Afghanistan, the Forgotten Proxy War

Part I

July 3, 2019 marks the 40th anniversary of when the United States’ first military assault against Afghanistan with the CIA-backed Mujahideen began. It would be a mistake to treat the present-day conflict as being separate from the U.S. intervention that began in 1979 against the then-government of the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan. Afghanistan was not always known as the chaotic, ‘failed state’ overrun by warlords as it is now; this phenomenon is a product of that U.S.-led regime change operation. The article below, originally published on March 30, 2019, summarizes and analyzes the events that transpired during and after the Cold War years as they relate to this often misunderstood, if not overlooked, aspect of the long war against Afghanistan. 

When it comes to war-torn Afghanistan and the role played by the United States and its NATO allies, what comes first to mind for most is the ‘War on Terror’ campaign launched in 2001 by George W. Bush almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks. And understandably so, considering that the United States and its allies established a direct “boots-on-the-ground” military presence in the country that year. Not only that, but during the Bush-Cheney years, there was an aggressive propaganda campaign being played out across U.S. media outlets which used women’s rights as one of the pretexts for the continued occupation. The irony of this, however, is not lost on those who understand that the conflict in Afghanistan has a long history which, much like Syria, stretches as far back as the Cold War era — especially when it was the United States that provided support for the Mujahideen in destabilizing the country and stripping away the modernizing, progressive economic and social gains, including Afghan women’s emancipation, which the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) had fought for. With the overthrow of the independent Soviet-aligned PDPA government, the Taliban emerged as a powerful faction of the Mujahideen; the U.S. would develop a working relationship with the Taliban in 1995. The war was never truly about women’s rights or other humanitarian concerns, as Stephen Gowans explains:

“Further evidence of Washington’s supreme indifference to the rights of women abroad is evidenced by the role it played in undermining a progressive government in Afghanistan that sought to release women from the grip of traditional Islamic anti-women practices. In the 1980s, Kabul was “a cosmopolitan city. Artists and hippies flocked to the capital. Women studied agriculture, engineering and business at the city’s university. Afghan women held government jobs.” There were female members of parliament, and women drove cars, and travelled and went on dates, without needing to ask a male guardian for permission. That this is no longer true is largely due to a secret decision made in the summer of 1979 by then US president Jimmy Carter and his national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to draw “the Russians into the Afghan trap” and give “to the USSR its Vietnam War” by bankrolling and organizing Islamic fundamentalist terrorists to fight a new government in Kabul led by the People’s Democratic Party of Afghanistan.

The goal of the PDPA was to liberate Afghanistan from its backwardness. In the 1970s, only 12 percent of adults were literate. Life expectancy was 42 years and infant mortality the highest in the world. Half the population suffered from TB and one-quarter from malaria.”

Moreover, and contrary to the commonly held belief that the conflict in Afghanistan started in 2001, it would be more accurate to say that the war started in 1979. As a matter of fact, the Carter Administration’s 1979 decision to overthrow the PDPA and destabilize Afghanistan is at the root of why the country is in the state that it continues to be in today.

Afghan women during the PDPA era vs. Afghan women today.

The Cold War – a new phase in the age of imperialism

The Democratic Republic of Afghanistan’s military welcome their Soviet counterparts

The 1979 to 1989 period of the Mujahideen onslaught is often referred to as the ‘Soviet-Afghan War’ because of the Soviet army’s heavy involvement. Although it is true that they were heavily involved, it is not an entirely accurate descriptor because it completely ignores the fact that it was a war that was actually crafted, instigated, and led by the United States. In what was also known then as the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, the years from 1978 to 1992 are inextricably linked with Soviet history — but not because it was a Soviet “invasion” of Afghanistan and that the West had to intervene to stop it, as U.S. imperialist propaganda would have us believe. The Carter administration had already begun the planning, recruitment, and training for the Mujahideen in 1978 and had launched the attack on Afghanistan months before the Soviet army militarily intervened near the end of 1979. Also, the “Afghan trap” alone did not cause the dismantling of the Soviet Union; however, it was related. But more on that when we look at the Gorbachev years. Nevertheless, the destruction of Afghanistan was declared as a final blow to the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union’s 1991 dissolution was celebrated as “the victory of capitalism over communism” by the United States. To begin to understand the conflict in Afghanistan, it is important to examine the context in which it began: the Cold War.

In the early 1900s, Vladimir Lenin observed that capitalism had entered into its globalist phase and that the age of imperialism had begun; this means that capitalism must expand beyond national borders, and that there is an internal logic to Empire-building and imperialist wars of aggression. Lenin defines imperialism as such:

“the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.”

It should be clear that imperialism is not just merely the imposition of a country’s will on the rest of the world (although that is certainly a part of it). More precisely: it is a result of capital accumulation and is a process of empire-building and maintenance, which comes with holding back development worldwide and keeping the global masses impoverished; it is the international exercise of domination guided by economic interests. Thus, imperialism is less of a cultural phenomenon, and more so an economic one.

Lenin also theorized that imperialism and the cycle of World Wars were the products of competing national capitals between the advanced nations. As he wrote in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, World War I was about the competition between major imperialist powers — such as the competing capitals of Great Britain and Germany — over the control of and the split of plunder from colonies. Thus, finance capital was the driving force behind the exploitation and colonization of the oppressed nations; these antagonisms would eventually lead to a series of world wars as Lenin had predicted. During the First World War, the goals of the two imperial blocs of power were the acquisition, preservation, and expansion of territories considered to be strategic points and of great importance to their national economies. And during the Great Depression, protectionist measures were taken up by Britain, the United States, and France to restrict the emerging industrial nations — Germany, Italy, and Japan, also known as the Axis states — from access to more colonies and territories, thereby restricting them from access to raw materials and markets in the lead up to World War II. In particular, the two advanced capitalist industrialized powers of Germany and Japan, in their efforts to conquer new territory, threatened the economic space of Britain, the U.S., and France and threatened to take their territories, colonies, and semi-colonies by force — with Germany launching a series of aggressions in most of Europe, and Japan in Asia. WWII was, in many ways, a re-ignition of the inter-imperialist rivalry between the Anglo-French bloc and the German bloc, but with modern artillery and the significant use of aerial assaults. It was also a period of the second stage of the crisis of capitalism which saw the rise of Fascism as a reaction to Communism, with the Axis states threatening to establish a world-dominating fascist regime. For the time being, WWII would be the last we would see of world wars.

At the end of WWII, two rival global powers emerged: the United States and the Soviet Union; the Cold War was a manifestation of their ideological conflict. The Cold War era was a new phase for international capital as it saw the advent of nuclear weapons and the beginning stages of proxy warfare. It was a time when the imperialist nations, regardless of which side they were on during WWII, found a common interest in stopping the spread of Communism and seeking the destruction of the Soviet Union. By extension, these anti-communist attacks would be aimed at the Soviet-allied nations as well. This would increase the number of client states with puppet governments acting in accordance with U.S. interests who would join the NATO bloc with the ultimate aim of isolating the Soviet Union. It should also be noted that the end of WWII marked the end of competing national capitals such that now, financial capital exists globally and can move instantaneously, with Washington being the world dominating force that holds a monopoly over the global markets. Those countries who have actively resisted against the U.S. Empire and have not accepted U.S. capital into their countries are threatened with sanctions and military intervention — such as the independent sovereign nations of Syria and North Korea who are, to this day, still challenging U.S. hegemony. Afghanistan under the PDPA was one such country which stood up to U.S. imperialism and thus became a target for regime change.

In addition to implementing land reforms, women’s rights, and egalitarian and collectivist economic policies, the PDPA sought to put an end to opium poppy cultivation. The British Empire planted the first opium poppy fields in Afghanistan during the 1800s when the country was still under the feudal landholding system; up until the king was deposed in 1973, the opium trade was a lucrative business and the Afghan poppy fields produced more than 70 percent of opium needed for the world’s heroin supply. These reforms in 1978 would eventually attract opposition from the United States, which had already embarked on its anti-communist crusade, providing backing to reactionary forces dedicated to fighting against various post-colonial progressive governments, many of which were a part of the ‘Soviet Bloc’ — such as the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua who mounted violent opposition to the Sandinista government. Despite having gained independence on its own merits, Afghanistan under the PDPA — much like other Soviet-allied, postcolonial successes such as Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Libya, and North Korea — was seen as a “Soviet satellite” that needed to be brought back under colonial domination, and whose commodities needed to be put under the exclusive control and possession of the United States. Not only that, but it was considered a strategic point of interest that could be used to enclose upon the Soviet Union.

In order to undermine the then-newly formed and popular PDPA government, the Carter administration and the CIA began the imperialist intervention by providing training, financial support, and weapons to Sunni extremists (the Mujahideen) who started committing acts of terrorism against schools and teachers in rural areas. With the assistance of the Saudi and Pakistani militaries, the CIA gathered together ousted feudal landlords, reactionary tribal chiefs, sectarian Sunni clerics, and cartel drug lords to form a coalition to destabilize Afghanistan. On September 1979, Noor Mohammed Taraki — the first PDPA leader and President of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan — was assassinated during the events of the CIA-backed coup, which was quickly stopped by the Afghan army. However, by late 1979, the PDPA was becoming overwhelmed by the large-scale military intervention by U.S. proxy forces — a combination of foreign mercenaries and Afghan Ancien Régime-sympathizers — and so they decided to make a request to the USSR to deploy a contingent of troops for assistance. The Soviet intervention provided some much-needed relief for the PDPA forces — if only for the next ten years, for the U.S. and Saudi Arabia “upped the ante” by pouring about $40 billion into the war and recruiting and arming around 100,000 more foreign mercenaries. In 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev would call on the Soviet troops to be withdrawn, and the PDPA was eventually defeated with the fall of Kabul in April 1992. Chaos ensued as the Mujahideen fell into infighting with the formation of rival factions competing for territorial space and also wreaking havoc across cities, looting, terrorizing civilians, hosting mass executions in football stadiums, ethnically-cleansing non-Pashtun minorities, and committing mass rapes against Afghan women and girls. Soon afterwards in 1995, one of the warring factions, the Taliban, consolidated power with backing from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. On September 28, 1996 the last PDPA Presidential leader, Mohammad Najibullah, was abducted from his local UN compound (where he had been granted sanctuary), tortured, and brutally murdered by Taliban soldiers; they strung his mutilated body from a light pole for public display.

A renewed opium trade, and the economic roots of Empire-building

U.S. troops guarding an opium poppy field in Afghanistan.

After the fall of Kabul in 1992, but some time before the Taliban came to power, the reactionary tribal chiefs had taken over the Afghan countryside and ordered farmers to begin planting opium poppy, which had been outlawed by the Taraki government. Prior to that, the Pakistani ISI (Pakistan’s intelligence agency) set up hundreds of heroin laboratories at the behest of the CIA so that by 1981, the Pakistani-Afghan border became the largest producer of heroin in the world. Alfred McCoy confirms in his study, “Drug Fallout: the CIA’s Forty Year Complicity in the Narcotics Trade”:

“Once the heroin left these labs in Pakistan’s northwest frontier, the Sicilian Mafia imported the drugs into the U.S., where they soon captured sixty percent of the U.S. heroin market. That is to say, sixty percent of the U.S. heroin supply came indirectly from a CIA operation. During the decade of this operation, the 1980s, the substantial DEA contingent in Islamabad made no arrests and participated in no seizures, allowing the syndicates a de facto free hand to export heroin.”

It is apparent that by putting an end to the cultivation of opium poppy, in addition to using the country’s resources to modernize and uplift its own population, the independent nationalist government of the PDPA was seen as a threat to U.S. interests that needed to be eliminated. A major objective of the U.S.-led Mujahideen — or any kind of U.S. military-led action for that matter — against Afghanistan had always been to restore and secure the opium trade. After all, it was during the 1970s that drug trafficking served as the CIA’s primary source of funding for paramilitary forces against anti-imperialist governments and liberation movements in the Global South, in addition to protecting U.S. assets abroad. Also, the CIA’s international drug trafficking ties go as far back as 1949, which is the year when Washington’s long war on the Korean Peninsula began. The move by the PDPA to eradicate opium-poppy harvesting and put an end to the exploitation brought about by the drug cartels was seen as “going too far” by U.S. imperialists. A significantly large loss in opium production would mean a huge loss in profits for Wall Street and major international banks, which have a vested interest in the drug trade. In fact, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) reported that money-laundering made up 2-5% of the world economy’s GDP and that a large percentage of the annual money-laundering, which was worth 590 billion to 1.5 trillion dollars, had direct links to the drug trade. The profits generated from the drug trade are often placed in American-British-controlled offshore banks.

The rationale behind the PDPA’s campaign to eradicate the opium poppy harvest was based not only on practical health reasons, but also on the role played by narcotics in the history of colonialism in Asia. Historically, cartel drug lords enabled imperialist nations, served bourgeois interests, and used cheap exploited slave labour. Oftentimes, the peasants who toiled in these poppy fields would find themselves becoming addicted to heroin in addition to being, quite literally, worked to death. Cartels are understood to be monopolistic alliances in which partners agree on the conditions of sale and terms of payment and divide the markets amongst themselves by fixing the prices and the quantity of goods to be produced. Now, concerning the role of cartels in ‘late-stage capitalism’, Lenin wrote:

“Monopolist capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates and trusts first divided the home market among themselves and obtained more or less complete possession of the industry of their own country. But under capitalism the home market is inevitably bound up with the foreign market. Capitalism long ago created a world market. As the export of capital increased, and as the foreign and colonial connections and “spheres of influence” of the big monopolist associations expanded in all ways, things “naturally” gravitated towards an international agreement among these associations, and towards the formation of international cartels.

This is a new stage of world concentration of capital and production, incomparably higher than the preceding stages.”

International cartels, especially drug cartels, are symptoms of how capital has expanded globally and has adapted to create a global wealth divide based on the territorial division of the world, the scramble for colonies, and “the struggle for spheres of influence.” More specifically, international cartels serve as stewards for the imperialist nations in the plundering of the oppressed or colonized nations. Hence the mass campaigns to help end addictions and to crack down on drug traffickers which were not only implemented in Afghanistan under the PDPA, but in Revolutionary China in 1949 and by other anti-imperialist movements as well. Of course, the opium traffickers and their organized crime associates in Afghanistan saw the campaign against opium poppy cultivation, among other progressive reforms, as an affront; this made them ideal recruits for the Mujahideen.

But why the “breakdown” in the relationship between the U.S. and the Taliban from the early 2000s and onwards? Keep in mind that, again, the members of the Taliban were amongst the various factions that made up the Mujahideen whose partnership with the United States extends as far back as the late 1970s; and it was clear that the U.S. was aware that it was working with Islamic fundamentalists. The human rights abuses committed by the Taliban while in power were well-documented before their relations with the U.S. soured by the year 2000. What made these relations turn sour was the fact that the Taliban had decided to drastically reduce the opium poppy cultivation. This led to the direct U.S. military intervention of 2001 in Afghanistan and the subsequent overthrow of the Taliban; the U.S. used the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as a pretext even if there was no proof that the Taliban had a hand in them or had been in contact with Osama bin Laden at all during that time. The U.S. would soon replace the Taliban with another faction of the Mujahideen that was more compliant with the rules that the imperialists had set out. In other words, the Taliban were ousted not necessarily because they posed a significant challenge to U.S. hegemony as the PDPA had, or because of their treatment of women — nor were they hiding Osama bin Laden; it was because they had become more of liabilities than assets. It is yet another case of the Empire discarding its puppets when they have outlived their usefulness due to incompetence and being unable to “follow the rules properly” — not unlike the U.S. removal of military dictator Manuel Noriega who was staunchly pro-American and who, in collaboration with fellow CIA asset and notorious cartel drug kingpin Pablo Escobar, previously sold drugs for the CIA to help finance the anti-communist campaign in Central America.

George W. Bush visits Hamid Karzai, who participated in the Mujahideen in the past and led the puppet government that replaced the Taliban.

By 2002, and as a result of the 2001 intervention, the lucrative opium poppy production had seen a huge boom once again. In 2014, Afghanistan’s opium poppy production made up 90% of the world’s heroin supply, leading to a decrease in opium prices. And according to a report by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), the opium production in Afghanistan increased by 43% to 4,800 metric tons in 2016.

Although the United States has always been one of the top producers of oil in the world, another reason for establishing a permanent U.S. military presence in Afghanistan was to gain control over its vast untapped oil reserves, which the U.S. had known about prior to 9/11. Oil is yet another lucrative commodity, and ensuring that Afghanistan had a compliant government that would acquiesce to its demands was important for the U.S. in this aspect as well. Naturally, the nationalist government of the PDPA was also seen as a threat to the profit-making interests of U.S. oil companies, and any nation that was an independent oil producer (or merely a potential independent oil producer, in Afghanistan’s case) was seen as an annoying competitor by the United States. However, Afghanistan would not begin its first commercial oil production until 2013, partly because of the ongoing geopolitical instability, but also because opium production continues to dominate the economy. Plus, it is likely that neither the monarchy nor the PDPA realized that there existed such vast untapped oil reserves since there were very limited volumes of oil (compared to the higher volumes of natural gas) being produced from 1957 to 1989, and which stopped as soon as the Soviet troops left. Later, reassessments were made during the 1990s; hence the U.S. ‘discovery’ of the untapped petroleum potential. But, when intensive negotiations between U.S.-based oil company Unocal and the Taliban went unresolved in 1998 due to a dispute over a pipeline deal that the latter wanted to strike with a competing Argentine company, it would lead to growing tensions between the U.S. and the Taliban. The reason for the dispute was that Unocal wanted to have primary control over the pipeline located between Afghanistan and Pakistan that crossed into the Indian Ocean. From this point on, the U.S. was starting to see the Taliban as a liability in its prerogative of establishing political and economic dominance over Central and West Asia.

In either case, oil and other “strategic” raw materials such as opium are essential for the U.S. to maintain its global monopolistic power. It is here that we see a manifestation of the economic roots of empire-building.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Continued in Part 2.

Originally published by LLCO.org on March 30, 2019. For the full-length article and bibliography, click here.

Janelle Velinais a Toronto-based political analyst, writer, and an editor and frequent contributor for New-Power.org andLLCO.org. She also has a blog at geopoliticaloutlook.blogspot.com.

All images in this article are from the author; featured image: Brzezinski visits Osama bin Laden and other Mujahideen fighters during training.

Shadow of Sarajevo 1914 Hangs Over Trump’s Golan Coup

Martin Sieff
April 26, 2019
Trump and Netanyahu still congratulate themselves on getting the United States to recognize Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights. They should not.

It looked like an absurd petty vanity in 1908 when the Austro-Hungarian Empire formally annexed the obscure Balkan provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Six years later that move set off the greatest war in human history and destroyed the old empire forever.

The Israelis have just made the same mistake in getting the United States under President Donald Trump to recognize their annexation of the Golan Heights.

Israel took control of the Golan Heights on June 11, 1967 after a fiercely fought war over the territory with Syria. Israeli settlements in the northern Jordan Valley directly below the Golan had been repeatedly shelled during the previous two decades of fragile peace. The Israelis were therefore determined to keep control of the Golan area to prevent a future invasion by Syria and its allies into northern Israel. That nearly happened in the 1973 Yom Kippur War or War of Ramadan when hugely outnumbered Israeli screening forces were taken by surprise by the Syrians and only held them off in ferocious tank battles that are still closely studied today by war colleges all around the world.

That experience left the Israelis more determined than ever to hold on to the Golan territories and the Syrians more determined than ever to regain them.

Right wing nationalist Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin proved willing – eventually – to give up all of the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt in the 1977-79 peace process with then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. But Begin proved implacable in his refusal to consider a similar bargain with President Hafez Assad, Syria’s leader for 30 years. In December 1981, Begin unilaterally annexed the Golan Heights.

Ironically, Yitzhak Rabin, Israel’s guiding strategic genius for three decades from his assumption of command as Army Chief of Staff in 1964 to his assassination while serving as prime minister in 1995, was prepared to consider returning the Golan to Syria before he was gunned down, shot in the back by Yigael Amir, a young Israeli religious-nationalist fanatic and student at Israel’s ultra-Orthodox religious center of higher education Bar-Ilan University.

For the previous two decades, Rabin, during his long terms as Israeli defense minister had actually come to a remarkable quiet understanding with Assad. Both men quietly respected each other and they both loathed and distrusted Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Yasser Arafat. As a result, they proved highly effective in keeping the peace.

Clashes between Syrian and Israeli ground forces during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 were carefully kept extremely limited in scope on both sides. And apart from that brief conflict, not a single Israeli or Syrian soldier was killed in action along their joint border during all the years Rabin and Assad senior held power.

As long as Rabin and Hafez Assad both lived there was a surprising amount of stability and peace between Tel Aviv and Damascus. That condition at first continued following the passing of both men. Assad died in office in 2000 and was succeeded by his son Bashir who still rules Syria now.

But today we see a very different situation. The US and Israeli obsession with toppling Bashir Assad and ending his close ties with Iran and Hezbollah led to the catastrophic Western support of extreme Islamists, ludicrously presented as democratic forces in the Arab Spring of 2011. The US government driven by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and supported by the United Kingdom and France as well as Israel believed Assad could be quickly toppled – which indeed proved to be the fate of Libya’s veteran leader Muammar Qadafi.

But Bashir Assad proved to be made of sterner stuff. The half of Syria forced from his government’s control did not experience some golden age. Most of it fell into the merciless hands of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). The ancient Assyrian Christian and other minority communities of Syria who had been protected by the Assad governments were virtually annihilated in those terrible years. The Assad government fought back. Backed by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, it survived and has reestablished itself. The United States and its allies refuse to recognize these realities. Trump’s move to boost Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s standing by legally recognizing Israel’s annexation of the Golan plunges both countries further into dangerous delusion.

Balkan Report: Pauvre Serbie, Pauvres Serbes

Source

March 10, 2019

Balkan Report: Pauvre Serbie, Pauvres Serbes

by Stephen Karganovic for The Saker Blog

In World War I, there was a popular refrain in France and the West generally expressing sympathetic support for their gallant Serbian allies, who were standing up to combined enemy armies on the Salonica front: Pauvres Serbes…That refrain still very much resonates but is no longer exclusively confined to the moral sphere, as it largely was a hundred years ago. Today, it epitomizes the dismal overall condition of the broken Serbian nation (on that subject, more in a later dispatch). For accuracy and clarification it should undoubtedly be amended, or expanded if you will, to read Pauvre Serbie, as well.

Following three serious bloodlettings in the course of a century (World War I, with up to a third of the population missing on Armistice day in 1918, World War II, with three quarters of a million slaughtered in the genocide committed by the Nazi satellite Croatia in 1941 – 1945, and a minimum of 100,000 of the best, brightest, and most able Serbs executed and exiled on ideological grounds by the Tito regime after it was installed in 1945) present-day Serbia is the ravaged land of an exhausted, dispirited, and dispossessed people. Its ambitions are low and its defenses are down.

Serbia today is ruled by a Uganda-style madman and his coterie of venal incompetents. This sorry bunch is manifestly unfit to govern any country (African or European, or even just Balkan for that matter).

Serbia’s current regime was conceived, by all accounts, as a clever stratagem of Western intelligence services in the early years of this century. It was an attempt to politically profit from the leadership vacuum in the rabidly nationalist Radical Party, whose leader had been safely locked away at the Hague, battling trumped-up (no pun intended) war crimes charges. His two main deputies in Belgrade were correctly diagnosed as ripe for recruitment. The “main prize” (to borrow a famous meme from the Ukrainian crisis) in that particular game of thrones was formal recognition by Serbia of the NATO-sponsored “independence” of Serbia’s resource-laden province of Kosovo, with some subsequent collateral benefits such as Serbia’s humiliating incorporation into NATO, for instance.

One of the two turncoats was even lionized as Serbia’s potential De Gaulle, perhaps with the prospect of a drastically devalued Nobel Peace prize dangled before him, and just for the trifle of signing off on the Kosovo land grab, unilaterally declared under Western auspices in 2008.

The false analogy was missed by all the interested parties. For whatever reasons that concern the French alone, De Gaulle did stop the colonial war in Algeria, giving up a territory that had no link whatsoever to historical France and coming under French rule relatively recently in 1830 when in a fit of anger its tactless bey slapped a French diplomat. Kosovo, on the other hand, is the historical and cultural heartland of the Serbian nation and its Orthodox church. There is no comparison. Renouncing Kosovo would not be the meritorious act of a Serbian De Gaulle, but conjures up more precisely the treachery of Mexican president Santa Ana, when he signed the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

A small but by no means insignificant detail that was inexplicably missed by all the geniuses involved.

Hence, as Robert Burns pointed out, even the best-laid schemes of mice and men tend to sometimes go awry or be seriously delayed at any rate. So far, that exactly has been the case with the legalization of the Kosovo robbery, with its booty of mouth-watering riches. After many fumbling attempts, the Serbian regime has so far failed to come up with the correct formula to hand over Kosovo while protecting its back from the fury of the country’s public, all the while dangerously eroding the patience of the foreign sponsors who installed it and expect a return for their investment. They are still turning a blind eye to the regime’s mischief, but precisely on condition that the Kosovo issue is settled forthwith to their greedy satisfaction. (Note might be taken of the fact that all the major and still influential actors of the 1999 aggression on Yugoslavia, which resulted in NATO’s occupation of Kosovo, such as Madeleine Albright and General Wesley Clark have helped themselves to generous pieces of the Kosovo pie and are, naturally, eager to secure their ill-gotten acquisitions.)

ENTREFILET: Serbian “opposition leaders” were caught on Candid Camera in early February taking orders from US Embassy officials at the Belgrade Hilton. That strongly suggests that weekly Saturday street protests in Belgrade and towns across Serbia are foreign embassy coordinated and that “opposition” leaders are lying when they claim to be advocating for the interests of citizens. They are acting on behalf of their foreign bosses and paymasters and their task is to produce internal destabilization designed to serve foreign interests.

Serbian “opposition” taking orders at the Belgrade Hilton:

“Opposition protest leader,” actor Sergej Trifunovic, in his latest role: pow-wow with Embassy officers at the Belgrade Hilton

In a pathetic attempt to test the waters, the regime’s capo di tutti capi may have inadvertently let the cat out of the bag in a recent interview with an Italian journalist when he averred that “Serbia might legally renounce Kosovo, but only if it receives something in return.” In the wake of the popular uproar that ensued, the regime put pressure on the news agencies that quoted from the interview to drop the embarrassing phrase and explained the gaffe as a “mistranslation.” (It never occurred to anyone to ask to listen to the recording in order to easily verify that convenient claim.)

There is not the slightest doubt, however, that the Kosovo noose is rapidly tightening. Matthew Palmer, State Department official in charge of disciplining Balkan chieftains, has just made it crystal clear on March 8 that the signing of a comprehensive treaty of mutual recognition with the NATO-run narco outfit of Kosovo “is the essence” of what Serbia is expected to do, and that was not a mistranslation. There is not much wiggle room left for Serbia’s Santa Ana.

To drive the point home, Serbia’s Guaidos-in-waiting are staging weekly demonstrations (peaceful for the moment) to demand a variety of abstract-sounding democratic concessions from the regime. Significantly, demonstration organizers make no mention of the Kosovo issue, which is uppermost in the hearts and minds of most Serbs. Not to be overlooked, Belgrade just happens to be the location of the headquarters of Otpor, the Western-intelligence funded outfit famous for its leading role in organizing protests which toppled Slobodan Milosevic. Otpor is now renamed Canvas. Canvas is renting out its experience and services to their paymasters around the world, wherever a “color revolution” is deemed needed. By a huge coincidence, no doubt, Canvas was recently detected as having trained Juan Guaido personally in Belgrade as far back as 2005 and boasts of its role in Venezuela on its internet site. Add to that London Freedom House’s ominous “assessments” of the Serbian situation (e.g. “Serbia’s status declined from Free to Partly Free due to deterioration in the conduct of elections, continued attempts by the government and allied media outlets to undermine the independent journalists through legal harassment and smear campaigns, and […] de facto accumulation of executive powers that conflict with constitutional role”), and all the elements are in place for insomnia at the presidential palace.

Not to be outdone, just days ago, after visiting the imperial metropolis for “consultations,” one of the potential Serbian Guaidos, former foreign minister Vuk Jeremic, accused the regime of having already secretly committed itself to capitulate on Kosovo within weeks, hinting that this information was disclosed to him at the highest levels (never mind that Jeremic’s hypothetical regime would continue where the present regime left off). Another Guaido hopeful, Dragan Djilas, was off to Skopje to pay respects to NATO-installed local puppet and presumably his future model Zoran Zaev, gushing excitedly that being received by a statesman of such caliber was an unforgettable “honor.” With Freedom House greasing the skids for “partly fee” Serbia’s enlistment in the next axis or troika of evil, Canvas close at hand to pull off the street job, eager candidates ready to declare themselves “interim president” on Belgrade’s main square, and rumors of a “Balkan spring” in the air, for the beleaguered Belgrade officials a quick Google search for countries without an extradition treaty with Serbia would not be an entirely foolish waste of time.

The British History of Terrorism in Palestine

Palestinian detainees in the Old City of AlQuds, during the British Occupation. Credit: Fox Photos, via Getty Images.

By Marwa Osman

Britain declared this past week that it intends to add the Lebanese political bloc Hezbollah ‘in its entirety’ to list of banned ‘terrorist’ organizations and to ban membership of or support for Hezbollah’s political wing. It was not surprising given the full-time lobbying that ‘Israel’ pushes into the UK Parliament. However, given the history of Hezbollah, a force of liberation and resistance against the occupation of the Zionist ‘Israeli’ entity and its big role in fighting off and eliminating takfiri terrorists in Lebanon and Syria, one has to stop and raise her/his voice in the face of Britain’s hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy of UK’s politicians does not manifest itself only when it comes to pointing fingers at the region’s only force that has ever defied and crushed ‘Israeli’ aggressions, yet it simultaneously turns a deliberate blind eye to the history of colonial Britain that is nothing short of terrorizing due to the warmongering foreign policy of the UK in support of Zionism.

One can easily make a massive collection of the UK’s historic atrocities committed with contemplation and determination to weaken and subordinate the natives within Britain’s colonies. Being an Arab from what the UK assigned “The Middle East” when it really is west Asia, the biggest atrocity I see committed by Britain in my region is its role in the illegal creation of Zionist ‘Israel’ on stolen Arab Palestinian land.

The British role in Stealing Palestine

The Balfour declaration was the moment that it became British state policy to support the creation of a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. A hundred years ago, British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour wrote what was to some the Magna Carta of Zionism. To the Arabs, who ended up being violently dispossessed, it was a calamitous promise. As the British author Arthur Koestler famously put it, “One nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.” It was an early and foundational contribution from Britain to the world’s most intractable war still ongoing since 1948. However, the British role in terrorizing, stealing and colonizing Palestine started way before that.

In 1917, the British colonial forces entered Palestine, and by 1918, the Ottoman rule over Palestine was ended following the defeat of its forces in WWI at the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918. Under the ‘Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916’, it was envisioned that most of Palestine, after ending the Ottoman control over it, would become an international zone not under direct French or British colonial control. However, after the war, Palestine was occupied by the British Military from 1917 until 1920.

During the period Palestine was under British occupation, the Zionists were putting pressure on the British Government to facilitate the establishment of a ‘Jewish Homeland’ on the land of Palestine. On the 2nd of November 1917, the British responded to the Zionist demands through what became to be known as the ‘Balfour Declaration’. Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary at the time, handed a letter to Lord Rothschild (a leader of the British Jewish community) for transmission to the Zionist Federation (a private Zionist organization). The letter declared the support of the British King’s Government to the Zionists’ plans of establishing a Jewish ‘national home’ in Palestine, as if Palestine is part of British land.

All this was established at the hands of the warmongering psychopath of all time, Winston Churchill. Churchill’s own efforts to help establish a “Jewish national home” for the sons of Zion in Palestine were at their most intense throughout 1921 and 1922 when, as Colonial Secretary, he was directly responsible for the evolution of British policy in the Middle East.

Since that date, Jewish immigration to Palestine, which started around 1882, increased rapidly. Conflicts erupted between the new Jewish settlers and the local Palestinian people, each fought for their survival. The Palestinian people rebelled against the British Mandate and its policies of settling foreigners on their land; meanwhile, the Jewish illegal colonial gangs continued to carry attacks on the Palestinian people as well as on the British mandate forces. So, the United Nations on the 29th November 1947 agreed upon a ‘Partition Plan of Palestine’, which would divide Palestine into two independent States; one for the Jews and another for the Palestinians, while keeping Jerusalem under international administration, by declaring it a ‘Corpus Separatum’. However, the plan was never implemented.

Churchill, the British terrorist regarded the Arab population in Palestine to be a “lower manifestation”, declaring that the “dog in a manger has the final right to the manger”, by this he meant the Arabs of Palestine. In 1921, as he stood in the Palestinian city of AlQuds, Churchill told Palestinian leaders “it is manifestly right that the Jews, who are scattered all over the world, should have a national center and a National Home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in this land of Palestine, with which for more than 3,000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?” He blatantly stood on a foreign land and demanded its people to give it away willingly to a third party. His demands were not very subtle and diplomatic you see, they were done with guns pointed to heads of Palestinian natives.

Obviously, the Palestinian Arabs refused to accept, and in London on 22 August 1921, they once more urged Churchill to bring a complete halt to Jewish immigration. Churchill rejected this appeal, telling the Arabs: “The Jews have a far more difficult task than you. You have only to enjoy your own possession; but they have to try to create out of the wilderness, out of the barren places, a livelihood for the people they bring in… they were in Palestine many hundreds of years ago. They have always tried to be there. They have done a great deal for the country. They have started many thriving colonies and many of them wish to go and live there. It is to them a sacred place.” As if to the Palestinian natives it is a place that they can just give up, because someone else who came from hundreds of miles away claims that Palestine is his, by religious right. You still find people in the west who read this last statement and actually agree with it, until you ask them how they would feel if Arabs decided to come back to Spain’s southern coast of Andalusia and claim it is sacred to them and start a one race/one religion state for them there. When you hear their deafening silence you understand that they know how wrong and illegal the creation of Zionist ‘Israel’ was, yet they don’t dare declare that in fear of being stigmatized as anti-Semitics, disregarding the fact that native Palestinians are the real Semites in this story and not the illegal European colonial settlers.

Churchill stuck to his Zionist policy later in 1937, at the Palestine Royal Commission (Peel), where he stated that he believed in intention of the Balfour Declaration was to make Palestine an “overwhelmingly Jewish state”. On 19 May 1941, in a secret memorandum, he wrote of his hope for the establishment after the war of a “Jewish State of Western Palestine” with not only the fullest rights for immigration and development, but also with provision “for expansion in the desert regions to the southwards which they would gradually reclaim.” Even after the great theft of Palestine, Churchill was still promising the illegal Zionist settlers more free land for them to grab to the south of Palestine, meaning in both Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula.

Rigid Partnership to Terrorize Arabs

Even now, more than 100 years later, the British political, military and intelligence support for ‘Israel’ facilitates the ‘Israeli’ aggression be it against Palestine, Lebanon or Syria. In 2018, the UK pledged to increase “trade and investment” between the two countries, which already stands at a record 9 billion dollars as ‘Israel’ continues to murder Palestinian natives on a daily basis. Yet, one cannot find a single article in the British “mainstream” media noting the depth of supportive UK policies towards ‘Israel’ since the late 1890s to date.

In 2016 and 2017, the UK sold 512 million dollars’ worth of military goods to ‘Israel’, including components for combat aircraft, tanks, drones and military communications and approved export licenses for 34 types of military-related equipment. No one seems to ask; for what? Or more practically; to kill whom?

The UK wants to ban Hezbollah for being a force of resistance to the continuous ‘Israeli’ occupation and aggressions while at the same fills up the tanks of the most aggressive entity in west Asia, expecting the natives in that region to sit and watch instead of prepare to defend themselves.

The UK’s military relationship with Zionist ‘Israel’ is extensive, covering areas such as naval cooperation and the provision of components for ‘Israeli’ nuclear-armed submarines. However, the UK chooses to brand Hezbollah as a terrorist group, all while ‘Israel’ has nuclear-armed submarines without being a signatory of the Nuclear Proliferation treaty. The British government revealed in 2018 that it was providing military training to ‘Israel.’ This followed news in 2016 that British military pilots were due to be trained by a company owned by ‘Israeli’ arms firm Elbit Systems. Training is longstanding: in 2011, it was revealed that British soldiers were being trained in ‘Israel’ in the use of drones that had been “field-tested on Palestinians” during the 2008 war on Gaza.

So tell us again Britain, who exactly is the terrorist organization?

Video: History of Oil – Hidden Cause of the First World War?

Global Research, January 31, 2019
truthjunkie69 6 March 2012

This video was first published in 2012.

Robert Newman gets to grips with the wars and politics of the last hundred years – but rather than adhering to the history we were fed at school, he places oil centre stage as the cause of all the commotion.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Why Russia won’t invade the Ukraine, the Baltic statelets or anybody else

The Saker

December 06, 2018

Why Russia won’t invade the Ukraine, the Baltic statelets or anybody else

[this article was written for the Unz Review]

The AngloZionist propaganda machine is constantly warning us that Russia is about to invade some country.  The list of candidates for invasion is long and ranges from Norway to the Ukraine and includes the Baltic statelets, Poland and even countries further West.  Of course, we are also told that NATO and the US are here to prevent that.  Well, thank God for them, right?

But what is conspicuously missing from this narrative is a discussion of the possible Russian motives for such a military move. Typically, we are merely told that Russia has broken the European post-Cold War order and borders by “annexing” Crimea and by sending military forces into the Donbass. Anybody with an IQ at room temperature or above by now realizes that both of these claims are total bunk. The ones who indeed broke the post-Cold War international order and borders were the NATO member states when they used military force, in complete illegality, to break-up Yugoslavia. As for the people of Crimea, they had the opportunity to vote about their future in a referendum, very much unlike the inhabitants of Kosovo which had no such opportunity. As for the 08.08.08 war, even the Europeans who eventually, and very reluctantly, agreed that it was, in fact, Saakashvili who started this conflict, not Russia.

But let’s set all this aside and assume that the Russian leaders would not hesitate to use military force again if it was to their advantage.  Let’s assume that, yes, the Russians are up to no good and that they might well try to bite-off some other piece of land somewhere in Europe.

Such an assumption would immediately raise a crucial question: why would the Russians want to do that?

For some reason, this question is rarely, if ever, asked.

Oh sure, we are told that “Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet Union” or some other type of empire but, again, nobody seems to wonder why he would want that!

So let’s look at possible rationales for such an attack:

Reason number one: to gain more land

That is probably the least credible reason of all.  Russia is a vast country (17,098,246 km2) with a relatively small population (144,526,636) resulting in a very low population density. Not only is Russia huge, but her territory has immense natural resources. The very last thing Russia needs is more land.

Reason number two: to increase the Russian population

Well, yes, Russia has a population deficit for sure.  But that does not mean that just any population increase would be a bonanza for Russia.  For example, Russia will only be in a  worse shape if the number of people depending on unemployment, social services or pensions increases.  Likewise, Russia would not benefit from a politically hostile population.  So while Russia could benefit from having a larger population, what she needs is more young and well-educated *Russians*, not unemployed and destitute Ukrainians or Lithuanians! The massive influx of Ukrainian refugees, by the way, has already contributed to an increase in qualified specialists, including medical doctors and highly qualified engineers from the Ukrainian military-industrial specialists who, when they saw their bureaus and industries collapse in the Ukraine, moved to Russia to continue to work. There is no need for the Russia to invade anybody to get those highly qualified specliasts. As for Ukrainians without special qualifications, they have already shown up in Russia, and the last thing Russia needs is more of them (they can go scrub toilets in Poland or the UK). Furthermore, there are already a lot of immigrants from other parts of the world in Russia and getting more of them is hardly a good idea. So while Russia would benefit from more qualified young Russians, invading other countries is not the way to get them.

Reason number three: geostrategic reasons

What about the Baltic ports? What about the Ukrainian gas pipelines? The truth is that in the Soviet times the Baltic ports or the Ukrainian pipelines were crucial strategic assets. But since their independence, these countries have not only ruined themselves and destroyed the infrastructure they inherited from the “Soviet occupiers,” but Russia has also successfully replaced the infrastructure and industries she lost after 1991. Thus, for example, Russia has actively developed her own commercial ports on the Baltic Sea, and they have now outgrown the ones found in the Baltic states (see here for a good comparative chart). As for the Ukrainian pipelines, not only are they in terrible shape, Russia has successfully built “North” and “South” streams which allow her to completely bypass the Ukraine and the need to deal with the crazy Banderite junta in Kiev. The simple truth is that while the Baltic statelets or the Ukronazis can fancy themselves as a very precious prize, Russia has absolutely no need for them whatsoever.

In fact, the opposite is true: right now, Russia can barely finance all the reconstruction programs which are so urgently needed after decades of nationalist rule in Crimea. In the future, Russia will also have to help the Donbass rebuild. Does anybody seriously believe that the Russians can afford to rescue even more countries or territories?!

Reason number four: revanchist motives

That is the Hillary Clinton/Zbigniew Brzezinski argument: the Russians are inherently expansionists, imperialists, militarists, and revanchists and they don’t need a motive to invade somebody: that’s simply what they do – invade, terrorize, oppress. Well, a quick objective look at history would prove that it is the West which has always displayed such behavior, not Russia, but we can even ignore that fact. The truth is that while there are a lot of people in Russia who have good memories of their lives in the Soviet Union, there is just no constituency pushing for the re-birth of the Soviet Union or for any kind of imperialism. If anything, most Russians are much more isolationist, and they don’t want to get involved in wars or the invasion of foreign countries. This is not only a result of memories of wars in Afghanistan or interventions in Germany, Hungary or Czechoslovakia, but also the bitter realization that even the so-called “Orthodox brothers” (some of whom even owe the existence of their country on a world map to Russia!) have now fully turned against Russia and have become willing NATO-colonies (think Bulgaria or Romania here). Yes, Putin did say that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy (objectively, it was, and it brought immense suffering to millions of people), but that does not at all mean that Putin, or anybody else, actually wants to “resurrect” the Soviet Union, even if it was feasible (which it is not). If anything, it was the US, NATO, and the EU which, for purely ideological reasons chose to expand their influence to the East and which are now constantly engaged in a nonstop campaign of russophobia (phobia in both meanings of “fear” and “hatred”). Yes, Russians are disgusted with the West, but that hardly means that they want to invade it.

Reason number five: megalomania

Well, maybe the Russians are mad that they lost the Cold War and now want to become a superpower again? In fact, no. Not at all. Not only do Russians not feel that they “lost” the Cold War, they even feel that they are already a superpower: one which successfully defies the Empire and which continues to struggle for full sovereignization at a time when all European countries are competing with each other for the title of most subservient lackey of the Empire. Just like the USSR after WWII, Russia, after the nightmare of the 1990s, has very successfully rebuilt, in spite of the constant subversion and sabotage of the “united West” which tried every dirty trick in the book to prevent Russia from recovering from the horrors which the western-backed (and, really, run) “liberal democracy” imposed upon her during the Eltsin years. Sure, Russians want their country to be prosperous and powerful, but that does not mean that they want to become a USA-like world hegemon which gets involved in every conflict on the planet. Truth be told, even the bad old USSR was not anti-USA and never had the kind of global ambition the USA has (well, except for Trotsky, but Stalin gave the boot to those crazies, many of whom later emigrated to the USA and re-branded themselves as Neocons). Of course, there is the eternal Russian “court jester,” aka “Zhirik” aka Vladimir Zhironovskii. He has made all sorts of threats (including nuclear ones) against various countries neighboring Russia, but everybody knows that he is just that, a court jester and that what he says is basically utter nonsense.

Reason number six: to save Putin’s “regime.”

It is true that unpopular regimes use war to distract from their failures and to make the population switch off their brains for the sake of “circling the wagons” and being “patriotic.” That is most definitely what Poroshenko is doing right now. But Putin has no such need! Even if the pension reform did cost him quite a bit in terms of popularity, he is still far more popular at home (and even internationally!) than any political leader in the West and the Russian economy is doing just fine, in spite of the famous sanctions. True, the mostly Atlantic Integrationist Medvedev government is not very popular, but those officials (like Shoigu or Lavrov) who are typically associated with Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists remain very popular. The simple truth is that Putin has no need for any “distracting crises” because he remains remarkably popular in spite of all the difficulties Russia is currently facing. If anything, it is the Trumps, Macrons, Mays, and Co. who need a distracting war, not Putin!

I could go on listing more nonsensical pseudo-reasons for why Russia would want to occupy some piece of land somewhere, each more far-fetched and baseless than the previous one, but you get the point: Russia has no interest whatsoever in military interventions. In fact, what Russia needs more than anything else is peace for as long as possible.

Now, let’s come back to reality,

Putin is a continuator of another great Russian reformer: Petr Arkadievich Stolypin

Petr Stolypin (1862—1911)

The Chairman of the Council of Ministers and Prime Minister of Russia from 1906 to 1911, Petr Arkadievich Stolypin, once famously said

Next comes our main task: to strengthen our lower classes.  In them lies the strength of our country.  There are more than 100 millions of them and the roots of our state will be healthy and strong and, believe me, the voice of the Russian government before Europe and the rest of the world will sound very differently.  Our motto, of all of us Russians, should be a united, common labor based on mutual trust.  Give Russia 20 years of peace, internal and external, and you will not recognize today’s Russia” (this is my own, free, translation.  This is the original text: На очереди главная наша задача — укрепить низы. В них вся сила страны. Их более 100 миллионов и будут здоровы и крепки корни у государства, поверьте — и слова Русского Правительства совсем иначе зазвучат перед Европой и перед целым миром… Дружная, общая, основанная на взаимном доверии работа — вот девиз для нас всех, Русских. Дайте Государству 20 лет покоя, внутреннего и внешнего, и вы не узнаете нынешней Poccии).

Of course, Stolypin was eventually murdered by a Jewish revolutionary, Mordechai Gershkovich Bogrov, and Russia was forced to enter WWI. Eventually, the Russian monarchy was overthrown by a Masonic conspiracy lead by Alexander Kerensky. These “liberals” (i.e., plutocrats) did exactly what their successors did under Eltsin and plunged Russia into utter chaos. Eight months later, the Bolsheviks seized power, and the civil war began. Instead of 20 years of peace, Russia got 30 years of wars. After immense sacrifices and many horrors, Russia only succeeded in recovering after the end of WWII.

Nobody in Russia wants to repeat this terrible experience even if, in the end, Russia would prevail. The costs are just too high.

Today, just like in 1911, Russia needs internal and external peace more than anything else, and that is not what she would get if she got involved in some foreign military adventure! In fact, attacking an alliance which includes three nuclear power would be suicidal, and the Russians are anything but suicidal.

If Russia needs peace so badly, why the constant rumors of war?

That is really simple! First, Poroshenko is in deep trouble and short of a major crisis his only option is to completely steal the election. That latter option might be tricky, because if the “collective West” as always, turns a blind eye to the actions of the Ukronazi regime, the internal opposition to Poroshenko might not. Then some serious civil unrest, or even a counter-coup, are real possibilities. Hence Poroshenko’s desperate need for a crisis.

They say that an image is worth a thousand words.  Well, in that spirit, check this one:

Left: martial law regions Right: regions which voted against Poroshenko in 2014 (by the way, this does suggest some kind of future border, don’t it? 🙂

QED, right?

There is also another reason, a particularly shameful one: while it is true that Hitler and the AngloZionists did, eventually, fight each other, it is also true that in many ways Hitler truly embodied the dream of a “united Europe” and a “reborn western civilization” (albeit a pagan one!). In the history of European imperialism, Hitler represents something of an apogee, at least until the USA superseded the Nazis as a global hegemon after WWII. There is not much difference between Hitler’s (oh so modestly promised) “thousand year Reich” and Fukuyama’s “end of history” (or, for that matter, the Marxist idea of realized Communism which also would end history by solving the dialectical contradictions which are the engine of history). On a psychological level, Hitler was the continuator of the Popes and Napoleon – a self-described “Kulturträger” bringing “western civilization” to the barbaric subhuman “Untermensch”mongoloid hordes of the East. So while Hitler was most definitely an “SOB,” he sure was “our SOB” (hence the impotent rage my use of the term “Ukronazi” elicits in various type of defenders of “Western civilization” or, even better, a supposed “White civilization”!). Well, we all know how these Nazi “culture-carrying” White supremacists ended, don’t we:

sic transit gloria mundi indeed…

 

These carriers of the values of a “united Europe” and “western civilization” were totally defeated by these men:

These are the men who destroyed 80% of the Nazi military and who *really* won WWII (not Patton or MacArthur!)

These memories are what truly terrifies the western elites: the existence of a different civilizational realm which not only dares to defy the AngloZionist Empire openly, but which has already defeated every western hegemonic power which dared to attacked it in the past.

The Russian people, by the way, see the current confrontation in the very similar “mental coordinates” as the western Russophobes, just with an inverted value sign meaning that they perfectly understand that the kind of war the Empire is waging against Russia right now has its roots in the outcome of WWII. This is one of the reasons they all cherish the memories of the millions who died fighting “western civilization” and a “united Europe.” This is best shown by the “Immortal Regiments” in all the Russian cities:

The “Immortal Regiment” as an expression of the acute historical awareness of the Russian people

This historical awareness is also shown in the parade of Ukronazi POW in Donetsk:

Again, the reference to WWII is unmistakable.

As I have said many times in the past, one of the most significant differences between Russia and the “collective West” is that Russians fear war but are nevertheless prepared to fight it, whereas the westerners do not fear war, even though they are not prepared for it at all. Truly, “fools rush in where angels fear to tread” (think Pompeo, Mattis and the rest of them here). And yet, despite this apparent insouciance, the leaders of the AngloZionists have an almost genetic fear and hatred of Russia, because they remember how all their predecessors were eventually defeated by the Russian nation.

And, finally, let’s remember the crucial question which Bertolt Brecht asked: “How can anyone tell the truth about Fascism unless he is willing to speak out against capitalism, which brings it forth?“.  Yes, in words, and in words only, the collective West has condemned Fascism and National-Socialism.  But in deeds?  No, not at all.  This is why Fascist scum à la Poroshenko *always* get the support of the western elites under the pious heading of “he is an SOB, but he is our SOB“?

[Sidebar: think of it,during the Crimean War the putatively “Christian West” united with the (Muslim) Ottoman Empire Against Russia. During the revolutionary years, US Jewish bankers fully financed the Bolsheviks. Just before WWII, the Brits likewise financed Hitler. During WWI and WWII the West backed Ukieseparatists, including bona fide Nazis. During the Cold War, the West fully backed the Wahabi nutcases in Saudi Arabia (no, MBS is not the first bloodthirsty Saudi maniac!) and in Afghanistan. The West also supported Apartheid South Africa for as long as politically possible. In Latin America the USA gladly supported what Roger Waters called Latin American “meatpacking glitterati”, that is the many military regimes who all were garden variety Fascists. In Kosovo the USAF became the KLA‘s Air Force even though the USA had previously considered the KLA as a dangerous terrorist organization (that was against the Serbs but, according to Strobe Talbott, the main goal here was to show Russia what could happen to her if she resisted). During the Chechen wars, the West fully backed the Takfiri crazies. Then, after 9/11, the USA finally got fully in bed with al-Qaeda (especially in Syria) even though the official fairy tale wants us to believe that al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible for the death of 3000 people (nevermind that NIST admitted by direct implication the destruction of WTC7 with explosives1). Does anybody doubt that if Satan himself took on a body and appeared before us the USA would fully and totally back him as long as he promised to be anti-Russian or, even better, anti-Orthodox? By allying itself for decades with what can fairly be described as the worst evil scum of mankind, as the not already been allied with Satan for many, many, year?]

Honestly, we should have no illusions about the nature of the western plutocracy, and we should always heed the Marxist truism which states that “the state is an apparatus of violence which fulfills the will of the ruling class.” We all know who the ruling class of the AngloZionist Empire is composed of, don’t we?

Western liberal democracies are, in reality, plutocracies which were created by a class of capitalist thugs with the purpose of controlling our entire planet.  This was true before WWII. This was also true during and after WWII and this has not changed, notwithstanding all the sanguine denunciations of Fascism and Nazism.

What this means is that it is the western ruling elites which need war to survive and preserve the New World Order they have attempted to impose on all of us.  Russia does not need war – she only needs peace.

Conclusion: relax, folks, the Russians ain’t coming, I promise!

AngloZionist paranoid collective hallucinations notwithstanding, the Russians are not coming. Yes, they will annihilate you if you are crazy enough to attack them but, no, they are not coming, at least not of their own volition. Not even to liberate the Russian minorities in Apartheid Latvia or the Nazi-occupied Ukrainian Banderastan. The Russian policy towards these regimes is very simple: let them collapse on their own. After all, they will all eventually come knocking sooner or later, as ideological delusions are powerless against geographical realities.

I will let a much better person than myself conclude this article.

This is what Professor Stephen Cohen recently had to say about the risks of war:

He indeed is the “voice of one crying in the wilderness.”

Will enough people listen to him to avoid an apocalypse?

I don’t know.

The Saker

Footnote 1: the US government – through NIST – officially recognized the fact that the WTC7 building fell at a free-fall speed for 2,25 seconds (for a detailed discussion of this please check out the video which I posted here). Do those 2,25 seconds really matter? Hell yes!! What this means is that the US government admits that for 2,25 seconds WTC7 fell without any kind of resistance to slow it down and this, therefore, means that there was nothing under the collapsing section. So this begs an obvious question: since we now know that there was nothing under the collapsing section and since we also know that there was a steel frame building there seconds before the collapse – what happened in between those two events? There is only one possible answer to this question: the steel-framed section of the building which would have normally slowed down the collapsing section of the building was removed a) extremely rapidly b) symmetrically. There is only one technology which can do that: explosives.  The above is simply not a matter of opinion. This is a fact.  Likewise, it is a fact that fires could not have removed a section of WTC7 the way it was observed.  Amazing but true: NIST itself admitted that explosives were used.

 

With Regard to War, Trump Doesn’t Talk the Talk or Walk the Walk

With Regard to War, Trump Doesn’t Talk the Talk or Walk the Walk

WAYNE MADSEN | 18.11.2018 |

With Regard to War, Trump Doesn’t Talk the Talk or Walk the Walk

Last week, Donald Trump disgraced himself before his French hosts, US and Allied military veterans, and the entire world by remaining inside the residence of the US ambassador to France and snubbing a memorial service for US dead in World War I.

Donald Trump, who is undoubtedly the least intelligent man to ever occupy the White House, failed to understand the importance of the 100th centenary observations in France held to mark the armistice that concluded World War I. At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918, the guns along the Western front in France fell silent. The war was entirely preventable but had been spurred on by nationalist fervor whipped up by kings, emperors, prime ministers, and foreign ministers who sent armies into battle to fight for the “honor” of their nations.

It was unbridled nationalism that led to World War I and it was nationalist feelings bent on revenge for being vanquished in World War I that ultimately led to World War II. Left unchecked, similar nationalist feelings being fanned today may lead to World War III.

The irony of World War I was that the monarchs of warring parties Britain, Russia, and Germany were all related. King George V of the United Kingdom was the first cousin of German Kaiser Wilhelm. King George and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia were also first cousins. And the Tsar and Kaiser were third cousins. Nevertheless, the nationalistic passions between Germany and its ally, the Austro-Hungarian Empire of the Habsburgs; Serbia and its protectors Russia and France; and the Ottoman Empire, allied with Germany and Austria-Hungary; and the United Kingdom, later allied with the United States led to the first modern world war.

In 1914, the ground was set for a conflagration. All that was needed to set off the tinderbox was a flame. That match was struck in 1914 when Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, and his wife, Duchess Sophie of Hohenberg, were assassinated in Sarajevo, in Austrian-ruled Bosnia, by a Serbian nationalist named Gavrilo Princip. Austria-Hungary not only blamed Serbia and a Serb terrorist group, the Black Hand, for carrying out the assassination but also implicated the Russian military attaché’s office in Belgrade, Serbia. Accusations that Serbia and Russia were behind the assassinations of the Archduke and Duchess were unfounded. Nevertheless, this “conspiracy theory” of 1914 eventually led to the direct deaths of almost 20 million people around the world. Add the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic, which is believed to have been spread by troops returning home from the war fronts, and the indirect war dead count climbs to an additional 100 million.

Compare the Sarajevo conspiracy theory of 1914 to several that exist today, including accusations that Russia perpetrated biological warfare attacks on individuals in England and that Russian forces shot down Malaysian Airlines flight 17 over Ukraine, and we see the same irresponsible allegations about state-sponsored acts of violence that triggered World War I. In 1914, warfare led to the use of chemical and, quite possibly, biological weapons. World War II, the cause of which is nested in World War I’s aftermath, led to the use of nuclear weapons. It is unthinkable what a World War III might lead to.

Since Russia was Serbia’s patron, the Austro-Hungarians believed Serbia’s protector, Russia, and even Romania were behind the assassination plot. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Since Russia and France were pledged to defend Serbia, they declared war on Austria-Hungary, prompting Germany to honor its alliance with the Habsburgs and declare war on Serbia, Russia, and France. Eventually, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Greece, and Britain entered the war in an alliance with Russia and France. The Ottoman Empire backed the Central Powers of Austria-Hungary, Germany, and Bulgaria. The United States entered the war in 1917 on the side of Britain and France.

For all the warring parties, “the other” meant their “nefarious” enemies. Extreme nationalism took an ugly turn. For the Austrians and Germans, “the other” was the “barbaric” Slavs. For the British, French, Russians, Italians, and, eventually, the Americans, “the other” was the “beastly” Germanic “Huns.” For the Ottoman Turks, “the other” was the nomadic, “uncivilized,” and “cruel” Arabs. The Greeks and Serbs, “the other” was the Ottomans Muslim “hordes” ready to re-occupy the Balkans and eradicate Christianity. And, so it went, until over 18 million military and civilian personnel were killed. World War I was the result of blaming “the other” for whatever atrocity could be conjured up by the propaganda machinery of the era. It was a case of extreme nationalism running rampant. At the end of the conflict, the royal houses of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire fell, but the nationalistic blame game continued.

Aspirant peoples, with nationalism as their trumpet, rose from the battlefields of World War I to demand independence. Some of these nations, including Poland, Czechoslovakia, and the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (Yugoslavia), were recognized at Versailles. Others, like Kurdistan, the Emirate of Darfur, the Dervish State of Somaliland, Tuareg Confederation, Zayan Confederation of the Berbers, the Emirate of Jabal Shammar (moderate rivals of the Saudis), Balochistan, and Vietnam, were not granted independence, a decision that would lead to war outbreaks later in the 20th century.

At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, statesmen, including US President Woodrow Wilson, gathered to draw new borders, grant aspirant nations their independence, and establish an international body – the League of Nations – to serve as a place for dialogue to prevent war. However, the Treaty of Versailles also, inadvertently, laid the ground for World War II. Wilson could never convince the isolationist “America Firsters” in the Republican Party to commit the United States to membership of the League of Nations. America’s absence from the League denied the organization the universality it desired. Today, President Donald Trump is ripping up treaty after treaty, withdrawing from various United Nations agencies and agreements, and sending troops to the US southern border to meet a bogus threat that Central American asylum seekers are planning an “invasion” of the United States. Trump, who fancies himself as an American “nationalist,” has seen “the other” in women and children escaping political violence and economic stagnation in countries where dictators and death squads are propped up by the Pentagon and Central Intelligence Agency.

Brutal reparations demanded from Germany by the victorious Allies at Versailles, as well as German disarmament, gave rise to someone who would blame “the other” for Germany’s miseries, which were accentuated by the economic depression of the 1920s.

For Adolf Hitler, a wounded veteran of the “war to end all wars,” “the other” was the “Jews,” aided and abetted by Bolsheviks and “international bankers.” Hitler blamed them all for Germany’s surrender in World War I and its subsequent economic collapse. The world failed to learn the lessons of World War I.

At a ceremony at the Arc de Triomphe in Paris to mark the 1918 armistice, French President Emmanuel Macron told the collected world leaders, including an uncomfortable Trump, that “patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism. Nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism.” Macron hosted a November 11-13 Paris Peace Forum for 84 world leaders in Paris for the World War I centenary. They included Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, British Prime Minister Theresa May, Moroccan King Mohammed VI, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The forum’s itinerary, including a keynote speech by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, touched on topics ranging from climate change and rising nationalism to abusive corporations and human rights.

In addition to skipping a ceremony at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery outside of Paris, where the remains of thousands of American soldiers who died at the Battle of Belleau Wood are buried, Trump boycotted the Paris Peace Forum.

Trump, like the doomed monarchs of early 20th century Europe, the fascist dictators who rose to power in the interbellum period, and the tyrants of today, blames “the other” for everything he can imagine.

Trump wanted nothing to do with the Paris Peace Forum. His former chief strategist, Steve Bannon, is finalizing plans, along with Belgian, French, German, Austrian, Brazilian, British, white South African and Rhodesian, Hungarian, Serbian, Canadian, Australian, and fascisti Italian far-right wingers, to establish a Fascist International, called “The Movement,” in Brussels early next year. It is among these far-right wing politicians where Trump will feel most at home. One hundred years after the end of World War I, we should all have progressed to a point where we no longer pay heed to the Trumps, Bannons, and others who find always find blame in “the other.”

Decoding the hypersonic Putin on a day of remembrance

Image result for end of World War I, Putin and Trump
November 14, 2018Decoding the hypersonic Putin on a day of remembrance

Sitting alongside French President Macron during the 100th anniversary to commemorate the end of World War I, Putin and Trump stole the show in Paris

by Pepe Escobar (cross-posted with The Asia Times by special agreement with the author)

The Elysee Palace protocol was implacable. Nobody in Paris would be allowed to steal the spotlight away from the host, President Emmanuel Macron, during the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day marking the end of World War I.

After all, Macron was investing all his political capital as he visited multiple World War I battlefields while warning against the rise of nationalism and a surge in right-wing populism across the West. He was careful to always place the emphasis on praising “patriotism.”

A battle of ideas now rages across Europe, epitomized by the clash between the globalist Macron and populism icon Matteo Salvini, the Italian interior minister. Salvini abhors the Brussels system. Macron is stepping up his defense of a “sovereign Europe.”

And much to the horror of the US establishment, Macron proposes a real “European army” capable of autonomous self-defense side by side with a “real security dialogue with Russia.”

Yet all these “strategic autonomy” ideals collapse when you must share the stage, live, with the undisputed stars of the global show: President Donald  Trump and President Vladimir Putin.

So the optics in Paris were not exactly of a Yalta 2.0 conference. There were no holds barred to keep Trump and Putin apart. Seating arrangements featured, from left to right, Trump, Chancellor Angela Merkel, Macron, his wife Brigitte and Putin. Neither Trump nor Putin, for different reasons, took part in a “walking in the rain” stunt evoking peace.

And yet they connected. Sir Peter Cosgrove, the governor general of Australia, confirmed that Trump and Putin, at a working lunch, had a “lively and friendly” conversation for at least half an hour.

No one better than Putin himself to reveal, even indirectly, what they really talked about. Three themes are absolutely key.

On the Macron-proposed, non-NATO European army: “Europe is … a powerful economic union and it is only natural that they want to be independent and … sovereign in the field of defense and security.”

On the consequences of such an army: It would be “a positive process” that would “strengthen the multipolar world.” On top of it, Russia’s position “is aligned with that of France.”

On relations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Washington: “It is not us who are going to withdraw from the INF Treaty. It is the Americans who plan to do that.” Putin added that Moscow has not scheduled military drills near NATO borders as an attempt to appease an already tense situation. Yet Russia has “no issue with” NATO drills and expects at least a measure of dialogue in the near future.

Enter the Avangard

Vast sectors of the US Deep State are in denial, but Putin may have been able to impress on Trump the necessity of serious dialogue due to an absolutely key vector: the Avangard.

The Avangard is a Russian hypersonic glide vehicle capable of flying over Mach 20 –  24,700km/h, or 4 miles per second – and one of the game-changing Russian weapons Putin announced at his ground-breaking March 1 speech.

The Avangard has been in the production assembly line since the summer of 2018, and is due to become operational in the southern Urals by the end of next year or early 2019.

In the near future, the Avangard may be launched by the formidable  Sarmat RS-28 intercontinental ballistic missile and reach Washington in a mere 15 minutes, flying in a cloud of plasma “like a meteorite” – even if the launch is from Russian territory. Serial production of Sarmat ICBMs starts in 2021.

The Avangard simply cannot be intercepted by any existing system on the planet – and the US knows it. Here is General John Hyten, head of US Strategic Command:  “We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us.”

Iran as the new Serbia?

I wish I had been in Paris – my home in Europe – to follow these concentric World War I–related plots live. But it was no less fascinating to follow them from Islamabad, where I am now, back from the northern part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). The British Empire used 1.5 million to 2 million Indian colonial subjects to fight, and die, for empire in that war. Quite a few were Punjabis, from what is now Pakistan.

As for the future, Trump is certainly aware of Russia’s hypersonic breakthroughs. Trump and Putin also talked about Syria, and might have touched on Iran, although no one at the working lunch leaked anything about it.

Assuming the dialogue continues at the Group of 20 summit in Buenos Aires at the end of November, Putin might be able to impress on Trump that just as Serbia catalyzed a chain of events that led great powers to sleepwalk into World War I, the same could happen with Iran leading to the terrifying prospect of World War III.

Team Trump’s obsession on strangling Iran into economic submission is a no-go, even for the Macron-Merkel-led European Union. On top of it, the Russia-China strategic partnership simply won’t allow any funny – reckless – games to be played against a crucial node of Eurasia integration.

Putin won’t even need to go hypersonic to make his case to Trump.

War Criminals in High Office Commemorate the End of World War I

Global Research, November 12, 2018

In a bitter irony, several of the World’s leaders who were “peacefully” commemorating the end of World War I in Paris including Trump, Netanyahu, Macron and May are the protagonists of war in Afghanistan, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen. 

To put it bluntly they are war criminals under international law.

They have blood on their hands.

What on earth are they commemorating?

In the words of Hans Stehling: “As We Honour the 15 Million Dead of 1914-1918, a Demented US President Flies into Paris with Plans to Attack Iran” [with nuclear weapons] (Global Research, November 12, 2018)

Lest we forget: War is the ultimate crime, “The Crime against Peace” as defined under Nuremberg.

 The US and its allies have embarked upon the ultimate war crime, a Worldwide military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. 

The War to End all Wars??? 

One hundred years later: What’s happening NOW in November 2018?

Major military and covert intelligence operations have been launched in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theatre operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states, not to mention economic warfare.

In the course of the last seventeen years, starting in the immediate wake of 9/11, a series of US-NATO led wars have been launched: Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Yemen, resulting in millions of civilian deaths and countless atrocities. These wars have been led by the US and its NATO allies.

It is all for a good cause:

“Responsibility to Protect”(R2P),

“Going after the bad guys”,

Waging a “Global War on Terrorism”.

It just so happens that “Outside Enemy Number One” Osama bin Laden was recruited by the CIA.

And the Bush and the Bin Laden families are friends.

Image: Osama bin Laden with Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (circa 1979

Confirmed by the Washington Post Osama’s brother Shafiq bin Laden was meeting with George W Bush’s Dad, George H. Walker Bush at a Carlyle business meeting at the Ritz Carleton in New York on September 10, one day before 9/11:

It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former president Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. (WaPo, March 16, 2003)

Now does that not sound like a “conspiracy theory”? While Osama was allegedly coordinating the attack on the WTC,  his brother Shafiq was meeting up with the President’s Dad, according to the Washington Post.

In turn, according to the Wall Street Journal “The bin Laden family has become acquainted with some of the biggest names in the Republican Party…” (WSJ, 27 September 2001)

Here is a rather “believe it or not” concept: if the US were to boost defence spending to go after Osama bin Laden (Enemy Number One), the bin Laden family would benefit so to speak because (in September 2001) they were partners of the Carlyle Group, one the World’s largest asset management companies:

Waging War on The Bad Guys 

Amply documented, the “Bad Guys”, namely Al Qaeda and its various affiliates including ISIS-Daesh are constructs of Western intelligence (aka so-called “intelligence assets”).

In recent developments, the US and Israel are threatening Iran with nuclear weapons. U.S. and NATO ground forces are being deployed in Eastern Europe on Russia’s immediate doorstep. In turn, the U.S. is confronting China under the so-called “Pivot to Asia” which was launched during the Obama presidency.

The US also threatens to blow up North Korea with what is described in US military parlance as a “bloody nose operation” which consists in deploying “the more usable” low yield B61-11 mini-nukes which are tagged as “harmless to civilians because the explosion is under ground”, according to scientific opinion on contract to the Pentagon.

The B61-11 tactical nuclear weapon has an explosive capacity between one third and twelve times a Hiroshima bomb.

Hiroshima, August 7, 1945

Flashback to August 6, 1945, the first Atomic Bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Up to 100, 000 people were killed in the first seven seconds following the explosion.

But it was “collateral damage”: In the words of President Harry Truman:

Truman globalresearch.caThe world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

What is at stake is a global criminal undertaking in defiance of international law. In the words of the late Nuremberg Prosecutor William Rockler:

The United States has discarded pretensions to international legality and decency, and embarked on a course of raw imperialism run amok.” (William Rockler, Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor)

We will recall that the architect of Nuremberg, Supreme Court Justice and Nuremberg Prosecutor Robert Jackson said with some hesitation:

We must never forget that the record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history will judge us tomorrow. To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is to put it to our own lips as well.”

Does this historical statement apply to Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu and Margaret May?
In defiance of Nuremberg, the US and its allies have invoked the conduct of “humanitarian wars” and “counter-terrorism” operations, with a view to installing “democracy” in  targeted countries.
And the Western media applauds. War is now routinely heralded in news reports as a peacemaking undertaking.

War becomes peace. Realities are turned upside down.

These lies and fabrications are part of of war propaganda, which also constitutes a criminal undertaking under Nuremberg.

The US-NATO led war applied Worlwide is a criminal endeavor under the disguise of “responsibility to protect” and counter-terrorism. It violates the Nuremberg Charter, the US constitution and the UN charter. According to former chief Nuremberg prosector Benjamin Ferencz, in relation to the 2003 invasion of Iraq:

“a prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity — that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.”

Ferenz was referring to “Crimes against Peace and War” (Nuremberg Principle VI): which states the following:

“The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.”

“(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).”

The original source of this article is Global Research

 

Repeating Churchill’s Bungles: Will US Drive Turkey into Joining the Shanghai Pact?

Repeating Churchill’s Bungles: Will US Drive Turkey into Joining the Shanghai Pact?

Repeating Churchill’s Bungles: Will US Drive Turkey into Joining the Shanghai Pact?

In 1917, the professional head of the British Army, Field Marshal Sir Henry Wilson in 1917 explained why the Allies were losing World War I because they kept pouring out lives, weapons and resources on capturing tiny unimportant locations on the Western Front while Imperial Germany conquered Eastern and Southern Europe, invading and occupying one major country after another:

“We take Bullecourt, they take Rumania; We take Messines, they take Russia; We don’t take Passchendaele, they take Italy,” Wilson told Winston Churchill.

Today, Washington is moving heaven and earth to integrate such major world powers as Macedonia, Montenegro and Georgia into NATO to join those vital pillars of world security Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. And at the same time, it is obsessed with imposing ruinous sanctions on Turkey.

Yet Turkey has been a major member of NATO for 63 years. It continues to play a crucial role in US strategic deployments across the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Its cooperation is absolutely essential to ensure the supply and – if war were ever to break out Russia – the very survival of all US warships operating in the Black Sea.

Feckless, passive and ignorant President Barack Obama allowed US relations with Turkey to deteriorate to their worst ever state.

It is no secret that President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is convinced that the US military were involved in the serious coup attempt that nearly cost him his life two years ago. Those suspicions are certainly widely believed among top Turkish policymakers.

Faced with such unprecedented suspicions and strains in the US –Turkish alliance, President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the US Congress should be working overtime to build relations, cooperation and long-term trust with Turkey.

They are doing no such thing. With stunning insouciance and crass ignorance, both parties in Congress seek out every opportunity to insult Turkey, give aid and comfort to forces traditionally hostile to the country and now are happily supporting devastating new tariffs.

As internationally respected commentator M. K. Bhadrakumar warned on this platform, “The sense of indignation among Turks should not be underestimated, which makes this an exceptional rupture.”

It is not as if Washington could sanely assess that Turkey was internationally isolated. On the contrary, Ankara enjoys excellent relations with Russia, China, India and Iran. US and NATO policies once again are backfiring and isolating their perpetrators, not the countries they target.

It is eerily fitting that neoconservatives and neoliberals worship the deified Winston Churchill so much. For it was Churchill’s personal bungling that that brought the Turkish Ottoman Empire needlessly into World War I on the side of Imperial Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

In August 1914, Churchill, as First Lord of the Admiralty, the political head of the British Navy, ordered the seizure of the Sultan Osman I and the Reshadieh, two state-of-the-art new Dreadnought battleships being built for Turkey in British shipyards (The Turks had already paid four billion pounds sterling for them). Britain did not even need the two battleships. It had a wide margin of maritime superiority over the German High Seas Fleet. But the move was the political and psychological equivalent of telling Turkey today that the United States is not going to sell Ankara the F-35 Joint Strike Fighters it had promised.

Turkey had been a loyal and major British ally at least since the Ochakoff Incident of 1791.But after Churchill’s bungle popular outrage in Turkey was overwhelming. It decisively swung the delicate balance in Constantinople that led the ruling, secular Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) into Berlin’s orbit.

Turkey went to war, cutting off the vital Anglo-French maritime supply route through the Dardanelles Strait into the Black Sea and cutting off Imperial Russia. Toi open that waterway, Churchill pushed the catastrophic and utterly bungled Gallipoli campaign in 1915. It cost the British, Irish, Australians and New Zealanders who fought there more than 140,000 casualties including 44,000 dead. The Turks lost 86,000 dead.

Churchill was sacked from the British government for his bungling. He then devoted the heart of his enormous six-volume postwar memoir “The World Crisis” to trying to pass the blame for his failures off on everybody else.

Today, Washington’s reckless and abusive policies towards Turkey are repeating the catastrophic bungles that Churchill inflicted more than a century ago.

An increasing number of Turks no longer trust NATO: Instead, they fear it. The only other obvious international security body for Turkey to seek protection with is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which in June pulled off the extraordinary coup of expanding to include India and Pakistan at the same time.

As Arkady Savitsky has noted in this journal, Turkey is already a dialogue partner with the SCO. It is also considering a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). President Erdogan has also made clear he would like Turkey to join the BRICS bloc which, like the SCO includes Russia, China and India.

If President Erdogan decides to leave NATO to join the SCO, and drops Brussels to replace it with Shanghai, even Washington and London will have to sit up and take notice. Yet the logic of the policies and rhetoric being spewed out of the Western capitals can only drive Turkey to that outcome, seeking its own security and survival.

عرض القيصر لترامب: سورية أولاً… أو الطوفان؟

يوليو 23, 2018

محمد صادق الحسيني

هلسنكي ليست لندن أو باريس بعد الحرب العالمية الأولى،

كما أنها ليست يالطا بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية…!

وبوتين وترامب ليسا سايكس وبيكو بعد الحرب الأولى، ولا ستالين وروزفلت بعد الثانية حتى يتقاسما فيها الغنائم.

فما حصل هناك هو تقاسم المنتصرين الغنائم وقطاف النصر في ما بينهم، في حين أنّ ما حصل في هلسنكي هو اجتماع المنتصرين بالوكالة مع المهزوم بالأصالة…

انتبهوا جيداً يا مَن تذهبون بعيداً ضحية تشويش الإعلام الصهيوني العالمي. فالحرب الكونية على سورية تقارب من نهاياتها بربح أكيد لمحورنا الحرب استراتيجياً وحليفنا الروسي تباعاً، وخسارة عدوّنا الإسرائيلي الحرب استراتيجياً وسيده الأميركي تباعاً…!

فهل من المعقول أن يقاسم المنتصر أرباحه مع المهزوم او يقدّم جوائز ترضية له!؟

قطعاً لا…

جلّ ما حصل قبل هلسنكي وأثناءها وبعدها هو سكوت القيصر الروسي على بعض مزاعم ترامب وربيبته «إسرائيل» على ما يزعمونه من تفاهمات عامة روسية غربية بينها إسرائيلية بغرض تنفيس احتقاناتهم بانتظار استكمال محور المقاومة حزمة الانتصارات المتبقية…!

تابعوا تصريحات سفراء القيصر في كلّ من دمشق وطهران وبغداد عقب تصريح سفيره في تل أبيب، حيث نسفوا كلّ ما قاله الأخير عن مثل هذه التفاهمات…!

ومع ذلك… ولأنّ الزعيم فلاديمير بوتين وهو رئيس الـ «كي جي بي» السوفياتي في ألمانيا الشرقية سابقاً، أيّ المسؤول الأول عن جبهة الحرب المتقدّمة لحلف وارسو بوجه حلف الاطلنطي، يعرف تماماً كيف يروّض الفيل الأميركي الطموح والجامح من أجل إعادة بعض الدور وبعض ماء الوجه لأميركا المكسورة والمهشّمة الصورة على صخور الجبال السورية…!

فكان أن اقترح على ترامب رشوة تسعفه في التغلب على خصومه الداخليين من بقايا الدولة العميقة عندما اقترح عليه تقاسم سوق النفط والغاز الأوروبي بأموال خليجية سعودية بالأساس لتمويل 11 مصنع تسييل الغاز الأميركي ليتمكن من بيع ذهبه الأسود والأزرق في السوق الأوروبية، إضافة إلى السكوت على صفقة القرن بانتظار قيام محور المقاومة بزعزعتها ميدانياً .

ومن لديه شكّ في ذلك، فليستمع الى الرئيس محمود عباس ويسأله عما دار بينه وبين بوتين، وما أسرّ اليه في خلوتهما في رحلته الأخيرة لموسكو؟

في هذه الأثناء قدّم القيصر الرشوة كذلك للفرنسيين من خلال التوسط لهم لدى دمشق بأن يقدّم الروسي نفسه جسراً جوياً لمساعدتهم الإنسانية، ومعهم أوروبا، في مقدمة للعودة التدريجية الى سورية. وبالتتابع إغراء الأردن والسعودية وملحقاتها بخطة تسهيل عودة اللاجئين السوريين، فيما ترك الباب مفتوحاً لمن يريد الالتحاق بالفريق المنتصر او ركوب زورق الغالبين…!

إنّ فلاديمير بوتين لا يستطيع حتى لو أراد أن يتقاسم النصر مع ترامب أن يفعل ذلك، لأنه لا يزال في حالة حرب معه في إدلب، إذ لا يزال نحو 25 ألف إرهابي من جمهوريات بلاده ينشطون هناك تحت إشراف ثعلب الناتو أردوغان. وما أدراك ما أردوغان؟

هذا غير حاجته الملحّة والماسّة لحليفه الإيراني ومعه لكلّ أعضاء جبهة المقاومة التي لم تنته بعد من تحقيق كافة أهدافها الاستراتيجية والتي من أهمّها إخراج أميركا من غرب آسيا والبحر المتوسط بشكل أخصّ…!

الحرب العالمية الثالثة لم تصل الى نهاياتها بعدُ إذن، ويوم تصل الى نهاياتها، فإنّ الصفقة عندها فقط ستعقد فعلاً، ولكن بين أعضاء حلف المنتصرين، ونحن في محور المقاومة سنكون على رأس القائمة، ويومها فقط نعقد صفقة مع موسكو نعيد فيها كتابة التاريخ ونغيّر أقدار الجغرافيا السياسية والطبيعية.

أما اجتماعات مَن يمثلنا في النصر مع رمز المهزومين العالمي، فسيكون هذه المرة لإبلاغه بشروط الإذعان بالهزيمة ويومها كما في هلسنكي لن يكون للمهزوم سوى خيار قبول شروط المنتصرين…

ومع ذلك… ولأنّ فلاديمير بوتين يعرف تماماً نوع الوجع الذي يلمّ بالرئيس ترامب، وأنه يريد العودة من ساحة الهزيمة إلى الداخل الأميركي منتصراً على رأسمالية المضاربات المالية بالنفط والسلاح، وهذا يتطلّب منح ترامب فرصة جمع المزيد من المال من حلفائه وأذنابه الذين حمتهم أميركا لعقود، ليضخه الى أسواق الداخل الأميركي لتنشيط المصانع وما يسمّونه بالرأسمالية المنتجة، وهو ما لخصه ترامب بشعاره الانتخابي الشهير أميركا أولاً…!

هنا يدخل القيصر على خط الصراع الداخلي الأميركي كما دخل مبكراً على بورصة الانتخابات الأميركية، بقوة فيقدّم لترامب حبل النجاة والهروب بجلده من سورية وحتى العراق، بل وكلّ منطقة آسيا الغربية، وصولاً حتى إلى الشرق الأدنى كوريا ، وذلك تحت شعار:

إذا أردت تحقيق حلمك، أميركا أولاً، فعليك يا سيد ترامب أن تفعل بخطة سورية أولاً، أيّ غادر سورية بأسرع ما يمكن، لأنه سبيل خلاصك وتحرّرك من المستنقع الذي تركته لك الدولة العميقة أو ورثته منها، والذي من دون مغادرته لن تستطيع الانتصار عليهم في الداخل، بل إنك ستغرق في طوفان الخارج الذي يدبّره لك من باتوا ينتظرونك على خوضه على أحرّ من الجمر…!

أما التابع «الإسرائيلي» وصاحب شركة الأسطول الأميركي على اليابسة الفلسطينية، فلن يجني من الرشوة الروسية لترامب إلا بعض عظامها. وهي سكوت الروسي المؤقت على صفقة القرن، في الوقت الذي خذله في أهمّ مطالبه الملحة ألا وهي إخراج إيران وحزب الله من سورية، أو من الجنوب السوري كحدّ أدنى، الأمر الذي ليس فقط لم يحصل، بل إنّ المستشار الإيراني والآخر من حزب الله صارا «ينوظران» عليه من على بعد أمتار من الجولان المحتلّ وصار الجنوب جنوبين…!

وفي هذا السياق علمت مصادرنا بأنّ أحد جنرالات الأركان «الإسرائيليين» قام بإطلاع نظير أوروبي له على جوهر ما دار في المكالمات الهاتفية بين بوتين ونتن ياهو، وكذلك بين ليبرمان وشويغو يوم 20/7/2018 والتي تناولت الوضع في سورية.

حيث أكد الإسرائيلي للأوروبي على ما يلي:

ـ فشل المحادثات الهاتفية في التوصل إلى أيّ نتيجة بخصوص الوجود الإيراني وحزب الله في سورية.

ـ أصبحت العلاقه «الإسرائيلية» الروسية تنحصر في نقطتين فقط. وهما: آلية التنسيق العسكري بين الجيشين بخصوص سورية.

عدم تدخل الروس في ايّ عمليات يقوم بها الجيش الإسرائيلي ضدّ أهداف إيرانية في سورية حسب قول الجنرال الإسرائيلي طبعاً .

وتابع قائلاً لنظيره الأوروبي: خيبة أملنا كبيرة جداً من روسيا، حيث لم يلتزموا بوعودهم لنا بأن لا يسمحوا لإيران وحزب الله بالوصول الى حدود الجولان!

في طهران العام 1943 اجتمع كلٌّ من ستالين وروزفلت وتشرشل في إطار ما عُرف في ما بعد بقمة النصر، ايّ انتصار الحلفاء على دول المحور النازي الفاشي . وهو ما تأكد في ما بعد بنهاية النازية والفاشية واستسلامهما للحلفاء متبلوراً في قمة يالطا الشهيرة…!

بانتظار أن تمرّ قمة طهران الثلاثية المرتقبة بخير والتي يفترض أن تضع رقبة العثماني الجديد على مقصلة التفاهم الإيراني الروسي، تذهب العيون شاخصة الى قمة يحدّدها الميدان السوري بعد تحرير كامل الرقة وإدلب حتى تنضج قمة المنتصرين في دمشق، والتي يفترض أن تجمع بين القيصر والإمام أو مَنْ يمثله والرئيس العربي الوحيد المتبقي من أيام زمن الكبار العرب، عندها فقط يمكن الحديث عن صفقة او تفاهم للمنتصرين حول نوع الجغرافيا السياسية التي تنتظر العالم برسم الخط العربي الإسلامي.

الى حين ذلك الزمن اليقين تبقى اليد على الزناد والعيون الى القدس مشدودة.

بعدنا طيبين قولوا الله…

Related Videos

Related Articles

Thursday thoughts: explorations in the Semitic dimension

Why is the world today (2018) the way that it is?

Consider these historical facts:

We have had centuries of revolution in the Western world.  Jews have played critical roles in these revolutions.

It is now 170 years since Marx’s Communist Manifesto was published.  1848 was known as a year of revolutions in Europe.

Modern psychiatry or psychology (psychoanalysis) was founded by several Jews in Europe in the late 1800s (Freud and his cohorts).

We have had 125 years of Zionism.

It has been 120 years since the “forged”, but strikingly prescient, Protocols were circulated.

Large scale emigration of Jews from eastern Europe into the United States begins in the waning years of the 19th century and accelerates greatly in the first 25 years of the 20th century.  This large influx of Jews with alien ideas begins to transform US society beginning in the administration of President Woodrow Wilson (one of the most damaging administrations in US history).

The world has endured a century of murderous, atheistic Bolshevism in various forms throughout the world.  Ethnic Jews foisted this program on to the world.

The Jew (Zionist) orchestrated Balfour Declaration (1917) brings America into the European War (World War One) resulting in a defeat for Germany and the punitive Versailles Treaty.  The seeds for a second world war are sown.

The Institute for Social Research (also known as The Frankfurt School) was started in Weimar Germany in the 1920s.  When Hitler came to power early in 1933, these Jewish social revolutionaries fled to New York and set up shop with the help of US Jews.  We have them to thank or blame for the destructive social engineering known today as the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s.

Powerful Jewish interests in Britain push the British to war with Germany in 1939.  The Jewish Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union have built the world’s largest army in history and await the opportunity to spread their revolution by force of arms.  This they do beginning in September, 1939 by annexing eastern Poland.  Then the USSR attacks Finland in late 1939.  In the spring of 1940, it is the Baltic States’ turn as these 3 small nation states are occupied by the Red Army.  Later in 1940, Stalin seizes part of Romania.  (There are many who believe that Hitler’s invasion in June, 1941 was a preemptive strike to forestall a Bolshevik onslaught against central and western Europe.)  Jews in the Roosevelt Administration opportunistically seize upon FDR’s infatuation with both Stalin and utopian communism and urge FDR to aid those countries at war with Germany, which FDR does through Lend-Lease.  As well, Soviet spies penetrate FDR’s government bureaucracy.  During the war, FDR’s policies and agreements favor the USSR at the cost of all other nations and peoples involved.  The outcome of the war is a victory for the Jewish banking interests in London and New York, and a victory for Jewish communists throughout Europe (with the enslavement of Christian nations in central and eastern Europe).

We have had 70 years of holocaustism, which seeks to inculcate the idea of a perpetual victimhood of the Jews in the minds of goyim (gentiles, non-Jews).  Obviously, when we obsess on alleged Jewish suffering, we are not likely to focus on Jewish villainy, or even suspect that such villainy exists.

Rabid and heretical Christian Zionism spreads widely in American Protestantism in the 1960s and 1970s.  The pro-Israeli lobby in the US is greatly strengthened by the support of millions of these deluded Christian Zionist voters, and this impacts US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Also in the 1960s, feminism is effectively hijacked by 3 Jewesses, Friedan, Abzug, and Steinem (half Jewish) and becomes radical or gender feminism which promotes enmity between the sexes.  Also, at this time, pornography spreads and is accepted in the culture.  Hugh Hefner was not the only Jew promoting and publishing pornography.  The adult film industry is largely run by Jews.

The world’s finances and financial markets are largely controlled by the interlocking Rothschild banking empire.  Financial panics and recessions/depressions can be caused at any time to wipe out middle class savings and make people more dependent upon government “assistance”.

We are being told that nationalism anywhere in the world is “anti-Semitism” by default.  Another lie from the Jews.

The elders in Israel threaten the world with nuclear holocaust via their Samson Option if Israel’s existence is seriously threatened or in jeopardy.  Long before the revelations of Mordechai Vanunu in the mid 1980s, the world knew that Israel possessed atomic weapons.  The Israeli threat of atomic holocaust for the world cannot simply be ignored.

The current world order, or the New World Order in progress, is a Semitic scam and sham.  We are all to be serfs and debt slaves on the global plantation (another collectivist, Talmudic utopia) ruled from Jerusalem.  Christian Zionists, lackeys for the Jews, may patrol the fields with whips in their hands as overseers for the absentee Jewish landlords.

We are all Palestinians now, with a life sentence in this New World Order.

Has not humanity paid a high enough price for the arrogance, deceit and betrayal of these chauvinistic Jews, for their crimes, for Jewish villainy?

conclusions and recommendations

We have lamented before that the Jewish Revolutionary Nature is incompatible with Western, Christian Civilization.  The above noted historical movements and facts demonstrate the truth of this position.  (An in-depth analysis of each of the above movements is obviously beyond the scope of this blog post.  However, the interested reader can do an Internet search for articles and books on all of the above noted historical movements and find the Jewish influence and control behind each.)  The Jews when acting on this revolutionary nature, which seems to be embedded in their genes as it persists from generation to generation, subvert the culture of whatever host society (nation) they live in.  They act to divert and deform the normal, natural development and progress of that culture.  It is a zero sum game that the Jews seek to always win.

You may cry out that not all Jews are social revolutionaries.  You would be quite right, but that does not alter the above facts.  In the Bolshevik Revolution, not every Russian Jew was a communist, but nearly every communist leader and inciter of violent revolution was an ethnic Jew.  The Cheka and NKVD mass killers were disproportionately Jewish.

The current trajectory of world society is for greater loss of freedom and more intrusive governmental control of our lives, and for Cultural Marxism and multiculturalism to continue to divide and demoralize western and Christian peoples.

Western historiography must be reformed by people who are free of bias and are capable of objectivity when investigating and chronicling historical events.  Censorship of facts solely because these offend the Jews or expose their villainy can no longer be tolerated.  We need publishing houses that are not controlled by Jewish ownership.

No more wars should be fought by Christian peoples for these damned Jews and their nefarious schemes!!

No more believing in this Chosen People nonsense to give the Jews a free pass any longer.

Humanity cannot afford the cost of Jewish Supremacism and domination any longer.

copyright 2018 – larrysmusings.com

حق تقرير المصير للكرد… ومعهم للعرب والترك أيضاً؟

سبتمبر 16, 2017

د. عصام نعمان

هزمت بريطانيا وفرنسا السلطنة العثمانية في الحرب العام 1918. أعلن مصطفى كمال اتاتورك وفاتها بإقامة الجمهورية في تركيا العام 1924. اختلف الورثة من تركٍ وعرب وكرد على حصر إرثها وتقاسم تركتها وما زالوا. المفارقة أنّ «قاتلَيّ» السلطنة تولّيا، من خلال مؤتمرات ومعاهدات نظّماها، تحديد هويات الورثة وعددهم وحصصهم الارثية. أقرّا للترك دولةً في برّ الاناضول. اصطنعا للعرب بضع دويلات في بلاد الشام وبلاد الرافدين. وعدا الكرد بدولة في مفاوضات معاهدة سافر Severes 1920 ثم أنكراها عليهم لاحقاً. منذ ذلك التاريخ تدير دول أوروبا، ومعها أميركا، نزاعاً متمادياً بين ورثة شرعيين وآخرين مفترضين للإرث العثماني التليد.

الكرد كانوا وما زالوا ساخطين على ما انتهت إليه قسمة التركة العثمانية: غالبيتهم أُبقيت في تركيا الكمالية. أقليتهم جُعلت من نصيب العراق وسورية. أما مَن كان منهم يعيش خارج السلطنة العثمانية فقد أُلحِق بالكيانات السياسية القائمة وأهمّها إيران.

دول الغرب قرّرت، اذاً، مصير الكرد. ليس مصير الكرد فحسب، بل مصير الترك والعرب والأرمن أيضاً، وهي ما

زالت تتلاعب بمصائر هذه الأقوام بقدر ما تتيحه موازين القوى الدولية. في هذا المجال، نشأت مفارقات لافتة. فالترك الذين أسقطت أوروبا امبراطوريتهم وتصرفت بـ «ممتلكاتها» انحازوا إلى دولها في الصراعات الدولية التي أعقبت الحرب العالمية الثانية 1945-1939. والعرب الذين كانت بريطانيا وعدت الشريف حسين الهاشمي بدولة تضمّ الولايات العربية المطلوب سلخها عن السلطنة العثمانية أُحبِطوا فارتضى بعض قادتهم نصيبه من التركة التي جرى تقاسمها، واعترض بعضهم الآخر. أما جمهورهم الأوسع فكان وما زال يتوق الى إقامة دولة واحدة تضمّ الشتات.

اليوم يعود بعض الكرد بقيادة مسعود البرزاني الى طرح مسألة حق تقرير المصير، وأقرّ تنظيم لذلك استفتاء في 25 الشهر الحالي ليشارك فيه سكان المناطق العراقية الواقعة تحت سلطة قواته البيشمركة . الدول الحاضنة لسكانٍ أكراد تركيا، العراق، سورية، إيران رفضت مشروع الاستفتاء، كما أنّ الولايات المتحدة أعلنت رفضها ؟ له أيضاً. بعض هذه الدول رفض مبدأ الاستفتاء وطلب إلغاءه. بعضها الآخر طلب تأجيله. البرزاني أعلن تمسكه بإجرائه في موعده مع انّ قوى سياسية كردية عدّة تعارض إجراءه في الوقت الحاضر. الى أين من هنا؟

يرسم إصرار البرزاني على إجراء الاستفتاء رغم المعارضة الدولية الواسعة علاقة استفهام كبيرة. ذلك أنّ القيادات الكردية المتعاقبة حرصت بعد الحرب العالمية الثانية على التعاون مع دول الغرب، ولا سيما بريطانيا والولايات المتحدة، والانخراط في مخططاتها وسياساتها وحروبها لدرجة حملت بعض معارضيها في العراق على تسميتها «تاكسي الدول»، فهل يتجاوز البرزاني تقليداً اتبعه معظم أسلافه ويمضي في الاستفتاء إلى النهاية برغم الدول المعارِضة… وكيف ستكون النهاية؟

يرى بعض المراقبين أنّ البرزاني يناور ولا يصادم، وأنه يحاول استغلال حال الاضطراب والفوضى التي يعيشها العراق وحال الشجار والاختلاف التي تمرّ بها الدول الإقليمية والدول الكبرى كي يعزّز مركزه التفاوضي إزاء حكومة بغداد بغية حملها على تقديم تنازلات في مسألتين رئيسيتين: إقرار «حق» الأكراد في محافظة كركوك وفي المناطق المتنازع عليها في محافظات نينوى وصلاح الدين وديالى التي تضع البيشمركة يدها عليها، وتكبير حصة إقليم كردستان في ميزانية الدولة الاتحادية وفي عائدات النفط المستخرَج من منابعه في الإقليم المذكور.

فوق ذلك، يبتغي البرزاني تنازلاً آخر: موافقة جميع الأطراف، العراقية والإقليمية والدولية، على تأجيل الاستفتاء وليس على إلغائه. ذلك أنّ تأجيل الاستفتاء ينطوي على معنى الإقرار بحق تقرير المصير، رغم الانصياع إلى مطلب إرجاء تنفيذه، بينما يعني إلغاء الاستفتاء إنكار حق تقرير المصير برمّته.

قد يتوصّل أطراف النزاع إلى تسويةٍ للخلاف بالتوافق على مصطلح ديبلوماسي يؤمّن مخرجاً ولو مؤقتاً من حال التأزّم والحرج، أو قد يُترك البرزاني لمصيره في تنفيذ استفتاء لن يكون له في الظروف الراهنة مفعول أو مردود عملي. لكن سؤالاً مصيرياً يبقى مطروحاً وضاغطاً على جميع أطراف الصراع: كيف يمكن الخروج من المعضلة التاريخية؟

المعضلة التاريخية هي حاجة جميع أقوام السلطنة العثمانية المهزومة إلى تقرير المصير من جهة، ومن جهة أخرى ضرورة ألاّ يمارس كلٌّ من هذه الأطراف حقه في وجه الآخرين وعلى حسابهم. فالعرب والكرد والترك وغيرهم من الأقوام لهم الحق بتقرير المصير الذي مارسته عنهم عنوةً بريطانيا وفرنسا غداةَ انهيار السلطنة العثمانية باصطناع كياناتٍ سياسية هشّة وقيامهما بتوزيعهم عليها اعتباطاً بينها أو في داخلها.

كيف تمارس هذه الأقوام حقها في تقرير المصير بعد أن انتهت الرقعة الجغرافية التي كانت تسيطر عليها السلطنة العثمانية في المشرق الى ما انتهت اليه من كياناتٍ متعددة، ركيكة ومتنازعة؟ أبالاحتراب في ما بينها أم بالحوار؟ وكيف يكون الحوار في هذا الزمن الصعب؟

الجواب: برسم مسار طويل يبدأ بتعايش الأقوام داخل كلّ كيانٍ من كيانات بلاد العرب والترك واتحادها في طلب الحرية والديمقراطية وفي بناء دولة مدنية على أسس حكم القانون والعدالة والتنمية. والمأمول أنّ بلوغ هذه الأقوام حال الدولة المدنية الديمقراطية يضعها أمام خيارين: 1 البقاء فيها بإطار نظام مركزي ديمقراطي أو اتحادي فدرالي ديمقراطي، أو 2 الحوار والتفاوض مع الأطراف المعنيين لتحقيق الاستقلال بمودة وإحسان.

كِلا الخيارين أقلّ كلفةً من النزاع والاحتراب.

وزير سابق

TRUMP AND PUTIN PLAY “CHICKEN” AS RISK OF CONFRONTATION INCREASES EXPONENTIALLY; TRUMP IS WEST’S SICK MAN

Ziad Fadel 

I am sitting at my desk watching the spectacle of a Citgo Station across the street being forcibly changed to a British Petroleum outlet.  You know how I feel about the British, and, in point of fact, I always filled up at Citgo because I knew it was a Venezuelan company.  Idiot Trump has ordered all Citgo stations to close immediately and they have started.  The imbecile at the White House has just given Venezuela to Russia or China – on a silver plate, of course – the same exact way G.W. Bush handed Iraq over to Iran.  It is now very clear that Trump has gone insane.

Witness also the inevitability of confrontation now in Syria. It is true, the U.S. has aborted all efforts to unseat Dr. Assad.  But, it has redoubled the project to turn Syria into a crazy-quilt of statelets, some loyal to the U.S., and some, grudgingly loyal to Moscow.  Let me disabuse Trump of the idea that such a plan has any chance of working and let me openly warn the Kurds that they are playing with the lives of their own people in a manner that can only be described as reckless, self-destructive and idiotic.

There will be no Kurdish state carved out of Syria, and it’s not because the Kurds have little history in northern Syria.  It’s because their movement is backed by the U.S. and an extension of the Zionist plan to survive in the Near East, a plan that is, as the late Dr. George Habash wrote, “inherently self-contradictory”.  Benjamin Franklin said something even worse.

Trump’s Zionist plan is doomed to utter failure because the U.S. cannot get any regional support for it.  Turkey is perfervidly opposed to anything suggesting a Kurdish state abutting its borders with Anatolia, a region already on fire with Kurdish nationalism.  Iran is just as apprehensive about such a project because, as I wrote, the scheme is the work of the United States influenced by the Zionist Apartheid State.  Syria is obviously adverse to it because it foresees the dismantling of Post-WW1 Syria and represents a state built on collusion with the most vicious enemy of the Arab people, the Slav-rooted ersatz Jews with their inbuilt crypto-Nazi ethos of superiority.

The Kurds are banking on the mutually destructive power of both the Russian Federation and the U.S.  They have been told by several American military advisors that the decision has been made to “adhere” to the plan and that there will be no repetition of Operation Desert Storm One where Shi’ite fighters were encouraged to fight Saddam only to find the U.S. abandoning them to him and his army after the war was over.  The Kurds have been told there would be no abandonment of their cause because they are the new linchpin of American strategy in the Near/Middle East.  That has, apparently, pleased them.  The U.S. has also sought to enlist the aid of local Arabs and Syriacs in the northeastern part of Syria by paying handsome salaries, a tactic employed successfully by the toxic British with the simian Arabians during the war against the Ottoman Empire.

As the mostly-Kurd militia of the inaptly named, Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) slug their way into Al-Raqqa so that Trump can trumpet his great military victory, they are also pointedly moving into eastern Dayr El-Zor Province where they may find themselves exchanging artillery fire with the Syrian Army and its allies.  This is how world wars start.

Let us think of Trump’s “Art of the Deal” and consider this one proposal as a corollary:

Can Trump also write the “Art of the Bluff”?  At what point will Trump push on with a plan to set up his fantasy Kurdish kingdom in northeast Syria while Turks, Iranians, Syrians, Iraqis, Lebanese are pushing even harder to undermine it?

When will U.S. jets bomb indigenous Syrian forces to prevent the inevitable rout of their fledgling Kurd militia?  And if American bombers strike Syrian forces, will the Russians interdict?  Or is Putin also bluffing?  If he’s not bluffing, and the U.S. and Russia face off in Syria, how much longer will it be before the two sides start moving to DefCon 5?  If anything ends Trump’s career, it will be just one miscalculation in Syria.

And how many crises can Trump handle? 

We are watching the U.S. prove, once again, that Americans cannot learn from history.  Trump is actually sending more forces to Afghanistan to “beef up” American firepower without consulting Congress.  He is challenging China in its own sphere of influence.  He is moving toward confrontation with North Korea.  He is actively trying to overthrow the government in Caracas while not consulting Congress, again.  He is imposing more sanctions on Russia, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea.  He is despised by all allied leaders from Macron to Merkel.  He is universally viewed as a kook in every capital.  There is open discussion about impeaching him or removing him from office for reasons of incapacity pursuant to Article XXV of the U.S. Constitution   And he’s been in office for only 7 months!

If we are on a collision course with an ugly destiny, it’s because of the plague of Zionism.  No other movement has killed more people.  It was there when Corporal Adolph Hitler was fighting in the trenches of WWI.  It was there to guide the hands of genocidal murderers on both sides of the Atlantic during WWII.  And now it has reared its hideous face, once again, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria.  There is no end to this contagion until the contagion meets its end.

Witness the almost surreal American diplomatic effort to bring peace between the Palestinians and their Khazar adversaries.  Who does Trump send?  Why, a fella named Kushner, a fella named Greenblatt, and a fella named Friedman.  All orthodox Jews to settle a case neutrally.  This defies all reason.  Why would you send 3, I repeat 3, orthodox Jews to Palestine to help Arabs resolve their conflict with orthodox Jews?  This is a world out of balance.  The Hopi word is, as I have written before, “Koyaanisqatsi”. Why it’s like sending George Lincoln Rockwell to mediate at Charlottesville!!

The Syrian Army and its allies are moving out of Homs Province with reinforcements pouring into the ranks of the Tiger Republican Guard Division.  They will be on the shores of the Euphrates soon and the siege of the provincial capital will end soon.  After that, God only knows what even greater misery will be foisted on the Syrian people by a demented president in Washington D.C.

Ziad

Read more 

 

 

The Balfour Declaration – A Century of Jewish Power

May 17, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

This year, Palestinians and their supporters mark the 100th anniversary of The Balfour Declaration, a written statement from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour, to Walter Rothschild, a leader of the British Jewish community, in favour of the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

For Palestinians, The Balfour Declaration was the beginning of their plight: a century of ethnic cleansing at the hands of European newcomers who claim Palestine as their historic home. Yet, for some reason, supporters of the Palestinians are desperate to suppress discussion of the motivation for the Balfour Declaration – how and why did it come about?

The Balfour Declaration provides solid evidence that the dominance of Jewish political lobbies in world affairs is not really a ‘new development.’ In 1917, at the peak of WWI, it was up to a few Jewish financiers and lobbyists to decide the fate of countries, continentsand the outcome of global conflicts.

In his invaluable book, The Pity of it All, Israeli historian Amos Elon suggests that the 1917 Balfour Declaration was at least partially motivated by the British government’s desire to win the support of pro-German American Jews so that they would help to pull the USA into the war. 

Elon argues that at the beginning of the war,  German- American Jewish financierssidedwith the Germans and would reject any possible alliance between the USA and England.  “Jacob H. Schiff, head of Kuhn, Loeb—at the time the largest private bank in the United States after J. P. Morgan—declared that he could no more disavow his loyalty to Germany than he could renounce his own parents. Schiff prayed for Germany’s victory. In a statement to the New York Times on November 22, 1914, he charged the British and the French with attempting to destroy Germany for reasons of trade.” (The Pity Of It All, pg. 455)

And German-American Jews were not alone in the Jewish community.  Russian-American Jews also supported Germany in the war.

 “Eastern European Jews in the United States, repelled by the anti-Semitism of czarist Russia, were equally pro-German. In Russia itself, Jews of the Pale greeted German troops advancing into Poland, Byelorussia, and the Ukraine as liberators. In a sense, they were.” (ibid)

According to Elon, the Brits encountered an American Jewish problem.

“The British government took these developments very seriously. In a fit of paranoia, the British ambassador in Washington even suspected the existence of a veritable German Jewish conspiracy in the United States directed at Britain.” (Ibid)

Elon’s conclusion is clear.

“The 1917 Balfour Declaration, calling for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine, was at least partly motivated by the British government’s desire to win support among pro-German American Jews.” (ibid)

Elon’s reading of the circumstances that led to the Balfour Declaration is pretty much the same as  Benjamin Freedman’s in his notorious 1961 address. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8OmxI2AYV8

Freedman states that Zionists offered Britain their support in pulling the USA into the war in return for a British commitment to make Palestine into a Jewish homeland in the future. Freedman believed that Germany’s post-WW I animosity towards Jews stemmed from what they regarded as the betrayal and complicity of German-Jewish financiers in their defeat.

100 years after the Balfour Declaration, Palestinian solidarity enthusiasts choose to avoid discussion on the global Judeo-centric politics that led to the  declaration,  even though it was arguably the most significant event that shaped the Middle East and present day Palestinian reality. This reluctance suggests that the solidarity movement is itself an occupied territory. Once again, we observe that the discourse of the oppressed is controlled by the sensitivities of the oppressor.

To learn more:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nakba-history-and-the-origins-of-the-jewish-state-the-role-of-the-balfour-declaration/5338365

Trillary’s Victory

 

Trillary’s Victory

by Jimmie Moglia

April 13, 2017

The Western media has launched a volley of sycophantic praise of Trump’s victory in the great American raid on a Syrian airport, which produced new dead, though fewer than what is now routinely accepted as a lugubrious normal.

Nevertheless, it seems that the US has dropped the pretense and decided to intervene directly in the Syrian conflict. A conflict it wanted and prepared, while hiding behind the mask of a civil war.

The astonished world now asks, is Trump a Coca-Cola cow-boy, is Trump a prisoner of a cabal that forces him to obey or be impeached, is Trump a supreme Machiavel, waging war and sacrificing a few dozens Syrians (military and civilians, who cares?) to consolidate his apparently waning power? Considering that war is the only factor bonding the will of the American “people,” or at least of those claiming to represent it.

For sure, the litany of imbecilic praise of Trump by the Western media, celebrates the conversion of a Trump into a Hillary and the consequent victory of Trillary.

Sometimes what history teaches us can be a curse, for it increases the anger at the hypocrisy dominant in the tragedies, now almost routine, caused by the geopolitical rogue. Including indignation on command for massacres of civilians attributed to others, while remaining dumb and silent at those of its own making.

The warped Western narrative on Syria matches the totally missing narrative on Yemen, for there the holocaust makers are the Saudis, supplied by the British and the Americans. And all this to establish an assumed preeminence of morality by the US and its “coalition of the puppets.”

Their barbaric invasions may kill millions, but when some particularly sub-human act is exposed, it is always a mistake, a fatality – though those who expose it can be severely punished (e.g. Bradley Manning).

The opponents, instead, always act intentionally, even when what they are alleged to have done goes against their interest – as clearly is the case with the event in question.

During the new US Secretary of State Tillerson’s visit to Moscow, Lavrov politely reminded him of some, quite recent US-invented narratives to justify wars. Tillerson answered sincerely, “Let’s not look at the past.” Translation, if we lied in the past it does not matter because we shouldn’t remember, and if we do not remember it follows that we didn’t lie. It’s pure Orwell, though I surmise that Tillerson does not know (or remember…).

As for the missile attack on Syria, it seems that, militarily, apart from the killings, it could hardly be considered a success. Apparently the airport was quickly back in operation and, allegedly, of the 59 missiles launched, only 23 reached the target.

But the following very short video is meaningful. It shows an MSNBC puppet presenter ecstatic at the view of the US missiles being launched. He defines them as “something beautiful,” in utter disregard of the deaths the missiles caused. https://youtu.be/wcbYM_Rdm0o

“Beauty” that, by extension, would also apply to the crashing towers of 9/11 – if the goon in question had had the decency to think about it.

Yet, we must seek in this mode of thought the root of the collective evil. It is an evil too diffused to be accidental and too deep to be individual.

Is there concern about the death of civilians? No, it is despotism in the name of freedom, and fanaticism in the name of reason. A will to believe the unbelievable, an upside-down revolution, where the enemies are those guilty of existing outside the scheme of worldwide dominance by the exceptional nation.

It’s XXI century Jacobinism, and the parallel with the French Revolution is not superficial. Between 1793 and 1794 the Jacobins delivered terror to France in the name of freedom and acted with great un-reason in the name of reason.

Today the terror is unleashed on foreign unbelievers – so far. Though the “National Security” machine has more than a superficial resemblance to the Jacobins’ “Committees of Public Safety.” Like them, the American Jacobins claim to have evidence of the enemy’s crimes but cannot disclose it for “public safety.”

Even the recent “Fake News” phenomenon follows a similar Jacobin script. Americans are told that information delivered by proscribed media channels is false. It is a small but remarkable step towards banning those who question the orthodoxy of the thought-unique, and the value of that great system of counter-truth, referred to as neo-liberal ideology.

Hopefully, we are still far from Erdogan’s mode of government, but the trail has been officially inaugurated. Though some feel that time is running out, and the irreparable and the unimaginable lay around the corner.

Still, let’s for a moment forget (following Tillerson’s advice), the colossal US lies of recent yesterdays, and only consider the claims that “Assad did it” versus the claims that “Assad did not.”

Lacking factual proof, I rely on physiognomy and follow the theory (and the practice) of the Swiss Abbot Johann Kaspar Lavater. Who, in the 18th century and working at it for a lifetime, produced an enormous 5-volume manual, containing the drawings of 6,800 facial expressions. He concluded that they accurately describe all the possible character and character traits of any living man.

Applying Lavater’s method, Assad is more credible than Trump and, for that matter, than the last 6 US presidents. Even compounding their total credibility, and excluding macroscopic dishonorable episodes, such as Clinton’s “I never had sex with that woman” declaration. made without a blush of shame, in front of a public of millions, mesmerized by sex, scandals and sordidness.

Even the pleasantly plump president of North Korea appears inherently more credible than, for example, the sorry figure of the so-called US representative at the UN. A despicable woman with the soul of an excrement and who “is not worth the dust that the rude wind blows in her face.”

I watched several interviews given by Assad to the press. As readers will know, he is a physician, specialized in ophthalmology. He speaks to the journalist and answers his/her questions as a physician would respond to the questions of a patient. There isn’t the slightest pretense or affectation of authority. It is his demeanor that conveys authority. He meets the eye of the interviewer, while instinctively avoiding any gesture or expression that suggests an assertion of authority, and consequent intimidation. At the end of the interview, he thanks the journalist and wishes him well, in the same way a physician would end a visit with a patient.

From what we know of his life, Assad does not need to be president to have a job. I would surmise that Syria needs him more than he needs Syria. And in more than one interview, he stated that if the next elections produce another president, he will dutifully resign.

While…. on the other side of the pond, the few weeks of Trumps in office have been sufficient to shatter the fantasy, or the fancy, of those who believed that a billionaire of questionable background would fracture the fetish of the exceptional nation, and become the Che Guevara of a reformed country.

The fetish is alive and well – as is the prospect of billions in profits deriving from the smoke of bombs, missiles, guns, tanks, planes, drones and sundry other tools of veritable mass destruction.

It does not matter that logic and common sense contradict the official narrative of the attack on Syria, as a rock falling on an instrument of precision and crushing it. The magnitude of the lie is sufficient, by itself, to show the magnitude of the interests that the lie is meant to protect.

The event is an occasion to remember the prophetic words of the despicable, diabolic and dishonored Karl Rove, second in command to Bush Jr., when attempting to pass for true an uncontestable lie, “We create our own reality.”

Now, though indignation is the natural response to the latest example of American exceptionalism, indignation is the enemy of curiosity. For the ordinary history of specific events produces explanations, but only curiosity about the complete history of a nation produces a verdict.

In the instance, we may start with the declaration of independence, whereby all men are created equal, less the slaves because they were not human, the Indians because they were not Europeans, and the poor because they were not rich.

Then, in our curious search, we can add as reminders,

— The Shay rebellion that drowned in blood those who had actually fought the battles of the revolution and were made paupers after the continental dollar was declared worthless.

–The War of 1812, unsuccessful but intended to bring democracy to Canada by invading and annexing it.

— The extermination of the Indian nation.

— The Mexican war to annex the West (and Mexico, were it not that Mexico had abolished slavery and re-introducing it was deemed too difficult).

— The civil war begun to prevent a secession, but in the middle of which it was discovered to be fought to abolish slavery.

— The war against Spain to annex Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines, justified by the false-flag attack on the steamship Maine.

— The bankers’ war, that is the US participation in WW1 against Germany, a nation that had absolutely no claim against the US, nor ever even hinted at antagonistic postures.

— Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden**

— Korea and Vietnam

— Guatemala, Nicaragua, Granada, Panama.

— Since the 80s, the “fourth generation” warfare, launched in Yugoslavia, but whose formal baptism was 9/11, the mother of all false-flags.

— The destruction of Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and (for all intents and purposes) of Syria

— The creation of ISIS, the first and best Orwellian enemy in human history

— etc.

History’s verdict declares itself. Even so, we may recover our cool when we will succeed in understanding the automatism with which the laws of the social machine operate.

When we will understand which selection and force-training the actors of the crimes were subjected to. For the Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas and the Trumps are the mechanical product of a collective operation begun long ago.

We may then, perhaps, cease to weigh the social product (American actions and policies) with the same scale with which we measure individual beings.

Then we will realize that we must understand more than we know already or think necessary to know. To understand in order to deplore, though maybe not to curse. A tall order when witnessing the events as they unfold.

For there is an unruly part of the soul, which refuses to heed all counsels and considerations – in the instance, to deplore but not to curse. It observes the crimes engineered by the current wretched few, and can hardly refrain from cursing.

They are crimes committed in the name of an abstract fiction called “the people.” For let there be no illusion – the people are great until they remain an abstraction. But the concrete individual, real though contributing to the abstraction, is shit.

Which brings to mind the reaction of a character in the Tempest, when he meets with the monster Caliban, “I do smell all horse-piss; at which my nose is in great indignation.”

Except that here we are not dealing with an individual Caliban-style monster, but with the evil soul of evil humans, pretending to represent the will of an abstract “people.”

** The use of aviation as a means to provoke terror was first foretold during World War I by an Italian general. But another school of thought eventually prevailed – namely that fighter planes would neutralize the large and less maneuverable bombers.

This had a historically important consequence. The Americans and the British built their air-force based on bombers rather than on fighter planes. With the expressed purpose (at least in the mind of Churchill), to use them both for tactical bombing and for the mass elimination of people – “to depress their morale” were the terms used. Those interested may watch the (2) videos on the destruction of Dresden, carried out two months before the end of WW2, which killed 135,000 civilians, almost twice as many as at Hiroshima (https://youtu.be/_V8aV5l5f9k part 1 and https://youtu.be/0BQL9nkr_SMpart 2).

Whereas the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese and the Russians were late in building large bombers with extended range. They only had small bombers, for tactical short-range use. Germany was too late in building a large bomber. When they finally did, it was not used for military purposes.

Thanks to an Italian journalist I am also reminded of an episode at the end of WW2. Near Milan there is a monument to the martyr children of a little town named Gorla.

The allied commander of the raid had made a mistake in calculating the route, and found himself off course, with the bombs still in the bay. Rather than waiting to drop them when he was at sea or in a non-populated area he dropped them on the town, hitting an elementary school and killing 184 children.

Graphics. Courtesy of Vincenzo Apicella

David Icke and the meaning of Jewish power.

January 24, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Jewish power is the power to suppress discussion on Jewish power.

Seemingly this power is waning these days.

Jewish media outlets have reported today that campaigners are calling for a Manchester venue to be fined after it hosted “notorious anti-Semite” David Icke in front of a sold-out crowd this weekend.

But what is it that makes Icke into a “notorious anti-Semite?”

He reckons that Jews control the world and started WWI. Icke also believes that Jews dominated the Versailles Peace Conference and created the circumstances which made the Second World War inevitable.

It is rather obvious to every reasonable human being that in a free society, Icke is entitled to his thoughts and should be free to share them with the rest of us.

Apparently, Stephen Silverman, the director of Campaign against Anti-Semitism (CAA) doesn’t agree at all. Jewish history, he believes, can’t be discussed freely. But can you think of any other people who attempt to block the rest of us from looking into their past? Can Muslims, for instance,  stop us from looking into their history? As things stand, even the British ruling class doesn’t attempt to prevent us from looking into the crimes of British imperialism.

In Britain, some Jewish organisations attempt to stifle the discussion of the Jewish past.  They probably know that they have a lot to hide. The truth of the matter is that Jews are often ashamed of their history. Early Zionism was, in fact, a promise to wipe out the Jewish past and introduce a new Jewish beginning on someone’s else land…. 

I learned today that Stephen Silverman isn’t just concerned with Icke’s take on Jewish history, he is also disturbed by the fact that some gentiles have managed to profit from Icke’s popularity. “Not only did the O2 Apollo allow him to address their packed venue for twelve hours, they profited from it.”

Silverman knows that looking at the current international blunders (inflicted on us by the likes of Soros, Goldman Sachs, Israel, neocons and others) in historical perspectives can’t be ignored anymore.

David Icke’s is on the road at the moment. Israel and its Sayanim are desperately trying to stop him for a reason…he is, obviously,  a truth teller.

What if I told you that a vacuum cleaner is not dangerous? by Scott

Via The Saker

What if I told you that a vacuum cleaner is not dangerous? by Scott

The Old Rome and the Third Rome came together and they are winning. Cat Motja

The Battle for liberation of Germany. Part I.

Recently while talking to my German pal, I said that Russians liked Germans more than any other Europeans. With the exception of Serbs, of course. He swallowed his beer and didn’t respond, probably because he didn’t believe me.

Next, I saw some of Motja’s thoughts and ideas about Germany, which were very similar to mine.

As an illustration of some of Cat’s points, I want to begin with a story of a young Russian nurse, who worked in one of the Moscow hospitals where she met a young German doctor who came there to do a year-long medical fellowship.

They liked each other, they dated, they fell in love and decided to start a family together.

He thought that for his career it would be better for him to work in Germany, and he went back home and took his bride along with him.

A month later, however, she returned to Moscow, and told to all her friends and wrote on her blog that she had escaped absolute horror, and that she would never, ever return to Germany. Naturally, people asked her legitimate questions like “Is he a sadist?” and “Did he torture you?”

Her answer was: “No, not at all. Actually he is a perfectly nice guy.”

Since he was the one working and she was enrolled at school, they rented a small apartment that they kept absolutely freezing, because it was too expensive to turn on the heat.

After coming home from work, he would turn every single light off and sit in the dark, for the same reason they never watched TV. They never went out, never went to a bar or a party, never invited friends over, and no one ever invited them. For dinner he would take one slice of meat, one potato and one piece of bread and he would serve the same for her. She wasn’t allowed to flush the toilet during the day, for fear of the water bill.

People wrote comments to her saying that it could be because he was the only one working and that things would be different once she got a job. She said that didn’t believe this to be true, because (and this is the most important part) he was absolutely happy with his life and considered this way of living to be the best and the only way. He even criticized Russians for being wasteful for living in warm apartments, having many holidays with so much food and going out too frequently, since it wasn’t productive.

As far as I remember she soon married some Russian guy and went on having a life that most young professional Russians have, which might look from outside as having too much of good time.

To get an idea, glimpse at these candid pics of the Russian villagers’ life.

The abandoned groom went on living his frugal, German life — which is getting promising every moment in terms of becoming even more frugal.

What I am trying to say is that how incredibly easy is it to indoctrinate people into believing that self-abuse and depravity is good for them. How easy is it to instill into them an idea that unnecessary sacrifice is their national character trait.

 

===

From Cat Motja’s twitter feed

As a reminder, back in 1996 when the US and international occupational regime in Russia had rigged election and re-elected Yeltsin for the second time, it was Chubais who had conveyed the threat of the Western governments. On Feb 6, 1996 in Davos Chubais said, ” if a communist elected as president of Russia this would inevitably lead to BLOODSHED.”

Do you understand? They were saying to the Russia’s military and security services that they would drown the country in  blood, if their occupational government is toppled.

This week in Davos…

  • Chubais:World has turned upside down. This kind of horror in Davos I remember only once, in 2009 at the time of the financial collapse. This year the most correct description of the common feeling in Davos is the feeling of horror from the global political catastrophe.”

Commenting this Chubais’s interview, Peskov said: “We don’t know what’s going on in Davos, but here in Moscow everything is in order, there is no “horror,” we keep working.”

Among the menagerie of magical creatures populating the Slavic folklore, it has been noticed a house-elf type of evil spirit who, existing along with people in their dwellings, creates mayhem and devours positive energy. The creature’s name is Chubas in Russian, Chubis in Ukraine and Chubais in Latvian. The creature doesn’t eat bread and meat, doesn’t drink kvas, but nourishes itself on people’s grief and pain. First, chubais moves into just one house, and if it isn’t chased out, it can devastate an entire region. In fairytales it’s being depicted as a rusty colored rat with human face.

I didn’t write about so called “assassination attempt” in Macedonia in December.  I will write about this later, when I get more facts, but in case someone from Macedonia reads this, please don’t believe when media tells you that Russia is behind “color revolution,” political assassinations, or any kind of putsch.

There is a way out….

Putin and Germany

  • In August 2014, President Putin said that we can never forget the lessons of the World War II. However, German people cannot be held for thousands of years  responsible for what Hitler had done.  Many Germans had died fighting with fascism, also.

Our country was in war not with Germany, but with the Nazi Germany. Germans were the first victims of Nazism,”  said Putin.

A Russia-Germany Military union would make all other military unions obsolete.

 

Their favorite thing to do is to separate us into groups and then to pin us against each other.

Let’s take, for example, this innocuous text title: “Whom should WE consider to be Slavs?’

It’s an interview with Vladimir Napolskih, corresponding member of Russia’s Academy of Science RAS, doctor of history, professor, senior researcher of the Institute of social communication at Udmurt state University.

Accordingly, WE call those people Slavic who speak Slavic languages or at least think in Slavic languages.”

Thus , the Slavs lived in Eastern Germany in the middle ages, but most of them (except for the Sorbs) lost their language and identity, and today their descendants, the Germans, which impossible to call Slavs, and to separate them from the Germans “of non-Slavic origin” is also impossible.”

Do you understand how this info virus works? They tell us that if we live across the border from Russia, we are not Russians, even if we speak the Russian language. We are Ukrainian or Belorussian.  If some of us live across the next border and don’t speak a Slavic language, they are not even Slavs, teaches Mr. Napolskih.  For thousands of years they were Slavs, but suddenly, in one day they stopped being them. He even suggests to us that we don’t know who we are because we “lost our identity.” Do you get this?

Forget about some alleged “brilliant genetic research” that can allegedly prove one’s relation to someone living thousand years ago. This research are not available for Slavic people. Instead, some members of the Russia’s Academy of Science use a rule of thumb: if you speak a Slavic language, you are Slavic, if you speak a different language, you are not. If you live on the territory of Russia, you are Russian. If you happened to be across an artificially created border, you automatically stopped being Russian. So, if I speak and think in English, that makes me automatically Anglo-Saxon. Right?

This what cat Motja calls the Matrix: a carefully created web of delusion of the Western liberal ideology, which slices and pulls apart everything that constitutes human life, from countries, nations, states, legal systems and economies, to religion, science and knowledge itself. And why stop there? They went and deconstructed human biology by dividing us into a dozen of genders, and millions of ethnic and social groups.

Out of this plethora of new entities, what nationality they dedicated to be an “aggressor?”  Russians.

Now, guess what gender is being called an “evil oppressor?”  The white men.

This infallibly leads me to a logical conclusion that the liberal ideology wasn’t created neither by Russians, nor by white men.

I recommend you to listen to  Sargon of Akkad’s lecture on the Death of Social Justice that culminated in Donald Trump’s victory.  Only one caveat, he offers a brilliant analyses of losers, however doesn’t say much about the winners.

I think he is afraid to say what Cat Motja says:

“The Old Rome and the Third Rome came together and they are winning. “

 

=====

Cat Motja on Germany, Russia, Old Romans and beyond

Part I

Those who say that Putin will become stronger because Trump won don’t understand the process that takes place.  Trump was able to win only because Putin has fought for years and won against our common enemies.

Concerning Germans and the orchestrated attacks on them: Germany is our brotherly nation. There ARE two strongest nations in this universe, Germans and Russians. That’s why the enemies of this world consolidate their efforts to place us on a collision course.

It has been like this for centuries. First they separated us, then they do everything to instill a mutual animosity towards each other, and after that they push our two strongest nations to collide, so they would EXTERMINATE us with our own hands.

If we could take from mice their broadcasting powers and explain to the Germans, I am sure they would understand. It’s not a matter of believing, it’s a matter of understanding. When a person understands, then they won’t let someone take advantage of them. The same with the Germans; the most important for them is to understand why they have been constantly programmed to be against Russians. Next time, if someone makes a noise for them to go against Russia, they will recognize this particular person as a mouse who wants them to go and exterminate themselves while killing Russians.

That’s why one of the most crucial things that should be done immediately is to introduce an Amendment to the Constitution of Germany that would require a referendum of all German lands to grand the Chancellor permission to start an  invasion of any foreign country, with a provision that if even one land disagrees an invasion won’t take place.

====

The Center of the consolidated armed forces command of the Middle East, the Balkans and Africa, will be located near Shoigu. We will provide logistics and intelligence in terms of the satellite images, operative reports, new weaponry, so they would be able to follow Shoigu’s commands. Just like in Syria, everything was tested in the most difficult real war conditions.

In the parallel universe mice will try to stage a putsch against Trump, to topple Putin, to kill Zolotov and to chase Kadyrov to Jordan’s border. Their schizophrenia will last for several months, at least.

====

You most likely have read the poll conducted amongst the population of different countries about the possibility of the World War, meaning a real “hot” war. The results are dispiriting, meaning that people en mess demonstrated how brainwashed they are, like gold sand. They don’t notice wars around them, they don’t notice that they live under occupation, and they have no clue that we have just avoided the biggest catastrophic war in the history of humanity, thanks to Putin.

The occupation of the former territory of the USSR had started at once, after Gorbachev agreed with the conditions of capitulation. According to those conditions, our military withdrew from Europe, we were obligated to destroy ourselves,  peacefully following the created for us schizophrenic Matrix. We were obligated to willfully surrender our territories, to divide ourselves, to abandon our people, to pay in reparation to the USA rubles that we worked with blood and sweat to earn. For that they shipped to us frozen chicken legs called “Bush’s legs” and tested on us experiential vaccines, and so on.

We were obligated to pay the West with our scientists and children. We had no right to know where our children were going, and what was happening to them. We allowed the occupational authorities to sit on our necks everywhere, from the Kremlin to Duma.

They wrote for us our Constitution, and laws. they created the political parties, approved by them, they created our Media and staffed it with their people, that we had to financed, even so they worked exclusively for the benefits of the occupying powers.

Their main task was to hide and obscure the fact of the occupation. They wrote school textbooks for our children. We signed an enormous quantity of treaties, limiting our ability to develop new weapons. Our army had no rights to move on the territory of our country without Washington’s permission, and so on and so forth, including a ban on the development of new medications, and a ban on the production of many different vaccines.

We had no rights to open new scientific laboratories without Washington’s permission. We agreed to limit our work on development of our territories and economy.

The list is very long. When it became clear that Russia’s federation was approaching the disintegration point with the scenario similar to the USSR disintegration, and that the process was working and we approached the point of no return, a revolt took place in the Kremlin. This revolt had been carried out by former KGB intelligence officers.

At this moment, our enemies didn’t yet make a decision to start a war against us. They still had certainty that those unlimited possibilities that they received as the occupying force would let them keep the process under their control. They thought that they could eliminate undesirable people who came to power by using the force of the representatives of the occupational international coalition inside the RF.

The first serious stage to strangle our nation had started right after Khodorkovky was arrested, and Berezovsky, Gusinsky and other representatives of the global micehood, who were acting as guards in our open air death camp, were kicked out of the country.

The very first attempt to rebuild the army and go into international waters was violently stopped by open demonstration of force, when the US shot and sunk nuclear submarine “Kursk.” To announce that the submarine was destroyed by the Americans would mean the next logical step, to declare that the Russian Federation was in a state of war with the USA-NATO. At the time, that war would be unquestionably lost by us with all the terrifying consequences for the entire population.

We wiped our tears, clenched out teeth, and started working to prepare for today.

First, we needed to set up a secret weapon construction bureau,  where we could develop new, better weapons. It was extremely difficult. Most scientists were taken from the country and worked for the West.

Inside Russia, dozens of scientists were killed; they were killed on first suspicion. Their deaths were staged as accidents or robbery attempts.  None of those murders were ever investigated. Mossad and the CIA knew our every sneeze. Information was reported to them from the first day of occupation. Mossad and CIA could check any paper anywhere they wanted.

I am going to skip the large chunk of events to get closer to our situation today to highlight one very important aspect — the Hour X putsch didn’t succeed because of one  very imperative reason: Putin and Shouigu created what they could create per agreements with the occupational international  coalition, but they created this something in a completely unexpected manner.

I am talking about EMERCOM of Russia or MCHS. It’s a modern army that covered an entire territory of the Russian federation. This army received modern helicopters, the most advanced weapons, and trained troops. The amount of weapons and troops was so massive and included substructures, that all the comprador and traitors forces from the Police and other power structures, and with their Bolotnaya-Medvedevs, and other sold-out former comrades, and members of the occupational “Fronde,” simply couldn’t match the power of the new armed forces commanded by Shoigu.

The Chief Occupant had become hysterical, and in the first time in history in the UN they declared Russia to be a “defeated country,” and not the country of “winning democracy.”

To be continued….

 

Scott Humor

Armenian ‘genocide’ and Jewish Lobby

On May 13, 2016, Jewish lobby ADL’s top gun Jonathan Green­blatt announced that his organization wouldn’t campaign against Washington’s recognition of mass-killing of Armenian Christians  ‘genocide’ during WWI as long as it’s called ‘genocide’ and not Holocaust, which is reserved for the sufferings of ‘G-d’s Chosen People’.

Greenblatt’s predecessor, Abraham Foxman, an evil person by any standard had campaigned for decades against Washington’s recognition of 1915 Armenian ‘genocide’ on the lame excuse that that would hurt Turkey, the strategic ally of both the US and Israel in the Muslim-majority Arab region.

However, the main reason Foxman campaign against the recognition of Armenian ‘genocide’ was to keep Jewish skeltons in the closet, and Iran-Armenia friendship. Abe Foxman was supported by Israeli media, and other Jewish lobby groups including AIPAC, American Jewish committee (AJC), and B’nai B’rith International.

In 2007 Foxman arrogantly declared that the Armenian genocide doesn’t belong in the US Congress or the parliament of any other country. Yet Canada, France, Switzerland, Uruguay, the Vatican, a UN sub-commission, the World Council of Churches, the European Union Parliament, and many more have all acknowledged the Armenian Genocide.

On April 21, 2015, Jewish Clarion Project in order to cover its Jewish sponsors accused Muslim Brotherhood of denying the Armenian ‘genocide’ to please Turkey.

Why all of sudden, the “Jewish conscience” has started bothering Jewish Lobby? a good answer comes from American journalist and author Mark Arax at Salonon June 16, 2010.

Genocide denial is not a pretty thing, they now concede, but they did it for Israel. They did it out of gratitude for Turkey being Israel’s one and only Muslim ally. Now the game has changed. Israel and Turkey are locked in a feud over the Palestine-bound Flotilla that was intercepted on the high seas by Israel. Turkey is outraged over the killing of nine of its citizens on board. Israel is outraged that a country with Turkey’s past would dare judge the morality of the Jewish state. So the Armenian Genocide has become a new weapon in the hands of Israel and its supporters in the US, a way to threaten Turkey, a conniver’s get-even: Hey, Turkey, if you want to play nasty with Israel, if you want to lecture us about violations of human rights, we can easily go the other way on the Armenian Genocide. No more walking the halls of Congress to plead your shameful case,” Arax said.

In 2008, Sen. Barack Obama promised to recognize Armenian genocide if elected President. The anti-genocide ‘expert’, Samantha Power, currently US ambassador at United Nations publicly urged Armenian Americans to vote for Barack Obama because as president he would recognize Armenian genocide.

In 2002, while promoting her Pulitzer-prize winning book A Problem from Hell, she like Helen Thomas in 2010, was baited by a cunning Zionist questioner, who asked her what would she advise to US President “who is involved in genocide in Israel-Palestine conflict”. She had responded that to prevent genocide, the US should be prepared to alienate a powerful constituency (Israel) and by sending a protective military force to prevent another situation like Rwanda. Since then the Jewish media has blamed her for calling an American invasion of Israel. Samantha Power and her Jewish husband played a major role in demonizing Libyan leader Qaddafi for the so-called ‘human abuses’. Currently, both are repeating the same lies against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Shameless Wall Street Journal Ad Denies Ottoman Turkish Armenian Genocide

by Stephen Lendman

APRIL 21, 2016

Ottoman Empire 1915 – 1922 genocide against Armenians in their historic homeland massacred around 1.5 million victims.
Turkey remains in denial of an indisputable historic fact. Journal management disgracefully published a full-page ad, intended to deceive, sponsored by FactCheckArmenia, a shameless genocide denial group.
Its web site airbrushes disturbing facts from history, twisting and reinventing them, claiming no genocide occurred, at the same time accusing Armenians during WW I of treason against the Ottoman Empire – blaming their victimized people for war waged by the great powers.
A WSJ spokesman’s explanation of why the publication ran the ad fell flat, saying:
“We accept a wide range of advertisements, including those with provocative viewpoints. While we review ad copy for issues of taste, the varied and divergent views expressed belong to the advertisers.”
On May 28, 1948, the UN War Crimes Commission prepared a report on “The Massacres of the Armenians in Turkey,” saying:
On May 28, 1915, France, Britain and Russia denounced Turkey’s “crimes against humanity and civilization.” A key passage reads:
“In the presence of these new crimes of Turkey against humanity and the civilization, the allied Governments (know) that they will be held personally responsible for the so-called crimes of all members of the Ottoman Government as well as those of the officers who would be involved in such massacres.”
The never ratified 1920 peace Treaty of Sevres with Turkey required it “hand over to the Allied Powers the persons responsible for the massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war on territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on the 1st August 1914.”
The Treaty of Lausanne (July 23, 1923) replaced it. Genocidal crimes were excluded. A “Declaration of Amnesty” was declared for all offenses committed from August 1, 1914 – November 20, 1922.
In 1914, over 2.5 million Armenians lived in Ottoman Turkey. Today 75,000 at most remain, mostly in Istanbul and Western areas. The Eastern Armenian heartland was decimated.
In April 1915, hundreds of Armenian religious, political and intellectual leaders were arrested, detained or exiled. Most were systematically murdered.
By summer, about 250,000 Ottoman army Armenians were placed in forced labor battalions. They were over-worked, starved, or executed.
Without leaders or able-bodied youths, ethnic cleansing occurred throughout Ottoman Turkey and Asia Minor.
Death marches followed. Men and older boys were separated and executed,  women and children force-marched, raped, tortured, and otherwise abused. Most deportees died of starvation, disease, or massacres.
About 500,000 escaped to Russia, Arab countries, Europe or America. Ottoman Armenia was virtually eliminated.
Turkey’s denial of cold, hard facts can’t refute one of history’s great crimes – slow-motion genocide against its Kurdish population ongoing under Erdogan.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: