Russia and Iran. Yet for a few righteous voices crying out and being either scorned or ignored, there are sadly too few Americans who value the teachings of Christ on the primacy of peace—or at least value them enough to fight for them. How will God judge us for not taking a stand when now more than ever it matters so much and literally the world is at stake?


Gabbard versus CNN


US Veteran Stands With Assad Government

US Marine Corps Veteran Angelo John Gage

60 Percent of Swedes View US as a Major Threat to World Peace

[ Ed. note – In a post I put up on Monday I wrote, “The US government’s unquenchable thirst for overturning other governments is the greatest threat to world peace today.” Apparently 60 percent of the people of Sweden agree with me. Below is a news story on a recent poll conducted in Sweden; the video above supplies an analysis on the conflict in Syria, but also mentions the poll. ]

RT

The number of Swedes who believe the US is one of the major threats to world peace and security has jumped to 60 percent, an annual poll has shown, with officials noting a 6 percentage points jump since last year.

The biggest changes in the way the Swedes see the world’s civil preparedness, security policy and defense have occurred in their attitude towards the United States, the recent poll carried out by the Sweden’s Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) suggests.

The MSB poll was conducted from December 9-14, after Donald Trump’s win in the US presidential elections in November.

“That is a significant change,” MSB general director Helena Lindberg said of the jump from 54 percent in 2015 to 60 percent in 2016, according to Swedish daily Sydsvenska.

Swedes generally (73 percent) express great concern and fear over the current situation in the world, as well as their future. However, nine out of 10 Swedes confirm that Sweden is still “a good country to live in.”

At the same time, 58 percent of people believe that Sweden is likely to see a terrorist attack in the next five years, a slight uptick of 1 percentage point higher than in 2015.

Despite that, the proportion of those who believe that Sweden in five years will be a better country to live in increased from 2015’s 13 percent to 18 percent, while the proportion of those who think that living conditions will be worse decreased from 54 percent to 42 percent.

A political threat from another country seems likely to occur by 47 percent of Swedes, while propaganda or false information spread by foreign states looks probable to 44 percent.

Swedes’ negative perception of Russia has relaxed a bit, with 77 percent calling Russia a threat to the world peace – 5 percentage points less than last year.

More than half of the people who took part in the poll welcomed Sweden’s participation in the EU’s foreign and security policy work, saying it promotes peace and security inside the country. Among the factors affecting peace and security negatively, 55 percent named the influx of asylum-seekers.

More than 1,000 people aged between 18 to 74 took part in the survey.

%d bloggers like this: